At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, these four fuels maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those about to be born. What four? Edible food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.
These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.” When he said this, Venerable Phagguna of the Top-Knot said to the Buddha, “But sir, who consumes consciousness as fuel?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
“I don’t speak of one who consumes. If I were to speak of one who consumes, then it would be cogent to ask who consumes. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘āhāretī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Āhāretī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, āhāretī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘For what is consciousness the fuel?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Consciousness as fuel is a requirement for regeneration into a new state of existence in the future. When the being is present, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are requirements for contact.’”
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kissa nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāro’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘viññāṇāhāro āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo, tasmiṁ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṁ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’”ti.
EN
“But sir, who contacts?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha. “I don’t speak of one who contacts. If I were to speak of one who contacts, then it would be cogent to ask
PL
“Ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca: “‘phusatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Phusatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
EN
who contacts. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for contact?’
PL
‘ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi. Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, phasso’ti, esa kallo pañho.
EN
And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘The six sense fields are requirements for contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling.’” “But sir, who feels?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
PL
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā’”ti. “Ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:
EN
“I don’t speak of one who feels. If I were to speak of one who feels, then it would be cogent to ask who feels. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘vedayatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Vedayatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for feeling?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Contact is a requirement for feeling. Feeling is a requirement for craving.’”
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, vedanā’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā’”ti.
EN
“But sir, who craves?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha. “I don’t speak of one who craves. If I were to speak of one who craves, then it would be cogent to ask
PL
“Ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca: “‘tasatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Tasatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
EN
who craves. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for craving?’
PL
‘ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi. Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, taṇhā’ti, esa kallo pañho.
EN
And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Feeling is a requirement for craving. Craving is a requirement for grasping.’” “But sir, who grasps?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
PL
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānan’”ti. “Ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:
EN
“I don’t speak of one who grasps. If I were to speak of one who grasps, then it would be cogent to ask who grasps. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘upādiyatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Upādiyatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for grasping?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Craving is a requirement for grasping.
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, upādānan’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ;
EN
Grasping is a requirement for continued existence.’ … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with no residue left behind, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases.
When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.
At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, these four fuels maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those about to be born. What four? Edible food, whether solid or subtle; contact is the second, mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.
These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.” When he said this, Venerable Phagguna of the Top-Knot said to the Buddha, “But sir, who consumes consciousness as fuel?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
“I don’t speak of one who consumes. If I were to speak of one who consumes, then it would be cogent to ask who consumes. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘āhāretī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Āhāretī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, āhāretī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘For what is consciousness the fuel?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Consciousness as fuel is a requirement for regeneration into a new state of existence in the future. When the being is present, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are requirements for contact.’”
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kissa nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāro’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘viññāṇāhāro āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo, tasmiṁ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṁ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’”ti.
EN
“But sir, who contacts?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha. “I don’t speak of one who contacts. If I were to speak of one who contacts, then it would be cogent to ask
PL
“Ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca: “‘phusatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Phusatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
EN
who contacts. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for contact?’
PL
‘ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi. Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, phasso’ti, esa kallo pañho.
EN
And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘The six sense fields are requirements for contact. Contact is a requirement for feeling.’” “But sir, who feels?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
PL
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā’”ti. “Ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:
EN
“I don’t speak of one who feels. If I were to speak of one who feels, then it would be cogent to ask who feels. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘vedayatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Vedayatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, vedayatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for feeling?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Contact is a requirement for feeling. Feeling is a requirement for craving.’”
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, vedanā’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā’”ti.
EN
“But sir, who craves?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha. “I don’t speak of one who craves. If I were to speak of one who craves, then it would be cogent to ask
PL
“Ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca: “‘tasatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Tasatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
EN
who craves. But I don’t speak like that. Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for craving?’
PL
‘ko nu kho, bhante, tasatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi. Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, taṇhā’ti, esa kallo pañho.
EN
And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Feeling is a requirement for craving. Craving is a requirement for grasping.’” “But sir, who grasps?” “That’s not a cogent question,” said the Buddha.
PL
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānan’”ti. “Ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī”ti? “No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:
EN
“I don’t speak of one who grasps. If I were to speak of one who grasps, then it would be cogent to ask who grasps. But I don’t speak like that.
PL
“‘upādiyatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi. ‘Upādiyatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho: ‘ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī’ti? Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
EN
Hence it would be cogent to ask: ‘What is a requirement for grasping?’ And a cogent answer to this would be: ‘Craving is a requirement for grasping.
PL
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya: ‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, upādānan’ti, esa kallo pañho. Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ: ‘taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ;
EN
Grasping is a requirement for continued existence.’ … That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with no residue left behind, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases.
When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.
Sutraya