The Buddha alone, addressing the assembled mendicants
Form
SN 22.39's chain, elided identically to SN 22.40 but with a different swapped opening step
Length
under a 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
★☆☆☆☆ — brief and elided, the third of the quartet's matched variations
Why this discourse
This discourse continues the quartet SN 22.39 opened, substituting a second specific meditation practice for disillusionment: mendicants should meditate observing suffering (dukkhānupassī) in the five aggregates. As in SN 22.40, the source elides everything between this opening clause and the closing declaration, trusting the reader to supply SN 22.39's intervening steps. The progression from impermanence (SN 22.40) to suffering (this discourse) follows the traditional order of the three marks, the same sequence already seen in this book's Aniccavagga.
Reading guide
The quartet's second substituted practice
Following the pattern SN 22.40 established, this discourse swaps in a new opening term while leaving everything else in SN 22.39's template unchanged: mendicants should meditate observing suffering (dukkhānupassī) directly in each aggregate, rather than being generally “full of disillusionment” or observing impermanence as SN 22.40 specified.
The traditional order of the three marks preserved
This quartet's sequence — impermanence (SN 22.40), suffering (this discourse), not-self (SN 22.42 to follow) — matches the traditional ordering of the three marks (tilakkhaṇa) already established earlier in this book, most notably in Aniccavagga's own SN 22.15-17 telescoping trio. The order is not arbitrary; it follows the standard logical sequence in which impermanence grounds suffering, which in turn grounds not-self.
The identical elision pattern as SN 22.40
As with SN 22.40, this discourse's source material marks a genuine gap with an ellipsis between its opening clause and closing declaration, rather than spelling out the intervening complete-understanding-then-freedom steps a second time. The elision is preserved exactly as bilara-data gives it.
One variation remaining before the quartet closes
With impermanence and suffering both now given as alternative opening practices, only not-self remains for SN 22.42 to complete the set — closing both this quartet and Natumhākavagga itself on the third and final mark.
Key terms
dukkhānupassī — “observing suffering” — the meditation practice this discourse substitutes for SN 22.40's "observing impermanence."
tilakkhaṇa — the “three marks” — here in their traditional order, impermanence already given (SN 22.40), suffering given here, not-self still to come (SN 22.42).
peyyāla — the technical term for this discourse's genuine source-level elision, identical in kind to SN 22.40's.
dukkhasmā parimuccati, vadāmi — “they're freed from suffering, I say” — the closing declaration, unchanged from SN 22.39 and SN 22.40.
anudhamma — “in line with the teaching” — the quartet's shared subject, here accommodating its second substituted practice.
The text
The discourse in full — genuinely this short in the source, its ellipsis given exactly as bilara-data preserves it rather than expanded from SN 22.39. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1“Mendicants, when a mendicant is practicing in line with the teaching, this is what’s in line with the teaching. They should meditate observing suffering in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. … They’re freed from suffering, I say.”
· · ·
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 practice does this discourse substitute for SN 22.39's opening step?
Correct: A. The quartet's second substituted practice, following observing impermanence.
Question 2 of 10
What order do the three marks follow across SN 22.40-42?
Correct: A. The same traditional sequence already established in this book's Aniccavagga.
Question 3 of 10
Why does this traditional order matter, according to this reading guide?
Correct: A. The same logical dependency already seen in SN 22.15-17's telescoping trio.
Question 4 of 10
How does the source handle the chain's remaining steps in this discourse?
Correct: A. The identical elision pattern as SN 22.40.
Question 5 of 10
What closing declaration does this discourse retain, unchanged from SN 22.39 and SN 22.40?
Correct: A. Identical wording across all four discourses in the quartet.
Question 6 of 10
How many aggregates does this discourse's practice apply to?
Correct: A. Named together as a group, as in SN 22.39 and SN 22.40.
Question 7 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Continuing the same setting as the rest of the quartet.
Question 8 of 10
What position does this discourse hold in the vagga's closing quartet?
Correct: A. The middle position among the three variation discourses.
Question 9 of 10
What discourse comes immediately after this one, closing the quartet and the vagga?
Correct: A. The quartet's final term, completing the three marks.
Question 10 of 10
Does this reading guide reconstruct the elided content and present it as this discourse's own text?
Correct: A. Consistent with this project's practice on other short peyyāla stubs in this book.
