Sakka’s Question (12): On the Restraint of the Faculties (indriya-saṃvara-sīla)

After receiving the Buddha’s discourse with delight, Sakka put the next question:

“Venerable Sir, how does a bhikkhu practise so as to keep his faculties well guarded?”

The Buddha answered as follows:

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of visible objects cognizable by the eye, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of sound cognizable by the ear, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of odour cognizable by the nose, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of taste cognizable by the tongue, those that should be resorted to and those that should not be resorted to.

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of tangible objects cognizable by the body, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.

“Sakka, King of Devas, there are two kinds of Dhamma object made up of mind and matter cognizable by the mind, those that should be resorted to, and those that should not be resorted to.”

When the Buddha had made this brief exposition, Sakka said to the Him:

“Venerable Sir, what the Bhagava has said in brief, I understand the meaning at length as follows: Venerable Sir, if a certain visible object, cognizable by the eye, tends to (repeat:) increase demeritoriousness and decrease meritoriousness, that visible object should not be resorted to. If (on the other hand) a certain visible object cognizable by the eye, tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness, that visible object should be resorted to.

“Venerable Sir, if a certain sound cognizable by the ear tends to (repeat from above)—;a certain odour cognizable by the nose tends to (repeat from above) —; a certain taste cognizable by the tongue tends to (repeat from above) —; a certain tangible object cognizable by the body tends to (repeat from above) —. A certain thought about mind or matter, cognizable by the mind, tends to increase demeritoriousness and decreases meritoriousness, that thought should not be resorted to. If (on the other hand,) a certain thought about mind or matter tends to decrease demeritoriousness and increase meritoriousness, that thought should be resorted to.

“Venerable Sir, being able to understand the meaning in detail of what the Bhagavā has said briefly, I am now rid of all doubts;there is no uncertainty in me.” (Note: Sakka had benefitted from the previous discourses of the Buddha on the three kinds of sensation and on the three kinds of what is to be resorted to and what should not be resorted to. When the present brief answer from the Buddha was given, he had the right understanding based on the Buddha’s previous preachings and accordingly began to address the Buddha about his understanding.

The Buddha remained silent, allowing Sakka to go ahead what he had to say about the meaning of the brief statements. It was not the custom of the Buddha to allow such a thing, if the hearer of a discourse is not competent enough to state how he understands it, or to allow a competent hearer, if he is not willing to come forward with an explanation of what he understands of it. Here Sakka was competent as well as willing. Hence the Buddha’s permission.)

Now to elaborate on the various sense objects as to their worthiness or unworthiness;

(i) If a certain visible object tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment), in the mind of a bhikkhu who sees it, that visible object is an unworthy one. He should not look at it. If a certain visible object arouses in him a sense of repulsiveness, perception of repulsiveness (asubha-saññā), or strengthens the conviction in him of the truth of the Dhamma Saddhā, in the Teaching, or arouses the perception of impermanence (anicca-saññā), then that visible object is a worthy one. He should look at it.

(ii) If a certain song, beautifully composed, that is heard by a bhikkhu tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment) in him, that sound is an unworthy one. He should not listen to it. If, on the other hand, a certain song, even coming from a potters girl, enables the bhikkhu, who hears it, to reflect on the law of cause and effect and strengthens his conviction in the truth of the Dhamma Saddhā, tending to disenchantment with sentient existence and thoughts of renunciation, then that sound is a worthy one. He should listen to it.

(iii) If a certain odour tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment) in the mind of a bhikkhu who smells it, that odour is an unworthy one. He should not smell it. If a certain odour causes the bhikkhu, who smells it, to gain a perception of loathsomeness of the body, that odour is a worthy one. He should smell it.

(iv) If a certain taste tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment) in the mind of a bhikkhu who tastes it, that taste is an unworthy one. He should not taste it. If a certain taste causes the bhikkhu, who tastes it, to gain a perception of loathsomeness (āhāre paṭikūla-saññā) of the food swallowed or if it sustains him to gain the Ariya Truth, like in the case of Sāmaṇera Sīva (nephew of Thera Mahā Sīva) who became an arahat while taking his meal, then that taste is worthy one. He should eat it. [In this connection, we have looked for the name of Sāmaṇera Sīva in the Sub-Commentary and in the Visuddhi-magga but do not find it. In the Visuddhi-magga, there is the story of Sāmaṇera Bhāgineyya Sangharakkhita who attained arahatship while taking his meal (Vis. I, Chapter on Sīla)]

(v) If a certain tangible object tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment) in the mind of a bhikkhu who touches it, that tangible object is an unworthy one. He should not touch it. If a certain tangible object (which is proper for a bhikkhu) causes the bhikkhu still training himself to attain arahatship through exhaustion of the moral taints (āsavas) completely like in the case of the Venerable Sāriputta, etc. or is conducive to zeal, or serves as a good model for future bhikkhus, then that tangible object should be resorted to.

It is noteworthy in this connection that many bhikkhus during the Buddha’s time denied themselves the luxury of lying down; for instance, the Venerable Sāriputta never lay on a bed (cot) for thirty whole years; the Venerable Mahā Moggallāna for as many years; the Venerable Mahā Kassapa for a hundred and twenty years; the Venerable Anuruddha for fifty years; the Venerable Bhaddhiya for thirty years; the Venerable Sona for eighteen years; the Venerable Raṭhapāla for twelve years; the Venerable Ānanda for fifteen years; the Venerable Rāhula for twelve years; the Venerable Bākula for eighty years; the Venerable Nālaka (the one who practised self-denial Moneya to perfection) for as long as he lived. (i.e. till his final decease, parinibbāna).

(vi) If a certain Dhamma object about mind or matter tends to arouse defilements such as rāga (attachment) in the mind of a bhikkhu who thinks about that object; or tends to arouse covetousness in him, that thought is an unworthy one. He should not entertain such a thought. If a certain thought promotes kind feelings towards others, such as: “May all beings be well, be free from trouble, etc.”, as in the case of the three bhikkhu-elders (narrated below), that thought is a worthy one. He should nurture such a thought, such a Dhamma object.

The Story of The Three Bhikkhu-elders

Once, three bhikkhu-elders made a vow among themselves, on the eve of the rains-retreat period, not to indulge in demeritorious thoughts such as sensuous thoughts (during the three month vassa period) and made a certain monastery their rains retreat.

At the end of the rains retreat, on the Sangha assembly day, on the full moon of Thadingyut (October), Sangha-elder (who is the most senior of the three bhikkhu-elders) put this question to the youngest of the three bhikkhu-elders: “How far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the rains-retreat?” To which, he replied: “Venerable Sir, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander beyond the precincts of the monastery.” The bhikkhu's admission implies that his mind wandered sometimes within the monastery precincts which may mean sense objects such as visible objects that came into the monastery precincts, but since there were no female visitors (lit. forms of uncommon nature), his mind had no occasion to wander about through unbridled thoughts.

The Sangha-elder then asked the second bhikkhu-elders: “Friend, how far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the rains retreat?” To which the second bhikkhu-elder replied: “Venerable Sir, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander beyond my room.”

Then the two junior bhikkhu-elders asked of the Sangha-elder: “Venerable Sir, how far did you allow your mind to wander during the three months of the rains-retreat?” To which, the Sangha-thera answered: “Friends, during these three months, I did not allow my mind to wander outside of my body.” That indeed was true, the Sangha-elder did not do anything (i.e. physically verbally or mentally) without being mindful of, without having first reflected on the action that was about to take place so that there was no moment left for any thought to wander forth outside the body. The two junior bhikkhu-elders said to the senior-most elder: “Venerable Sir, you are wonderful!” The moral: the type of thought that occurred to these three bhikkhu-elders is of the worthy type; a bhikkhu may well entertain such thoughts.