Reading guide
Not-self by causation, not by impermanence directly
Ānanda's argument does not simply repeat “consciousness is impermanent, therefore not-self” — it reasons through dependent arising: consciousness depends on a cause and condition; if that cause and condition were to cease totally and without remainder, consciousness would not be found; therefore consciousness, being conditioned and dependent, is not-self.
The same question, six times, compressed
The dependent-origination argument is run explicitly for eye consciousness and mind consciousness, with ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousness compressed between them by bilara-data's own peyyāla marker — the identical eye…tongue…mind compression pattern this vagga's own SN 35.228 already used.
A simile already published on this site, for a different aggregate
The banana-trunk-with-no-heartwood simile closing this discourse is not new to this project: SN 22.95, already on this site, uses the identical image — word for word, down to cutting the base, cutting the top, and unrolling the coiled sheaths — but applies it there to saṅkhāra (choices, formations), one of five similes given in sequence for the five aggregates. Here the same simile stands alone, applied instead to the six fields of contact directly, in a dialogue rather than a catalog.
Not grasping, not anxious, personally extinguished
The discourse's own closing sequence — seeing the six fields of contact as neither self nor belonging to self, therefore grasping nothing in the world, therefore free of anxiety, therefore personally extinguished — ends on the standard closing formula for full awakening, identical in form to countless other closings across this project.
Key terms
The text
§1At one time the venerables Ānanda and Udāyī were staying near Kosambī, in Ghosita’s Monastery. Then in the late afternoon, Venerable Udāyī came out of retreat, went to Venerable Ānanda, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to Ānanda: “Reverend Ānanda, the Buddha has explained, opened, and illuminated in many ways how this body is not-self. Is it possible to explain consciousness in the same way? To teach, assert, establish, clarify, analyze, and reveal how consciousness is not-self?”
§2“It is possible, Reverend Udāyī.
§3Does eye consciousness arise dependent on the eye and sights?” “Yes, reverend.” “If the cause and reason that gives rise to eye consciousness were to totally and utterly cease without remainder, would eye consciousness still be found?” “No, reverend.” “In this way, too, it can be understood how consciousness is not-self. Does ear … nose … tongue … body … mind consciousness arise dependent on the mind and ideas?” “Yes, reverend.” “If the cause and reason that gives rise to mind consciousness were to totally and utterly cease without remainder, would mind consciousness still be found?” “No, reverend.” “In this way, too, it can be understood how consciousness is not-self.
§4Suppose there was a person in need of heartwood. Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a forest. There they’d see a big banana trunk, straight and young and grown unskewed. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the root, cut off the top, and unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much less heartwood. In the same way, a mendicant sees these six fields of contact as neither self nor belonging to self. So seeing, they don’t grasp anything in the world. Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished. They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’”
Self-check quiz
5 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.