Ru-Yi Meditation Center
Saṃyutta Nikāya · Discourse 35.17

If There Were No Gratification (Interior)

Paṭhamanoceassādasutta — Yamakavagga

Setting
Sāvatthī
Speakers
The Buddha addressing the mendicants
Form
A counterfactual argument — "if there were no X, Y wouldn't happen; but since there is X, Y does happen" — applied to all three terms of this vagga's own triad
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
★★★☆☆ — the counterfactual logic takes real attention to follow closely

Why this discourse

This discourse opens this vagga's own third named pair with a genuinely different logical move: rather than describing a search or a question, it argues counterfactually. If the eye had no gratification, sentient beings simply wouldn't be drawn to it; but since gratification genuinely exists, they are. The same conditional logic runs through drawback (producing disillusionment) and escape (producing genuine release), demonstrating that all three terms are real features of experience, not arbitrary categories imposed on it.

Reading guide

A counterfactual proof for each term in turn

"If there were no gratification in the eye, sentient beings wouldn't be aroused by it. But since there is gratification in the eye, sentient beings are aroused by it" — the same conditional structure repeated for drawback (producing disillusionment) and escape (producing genuine release).

An argument from observed behavior to underlying reality

Rather than simply asserting that gratification, drawback, and escape exist, this discourse argues from what beings actually do — being aroused, growing disillusioned, escaping — back to the reality of the three terms that must underlie those observable behaviors.

A different closing than SN 35.13's and SN 35.15's own

This discourse closes not with the Buddha's own personal awakening declaration but with a general claim about all sentient beings: without this threefold understanding, they haven't escaped the world; with it, they live detached, liberated, with mind free of boundaries.

Third of this vagga's own five named pairs

SN 35.18 will apply this identical counterfactual argument to the exterior sense objects, compressed as before, completing this vagga's own "If There Were No Gratification" pair.

Key terms

assāda — gratification — the first term this discourse's own counterfactual argument addresses
sattā abhinandanti — "sentient beings are aroused" — the observable consequence of gratification's own genuine existence
nibbindanti — "grow disillusioned" — the observable consequence of drawback's own genuine existence
nissaranti — "escape" — the observable consequence of escape's own genuine existence, echoing the term nissaraṇa itself
visaṃyuttā vippamuttā vimariyādikatena cetasā — "detached, liberated, with mind free of boundaries" — this discourse's own closing description of full understanding

The text

The complete discourse: the threefold counterfactual argument applied to all six interior sense fields, closing with the general claim about liberated beings. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1“Mendicants, if there were no gratification in the eye, sentient beings wouldn’t be aroused by it. But since there is gratification in the eye, sentient beings are aroused by it. If the eye had no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it. But since the eye has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned with it. If there were no escape from the eye, sentient beings wouldn’t escape from it. But since there is an escape from the eye, sentient beings do escape from it. If there were no gratification in the ear … nose … tongue …

§2body … mind, sentient beings wouldn’t be aroused by it. But since there is gratification in the mind, sentient beings are aroused by it. If the mind had no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it. But since the mind has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned with it. If there were no escape from the mind, sentient beings wouldn’t escape from it. But since there is an escape from the mind, sentient beings do escape from it.

§3As long as sentient beings don’t truly understand these six interior sense fields’ gratification, drawback, and escape for what they are, they haven’t escaped from this world—with its gods, Māras, and Divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—and they don’t live detached, liberated, with mind free of boundaries. But when sentient beings truly understand these six interior sense fields’ gratification, drawback, and escape for what they are, they’ve escaped from this world—with its gods, Māras, and Divinities, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—and they live detached, liberated, with mind free of boundaries.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

5 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 5
What kind of argument does this discourse make?
Correct: A. The same conditional structure repeated for drawback and escape.
Question 2 of 5
What does this discourse argue from, to establish the reality of gratification, drawback, and escape?
Correct: A. Arguing from what beings actually do back to the reality underlying those behaviors.
Question 3 of 5
How does this discourse's closing differ from SN 35.13's and SN 35.15's own?
Correct: A. Without this understanding, beings haven't escaped the world; with it, they live liberated.
Question 4 of 5
What does this discourse open?
Correct: A. SN 35.18 will apply this same counterfactual argument to the exterior sense objects.
Question 5 of 5
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Consistent with this saṃyutta's other discourses.
Answered 0 of 5 · Correct 0

Further reading

← PreviousSN 35.16 · In Search of Gratification (Exterior)