The template continuing to a third subject category, equally elided
Length
~1 minute to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★☆☆☆☆ — the third subject in this saṃyutta's systematic sweep through experience
Why this discourse
This discourse continues the series begun in SN 18.1, applying the identical three-question template to a third category: the six kinds of consciousness that arise specifically from each sense faculty — eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and so on through mind consciousness. Where SN 18.1 examined the faculties themselves and SN 18.2 their objects, this discourse turns to the awareness that arises when faculty and object meet.
Reading guide
A third term in a basic threefold analysis
Faculty, object, and consciousness form a standard triad in this tradition's analysis of experience; having examined the first two in SN 18.1 and 18.2, this discourse completes the triad by turning to the awareness these first two combine to produce.
Six kinds of consciousness, not one general awareness
Rather than treat consciousness as a single undivided faculty, this discourse names six distinct kinds, each tied to a specific sense door — consciousness itself is analyzed as plural and conditioned, not as a unified, independent knower.
The same elision, confirming a stable pattern
As in SN 18.2, only the first and last items in the list receive full phrasing, with the middle four compressed to bare names — a stable editorial pattern now established across two consecutive discourses.
Consciousness treated no differently than faculty or object
Despite consciousness often being singled out elsewhere in the canon as a more subtle or elusive category, this discourse subjects it to exactly the same impermanent-suffering-not-self analysis as the coarser faculties and objects examined before it.
Three discourses into a systematic sweep
Faculty, object, consciousness: this discourse's position as the third in the series confirms the saṃyutta is working through a deliberate, ordered set of categories rather than an arbitrary list.
Key terms
cakkhuviññāṇaṁ … sotaviññāṇaṁ … ghānaviññāṇaṁ … jivhāviññāṇaṁ … kāyaviññāṇaṁ … manoviññāṇaṁ — “eye consciousness … ear consciousness … nose consciousness … tongue consciousness … body consciousness … mind consciousness” — the six kinds this discourse examines, each tied to a specific sense door.
…pe… — the peyyāla elision mark — the same compression pattern used in SN 18.2, applied here to a new subject.
aniccaṁ — “impermanent” — the template's first term, applied here to each of the six kinds of consciousness.
nibbindati — “grows disillusioned” — the same closing term reused from the two discourses before this one.
tatiyaṁ — “the third” — this discourse's closing numbering tag.
The text
The discourse as preserved in the source, elided around SN 18.1's fuller sentence structure. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At Sāvatthī. “What do you think, Rāhula? Is eye consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “… ear consciousness … nose consciousness … tongue consciousness … body consciousness … Is mind consciousness permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” … “Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. …”
· · ·
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 10
What six categories does this discourse examine?
Correct: A. Awareness arising specifically from each sense door, distinct from the faculties and objects examined in SN 18.1-2.
Question 2 of 10
How does this discourse complete a standard analytical triad in this tradition?
Correct: A. Faculty, object, and consciousness — a standard threefold analysis of experience, now completed.
Question 3 of 10
How does this discourse treat consciousness, compared to how it might be singled out elsewhere in the canon?
Correct: A. Subjecting even consciousness to the same impermanent-suffering-not-self analysis.
Question 4 of 10
What editorial pattern does this discourse share with SN 18.2?
Correct: A. A stable elision pattern now established across two consecutive discourses.
Question 5 of 10
What does this discourse imply about consciousness by naming six distinct kinds rather than one general awareness?
Correct: A. Each kind tied to a specific sense door, rather than treated as a single undivided faculty.
Question 6 of 10
What position does this discourse hold in the saṃyutta's systematic sweep?
Correct: A. Confirming a deliberate, ordered set of categories rather than an arbitrary list.
Question 7 of 10
What analytical steps does this discourse apply to each kind of consciousness?
Correct: A. The same unchanged template from SN 18.1.
Question 8 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. The setting shared throughout most of this saṃyutta.
Question 9 of 10
Who are the two participants in this discourse?
Correct: A. The same father-and-son pair continuing throughout this saṃyutta.
