The question. The Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta tells the monks to see every aggregate, “whatever it is”, in eleven ways: past, future, present; internal, external; gross, subtle; inferior, superior; far, near. Can these eleven be understood and practised from the suttas alone, or do they need the Abhidhamma and the commentaries? This paper explains each way, compares the Vinaya and Saṃyutta versions of the sutta and its parallels, and ends with a practical method.
All Pali and most translations come from the Tipitaka Pali Reader (TPR) databases. Where TPR’s translation is wrong or garbled, Claude retranslated the passage; these are marked “(retranslated by Claude)”. Passage codes such as Vibh 13:2 are TPR paragraph and line numbers.
Summary
The thesis. The problem is that the suttas give the eleven ways as a formula and a practice, but they define only some of the eleven. They give the three times in two different measures with no rule for choosing, and internal and external only for the elements. Alongside the formula, they never say which feelings, perceptions or formations are gross, inferior or far. Scattered suttas and Vinaya passages do hold raw material for most slots, but none links it to the formula, and some of it points the wrong way (point 5). The solution is the Vibhaṅga and the commentaries. The Vibhaṅga is not a sutta: it is the second book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka. Its Suttantabhājanīya (the analysis in the suttanta manner, still inside this Abhidhamma book) defines all eleven for all five aggregates. So every full definition of the eleven ways lies outside the Sutta Piṭaka. The Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā then choose between senses, give the criteria, and turn the list into a graded insight practice (kalāpasammasana). The suttas are enough to begin the practice. They are not enough to know what each of the eleven means.
The formula, as the Buddha gave it to the group of five:
‘‘ Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ – ‘ netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā ’ ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.
“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form— ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’—should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom.
Summary points
- The eleven ways are the Buddha’s own formula, but the number “eleven” and the name of the practice come from the commentaries.
- For rūpa, the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga (in its Suttantabhājanīya) defines all eleven, and the commentaries fix each sense.
- For vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa, the same eleven slots are filled by kind, not by body or place.
- The problem: the suttas give the formula and the practice, but define only some of the eleven.
- The piecemeal test: the suttas and the Vinaya hold raw material for most slots, but assembling it means redoing the Vibhaṅga’s work.
- The solution: the Abhidhamma and commentary method supplies every boundary, and admits its own limits.
- The Vinaya and Saṃyutta Anattalakkhaṇa are one discourse in two settings, each with its own commentary chain.
- The formula recurs across the Nikāyas and the Paṭisambhidāmagga in four kinds of use.
- The focus method: contemplate each aggregate in the eleven slots under the three marks.
1. The eleven ways are the Buddha’s own formula, but the number “eleven” and the name of the practice come from the commentaries.
Mūla. The formula is a single stock sentence: “atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ” occurs in 60 Mūla sentences (S-iii 24, M-iii 6, S-ii 6, A-iv 4, M-i 4, Paṭis 4, Kv 3, A-iii 2, S-iv 2, Vibh 2, Vin-iii 2, M-ii 1), against 8 in the Aṭṭhakathā and 4 in the Ṭīkā. Point 8 lists the main places. The Abhidhamma uses the same words as its definition of each aggregate:
Yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, tadekajjhaṃ abhisaññūhitvā abhisaṅkhipitvā – ayaṃ vuccati rūpakkhandho.
Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near—gathering these together, having summarized them—this is called the form aggregate.
But the Mūla never counts them. “Ekādasahi okāsehi” and “ekādasasu okāsesu” give 0 in the Mūla, against 2 + 6 in the Aṭṭhakathā and 10 in the Ṭīkā. The names of the practice are also later: “kalāpasammasan-“ has 0 Mūla hits (Aṭṭhakathā 42, Ṭīkā 68), and “nayavipassan-“ 0 (Aṭṭhakathā 3, Ṭīkā 13).
Aṭṭhakathā. The Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā reads the formula as analysis and then synthesis. “Whatever form” gathers all form; the time-triad and the four pairs sort it into eleven places; “tadekajjhaṃ” gathers it again into one heap:
Idāni ‘ yaṃ kiñci rūpan ’ ti padena saṃgahitaṃ pañcavīsatikoṭṭhāsachannavutikoṭṭhāsappabhedaṃ sabbampi rūpaṃ atītādikoṭṭhāsesu pakkhipitvā dassetuṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannanti āha. Tato paraṃ tadeva ajjhattadukādīsu catūsu dukesu pakkhipitvā dassetuṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vātiādi vuttaṃ. Tato paraṃ sabbampetaṃ ekādasasu padesesu pariyādiyitvā dassitaṃ rūpaṃ ekato piṇḍaṃ katvā dassetuṃ tadekajjhantiādi vuttaṃ.
Now, in order to show all form—comprising the divisions into twenty-five and ninety-six portions, which is included by the phrase ‘whatever form’—by placing it in the portions of past, future, present, and so on, he said: “past, future, or present” (atītānāgatapaccuppanna). After that, in order to show that same form by placing it in the four dyads of internal and so on, it is said: “internal or external” (ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā) and so on. After that, in order to show all this form—which has been shown by comprehensively detailing it in the eleven terms—by gathering it together as a single bulk, it is said: “gathering these together” (tadekajjhaṃ) and so on.
The Visuddhimagga calls them “eleven places” (ekādasahi okāsehi) when it turns the formula into a meditation (Vism-ii 1482:3).
Ṭīkā. The Majjhima and Saṃyutta ṭīkās define kalāpasammasana as “placing the five aggregates in the eleven places” (Ps-t-i 207:14; Spk-t-iii 17:13). The Mahāṭīkā adds that “kalāpasammasana” was the term of the Jambudīpa elders, and “nayavipassanā” that of the Tambapaṇṇi elders (Vism-mht-ii 1269:1).
So the list is canonical; the count, the name and the method are commentarial.
2. For rūpa, the Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga (in its Suttantabhājanīya) defines all eleven, and the commentaries fix each sense.
Where the definitions are. The Vibhaṅga belongs to the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, not the Sutta Piṭaka. Each of its chapters analyses its subject twice: first in the suttanta manner (Suttantabhājanīya), then in the Abhidhamma manner (Abhidhammabhājanīya). Both sections are Abhidhamma; the first only takes the sutta wording as its starting point. One draft of this study claimed that the Vibhaṅga’s Suttantabhājanīya is only the list of five aggregates, and that the eleven-way definitions sit in the Abhidhammabhājanīya. The text says otherwise. The Khandhavibhaṅga opens with the heading “1. Suttantabhājanīyaṃ” (Vibh 5:1). All the eleven-way definitions follow under it (Vibh 8–64). The heading “2. Abhidhammabhājanīyaṃ” comes only at Vibh 65:1, and the commentary marks the same boundary (Vibh-a 141:1). The formula’s five occurrences in the Vibhaṅga (Vibh 8:2, 21:2, 32:2, 43:2, 54:2) are all in the Suttantabhājanīya. The commentary names the whole section, from the opening list onward, “suttantabhājanīyaṃ” (Vibh-a 15:1). Yet this “sutta analysis” already answers in Abhidhamma terms, as (1)–(3) below show.
(1)–(3) Atīta, anāgata, paccuppanna (past, future, present)
Sutta. The formula gives the bare words. MN 133 and SN 22.62 give two different measures (point 4).
Vibhaṅga. Past form is what has ceased; future form is unborn (Vibh 10:2); present form is born and arisen (Vibh 11:2):
Yaṃ rūpaṃ atītaṃ niruddhaṃ vigataṃ vipariṇataṃ atthaṅgataṃ abbhatthaṅgataṃ uppajjitvā vigataṃ atītaṃ atītaṃsena saṅgahitaṃ, cattāro ca mahābhūtā catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ – idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ atītaṃ.
Whatever form is past, ceased, departed, transformed, gone to cessation, completely gone to cessation, having arisen and then departed, past, included in the category of past—that is, the four great elements and derived materiality dependent on the four great elements—this is called past form.
Aṭṭhakathā. The commentary says time has two reckonings, a sutta one by existence (bhava) and an Abhidhamma one by moment (khaṇa):
Idaṃ pana atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ nāma suttantapariyāyato abhidhammaniddesatoti duvidhaṃ. Taṃ suttantapariyāye bhavena paricchinnaṃ.
But this classification of past, future, and present is twofold: by way of the Sutta method and the Abhidhamma exposition. In the Sutta method, it is delimited by existence (bhava).
“In the Abhidhamma exposition it is bounded by the moment” (Vibh-a 34:6). It then says plainly that the Vibhaṅga uses the second, even though this is the Suttantabhājanīya:
Tattha kiñcāpi idaṃ suttantabhājanīyaṃ, evaṃ santepi abhidhammaniddeseneva atītānāgatapaccuppannarūpaṃ niddiṭṭhanti veditabbaṃ.
Although this is the Sutta Exposition, it should nonetheless be understood that the past, future, and present materiality is here explained by way of the Abhidhamma exposition.
The commentary adds a second scheme of four measures: extent (addhā, one life), continuity (santati), occasion (samaya: a morning, a day) and moment (khaṇa) (Vibh-a 35:1–13; the same in Vism-ii 493–496, Paṭis-a 1009 and It-a 1010). After the function measure it ranks them, and says which one the Vibhaṅga means:
Ettha ca khaṇādikathāva nippariyāyā, sesā sapariyāyā. Tāsu nippariyāyakathā idha adhippetā.
In this context, only the explanation by moment and so on is without idiom; the rest are idiomatic. Among these, it is the explanation without idiom that is meant here.
Ṭīkā. The Mūlaṭīkā grants that a section analysing in the suttanta manner “should” have used extent, as in “atītaṃ nānvāgameyya” (Vibh-mt 23:3). Then it explains why it uses the moment:
Evaṃ santepi suttantabhājanīyampi abhidhammadesanāyeva suttante vuttadhamme vicinitvā vibhajanavasena pavattāti abhidhammaniddeseneva atītādibhāvo niddiṭṭhoti.
Even so, the Suttantabhājanīya too is Abhidhamma teaching, which proceeds by sifting and analysing the dhammas stated in the suttas; so past and so on are set out by the Abhidhamma exposition. (retranslated by Claude)
A wording difference, presented cautiously. For the moment measure, Vibh-a 35:13 and 36:5, Sp-t-iii 962:8 and It-a 1010:9, 11 say “tato pubbe atītaṃ, pacchā anāgataṃ” (before it, past; after it, future). The Visuddhimagga and Paṭis-a 1009:12, 14 say the reverse:
Khaṇavasena uppādādikhaṇattayapariyāpannaṃ paccuppannaṃ, tato pubbe anāgataṃ, pacchā atītaṃ.
By way of the moment: what is included in the trio of moments beginning with arising is present; before reaching that it is future, and after that it is past.
The Mahāṭīkā endorses the Visuddhimagga wording and gives the reason. In the moment measure the same dhamma is future, then present, then past; only the time differs:
Ettha ca khaṇādikathāyaṃ ‘‘ tato pubbe anāgataṃ , pacchā atītan ’’ti vacanaṃ addhādīsu viya bhedābhāvato nippariyāyaṃ. Addhādivasena hi aññeva dhammā atītā aññe anāgatā aññe paccuppannā labbhanti, khaṇādivasena pana natthi dhammato bhedo, kālato eva bhedo.
And here, in the discussion of the moment, the statement “before that is future, after is past” is in the literal sense, due to the lack of distinction as is found in the extents. Indeed, by way of extent, distinct past, future, and present phenomena are found; but by way of the moment, there is no distinction by way of nature, only by way of time.
Read this way, both wordings are coherent. The Vibh-a wording counts other dhammas: those that arose before the present one are past, as in its other measures. The Visuddhimagga wording follows one dhamma through its own life. The texts do not say this; it is an interpretation, and other editions were not checked. The present itself is the same in both: the three sub-moments of arising, standing and dissolution. So this is not a doctrinal conflict.
The Itivuttaka-aṭṭhakathā adds a point the drafts missed: past and future are divisions of dhammas, and “time” is only a convention built on them:
Ayañhi atītādibhedo nāma dhammānaṃ hoti, na kālassa. Atītādibhede pana dhamme upādāya paramatthato avijjamānopi kālo idha teneva vohārena atītotiādinā vuttoti veditabbo.
For this division into past and so on belongs to dhammas, not to time. Time does not exist in the ultimate sense; but with reference to dhammas divided as past and so on, it is here called “past” and so on by that same convention. (retranslated by Claude)
(4)–(5) Ajjhatta, bahiddhā (internal, external)
Sutta. The pair is defined only for the elements, in MN 62 (point 4).
Vibhaṅga. Internal form is “one’s own, belonging to the individual, clung-to” (Vibh 12:2). External form is the same thing in others:
Yaṃ rūpaṃ tesaṃ tesaṃ parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ niyakaṃ pāṭipuggalikaṃ upādinnaṃ, cattāro ca mahābhūtā catunnañca mahābhūtānaṃ upādāyarūpaṃ – idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ bahiddhā.
Whatever form belongs to other beings, to other persons, is internal, belonging to oneself, one’s own, pertaining to each individual, clung-to—that is, the four great elements and derived materiality dependent on the four great elements—this is called external form.
Aṭṭhakathā. The commentaries choose “one’s own continuity” (niyakajjhatta) for all five aggregates, not the sense-base meaning “ajjhattika” (Vism-ii 497:2; the Mahāṭīkā explains the difference at Vism-mht-ii 497). The Paṭisambhidā-aṭṭhakathā also widens “external” beyond the Vibhaṅga’s “others’ clung-to form” to include form not bound to faculties:
Ajjhattanti pañcasupi khandhesu idha niyakajjhattaṃ adhippetaṃ, tasmā attano santāne pavattaṃ pāṭipuggalikaṃ rūpaṃ ajjhattanti veditabbaṃ. Tato bahibhūtaṃ pana indriyabaddhaṃ vā anindriyabaddhaṃ vā rūpaṃ bahiddhā nāma.
Regarding ‘internally’ (ajjhattaṃ), here among the five aggregates, one’s internal state is intended; therefore, materiality occurring in one’s own continuity, belonging to a specific individual, should be understood as internal. However, materiality outside that, whether connected with faculties or not connected with faculties, is ‘external’ (bahiddhā).
(6)–(7) Oḷārika, sukhuma (gross, subtle)
Sutta. The suttas use these words for food, for a “gross self-acquisition”, for jhāna factors and for perception. They never use them to define a slot of the formula. DN 9’s ladder of “subtle” and “grosser” perceptions comes closest (point 5).
Vibhaṅga. Gross form is the five sense bases and their five objects (Vibh 14:2). Subtle form is the feminine faculty through physical nutriment (Vibh 15:2).
Aṭṭhakathā. The criterion is impingement (ghaṭṭana): what strikes is gross. The Paṭisambhidā-aṭṭhakathā counts twelve gross and sixteen subtle:
Oḷārikanti cakkhusotaghānajivhākāyarūpasaddagandharasaphoṭṭhabbasaṅkhātā pathavītejovāyo cāti dvādasavidhaṃ rūpaṃ ghaṭṭanavasena gahetabbato oḷārikaṃ. Sesaṃ pana āpodhātu itthindriyaṃ purisindriyaṃ jīvitindriyaṃ hadayavatthu ojā ākāsadhātu kāyaviññatti vacīviññatti rūpassa lahutā mudutā kammaññatā upacayo santati jaratā aniccatāti soḷasavidhaṃ rūpaṃ ghaṭṭanavasena agahetabbato sukhumaṃ .
‘Gross’ (oḷārikaṃ) refers to the twelve types of materiality consisting of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, form, sound, smell, taste, and tangibles, as well as the earth, fire, and air elements, which should be taken by way of their ability to clash. But the remaining sixteen types—water, femininity faculty, masculinity faculty, life faculty, heart-base, nourishment, space element, bodily intimation, verbal intimation, lightness, softness, adaptability, accumulation, continuity, aging, and impermanence of materiality—which cannot be taken by way of ability to clash, are ‘subtle’ (sukhumaṃ).
The Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā counts fifteen subtle and ten gross (Vibh-a 49:12). The two counts do not conflict. The ten and fifteen follow the Mūla Abhidhamma’s twenty-five kinds of form, which the commentary names (Vibh-a 30:1: “pañcavīsatikoṭṭhāsa”). The twelve split the tangible into earth, fire and air; Sp-t-iii 963:3 says so: “the nine beginning with the eye, and the three elements except water”. The sixteen add the heart-base. That word, “hadayavatthu”, occurs once in the whole Mūla, in the Milindapañha, but 68 times in the Aṭṭhakathā and 203 times in the Ṭīkā. So the 12/16 count follows the commentarial list of twenty-eight.
(8)–(9) Hīna, paṇīta (inferior, superior)
Sutta. The suttas use the pair for beings and persons, as in the divine-eye formula “hīne paṇīte suvaṇṇe dubbaṇṇe” (A-iii 479:2).
Vibhaṅga. Inferior form is what beings despise, the undesirable sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touches (Vibh 16:2). Superior form is the desirable. Then comes the clause that makes the pair relative:
Yaṃ rūpaṃ tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ anuññātaṃ anavaññātaṃ ahīḷitaṃ aparibhūtaṃ cittīkataṃ paṇītaṃ paṇītamataṃ paṇītasammataṃ iṭṭhaṃ kantaṃ manāpaṃ, rūpā saddā gandhā rasā phoṭṭhabbā – idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ paṇītaṃ. Taṃ taṃ vā pana rūpaṃ upādāyupādāya rūpaṃ hīnaṃ paṇītaṃ daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Whatever form, belonging to the various beings, is esteemed, not despised, not rejected, not despised, given due thought, superior, considered superior, regarded as superior, desired, pleasant, agreeable—that is, forms, sounds, smells, tastes, and tangibles—this is called superior form. However, such and such form should be considered inferior or superior by taking them one by one for comparison.
Aṭṭhakathā. The Visuddhimagga separates a relative sense from a strict one (Vism-ii 498:1–4). Relatively, the form of one Brahmā world is inferior to the one above and superior to the one below, down to hell. Strictly, it depends on kamma-result:
Nippariyāyato pana yattha akusalavipākaṃ uppajjati, taṃ hīnaṃ. Yattha kusalavipākaṃ, taṃ paṇītaṃ.
But in the literal sense, where unwholesome result arises, that is inferior. Where wholesome result arises, that is superior.
The Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā reads the relative clause as a ladder of beings, from hell-beings up to nāgas and beyond (Vibh-a 48:2–3). For the fixed standard of “desirable”, it takes neither kings nor paupers but a “middling being” (Vibh-a 44:3).
(10)–(11) Dūre, santike (far, near)
Sutta. Only spatial: the divine ear hears sounds “far and near” (A-v 91:2).
Vibhaṅga. Far form is subtle form plus “whatever else is not near”; near form is gross form plus whatever is near (Vibh 19:2–3):
Itthindriyaṃ … pe … kabaḷīkāro āhāro, yaṃ vā panaññampi atthi rūpaṃ anāsanne anupakaṭṭhe dūre asantike – idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ dūre.
The feminine faculty … until … physical nutriment; or whatever other form is not close, distant, far, not near—this is called far form.
Aṭṭhakathā. The commentary explains why the list stops before “this is called far”: far has two senses, by characteristic and by location.
Duvidhañhi dūre nāma – lakkhaṇato ca okāsato cāti. Tattha lakkhaṇato dūreti na kathitaṃ, taṃ okāsato kathetabbaṃ. Tasmā dūreti akathitaṃ. Oḷārikarūpaṃ okāsato dūreti dassetuṃ aniyyātetvāva yaṃ vā panaññampītiādimāha.
For “far” is twofold: in terms of its characteristic and by its position. Therein, what was not called far in terms of its characteristic should be spoken of by its position. Therefore, it was not called far. To point out that gross form is far by its position, he said the passage beginning with “or whatever other” (yaṃ vā panaññampi) without concluding.
So the fifteen kinds of subtle form are far “by characteristic”, and the ten kinds of gross form are far “by location” (Vibh-a 49:12). The location measure is twelve hands, the range of ordinary speech (Vibh-a 50:4). Under “taṃ taṃ vā pana” the commentary then builds a relative ladder: one’s own form is near, even another in one’s womb is far; then the same bed against the doorway, the precinct, the monastery, the sīmā, the village, the district, the kingdom, the ocean and the world-system (Vibh-a 51:1–26).
The eleven ways at a glance
| # | Way | In the suttas | Vibhaṅga (rūpa) | Commentary and ṭīkā |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | atīta (past) | “the eye that was in the past period” (MN 133); “was” (SN 22.62) | ceased, gone (Vibh 9:2) | four measures; Vibhaṅga means the moment (Vibh-a 34:6, 36:7) |
| 2 | anāgata (future) | longing for the future (MN 133); “unborn, unmanifest” (SN 22.37) | unborn, unarisen (Vibh 10:2) | same four measures |
| 3 | paccuppanna (present) | “eye and forms, both present” (MN 133); “is” (SN 22.62) | born, arisen (Vibh 11:2) | three sub-moments; continuity “for meditators” (Vism-mht-ii 495:4) |
| 4 | ajjhatta (internal) | for the elements only (MN 62) | one’s own, clung-to (Vibh 12:2) | niyakajjhatta for all five aggregates (Vism-ii 497:2) |
| 5 | bahiddhā (external) | external earth named but not defined (MN 62) | others’ own (Vibh 13:2) | adds form not bound to faculties (Paṭis-a 1010:2) |
| 6 | oḷārika (gross) | food, self-acquisition, jhāna factors; never a khandha | ten: senses and objects (Vibh 14:2) | impingement; ten or twelve (Vibh-a 49:12; Paṭis-a 1010:3) |
| 7 | sukhuma (subtle) | as above | fifteen (Vibh 15:2) | fifteen or sixteen, with heart-base (Paṭis-a 1010:4) |
| 8 | hīna (inferior) | beings, persons | despised, undesirable (Vibh 16:2) | relative ladder; strictly, object of unwholesome result (Vism-ii 498) |
| 9 | paṇīta (superior) | beings, persons | esteemed, desirable; relative (Vibh 17:3) | measured by a middling being (Vibh-a 44:3) |
| 10 | dūre (far) | spatial (divine ear) | subtle form, or not near (Vibh 18:2) | by characteristic or location (Vibh-a 49:6) |
| 11 | santike (near) | spatial (divine ear) | gross form, or near (Vibh 19:2) | twelve hands; relative ladder from one’s own body to the world-system (Vibh-a 50:4, 51) |
Objection: “The Vibhaṅga is enough; the commentary is not needed.” Reply: for time, the Vibhaṅga leaves open which measure applies, and only the commentary says it means the moment (Vibh-a 36:6–7, quoted above). For far and near, the Vibhaṅga’s unfinished clause is explained only by the commentary’s two senses (Vibh-a 49:6–9, quoted above). The Vibhaṅga is necessary but not self-explaining.
3. For vedanā, saññā, saṅkhārā and viññāṇa, the same eleven slots are filled by kind, not by body or place.
Mūla. The Vibhaṅga repeats the formula for each aggregate (Vibh 21:2, 32:2, 43:2, 54:2). It fills the slots differently. The contents are the three feelings, the six perceptions born of contact, volition born of the six contacts (Vibh 44:2) and the six consciousnesses. “External” is defined for every aggregate; for feeling:
Yā vedanā tesaṃ tesaṃ parasattānaṃ parapuggalānaṃ ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ niyakā pāṭipuggalikā upādinnā, sukhā vedanā dukkhā vedanā adukkhamasukhā vedanā – ayaṃ vuccati vedanā bahiddhā.
Whatever feeling belongs to other beings, to other persons, is internal, belonging to oneself, one’s own, pertaining to each individual, acquired by clinging—that is, pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling—this is called external feeling.
So the external slot is not missing, as one draft said. It is defined the same way as for form, as what belongs to others.
Gross and subtle are fixed by six pairs, ending with the relative clause:
Akusalā vedanā oḷārikā, kusalābyākatā vedanā sukhumā. Kusalākusalā vedanā oḷārikā, abyākatā vedanā sukhumā. Dukkhā vedanā oḷārikā, sukhā ca adukkhamasukhā ca vedanā sukhumā. Sukhadukkhā vedanā oḷārikā, adukkhamasukhā vedanā sukhumā. Asamāpannassa vedanā oḷārikā, samāpannassa vedanā sukhumā. Sāsavā vedanā oḷārikā, anāsavā vedanā sukhumā. Taṃ taṃ vā pana vedanaṃ upādāyupādāya vedanā oḷārikā sukhumā daṭṭhabbā.
Unwholesome feelings are gross; wholesome and indeterminate feelings are subtle. Wholesome and unwholesome feelings are gross; indeterminate feelings are subtle. Painful feeling is gross; pleasant and neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings are subtle. Pleasant and painful feelings are gross; neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is subtle. Feelings of one who has not attained (meditative absorption) are gross; feelings of one who has attained (meditative absorption) are subtle. Feelings with cankers are gross; feelings without defilements are subtle. However, such and such feeling should be considered gross or subtle by taking them one by one for comparison.
Inferior and superior use the same six pairs (Vibh 28; for consciousness, Vibh 61:2). Far and near are by kind. Unwholesome feeling is far from wholesome feeling (Vibh 29:2) and near to unwholesome feeling (Vibh 30:2). For perception the first pair is new:
Paṭighasamphassajā saññā oḷārikā, adhivacanasamphassajā saññā sukhumā.
Perception born of contact with impingement (paṭighasamphassajā saññā) is gross; perception born of contact with designation (adhivacanasamphassajā saññā) is fine.
Aṭṭhakathā. The Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā sorts the six pairs into four criteria: by class, nature, person, and mundane or supramundane:
11. Oḷārikasukhumaniddese akusalā vedanātiādīni jātito oḷārikasukhumabhāvaṃ dassetuṃ vuttāni. Dukkhā vedanā oḷārikātiādīni sabhāvato. Asamāpannassa vedanātiādīni puggalato. Sāsavātiādīni lokiyalokuttarato oḷārikasukhumabhāvaṃ dassetuṃ vuttāni.
- In the exposition of the gross and the subtle, the phrases “unwholesome feeling” (akusalā vedanā) and so on are stated to point out grossness and subtlety by way of class. The phrases “painful feeling is gross” (dukkhā vedanā oḷārikā) and so on are stated by way of nature. The phrases “feeling of one who has not attained” (asamāpannassa vedanā) and so on are stated by way of the person. The phrases “with cankers” (sāsavā) and so on are stated to point out grossness and subtlety by way of the mundane and the supramundane.
The Visuddhimagga warns against mixing the criteria. A painful body-feeling is subtle by class (it is a result) but gross by nature:
502. Tattha jātiādivasena sambhedo pariharitabbo. Akusalavipākakaāyaviññāṇasampayuttā hi vedanā jātivasena abyākatattā sukhumāpi samānā sabhāvādivasena oḷārikā hoti.
- Therein, a confusion by way of kind and so on should be avoided. For feeling associated with unwholesome-resultant body-consciousness, although subtle by way of kind since it is indeterminate, is nonetheless gross by way of individual essence and so on.
Far and near for feeling have nothing to do with distance. Unwholesome feeling is far from wholesome “because it is unlike and unmixed” (Vibh-a 68:1). So three people on one bed can have feelings that are “far”:
Sacepi hi akusalādivedanāsamaṅgino dukkhādivedanāsamaṅgino ca tayo tayo janā ekamañce nisinnā honti, tesampi tā vedanā visabhāgaṭṭhena visaṃsaṭṭhena ca dūreyeva nāma.
For even if three people in each group—those endowed with unwholesome feelings and so forth, and those endowed with painful feelings and so forth—are sitting on a single bed, even for them, those feelings are indeed far because of their dissimilar nature and their being unconnected.
For perception, the commentary makes the first pair concrete. Five-door perception is gross because others can see it in your look:
Nippariyāyena pana paṭighasamphassajā saññā nāma pañcadvārikasaññā, adhivacanasamphassajā saññā nāma manodvārikasaññā. Tattha pañcadvārikasaññā oloketvāpi jānituṃ sakkāti oḷārikā.
In the definitive sense, however, perception born of contact with impingement is five-door perception, and perception born of contact with designation is mind-door perception. Therein, five-door perception is gross because it can be known even just by looking.
For formations, the Vibhaṅga names only volition. The commentary says volition is named as the chief formation, and the formations joined with it are taken along with it (Vibh-a 78:4–8).
For time, the commentary says the feeling passages are framed by the moment, though continuity also applies (Vibh-a 54:11; Vibh-a 55:5).
Ṭīkā. The Sāratthadīpanī on the Vinaya Anattalakkhaṇa repeats this whole scheme, and adds that perception and the rest follow the feeling they are joined with (Sp-t-iii 969:10). The Paṭisambhidā-aṭṭhakathā even adds gross and subtle feeling by location: painful feeling in hell is gross, in the animal realm subtle (Paṭis-a 1024:10).
So for the four mental aggregates, the eleven slots become an ethical and psychological grid. Nothing in the suttas tells a meditator that “far” feeling can sit beside him on the same bed.
4. The problem: the suttas give the formula and the practice, but define only some of the eleven.
The strongest case for “the suttas are enough”. It deserves to be stated fully.
First, the formula works without a gloss. The five monks were freed while hearing it (point 7). In the Yodhājīva Sutta the bare formula is the whole answer to “how is a monk a far-shooter?”:
‘‘ Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dūrepātī hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ ‘ netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā ’ ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passati.
“And how, monks, is a bhikkhu able to shoot far? Here, monks, whatever form—past, future, or present; internal or external; gross or subtle; inferior or superior; far or near—a bhikkhu sees all form with right wisdom as it really is: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Second, the practice itself is in the Mūla. The Paṭisambhidāmagga, a Khuddaka text, already sets the formula under the three marks as “one comprehension” each (point 9; Paṭis 275:1). The Mahāṭīkā concedes that kalāpasammasana is in the suttas. TPR renders the key line as “in part and without omission”; the Pali “ekadesena, anavasesato ca” means “both partially and in full”:
Yasmā kalāpasammasanaṃ nāma ekavisuddhiyampi na antogadhaṃ, ekacce ca taṃ anāmasitvāva vipassanācāraṃ vaṇṇenti. Evaṃ santepi taṃ suttantesu ekadesena, anavasesato ca dassitaṃ. Paṭisambhidāyaṃ ādikammikānaṃ manasikārasukaratāya vipassanāya ādibhāvena ṭhapitaṃ.
Comprehension by groups is not included in any single purification, and some describe the course of insight without touching it at all. Even so, it is shown in the suttas, both partially and without remainder. In the Paṭisambhidā it is placed at the start of insight, because it is easy for beginners to attend to. (retranslated by Claude)
Third, the words are exhaustive. “Yaṃ kiñci … sabbaṃ” means “whatever, all of it” (Vism-ii 491:1: “anavasesapariyādānaṃ”). A meditator who sees all form as not-self loses nothing if he files a piece of it under the wrong pair.
Fourth, the suttas do define some ways. MN 133 defines past and present:
Iti me cakkhu ahosi atītamaddhānaṃ iti rūpāti – tattha chandarāgappaṭibaddhaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ, chandarāgappaṭibaddhattā viññāṇassa tadabhinandati, tadabhinandanto atītaṃ anvāgameti.
Thinking: ‘In the past I had such an eye and such forms,’ consciousness gets tied up there with desire and lust. Because consciousness is tied up with desire and lust, one takes pleasure in that. Taking pleasure in that, one runs back to the past.
The present is “the eye and forms, both” (M-iii 938:2). SN 22.62 (Niruttipatha) defines the times by “was”, “is” and “will be”:
Yaṃ, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ atītaṃ niruddhaṃ vipariṇataṃ ‘ ahosī ’ ti tassa saṅkhā,‘ ahosī ’ ti tassa samaññā,‘ ahosī ’ ti tassa paññatti;
Whatever form, monks, has passed, ceased, or vanished, the term ‘was’ applies to it, the label ‘was’ applies to it, and the description ‘was’ applies to it;
SN 22.37 speaks of form “unborn, unmanifest” (S-iii 196:1). The Vibhaṅga borrows this very vocabulary (compare Vibh 9:2 and 10:2). MN 62 defines internal earth as “ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ … upādinnaṃ” (M-ii 327:5), the words the Vibhaṅga uses for internal form.
The answer. The case proves that the formula can be practised from the suttas. It does not prove that each of the eleven can be understood from them.
(a) The five ways the suttas never define for an aggregate. The search covered the exact strings a definition would need. Results are sentences in TPR’s index:
| Search | Mūla | Where |
|---|---|---|
| “vedanā oḷārikā” | 8 | all Vibhaṅga |
| “saññā oḷārikā” | 9 | all Vibhaṅga |
| “viññāṇaṃ oḷārikaṃ” | 6 | all Vibhaṅga |
| “rūpaṃ oḷārikaṃ” | 6 | Vibhaṅga 3, Dhammasaṅgaṇī 3 |
| “vedanā hīnā” | 8 | all Vibhaṅga |
| “vedanā dūre” | 3 | all Vibhaṅga |
| “rūpaṃ dūre” | 7 | Vibhaṅga 4, Dhammasaṅgaṇī 3 |
| “upādāyupādāya” | 26 | Vibhaṅga 14, Milinda 8, AN 3, MN 1 |
The few sutta uses of “upādāyupādāya” mean “drawing on” or “with reference to” (A-x 521:1; M-i 501:8), not the comparative rule. So the relative clause that governs gross, inferior and far is the Vibhaṅga’s, not the suttas’. These are exact-string searches; a definition in other words would escape them.
(b) Two time measures and no rule. MN 133 counts by a life; SN 22.62 by “is” and “was”. The commentaries name which is which. In its chapter on reading minds, the Visuddhimagga calls present by extent “bounded by one existence” and cites the Bhaddekaratta passage for it (Vism-ii 259:1–2). Then it says:
Santatipaccuppannañcettha aṭṭhakathāsu āgataṃ. Addhāpaccuppannaṃ sutte.
And herein, what is present by continuity is found in the commentaries. What is present by extent is found in the suttas.
The Dhammasaṅgaṇī-anuṭīkā reconciles the two. The same dhammas are “present by extent” when taken whole without division; when divided, present by moment and by continuity are found (Dhs-anuṭ 704:9).
The counts confirm that the middle measures are commentarial. “Santativasena”, “samayavasena”, “addhāpaccuppann-“, “santatipaccuppann-“ and “khaṇapaccuppann-“ all give 0 in the Mūla. In the Aṭṭhakathā they give 46, 51, 18, 22 and 16; in the Ṭīkā 66, 95, 47, 41 and 42. The Mahāṭīkā says why they were added:
Santatisamayakathā vipassakānaṃ upakāratthāya aṭṭhakathāsu kathitā.
The discussion of continuity and occasion is taught in the commentaries for the benefit of those practicing insight.
The Samantapāsādikā uses the same three “presents” in a Vinaya ruling on killing (Sp-i 1794:3–6), so the scheme is not only an Abhidhamma idea.
(c) The audience. The commentary says the five monks were already stream-enterers when they heard this sutta (Spk-iii 159:2; the Vinaya records their “eye of Dhamma” first, Vin-iii 147:3). Their freedom without a gloss shows what the formula does for trained hearers. It does not show that a beginner can fix each term.
(d) The commentators’ own view. For SN 22.59 the Saṃyutta commentary does not explain the eleven ways. It sends the reader to the Visuddhimagga:
Yaṃkiñci rūpantiādīsu vitthārakathā visuddhimagge paññābhāvanādhikāre khandhaniddese vuttāva.
The detailed elaboration of “Any kind of form whatsoever” (Yaṃkiñci rūpan) and the rest is stated in the Visuddhimagga, in the section on the development of wisdom within the analysis of the aggregates.
Verdict on this point. “Can the eleven be practised from the suttas alone?” Yes, in outline. “Can each be understood from the suttas alone?” No. Only the times (in two measures) and, for the elements, internal and external are defined there. Point 5 tests how much more can be gathered from scattered suttas.
5. The piecemeal test: the suttas and the Vinaya hold raw material for most slots, but assembling it means redoing the Vibhaṅga’s work.
The question. Point 4 showed that no sutta defines the eleven ways together with the formula. A stronger objection remains. Could a careful reader gather definitions piece by piece from other suttas, and from the suttanta material in the Vinaya, and so build the list without the Abhidhamma? Is that really plausible?
Method. The search covered every Mūla book except the seven Abhidhamma books: the four Nikāyas, the Khuddaka (including Niddesa, Paṭisambhidāmagga, Netti, Peṭakopadesa and Milinda) and the whole Vinaya. For each slot, and for each of the five aggregates, it looked for any passage that could fill it. Each find was then compared with the Vibhaṅga’s definition. That gives 5 groups (the three times count as one group) × 5 aggregates = 25 cells.
5.1 What the search finds, slot by slot
Past, future, present. This is the strongest cell. SN 22.62 gives “was”, “is” and “will be” for all five aggregates (S-iii 349:4). MN 133 gives the life measure (M-iii 938:2). DN 9 adds that the three time-names are only “the world’s usages”, like milk, curd and ghee (D-i 846:8). The gap is the one point 4 found: two measures, and no rule for choosing between them.
Internal and external. For form, MN 62 (the very sutta that opens with the eleven-way formula, M-ii 326:5) defines internal earth as “ajjhattaṃ paccattaṃ … upādinnaṃ”. It then sets it beside the external earth:
Yā ceva kho pana ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu yā ca bāhirā pathavīdhātu, pathavīdhāturevesā.
The internal earth element and the external earth element are just the earth element.
Here is the first trap. In the sutta, “external” earth is everything that is not one’s own body: the ground, rocks, other bodies. The Vibhaṅga’s “external form” is narrower: form that is internal to other beings (Vibh 13:2). A piecemeal reader who borrows MN 62 gets a different “bahiddhā”. Only the commentary joins the two, by adding form not bound to faculties to “external” (Paṭis-a 1010:2, point 2).
For the mental aggregates, the suttas use the pair but never define it. Satipaṭṭhāna has “ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu … bahiddhā vā vedanāsu” (M-i 313:11). The Vinaya’s Samathakkhandhaka speaks of a root of dispute “in oneself or in others” (Vin-iv 1073:8). That supports “own versus others’”. It is an inference from usage, not a definition. The exact strings “ajjhattā vedanā” and “bahiddhā vedanā” as definitions give 0 hits outside the satipaṭṭhāna refrain.
Gross and subtle. Here the material is richest and most misleading.
Form. DN 33 gives a sutta classification of form by impact:
‘‘ Tividhena rūpasaṅgaho – sanidassanasappaṭighaṃ rūpaṃ, anidassanasappaṭighaṃ rūpaṃ, anidassanaappaṭighaṃ rūpaṃ.
“Threefold classification of matter: visible and resisting matter, invisible and resisting matter, invisible and non-resisting matter.
This is exactly the line the Vibhaṅga draws: the twelve “resisting” kinds (sense bases and objects) are gross, the rest subtle (Vibh 14:2). But DN 33 never calls resisting form “gross”. The reader must make that link.
Other sutta uses point the other way. The nutriment formula says solid food is itself “gross or subtle” (D-iii 1432:1). The Vinaya’s Bhesajjakkhandhaka uses “gross food” in the everyday sense:
bhesajjāni ceva bhesajjasammatāni ca lokassa, āhāratthañca pharanti, na ca oḷāriko āhāro paññāyati.
They are medicines and are agreed by the world to be medicines; they do the work of nutriment, yet no gross food shows in them. (retranslated by Claude)
The Vibhaṅga, by contrast, lists nutritive essence among the subtle forms:
Itthindriyaṃ … pe … kabaḷīkāro āhāro – idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ sukhumaṃ.
The feminine faculty … physical nutriment: this is called subtle form.
So a reader who builds “gross form” from the nutriment line or the Vinaya would class food as gross. The Vibhaṅga classes its nutritive essence as subtle, because it does not strike the senses. The two are not in conflict once one separates the lump of food from its nutritive essence (ojā). That separation is Abhidhamma analysis. Other gross/subtle pairs in the suttas are about breath (Paṭis 949:10) and about “gross self-acquisition”, the four-element body that eats food (D-i 827:3). On DN 9’s measure all form is “gross”. The Vibhaṅga sorts form into gross and subtle within form.
Perception. This is the best piecemeal find of the whole search. DN 9 gives a ladder of perceptions that grow more subtle with each attainment:
Vivekajapītisukhasukhumasaccasaññā tasmiṃ samaye hoti, vivekajapītisukhasukhuma-saccasaññīyeva tasmiṃ samaye hoti.
On that occasion there is a subtle and true perception of the rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, and he is one who perceives that subtle truth. (retranslated by Claude)
At the summit the monk declines to intend, “lest other, grosser perceptions arise”:
Ahañceva kho pana ceteyyaṃ, abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ, imā ca me saññā nirujjheyyuṃ, aññā ca oḷārikā saññā uppajjeyyuṃ;
If I were to intend and will, these perceptions of mine would cease and other, grosser perceptions would arise. (retranslated by Claude)
This is the Vibhaṅga’s fifth criterion, nearly word for word: “the perception of one not in an attainment is gross, of one in an attainment subtle” (Vibh 38:7). The Vibhaṅga’s first criterion for perception also has a sutta root:
Paṭighasamphassajā saññā oḷārikā, adhivacanasamphassajā saññā sukhumā.
Perception born of impingement-contact is gross; perception born of designation-contact is subtle.
The two contacts come from the Mahānidāna Sutta (DN 15):
‘‘ Yehi, ānanda, ākārehi … pe … yehi uddesehi nāmakāyassa ca rūpakāyassa ca paññatti hoti, tesu ākāresu … pe … tesu uddesesu asati api nu kho adhivacanasamphasso vā paṭighasamphasso vā paññāyethā ’’ ti?
“If those qualities, traits, signs, and indicators through which there is a description of the mental body and the material body were all absent, would either designation-contact or impingement-contact be discerned?”
DN 15 names the contacts; it does not call one gross and the other subtle.
Formations. The suttas speak of “gross bodily, verbal and mental formations” being calmed (D-ii 794:4), and of “the gradual stilling of formations” (S-iv 1340:21, SN 36.11). This is the second trap. “Bodily formation” there is the breath, which belongs to the form aggregate, and “mental formation” is perception and feeling. The word saṅkhāra is the same; the aggregate is not.
Feeling and consciousness. Nothing was found. “Oḷārikā vedanā”, “sukhumā vedanā”, “oḷārikaṃ viññāṇaṃ” and “sukhumaṃ viññāṇaṃ” give 0 hits outside the Abhidhamma books. MN 59’s ladder of ever finer happiness uses “paṇītatara” (more superior), not “sukhuma”; it belongs to the next pair.
Inferior and superior. Here the piecemeal reader does well.
Form. The Vibhaṅga defines inferior and superior form as the unwanted and the wanted: “aniṭṭhaṃ akantaṃ amanāpaṃ” against “iṭṭhaṃ kantaṃ manāpaṃ” (Vibh 16:2). That is the stock sutta phrase for the five cords of sense pleasure, “rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā” (M-ii 264:3). The match is close.
Perception and formations. SN 14.13 (Giñjakāvasatha) grades perception, view, thought and volition by the “element” they depend on:
Hīnaṃ, kaccāna, dhātuṃ paṭicca uppajjati hīnā saññā, hīnā diṭṭhi, hīno vitakko, hīnā cetanā, hīnā patthanā, hīno paṇidhi, hīno puggalo, hīnā vācā;
Dependent on an inferior element, Kaccāna, inferior perception, inferior view, inferior reflection, inferior volition, inferior aspiration, inferior longing, an inferior individual, and inferior speech arise.
The superior line follows (S-ii 735:1). Volition and thought are formations, so this one sutta covers two aggregates. But the sutta has a middle grade too (S-ii 734:1), and the formula has only two.
Feeling. MN 59 climbs from sense pleasure through the jhānas, each “more excellent and more superior” than the last:
Atthānanda, etamhā sukhā aññaṃ sukhaṃ abhikkantatarañca paṇītatarañca.
There is, Ānanda, another happiness more excellent and more superior than that happiness. (retranslated by Claude)
SN 36.31 adds “carnal, non-carnal, and more non-carnal than the non-carnal” (S-iv 1415:1). This is the sutta form of the Vibhaṅga’s relative rule, “taṃ taṃ vā pana vedanaṃ upādāyupādāya”. The idea of grading by comparison is in the suttas, even though the word “upādāyupādāya” is not used for it (point 4).
Consciousness. AN 3.77 (Bhava) speaks of consciousness established in an inferior, middling or superior element:
Avijjānīvaraṇānaṃ sattānaṃ taṇhāsaṃyojanānaṃ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ evaṃ āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.
For beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, consciousness is established in an inferior element; thus there is the production of renewed existence in the future. (retranslated by Claude)
Here the sutta calls the element inferior, not the consciousness. And “element” does not mean the same thing in the two suttas. The commentaries show it:
Hīnāya dhātuyāti kāmadhātuyā. Viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitanti abhisaṅkhāraviññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ. Majjhimāya dhātuyāti rūpadhātuyā.
‘In the lower property’ (hīnāya dhātuyā) means in the sense-sphere. ‘Consciousness is established’ (viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ) means the consciousness conditioned by formations is established. ‘In the middling property’ (majjhimāya dhātuyā) means in the fine-material sphere.
Hīnaṃ , kaccāna , dhātuṃ paṭiccāti hīnaṃ ajjhāsayaṃ paṭicca.
“Dependent on an inferior element, Kaccāna” means dependent on an inferior disposition.
In AN 3.77 the inferior element is a plane (the sense sphere). In SN 14.13 it is a disposition. A reader who joined the two passages on the shared word “hīna dhātu” would be wrong. Only the commentary tells them apart.
Far and near. For form, the suttas know only space. The divine ear hears sounds “dūre santike ca” (D-i 349:2). The Vinaya’s old word-commentary glosses “santike” in a Saṅghādisesa rule:
Mātugāmassa santiketi mātugāmassa sāmantā, mātugāmassa avidūre.
“In the presence of a woman” means: near a woman, not far from a woman.
The Vibhaṅga’s phrase “āsanne upakaṭṭhe avidūre santike” uses the same word (Vibh 19:2). But its main list for “far” form is the subtle forms, far because hard to discern (Vibh 18:2). That sense has no sutta source.
For the mind, the Vibhaṅga’s “far” means unlike: unwholesome feeling is far from wholesome (Vibh 30:2; Vibh 40:2). The search found one sutta that thinks this way, AN 4.47 (Suvidūra):
Satañca, bhikkhave, dhammo asatañca dhammo; idaṃ catutthaṃ suvidūravidūre.
The Dhamma of the good and the Dhamma of the bad, monks: this is the fourth pair that are very far apart. (retranslated by Claude)
That is “far by unlikeness” in the Buddha’s own words. But AN 4.47 is about teachings, not feelings or perceptions, and no commentary on the eleven ways cites it (“suvidūravidūr-“ in Vibh-a, Vism, Spk-iii and Vibh-mt: 0). The piecemeal reader would have to find it and apply it unaided.
5.2 The Vibhaṅga’s criteria have sutta roots
The search turned up something the drafts missed. Almost every criterion the Vibhaṅga uses for the mental aggregates is a sutta category:
| Vibhaṅga criterion (e.g. Vibh 38, 49, 60) | Sutta root | Exact form in the suttas? |
|---|---|---|
| impingement- / designation-contact | DN 15, D-ii 258:6 | yes, as contacts; not as gross/subtle |
| wholesome / unwholesome | DN 33 “tisso akusalasaññā” (D-iii 1351:1) | for perception only; “kusalā vedanā”, “akusalaṃ viññāṇaṃ”: 0 |
| painful / pleasant / neutral | SN 36 throughout | yes |
| not in / in an attainment | DN 9 ladder; MN 59 | yes, for perception and happiness |
| with / without cankers | MN 117 “sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā … anāsavā” (M-iii 424:2 | for path factors; “sāsavā vedanā”: 0 |
| graded by comparison | MN 59 “paṇītatara”; SN 36.31 | the idea, not the word |
| far by unlikeness | AN 4.47 | for teachings only |
Two conclusions follow. First, the Vibhaṅga does not invent; it applies sutta categories to the formula’s slots. That is the orthodox claim about the Suttantabhājanīya (Vibh-mt 23:4, point 2), and the search bears it out. Second, the suttas never perform the application. Every arrow in the table is drawn by the Vibhaṅga.
5.3 The tally
✔ = a sutta or Vinaya passage fills the cell in the Vibhaṅga’s sense. ◐ = material exists, but only by inference, in another sense, or with a conflict. ✘ = nothing found.
| Group | Form | Feeling | Perception | Formations | Consciousness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Past / future / present | ✔ SN 22.62 | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
| Internal / external | ◐ MN 62 (external differs) | ◐ usage only | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ |
| Gross / subtle | ◐ DN 33 (not called gross); food conflicts | ✘ | ✔ DN 9 | ◐ saṅkhāra in another sense | ✘ |
| Inferior / superior | ✔ “iṭṭha kanta manāpa” | ◐ MN 59 (relative) | ✔ SN 14.13 | ✔ SN 14.13 | ◐ AN 3.77 (the plane, not the mind) |
| Far / near | ◐ space only | ◐ AN 4.47 by inference | ◐ | ◐ | ◐ |
Of 25 cells, 9 are filled, 14 need inference or carry a conflict, and 2 are empty. Even the 9 filled cells for time leave the choice of measure open.
5.4 Is it really plausible?
What is plausible. A reader with the whole canon and a concordance can find raw material for 23 of the 25 cells. That is far more than point 4’s exact-string search suggested, and the paper should say so plainly. It also shows the eleven ways are not foreign to the suttas: the categories are there.
What is not plausible. Four things stand in the way.
- Finding it. The material lies in at least fourteen texts across DN, MN, SN, AN, the Khuddaka and two Vinaya books. None of the 60 Mūla sentences that carry the formula points to any of them. Without the Vibhaṅga as a guide, a reader would not know that DN 9, DN 15, AN 4.47 and SN 14.13 are the places to look.
- Mapping it. Each find is about something else: self-acquisition, contact, teachings, rebirth planes, dispositions. The suttas never say “this is what oḷārika means in the formula”. The reader must make each link. The links he makes are the Vibhaṅga’s links.
- Avoiding the traps. Three finds give the wrong answer if taken at face value: “external” earth in MN 62, “gross” food in the nutriment line and the Vinaya, and the “gross formations” of breath. A fourth, “hīna dhātu”, means a plane in one sutta and a disposition in another. Each trap is defused only by the Abhidhamma or the commentary.
- Filling the gaps. Gross and subtle feeling and consciousness have no sutta material at all, and “far” form in the sense of hard to discern has none.
Judgment. Building the eleven ways piecemeal from the suttas and the Vinaya is possible in part and plausible only with hindsight. Done well, it rebuilds a rough Vibhaṅga, cell by cell, out of the same sutta vocabulary. Done without the Vibhaṅga, it goes wrong in at least four places. The Mahāṭīkā’s phrase fits exactly: the practice is shown in the suttas “ekadesena”, in parts (Vism-mht-ii 1270:8, point 4). The parts are there. The assembly is the Abhidhamma’s.
Objection: “If the parts are in the suttas, the Vibhaṅga adds nothing a careful reader could not.” Reply: the Vibhaṅga adds the three things the parts lack: the mapping of each category to its slot, the choice among competing senses, and the rule of comparison for every pair. It also corrects the traps. A reader who did all of this would have written a Vibhaṅga. The tradition holds that it was written already, by the one who taught the formula (As 828:1, point 6).
6. The solution: the Abhidhamma and commentary method supplies every boundary, and admits its own limits.
What the method supplies. It gives a definition of each way for each aggregate (Vibh 8–64). It gives a rule for choosing among senses: the moment for strict analysis, continuity for meditators, one’s own continuity for “internal”, characteristic or location for “far”. It gives four criteria for gross and subtle, with a warning not to mix them (Vibh-a 56:1–4; Vism-ii 507:1–2, quoted above). And it places the whole practice on the path. Kalāpasammasana is the beginning of insight:
Āraddhavipassakassa hi obhāsādīsu sambhūtesu maggāmaggañāṇaṃ hoti, vipassanāya ca kalāpasammasanaṃ ādi.
For it is when illumination and so on have appeared in a vipassanā meditator who has begun his practice that knowledge of path and not-path occurs, and comprehension by groups is the beginning of insight (vipassanāya ādi).
Why the “suttanta” section of an Abhidhamma book speaks Abhidhamma. The Mūlaṭīkā’s answer (Vibh-mt 23:4, quoted above) is the heart of the orthodox position. The Suttantabhājanīya is itself Abhidhamma: it sifts and analyses the dhammas the suttas state. The tradition also holds that the Buddha had penetrated the Abhidhamma in the fourth week after the awakening, before the first sermon (As 828:1). On that view, the Vibhaṅga does not add to the sutta; it unfolds what the Teacher already meant.
The limits the commentators admit.
(a) Most senses are figurative. Only the moment measure is “nippariyāya”; the rest are “sapariyāya” (Vibh-a 36:6–7, quoted above).
(b) The elders disagreed. On desirable and undesirable, a “contrarian” denied any fixed standard:
Vitaṇḍavādī panāha – iṭṭhāniṭṭhaṃ nāma pāṭiyekkaṃ paṭivibhattaṃ natthi, tesaṃ tesaṃ rucivasena kathitaṃ.
However, a sophist says: There is no such thing as a separate, distinct “desirable” or “undesirable”; they are spoken of according to each person’s preference.
On gross and subtle, Tipiṭaka Cūḷanāga refused to apply the pair to unwholesome or supramundane feeling. Tipiṭaka Cūḷābhaya answered that the Buddha left no needed method ungiven in the Abhidhamma, and cited a sutta (DN 28, D-iii 359:3) in which a path-practice is called “inferior” (Vibh-a 61:12):
Idha panekacco ‘ ācariyo asmī ’ ti vicaranto akusale oḷārikasukhumataṃ uddharamāno kukkuccāyati. Sammāsambuddhena pana lokuttarepi oḷārikasukhumatā uddharitā ’’ ti.
But furthermore, a certain person here, wandering about saying ‘I am a teacher,’ has scruples about extracting the distinction of grossness and subtlety in the unwholesome. Indeed, the distinction of grossness and subtlety even in the supramundane was extracted by the Perfectly Self-Awakened One.”
(c) A late handbook narrows the practice. The Paramatthadīpanī says moment-contemplation is perhaps (“siyā”) only for Buddhas, so disciples use extent and continuity:
Etthaca khaṇavasena sammasanaṃnāma sabbaññubuddhānaṃ eva visayo siyā, na sāvakānaṃ. Nahi te evaṃ parittake khaṇe uppādaṃvā nirodhaṃvā sampāpuṇituṃ sakkontīti. Tasmā addhāsantativasena sammasanameva idhā dhippetanti daṭṭhabbaṃ.
Here, contemplation by way of moment would be the province only of Omniscient Buddhas, not of disciples. For they are not capable of attaining the arising or cessation in such a minute moment. Therefore, one should see that contemplation by way of period and continuity is intended here.
This is a late view in TPR’s “Añña” layer. The Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha itself allows comprehension “by extent, by continuity, or by moment” (Abhidh-s 822:1). Present it as one teacher’s caution, not as the commentarial rule.
7. The Vinaya and Saṃyutta Anattalakkhaṇa are one discourse in two settings, each with its own commentary chain.
The two texts. The Vinaya text is in the Mahāvagga, Mahākhandhaka, in the story of the group of five (Vin-iii 148–153). The Saṃyutta text is SN 22.59 (S-iii 322–334). The core is word for word the same. The Vinaya’s eleven-way sentence for form (Vin-iii 151:1) matches SN 22.59 (S-iii 329:1–2, quoted above) except for punctuation.
The differences, from reading both side by side:
| Feature | Vinaya, Mahāvagga | SN 22.59 |
|---|---|---|
| Setting | No nidāna. A running story: Vappa and Bhaddiya, then Mahānāma and Assaji, gain the Dhamma-eye and ordination (Vin-iii 147); then “Atha kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye bhikkhū āmantesi” (Vin-iii 148:1) | Full nidāna: Bārāṇasī, Isipatana, with the “bhikkhavo / bhadante” exchange (S-iii 323:1–5, quoted above) |
| Five statements of not-self | All five written out (Vin-iii 149) | Perception abbreviated with “pe” (S-iii 326:1) |
| Three-mark questions | All five written out (Vin-iii 150) | Four aggregates in one line (S-iii 328:8) |
| Eleven-way sentence | All five aggregates in full (Vin-iii 151:1–5) | Feeling, perception and formations abbreviated (S-iii 329:3, 330:1) |
| A reading variant | feeling “ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā” (Vin-iii 151:2) | feeling “ajjhattā vā bahiddhā vā” (S-iii 329:3), as in the Vibhaṅga |
| Ending | “abhinandunti … vimucciṃsu”, then “there were six arahants in the world” (Vin-iii 153) | “abhinanduṃ … vimucciṃsūti”, then “Sattamaṃ” (S-iii 333:2–334:2) |
59. Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā bārāṇasiyaṃ viharati isipatane migadāye. Tatra kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye bhikkhū āmantesi – ‘‘ bhikkhavo ’’ ti. ‘‘ Bhadante ’’ ti te bhikkhū bhagavato paccassosuṃ. Bhagavā etadavoca –
- On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Benares in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: “Bhikkhus!” “Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said this:
24. Idamavoca bhagavā. Attamanā pañcavaggiyā bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti. Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṃ bhaññamāne pañcavaggiyānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṃsu. Tena kho pana samayena cha loke arahanto honti.
- This is what the Blessed One said. Elated, the group of five bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five bhikkhus were liberated from the taints without clinging. At that time there were six Arahants in the world.
The substance and the outcome are the same. The extra Vinaya sentence counts the Buddha with the five as the six arahants.
The Vinaya commentary chain. One draft said the Samantapāsādikā has no comment on this discourse. That is wrong. It is brief, but it is there, and it names the Vinaya passage it explains:
Pakkhassa pana pañcamiyaṃ sabbe te ekato sannipātetvā anattasuttena ovadi. Tena vuttaṃ ‘‘ atha kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye ’’tiādi.
Then, on the fifth day of the fortnight, he gathered them all together and exhorted them with the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta. Therefore he said, “atha kho bhagavā pañcavaggiye” and so on.
It adds one line on “six arahants”: six human arahants on the fifth day of the fortnight (Sp-iii 66:1). The full explanation is in its ṭīkā, the Sāratthadīpanī, under the heading “Anattalakkhaṇasuttavaṇṇanā” (Sp-t-iii 956:1). It gives four reasons why form is not-self:
Anattāti avasavattanaṭṭhena asāmikaṭṭhena suññataṭṭhena attapaṭikkhepaṭṭhenāti evaṃ catūhi kāraṇehi anattā.
Anattā (‘not-self’)—it is not-self for four reasons: in the sense of not being subject to control, in the sense of there being no owner, in the sense of being void, and in the sense of being a rejection of self.
The same ṭīkā then explains all eleven ways (Sp-t-iii 963) and the time measures (Sp-t-iii 962). So on the Vinaya side the eleven ways are explained in the Ṭīkā, not in the Aṭṭhakathā. The Vimativinodanī reads the three clauses of “etaṃ mama…” as three graspings, which the Majjhima commentary also gives (Ps-i 893:1–3):
Etaṃ mamātiādi yathākkamaṃ taṇhāmānadiṭṭhigāhānaṃ dassanaṃ.
“This is mine” and the rest show, in order, the graspings of craving, conceit and view. (retranslated by Claude)
It reads “nibbindati” as insight leading to emergence, “virajjati” as the four paths, and “vimuccati” as the fruits (Vmv-iii 1828:2–4).
The Saṃyutta commentary chain. The Sāratthappakāsinī gives the setting: the fifth day of the fortnight, after the five had become stream-enterers:
Āmantesīti āsāḷhipuṇṇamadivase dhammacakkappavattanato paṭṭhāya anukkamena sotāpattiphale patiṭṭhite ‘‘ idāni nesaṃ āsavakkhayāya dhammaṃ desessāmī ’’ ti pañcamiyaṃ pakkhassa āmantesi.
“Addressed” (Āmantesī) means: on the fifth day of the fortnight, thinking “Now I will teach them the Dhamma for the destruction of the taints,” he addressed those bhikkhus who had gradually attained the fruit of stream-entry since the setting in motion of the Wheel of the Dhamma on the full moon day of Āsāḷha.
It adds that “Taṃ kiṃ maññatha” brings in the other two marks, and that this sutta still teaches mainly not-self (Spk-iii 159:5–6, 159:10). For the eleven ways it sends the reader to the Visuddhimagga (Spk-iii 159:8, quoted above). The Saṃyutta ṭīkā explains “vitthārakathā” as “the commentary in detail” and gives the reason for the stress on not-self: the hearers’ disposition (Spk-t-iii 162:6–8).
The outcome. Both texts say the minds of the five were freed from the taints without clinging. The commentaries place it on the fifth day of the fortnight (Sp-iii 65:4, 66:1; Spk-iii 159:2).
8. The formula recurs across the Nikāyas and the Paṭisambhidāmagga in four kinds of use.
The sutta numbers below follow the paragraph numbers that TPR prints (for example “59.” at S-iii 323:1 and “181.” at A-iv 1419:1) and the headings (“7. Anattalakkhaṇasuttaṃ” at S-iii 322:1).
| Text | Use of the formula | Hearer | Passage (TPR) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vinaya, Mahāvagga, pañcavaggiya story | conclusion after the three marks | the five monks | Vin-iii 151:1 |
| SN 22.59 Anattalakkhaṇa | conclusion after the three marks | the five monks | S-iii 329:1 |
| SN 22.48 Khandha | definition of each khandha | monks | S-iii 231:5 |
| SN 22.49 Soṇa | conclusion of a not-self teaching | Soṇa | S-iii 238:1 |
| SN 22.79 Khajjanīya | conclusion of a not-self teaching | monks | S-iii 462:15 |
| SN 22.82 Puṇṇama | answer: how there is no “I-making” | a monk | S-iii 503:2 |
| SN 22.91 Rāhula | answer on “I-making” | Rāhula | S-iii 621:1 |
| SN 12.70 Susima | conclusion of a not-self teaching | Susima | S-ii 549:1 |
| MN 22 Alagaddūpama | conclusion after the three marks | monks | M-i 786:1 |
| MN 35 Cūḷasaccaka | how the Buddha’s disciple trains | Saccaka | M-i 1212:4 |
| MN 62 Mahārāhulovāda | opening instruction on form | Rāhula | M-ii 326:5 |
| MN 109 Mahāpuṇṇama | definition of each khandha; then the conclusion | a monk | M-iii 197:2; M-iii 203:2 |
| AN 3.134 Yodhājīva | “far-shooter”: the formula as practice | monks | A-iii 1186:2 |
| AN 4.181 Yodhājīva | same, with four factors | monks | A-iv 1421:2 |
| AN 4.196 Sāḷha | right concentration, archer simile | Sāḷha | A-iv 1568:3 |
| Paṭisambhidāmagga, Sammasanañāṇa | the formula under the three marks | (analysis) | Paṭis 275:1 |
| Paṭisambhidāmagga, Javanapaññā | quick insight on the formula | (analysis) | Paṭis 1845:2 |
| Vibhaṅga, Suttantabhājanīya | definition of each khandha | (analysis) | Vibh 8:2 |
| Kathāvatthu 296 | cited in a debate on whether the past exists | (debate) | Kv 797:5 |
The four kinds of use are: a conclusion to a three-mark teaching (SN 22.59, MN 22), a definition of a khandha (SN 22.48, MN 109), an answer to a question about self (SN 22.82, MN 35), and an analytic or meditative item (Paṭisambhidāmagga, Vibhaṅga). The Paṭisambhidāmagga passage is the direct ancestor of the Visuddhimagga practice:
Yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ aniccato vavattheti ekaṃ sammasanaṃ, dukkhato vavattheti ekaṃ sammasanaṃ, anattato vavattheti ekaṃ sammasanaṃ.
Whatever materiality there is—past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near—he defines all materiality as impermanent: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as suffering: this is one kind of comprehension. He defines it as not-self: this is one kind of comprehension.
Two cautions. The Kathāvatthu use is a debate line, not doctrine. There the opponent cites the formula to prove that the past exists; the commentary answers that it proves only that past form counts as an aggregate, not that it exists (Kv-a 799:5). Second, the Paṭisambhidāmagga glosses “netaṃ mama” as right view (“sampannadiṭṭhi”, Paṭis 818:2), which fits the Vimativinodanī’s three graspings above.
9. The focus method: contemplate each aggregate in the eleven slots under the three marks.
This is the Visuddhimagga’s kalāpasammasana (Vism XX), built on Paṭisambhidāmagga 1.48. Each step below has its source. It is a summary of texts, not a substitute for a teacher.
Step 0. Know where it belongs. It comes after the discernment of nāma-rūpa and conditions. First one knows each dhamma by its own mark (“ñātapariññā”); then one lays the common marks on it (“tīraṇapariññā”) (Vism-ii 1463:5–6).
Step 1. Start with what is clear. Leave the supramundane aside; begin with whatever is “evident to him and easily grasped” (Vism-ii 1481:2–3).
Step 2. Gather it. Say “whatever form … all form”. This makes the aggregate one group (kalāpa) (Vibh-a 30:1–3, quoted above).
Step 3. Place it in the eleven slots, one at a time, as “impermanent in the sense of ending” (aniccaṃ khayaṭṭhena). The Visuddhimagga gives the reason for each slot. Past form ended in the past:
Tasmā esa yaṃ atītaṃ rūpaṃ, taṃ yasmā atīteyeva khīṇaṃ, nayimaṃ bhavaṃ sampattanti aniccaṃ khayaṭṭhena.
So he comprehends: past form ended in the past itself and did not reach this existence; so it is impermanent in the sense of ending. (retranslated by Claude)
Future form will end in the next existence; present form ends here; internal form ends as internal (Vism-ii 1485–1487). The other seven are given in one line:
Yaṃ bahiddhā … pe … oḷārikaṃ … pe … sukhumaṃ … pe … hīnaṃ … pe … paṇītaṃ … pe … dūre … pe … santike , tampi tattheva khīyati, na dūrabhāvaṃ gacchatīti aniccaṃ khayaṭṭhenāti sammasati.
As for any materiality that is external … … gross … … subtle … … lesser … … superior … … far … … near, that too is exhausted right there and does not reach a state of remoteness (dūrabhāvaṃ); thus he reflects on it as impermanent in the sense of destruction (aniccaṃ khayaṭṭhenā).
Use the commentarial senses from points 2 and 3 for each slot. For time, take continuity as the working measure: one cognitive process, one impulsion, one attainment (Vibh-a 55:1; Vism-mht-ii 495:4). For “internal”, take your own continuity. For “far”, take location for form and kind for the mind.
Step 4. Count one, then eleven. Seen together, it is one comprehension; divided, it is eleven:
Idaṃ sabbampi ‘‘ aniccaṃ khayaṭṭhenā ’’ ti etassa vasena ekaṃ sammasanaṃ. Bhedato pana ekādasavidhaṃ hoti.
All this is a single comprehension by means of “impermanent in the sense of destruction.” But by way of differentiation (bhedato), it is elevenfold.
Step 5. Repeat with suffering and not-self. Suffering is “in the sense of fear” and not-self “in the sense of no core”; each again is one undivided and eleven divided (Vism-ii 1490:5; Vism-ii 1491). For one aggregate this gives three, or thirty-three:
Yathā rūpakkhandhe abhedato tividhaṃ sammasanaṃ, bhedato tettiṃsavidhaṃ, evaṃ vedanākkhandhādīsupīti imamatthaṃ ‘‘ esa nayo ’’ti atidisati. Tena khandhavasena tāva bhedato pañcasaṭṭhiadhikā sataṃ sammasanavārā dassitā honti.
Just as the comprehension of the form aggregate is threefold undivided and thirty-threefold divided, so too for the feeling aggregate and the rest: “this is the method” extends that meaning. So, by aggregates, one hundred and sixty-five rounds of comprehension are shown by division. (retranslated by Claude)
Step 6. Extend to all five aggregates. Eleven ways × five aggregates × three marks gives 165:
Iti ekekasmiṃ khandhe ekādasa ekādasa katvā pañcasu khandhesu pañcapaññāsa sammasanāni honti, aniccato pañcapaññāsa, dukkhato pañcapaññāsa, anattato pañcapaññāsāti tividhānupassanāvasena sabbāni pañcasaṭṭhisatasammasanāni honti.
In this way, having made eleven contemplations for each aggregate, there are 55 contemplations for the five aggregates; 55 by way of impermanence, 55 by way of suffering, and 55 by way of non-self; thus, there are 165 contemplations in total by way of the three-fold contemplation.
Some teachers add “sabbaṃ” (all) as a twelfth place and count 180 (Paṭis-a 1014:1).
Step 7. Close with the sutta’s own words. “Netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā”: not mine (against craving), not I (against conceit), not my self (against view) (Vmv-iii 1827:3, quoted above).
Step 8. Know where it leads. Kalāpasammasana opens the stage of full understanding by investigation, which runs up to the knowledge of rise and fall:
Kalāpasammasanato pana paṭṭhāya yāva udayabbayānupassanā tīraṇapariññāya bhūmi.
But starting from comprehension by groups up to the contemplation of rise and fall (udayabbayānupassanā) is the stage of full understanding as investigation.
Conclusion
The eleven ways are the Buddha’s own formula, recited word for word in the Vinaya and in SN 22.59, and repeated in at least seventeen other canonical places. The suttas give the list, the purpose (“as it really is, with right wisdom”) and, through the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the bare practice. That is the strongest case for the suttas, and it is real. But the suttas define only the times, in two unreconciled measures, and internal and external only for the elements. Gross and subtle, inferior and superior, and far and near are never defined for any aggregate in the Sutta Piṭaka. Only the Vibhaṅga, a book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, defines all eleven for all five aggregates, in its Suttantabhājanīya. The Aṭṭhakathā and Ṭīkā choose among the senses, supply the criteria, and build the graded practice. The commentators themselves send the reader of SN 22.59 to the Visuddhimagga. A piecemeal search of the whole Sutta Piṭaka and Vinaya does better than expected. It fills 9 of the 25 aggregate-by-way cells and gives raw material for 14 more, and nearly every Vibhaṅga criterion turns out to have a sutta root. But no sutta maps that material to the formula, four finds mislead if taken at face value, and two cells stay empty. Rebuilding the list piecemeal amounts to rewriting the Vibhaṅga. Judgment: the eleven ways can be begun from the suttas, but they can only be understood one by one with the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. The claim “all eleven are done without Abhidhamma or commentary” is half right for practice and wrong for understanding.
| Claim | Verdict | Deciding source |
|---|---|---|
| The eleven ways are the Buddha’s own formula, the same in the Vinaya and SN 22.59 | RIGHT | Vin-iii 151:1–5; S-iii 329:1–331:2 |
| The Mūla itself counts the ways as “eleven” | WRONG | “ekādasahi okāsehi”, “ekādasasu okāsesu”: Mūla 0; Vibh-a 30:3; Vism-ii 1482:3 |
| The suttas define all eleven ways for the aggregates | WRONG | exact-string counts in point 4: Mūla hits only in Vibhaṅga and Dhammasaṅgaṇī |
| The suttas define the three times | HALF RIGHT | MN 133 (M-iii 934:2, 938:2) and SN 22.62 (S-iii 349:4) give two measures; Vism-ii 259:3–4 |
| The Vibhaṅga is a sutta text | WRONG | it is the second book of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka; Vibh-a 34:11; Vibh-mt 23:4 |
| The Vibhaṅga’s Suttantabhājanīya is only the list; the definitions are in the Abhidhammabhājanīya | WRONG | Vibh 5:1 and 65:1; Vibh-a 34:11; Vibh-mt 23:4 |
| The Vibhaṅga defines “external” for each aggregate | RIGHT | Vibh 13:2 (form), 26:2 (feeling), 48:1 (formations) |
| The 10/15 and 12/16 counts of gross and subtle form contradict each other | WRONG | Vibh-a 30:1, 49:12; Paṭis-a 1010:3–4; Sp-t-iii 963:3; “hadayavatthu” Mūla 1 |
| The commentaries contradict each other on the moment measure | HALF RIGHT | wording differs (Vibh-a 35:13 vs Vism-ii 496:1); sense agrees (Vism-mht-ii 497:8–10) |
| The eleven ways can be rebuilt piecemeal from the suttas and the Vinaya | HALF RIGHT | 9 of 25 cells filled, 14 only by inference or with a conflict, 2 empty (point 5) |
| The Vibhaṅga’s criteria are its own invention | WRONG | sutta roots in DN 9, DN 15, DN 33, MN 59, MN 117, SN 14.13, AN 4.47 (point 5.2) |
| A piecemeal reader would reach the Vibhaṅga’s answers unaided | WRONG | MN 62 vs Vibh 13:2; D-iii 1432:1 and Vin-iii 1565:14 vs Vibh 15:2; Mp-iii 789:8 vs Spk-ii 537:2 |
| The Samantapāsādikā has no comment on the Vinaya Anattalakkhaṇa | WRONG | Sp-iii 65:4–5, 66:1 |
| The continuity and occasion measures are in the suttas | WRONG | Mūla 0 for “santativasena”, “samayavasena”; Vism-mht-ii 495:4 |
| The eleven ways can be practised from the suttas alone | HALF RIGHT | A-iv 1421:1–2; Paṭis 275:1; Vism-mht-ii 1270:8 |
| Each way can be understood precisely from the suttas alone | WRONG | point 4; Spk-iii 159:8 |
| The Abhidhamma and commentary method is the sound solution | RIGHT, with admitted limits | Vibh-a 36:6–7, 39:6, 61:1–10 |
| The five monks became arahants on hearing it | RIGHT | Vin-iii 153:3–4; S-iii 334:1; Sp-iii 66:1 |
Sources
| Layer | Text | TPR link | Passage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mūla | Vinaya, Mahāvagga | Mahāvaggapāḷi, p. 20 | the formula; ending at Vin-iii 153 |
| Mūla | SN 22.59 | SN3-Khandhavaggo, p. 56 | the formula |
| Mūla | SN 22.62 | SN3-Khandhavaggo, p. 59 | “was / is / will be” |
| Mūla | DN 9 Poṭṭhapāda | DN1-Sīlakkhandhavaggapāḷi, p. 169 | subtle and grosser perception (D-i 778–786) |
| Mūla | DN 15 Mahānidāna | DN2-Mahāvaggapāḷi, p. 53 | designation- and impingement-contact |
| Mūla | DN 33 Saṅgīti | DN3-Pāthikavaggapāḷi, p. 182 | resisting and non-resisting form |
| Mūla | MN 59 Bahuvedanīya | MN2-Majjhimapaṇṇāsapāḷi, p. 60 | ever more superior happiness |
| Mūla | MN 62 Mahārāhulovāda | MN2-Majjhimapaṇṇāsapāḷi, p. 84 | internal and external earth |
| Mūla | SN 14.13 Giñjakāvasatha | SN2-Nidānavaggo, p. 367 | inferior, middling, superior perception and volition |
| Mūla | AN 3.77 Bhava | AN3-Tikanipātapāḷi, p. 224 | consciousness in an inferior element |
| Mūla | AN 4.47 Suvidūra | AN4-Catukkanipātapāḷi, p. 360 | far by unlikeness |
| Mūla | Vinaya, Saṅghādisesa 4 | Pārājikapāḷi, p. 194 | gloss of “santike” |
| Mūla | Vinaya, Bhesajjakkhandhaka | Mahāvaggapāḷi, p. 290 | “gross food” |
| Mūla | MN 133 | MN3-Uparipaṇṇāsapāḷi, p. 236 | past by extent |
| Mūla | AN 4.181 | AN4-Catukkanipātapāḷi, p. 490 | far-shooter |
| Mūla (Abhidhamma) | Vibhaṅga | Vibhaṅgapāḷi, p. 1 | Suttantabhājanīya heading |
| Mūla (Abhidhamma) | Vibhaṅga | Vibhaṅgapāḷi, p. 13 | Abhidhammabhājanīya heading |
| Mūla (Abhidhamma) | Vibhaṅga | Vibhaṅgapāḷi, p. 2 | rūpa: the eleven definitions (Vibh 9–19); other aggregates Vibh 21–64 |
| Mūla | Paṭisambhidāmagga | Paṭisambhidāmaggapāḷi, p. 51 | sammasanañāṇa |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Manorathapūraṇī (AN 3.77) | Tikanipāta-aṭṭhakathā, p. 204 | Mp-iii 789:8–10: element = plane |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Sāratthappakāsinī (SN 14.13) | Nidānavagga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 128 | Spk-ii 537:2: element = disposition |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Samantapāsādikā (Mahāvagga) | Mahāvagga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 247 | Sp-iii 65:4–66:1 |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Samantapāsādikā (Pārājika) | Pārājikakaṇḍa-aṭṭhakathā, p. 39 | three kinds of present |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Sāratthappakāsinī | Khandhavagga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 256 | Spk-iii 159 |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 6 | eleven places; 25 kinds of form |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 7 | time: bhava, khaṇa, four measures (Vibh-a 34–36) |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā | Vibhaṅga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 12 | far and near (Vibh-a 49–51); feeling, Vibh-a 54–68 |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Visuddhimagga XIV | Visuddhimaggo II, p. 102 | the eleven explained (Vism-ii 491–507) |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Visuddhimagga XIII | Visuddhimaggo II, p. 62 | addhā in the suttas |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Visuddhimagga XX | Visuddhimaggo II, p. 244 | kalāpasammasana (Vism-ii 1462–1491) |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā | Paṭisambhidāmagga-aṭṭhakathā, p. 228 | eleven senses; 165 (Paṭis-a 1013) |
| Aṭṭhakathā | Itivuttaka-aṭṭhakathā | Itivuttaka-aṭṭhakathā, p. 200 | time is a convention |
| Ṭīkā | Sāratthadīpanī (Mahāvagga) | Sāratthadīpanī-Mahāvagga-ṭīkā, p. 183 | Anattalakkhaṇasuttavaṇṇanā (Sp-t-iii 956 onward; eleven ways at 962–969) |
| Ṭīkā | Vimativinodanī (Mahāvagga) | Vimativinodanī, p. 93 | three graspings; nibbidā |
| Ṭīkā | Vibhaṅga-mūlaṭīkā | Vibhaṅga-mūlaṭīkā, p. 6 | why the Suttantabhājanīya uses the moment |
| Ṭīkā | Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīkā | Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīkā II, p. 156 | the moment wording |
| Ṭīkā | Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīkā | Visuddhimagga-mahāṭīkā II, p. 386 | kalāpasammasana; “ekadesena, anavasesato ca” (1270:8); 3 and 33 (1288:5) |
| Ṭīkā | Dhammasaṅgaṇī-anuṭīkā | Dhammasaṅgaṇī-anuṭīkā, p. 213 | addhā vs khaṇa present |
| Handbook | Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha (TPR files it with the ṭīkās) | Abhidhammatthasaṅgaho, p. 64 | extent, continuity or moment |
| Añña | Paramatthadīpanī | Paramatthadīpanī, p. 440 | moment only for Buddhas |