Reading guide
A third request, the same catechism as SN 35.86
Bāhiya's opening request — “teach me Dhamma in brief” — is now the third heard in this vagga. The Buddha's answer is the identical three-marks catechism given Ānanda at SN 35.86: impermanent, therefore suffering, therefore not fit to be regarded as self, run across all six fields.
An attainment narrated within the discourse itself
Unlike SN 35.86, this discourse does not end with the catechism alone: Bāhiya bows, leaves, and “soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path,” declaring the standard arahantship formula — a rare case in this project where the disciple's own liberation is confirmed in the very file recording the request that led to it.
Which Bāhiya is this?
Sujato's own note is direct: this Bāhiya is not Bāhiya Dārucīriya, the far more famous ascetic of Ud 1.10, who attained the goal from an even shorter teaching but died almost immediately afterward — “must be a different person, since he died immediately.” A monk of the same name appears in a similar discourse at SN 47.15, also said to become an arahant; the note raises, without settling, whether these are two tellings of one event.
A second disambiguation in one vagga
This is the second time in Channavagga that a named figure has needed distinguishing from a far more famous same-named counterpart elsewhere in the canon — Channa from the Buddha's former charioteer at SN 35.87, and now this Bāhiya from Ud 1.10's own bark-cloth ascetic. Both distinctions come directly from Sujato's own notes, not from speculation.
Key terms
The text
§1Then Venerable Bāhiya went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Sir, may the Buddha please teach me Dhamma in brief. When I’ve heard it, I’ll live alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute.”
§2“What do you think, Bāhiya? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir.”
§3“Are sights … eye consciousness … eye contact … The pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact: is that permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir.”
§4“Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact. They grow disillusioned with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact. Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed. 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.’”
§5And then Venerable Bāhiya approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right, before leaving. Then Bāhiya, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness. He understood: “Rebirth is ended; the spiritual journey has been completed; what had to be done has been done; there is nothing further for this place.” And Venerable Bāhiya became one of the perfected.
Self-check quiz
5 questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.