The Buddha alone, addressing the assembled mendicants
Form
Word-for-word identical in structure to SN 22.9, with "suffering" substituted for "impermanent"
Length
~2 minutes 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
★★☆☆☆ — identical reasoning to SN 22.9, straightforward once that discourse's structure is understood
Why this discourse
This discourse is the middle term of the vagga's closing triplet, and its relationship to SN 22.9 is worth being explicit about: every sentence carries over unchanged except for the single substitution of “suffering” (dukkha) for “impermanent” (anicca). This is not laziness in the source material but a deliberate feature of how the three marks were taught — the same argument form, walked through three times with one term swapped each time, so that a listener internalizes the argument's shape independently of which particular mark is being established. Impermanence and suffering are also traditionally linked causally in the canon (what is impermanent is suffering precisely because it cannot be relied upon), so this discourse's placement immediately after SN 22.9 also traces that causal link structurally, one discourse per step.
Reading guide
The identical scaffolding, one word changed
Every structural element from SN 22.9 recurs here without modification: the past-and-future-let-alone-the-present argument, the three distinct practices for the three times, and the aggregate-by-aggregate repetition. The only substantive change across the entire discourse is the single term at its center — dukkha, suffering, standing where anicca, impermanence, stood in the discourse just before it.
Why suffering follows impermanence, not the reverse
The canon elsewhere states directly that what is impermanent is suffering (yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ), making SN 22.9's claim a premise this discourse's claim can be read as building on, rather than two unrelated assertions placed side by side. Something that changes and cannot be relied upon is, for that very reason, unsatisfactory to build a sense of security or permanent well-being on.
The three practices, now aimed at suffering
As in SN 22.9, a learned noble disciple who sees this — now specifically that past and future form, and by extension present form, is suffering — is not concerned with past form, does not look forward to enjoying future form, and practices for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding present form. The practical response named is identical to SN 22.9's, because the shape of the problem being addressed (an aggregate someone might otherwise cling to) is the same.
One step remaining in the triplet
With impermanence and suffering both established across all three times, the triplet's final step — SN 22.11's argument for not-self — is left to close out both the vagga and, traditionally, the logical sequence of the three marks: what is impermanent is suffering, and what is suffering cannot reasonably be taken as self.
Key terms
dukkha — “suffering” — the single term substituted for anicca (impermanent) throughout this discourse, otherwise identical to SN 22.9.
yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ — “what is impermanent is suffering” — the canon's standard formula linking the first two marks causally, relevant to why this discourse follows SN 22.9 rather than standing alone.
pageva paccuppannassa — “let alone the present” — the same argument-hinge phrase carried over unchanged from SN 22.9.
anapekkho — “not concerned with” — the same practice recommended toward past form, unchanged from SN 22.9.
nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya — “for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation” — the same three-part practice recommended toward present form, unchanged from SN 22.9.
The text
The discourse in full. Three elided repetitions (feeling, perception, and choices, each following the same argument spelled out in full for form and consciousness) are given exactly as bilara-data preserves them. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, form of the past and future is suffering, let alone the present. Seeing this, a learned noble disciple is not concerned with past form, doesn’t look forward to enjoying future form, and they practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding present form. Feeling … Perception … Choices …
§2Consciousness of the past and future is suffering, let alone the present. Seeing this, a learned noble disciple is not concerned with past consciousness, doesn’t look forward to enjoying future consciousness, and they practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding present consciousness.”
· · ·
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 single word changes between SN 22.9 and this discourse?
Correct: A. Every other structural element carries over unchanged from the previous discourse.
Question 2 of 10
What canonical formula links impermanence and suffering, relevant to this discourse's placement?
Correct: A. A standard causal link explaining why this discourse follows SN 22.9 rather than standing independently.
Question 3 of 10
What argument structure does this discourse use, identical to SN 22.9's?
Correct: A. The same a fortiori move from the less contentious cases to the present case.
Question 4 of 10
What three practices does a learned noble disciple take up, identical to SN 22.9's recommendations?
Correct: A. The practical response is unchanged because the underlying problem (clinging to an aggregate) is the same.
Question 5 of 10
What triplet does this discourse belong to?
Correct: A. The middle term of the vagga's closing three-discourse set.
Question 6 of 10
How many aggregates does this discourse's argument apply to?
Correct: A. Feeling, perception, and choices are elided but follow the same pattern spelled out for form and consciousness.
Question 7 of 10
What discourse comes immediately after this one, closing the triplet?
Correct: A. Not-self is the third and final mark in the traditional sequence.
Question 8 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Continuing the same setting as SN 22.9.
Question 9 of 10
Why might this discourse and SN 22.9 be considered a deliberate teaching device rather than mere repetition?
Correct: A. A recognized teaching pattern in this literature, seen elsewhere in this saṃyutta's paired discourses.
Question 10 of 10
Who speaks in this discourse?
Correct: A. A direct teaching, consistent with SN 22.9.
