Reading guide
Three tenses, strictly and exclusively assigned
The discourse's central claim is precise: each of the three temporal categories — was, is, will be — applies to an aggregate's status exclusively, never interchangeably. Something that has passed, ceased, and perished is correctly designated “was” and specifically “not ‘is’ or ‘will be’” — the discourse explicitly rules out the other two tenses for each case, not merely naming the correct one.
A structure recalling SN 22.38's three-times rehearsal
This discourse's threefold temporal structure recalls SN 22.38's rehearsal with Ānanda earlier in the book, which likewise divided the aggregates' arising, vanishing, and persisting-change across past, future, and present. Where that discourse addressed the aggregates' impermanent nature directly, this discourse addresses something one level more abstract: the correctness of the language used to describe that nature.
These categories declared uncorrupted since the beginning
The discourse makes a striking claim about these three linguistic categories themselves: they are “uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning” and will not be corrupted going forward. This is not a claim about the aggregates' impermanence but about the stability of the linguistic convention used to correctly describe that impermanence — a subtle distinction between what changes (the aggregates) and what does not (the rules for correctly talking about them).
Even radical skeptics respected this linguistic bedrock
The discourse's closing observation names, without identifying them individually, “loud and bold advocates of the doctrines of no-cause, inaction, and nihilism” — recalling SN 22.60's named engagement with Pūraṇa Kassapa's fatalistic school — and states that even they never dared to criticize or reject these three basic categories, out of fear of being blamed, attacked, provoked, and faulted. Even the most radical philosophical rejection of cause and meaning stopped short of denying that something which has ended is correctly called “was.”
Key terms
The text
§1“Mendicants, there are these three scopes of definition, labeling, and description. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What three? When form has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.
§2consciousness has passed, ceased, and perished, its designation, label, and description is ‘was’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘will be’.
§3When form is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.
§4consciousness is not yet born, and has not yet appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘will be’. It’s not ‘is’ or ‘was’.
§5When form has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
§6consciousness has been born, and has appeared, its designation, label, and description is ‘is’. It’s not ‘was’ or ‘will be’.
§7These are the three scopes of definition, labeling, and description. They’re uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now, nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. Even those those who were loud and bold advocates of the doctrines of no-cause, inaction, and nihilism, didn’t imagine that these three scopes of definition should be criticized or rejected. Why is that? For fear of being blamed, attacked, provoked, and faulted.”
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.