Ṭhānasutta

“Cattārimāni, bhikkhave, ṭhānāni catūhi ṭhānehi veditabbāni. Katamāni cattāri? Saṁvāsena, bhikkhave, sīlaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññena. Saṁvohārena, bhikkhave, soceyyaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññena. Āpadāsu, bhikkhave, thāmo veditabbo, so ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññena. Sākacchāya, bhikkhave, paññā veditabbā, sā ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenāti.

“Mendicants, these four things can be known in four situations. What four? You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless. You can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. … You can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. … You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

‘Saṁvāsena, bhikkhave, sīlaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ? Idha, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ saṁvasamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘dīgharattaṁ kho ayamāyasmā khaṇḍakārī chiddakārī sabalakārī kammāsakārī, na santatakārī na santatavutti; sīlesu dussīlo ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā sīlavā’ti.

‘You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take an individual who’s living with someone else. They come to know: ‘For a long time this venerable’s deeds have been broken, tainted, spotty, and marred. Their deeds and behavior are inconsistent. This venerable is unethical, not ethical.’

Idha pana, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ saṁvasamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘dīgharattaṁ kho ayamāyasmā akhaṇḍakārī acchiddakārī asabalakārī akammāsakārī santatakārī santatavutti; sīlesu sīlavā ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā dussīlo’ti. ‘Saṁvāsena, bhikkhave, sīlaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

Take another individual who’s living with someone else. They come to know: ‘For a long time this venerable’s deeds have been intact, impeccable, spotless, and unmarred. Their deeds and behavior are consistent. This venerable is ethical, not unethical.’ That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not a short time; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

‘Saṁvohārena, bhikkhave, soceyyaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ? Idha, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ saṁvoharamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘aññathā kho ayamāyasmā ekena eko voharati, aññathā dvīhi, aññathā tīhi, aññathā sambahulehi; vokkamati ayamāyasmā purimavohārā pacchimavohāraṁ; aparisuddhavohāro ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā parisuddhavohāro’ti.

‘You can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. …’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take an individual who has dealings with someone else. They come to know: ‘This venerable deals with one person in one way. Then they deal with two, three, or many people each in different ways. They’re not consistent from one deal to the next. This venerable’s dealings are impure, not pure.’

Idha pana, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ saṁvoharamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘yatheva kho ayamāyasmā ekena eko voharati, tathā dvīhi, tathā tīhi, tathā sambahulehi. Nāyamāyasmā vokkamati purimavohārā pacchimavohāraṁ; parisuddhavohāro ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā aparisuddhavohāro’ti. ‘Saṁvohārena, bhikkhave, soceyyaṁ veditabbaṁ, tañca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

Take another individual who has dealings with someone else. They come to know: ‘This venerable deals with one person in one way. Then they deal with two, three, or many people each in the same way. They’re consistent from one deal to the next. This venerable’s dealings are pure, not impure.’ That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s purity by dealing with them. …

‘Āpadāsu, bhikkhave, thāmo veditabbo, so ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ? Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco ñātibyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno, bhogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno, rogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno na iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘tathābhūto kho ayaṁ lokasannivāso tathābhūto ayaṁ attabhāvapaṭilābho yathābhūte lokasannivāse yathābhūte attabhāvapaṭilābhe aṭṭha lokadhammā lokaṁ anuparivattanti loko ca aṭṭha lokadhamme anuparivattati— lābho ca, alābho ca, yaso ca, ayaso ca, nindā ca, pasaṁsā ca, sukhañca, dukkhañcā’ti. So ñātibyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno bhogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno rogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati, urattāḷiṁ kandati, sammohaṁ āpajjati.

‘You can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. …’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take someone who experiences loss of family, wealth, or health. But they don’t reflect: ‘Worldly life is like that. Incarnation is like that. That’s why the eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and the world revolves around the eight worldly conditions: gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, pleasure and pain.’ They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.

Idha pana, bhikkhave, ekacco ñātibyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno bhogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno rogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘tathābhūto kho ayaṁ lokasannivāso tathābhūto ayaṁ attabhāvapaṭilābho yathābhūte lokasannivāse yathābhūte attabhāvapaṭilābhe aṭṭha lokadhammā lokaṁ anuparivattanti loko ca aṭṭha lokadhamme anuparivattati— lābho ca, alābho ca, yaso ca, ayaso ca, nindā ca, pasaṁsā ca, sukhañca, dukkhañcā’ti. So ñātibyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno bhogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno rogabyasanena vā phuṭṭho samāno na socati na kilamati na paridevati, na urattāḷiṁ kandati, na sammohaṁ āpajjati. ‘Āpadāsu, bhikkhave, thāmo veditabbo, so ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

Take someone else who experiences loss of family, wealth, or health. But they reflect: ‘Worldly life is like that. Incarnation is like that. That’s why the eight worldly conditions revolve around the world, and the world revolves around the eight worldly conditions: gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, pleasure and pain.’ They don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s resilience in times of trouble. …

‘Sākacchāya, bhikkhave, paññā veditabbā, sā ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti kho panetaṁ vuttaṁ. Kiñcetaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ? Idha, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ sākacchāyamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘yathā kho imassa āyasmato ummaggo yathā ca abhinīhāro yathā ca pañhāsamudāhāro, duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā. Taṁ kissa hetu? Tathā hi ayamāyasmā na ceva gambhīraṁ atthapadaṁ udāharati santaṁ paṇītaṁ atakkāvacaraṁ nipuṇaṁ paṇḍitavedanīyaṁ. Yañca ayamāyasmā dhammaṁ bhāsati tassa ca nappaṭibalo saṅkhittena vā vitthārena vā atthaṁ ācikkhituṁ desetuṁ paññāpetuṁ paṭṭhapetuṁ vivarituṁ vibhajituṁ uttānīkātuṁ. Duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā’ti.

‘You can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? Take an individual who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re witless, not wise. Why is that? This venerable does not bring up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re not able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They can’t teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, or reveal it. This venerable is witless, not wise.’

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, cakkhumā puriso udakarahadassa tīre ṭhito passeyya parittaṁ macchaṁ ummujjamānaṁ. Tassa evamassa: ‘yathā kho imassa macchassa ummaggo yathā ca ūmighāto yathā ca vegāyitattaṁ, paritto ayaṁ maccho, nāyaṁ maccho mahanto’ti. Evamevaṁ kho, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ sākacchāyamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘yathā kho imassa āyasmato ummaggo yathā ca abhinīhāro yathā ca pañhāsamudāhāro, duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā. Taṁ kissa hetu? Tathā hi ayamāyasmā na ceva gambhīraṁ atthapadaṁ udāharati santaṁ paṇītaṁ atakkāvacaraṁ nipuṇaṁ paṇḍitavedanīyaṁ. Yañca ayamāyasmā dhammaṁ bhāsati, tassa ca na paṭibalo saṅkhittena vā vitthārena vā atthaṁ ācikkhituṁ desetuṁ paññāpetuṁ paṭṭhapetuṁ vivarituṁ vibhajituṁ uttānīkātuṁ. Duppañño ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā paññavā’ti.

Suppose a person with clear eyes was standing on the bank of a lake. They’d see a little fish rising, and think: ‘Judging by this fish’s approach, by the ripples it makes, and by its force, it’s a little fish, not a big one.’ In the same way, an individual who is discussing with someone else would come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re witless, not wise. …’

Idha pana, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ sākacchāyamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘yathā kho imassa āyasmato ummaggo yathā ca abhinīhāro yathā ca pañhāsamudāhāro, paññavā ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā duppañño. Taṁ kissa hetu? Tathā hi ayamāyasmā gambhīrañceva atthapadaṁ udāharati santaṁ paṇītaṁ atakkāvacaraṁ nipuṇaṁ paṇḍitavedanīyaṁ. Yañca ayamāyasmā dhammaṁ bhāsati, tassa ca paṭibalo saṅkhittena vā vitthārena vā atthaṁ ācikkhituṁ desetuṁ paññāpetuṁ paṭṭhapetuṁ vivarituṁ vibhajituṁ uttānīkātuṁ. Paññavā ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā duppañño’ti.

Take another individual who is discussing with someone else. They come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they discuss a question, they’re wise, not witless. Why is that? This venerable brings up a deep and meaningful saying that is peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. When this venerable speaks on Dhamma they’re able to explain the meaning, either briefly or in detail. They teach it, assert it, establish it, clarify it, analyze it, and reveal it. This venerable is wise, not witless.’

Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, cakkhumā puriso udakarahadassa tīre ṭhito passeyya mahantaṁ macchaṁ ummujjamānaṁ. Tassa evamassa: ‘yathā kho imassa macchassa ummaggo yathā ca ūmighāto yathā ca vegāyitattaṁ, mahanto ayaṁ maccho, nāyaṁ maccho paritto’ti. Evamevaṁ kho, bhikkhave, puggalo puggalena saddhiṁ sākacchāyamāno evaṁ jānāti: ‘yathā kho imassa āyasmato ummaggo yathā ca abhinīhāro yathā ca pañhāsamudāhāro, paññavā ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā duppañño. Taṁ kissa hetu? Tathā hi ayamāyasmā gambhīrañceva atthapadaṁ udāharati santaṁ paṇītaṁ atakkāvacaraṁ nipuṇaṁ paṇḍitavedanīyaṁ. Yañca ayamāyasmā dhammaṁ bhāsati, tassa ca paṭibalo saṅkhittena vā vitthārena vā atthaṁ ācikkhituṁ desetuṁ paññāpetuṁ paṭṭhapetuṁ vivarituṁ vibhajituṁ uttānīkātuṁ. Paññavā ayamāyasmā, nāyamāyasmā duppañño’ti.

Suppose a man with clear eyes was standing on the bank of a lake. He’d see a big fish rising, and think: ‘Judging by this fish’s approach, by the ripples it makes, and by its force, it’s a big fish, not a little one.’ In the same way, an individual who is discussing with someone else would come to know: ‘Judging by this venerable’s approach, by what they’re getting at, and by how they articulate a question, they’re wise, not witless. …’

‘Sākacchāya, bhikkhave, paññā veditabbā, sā ca kho dīghena addhunā, na ittaraṁ; manasikarotā, no amanasikarotā; paññavatā, no duppaññenā’ti, iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cattāri ṭhānāni imehi catūhi ṭhānehi veditabbānī”ti. Dutiyaṁ.

That’s why I said that you can get to know a person’s wisdom by discussion. But only after a long time, not casually; only when attentive, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless. These are the four things that can be known in four situations.”