Saṃyutta Nikāya · Discourse 35.31

The Practice Conducive to Uprooting (1st)

Paṭhamasamugghātasappāyasutta — Sabbavagga

Setting
Sāvatthī
Speakers
The Buddha, addressing the mendicants directly
Form
SN 35.30's own fourfold not-conceiving formula, with a new explanatory clause inserted twice
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 same formula as SN 35.30, with a genuinely new explanatory clause

Why this discourse

This discourse repeats SN 35.30's own fourfold not-conceiving formula almost word for word, but inserts a new explanatory clause after both the eye-block and the mind-block: "for whatever you conceive it to be … that becomes something else. The world is attached to being, taking pleasure only in being, yet it becomes something else" — a diagnosis of why conceiving fails at all. Its own closing scope also broadens beyond SN 35.30's single "the all" to "the aggregates, elements, and sense fields" named explicitly together.

Reading guide

The same fourfold not-conceiving formula, carried over

Does not conceive anything to be the eye, in the eye, as the eye, or that "the eye is mine" — identical to SN 35.30, applied once again across all six sense fields.

A new clause: aññathā hoti, "becomes something else"

Inserted twice — once after the eye-block, once after the mind-block — a diagnosis of why conceiving fails in the first place: "for whatever you conceive it to be, whatever you conceive it in, whatever you conceive it as, and whatever you conceive to be 'mine': that becomes something else. The world is attached to being, taking pleasure only in being, yet it becomes something else." Whatever's conceived doesn't hold still long enough to be pinned down as "this" or "mine."

A closing scope broader than SN 35.30's own

Where SN 35.30 closed by folding "the all" back into its own formula, this discourse closes instead on "the aggregates, elements, and sense fields" (khandhadhātuāyatanaṁ) — three of the Nikāyas' own standard doctrinal categories, named together and explicitly, wider than this vagga's own recurring six-sense-field frame.

Paired with SN 35.32, delivered in a wholly different form

This discourse's own title carries "(1st)"; SN 35.32 will deliver this same content — the practice conducive to uprooting all conceiving — through a wholly different form: direct catechism, not declarative teaching.

Key terms

aññathā hoti — "becomes something else" — this discourse's own new diagnostic clause, explaining why conceiving fails
bhavasatto loko bhavamevābhinandati — "the world is attached to being, taking pleasure only in being" — the clause's own second half
khandhadhātuāyatanaṁ — "the aggregates, elements, and sense fields" — this discourse's own broadened closing scope, wider than SN 35.30's single "the all"
sappāya — "conducive," or "beneficial" — this discourse's own title qualifier, replacing SN 35.30's sāruppa
sabbamaññitasamugghātasappāyaṁ — "the practice conducive to uprooting all conceiving" — this discourse's own full title phrase, repeated at its own close

The text

The complete discourse, with the ear, nose, tongue, and body sections compressed once the pattern is established for the eye. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1“Mendicants, I will teach you the practice that’s conducive to uprooting all conceiving. Listen … And what is the practice that’s conducive to uprooting all conceiving?

§2It’s when a mendicant does not conceive anything to be the eye, does not conceive it in the eye, does not conceive it as the eye, and does not conceive that ‘the eye is mine.’ They don’t conceive anything to be sights … eye consciousness … eye contact. And they don’t conceive anything to be the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact. They don’t conceive it in that, they don’t conceive it as that, and they don’t conceive that ‘that is mine.’ For whatever you conceive it to be, whatever you conceive it in, whatever you conceive it as, and whatever you conceive to be ‘mine’: that becomes something else. The world is attached to being, taking pleasure only in being, yet it becomes something else.

§3They don’t conceive anything to be the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … They don’t conceive anything to be the pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact. They don’t conceive it in that, they don’t conceive it as that, and they don’t conceive that ‘that is mine.’ For whatever you conceive it to be, whatever you conceive it in, whatever you conceive it as, and whatever you conceive to be ‘mine’: that becomes something else. The world is attached to being, taking pleasure only in being, yet it becomes something else. As far as the aggregates, elements, and sense fields extend, they don’t conceive anything to be that, they don’t conceive it in that, they don’t conceive it as that, and they don’t conceive that ‘that is mine.’

§4Not conceiving, they don’t grasp at 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.’ This is the practice that’s conducive to uprooting all conceiving.”

· · ·

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 new clause does this discourse insert that SN 35.30 does not have?
Correct: A. Inserted twice — after the eye-block and after the mind-block — diagnosing why conceiving fails.
Question 2 of 5
What does aññathā hoti mean in this discourse's own new clause?
Correct: A. Whatever's conceived doesn't hold still long enough to be pinned down as "this" or "mine."
Question 3 of 5
How does this discourse's own closing scope compare to SN 35.30's?
Correct: A. Three of the Nikāyas' own standard doctrinal categories, named together and explicitly.
Question 4 of 5
What does this discourse's own title word, sappāya, mean, and how does it relate to SN 35.30's sāruppa?
Correct: A. Three near-synonymous qualifiers distinguish this vagga's own closing trio of discourses.
Question 5 of 5
How does SN 35.32, which follows, relate to this discourse?
Correct: A. Marked "(1st)" here and "(2nd)" there — a genuine pair, differing in form rather than content.
Answered 0 of 5 · Correct 0