The Buddha alone, addressing the assembled mendicants
Form
The third and final term of the triplet, identical in structure to SN 22.9 and SN 22.10, substituting "not-self" for the previous discourses' terms
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 22.9-10, closing the vagga's own logical sequence
Why this discourse
This discourse completes the vagga's closing triplet and, with it, all three of the classic marks (tilakkhaṇa) run once each across past, present, and future: impermanence in SN 22.9, suffering in SN 22.10, and now not-self here. The traditional logical chain that links the three — what is impermanent is suffering, and what is suffering is not fit to be regarded as self, since a genuine self could not be a source of the very suffering it belonged to — arrives at its conclusion in the discourse's closing term. It is a fitting close to Nakulapituvagga as a whole: the vagga opened with SN 22.1's practical advice on keeping the mind healthy through a body's decline, and closes here with the doctrinal argument for exactly why identifying that body, or any of the five aggregates, as a fixed self was never sound to begin with.
Reading guide
The third and final substitution
As with SN 22.10's relation to SN 22.9, every structural element of this discourse recurs from the two before it unchanged, with “not-self” (anattā) now standing in the position “impermanent” and “suffering” occupied in turn. The past-and-future-let-alone-the-present argument, and the three practices toward each of the three times, both carry over exactly.
Why not-self follows from suffering
The traditional reasoning linking suffering to not-self runs: whatever is suffering, and subject to change, cannot reasonably be regarded as “this is mine, I am this, this is my self” — language directly recalling SN 22.8's threefold formula earlier in this same vagga — because something that is genuinely one's own self should not itself be a source of affliction one cannot control. This discourse does not spell that reasoning out explicitly, but its placement as the triplet's third term, after impermanence and suffering have both already been established, assumes it.
The same three practices, now closing the argument
A learned noble disciple who sees that past and future form — and therefore present form, all the more obviously — is not-self responds exactly as in the previous two discourses: not concerned with past form, not looking forward to enjoying future form, and practicing for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding present form. The practical upshot of seeing all three marks turns out to be a single consistent response, not three different responses stacked on top of each other.
A vagga closing where it began
Nakulapituvagga opened with an old man asking how to keep a healthy mind while his body declined, and Sāriputta's answer in SN 22.1 turned on exactly the self-identification the vagga's middle discourses (SN 22.7-8) and this closing triplet analyze in full: regarding the aggregates as self is what makes their inevitable change into a source of anxiety and grief. This discourse closes the vagga by giving the fullest, most systematic version of the argument for why that identification was never warranted — not because the aggregates are worthless, but because they were never a fixed self to begin with.
Key terms
anattā — “not-self” — the third of the three marks, and the term substituted here for anicca and dukkha in the two discourses before it.
pageva paccuppannassa — “let alone the present” — the same argument-hinge phrase carried over unchanged from SN 22.9 and SN 22.10.
yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā — “what is suffering is not-self” — the traditional formula completing the three marks' logical chain, assumed by this discourse's placement though not spelled out within it.
nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya — “for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation” — the same three-part practice recommended toward present form, unchanged across all three discourses in the triplet.
tilakkhaṇa — the “three marks” — impermanence, suffering, and not-self, together forming the traditional name for the pattern this closing triplet completes.
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 not-self, 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 not-self, 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 the 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 term does this discourse substitute for the previous two discourses' "impermanent" and "suffering"?
Correct: A. The third and final mark, closing the triplet's sequence.
Question 2 of 10
What traditional reasoning links suffering to not-self, assumed by this discourse's placement?
Correct: A. A genuine self should not itself be a source of uncontrollable affliction.
Question 3 of 10
What argument structure does this discourse use, identical to SN 22.9 and SN 22.10?
Correct: A. The same a fortiori move carried over unchanged from the previous two discourses.
Question 4 of 10
What three practices does a learned noble disciple take up, identical to the previous two discourses?
Correct: A. The identical practical response as SN 22.9 and SN 22.10, since the underlying problem is unchanged.
Question 5 of 10
What triplet does this discourse complete?
Correct: A. Tilakkhaṇa, the traditional name for this pattern, is now fully completed.
Question 6 of 10
How does this discourse's closing connect back to SN 22.1, the vagga's opening discourse?
Correct: A. The vagga closes where it opened, now with the full doctrinal argument in place.
Question 7 of 10
What formula from earlier in this vagga does the not-self reasoning recall?
Correct: A. The not-self argument directly targets the same threefold identification SN 22.8 analyzed earlier.
Question 8 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 9 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Continuing the same setting as SN 22.9 and SN 22.10.
Question 10 of 10
What follows this discourse, moving beyond Nakulapituvagga?
Correct: A. The book's own systematic coverage continues into its next chapter.
