Sutta Nipata 4.9: Magandiyasutta

Buddha: ‘Even seeing Tanha, Arati, and Raga (the daughters of Mara), there was not the least wish (in me) for sexual intercourse. What is this (thy daughter’s body but a thing) full of water and excrement? I do not even want to touch it with my foot.’

Magandiya: ‘If thou dost not want such a pearl, a woman desired by many kings, what view, virtue, and (holy) works, (mode of) life, re-birth dost thou profess?’

‘“This I say,” so (I do now declare), after investigation there is nothing amongst the doctrines which such a one (as I would) embrace,’—O Magandiya, so said Bhagavat,—‘and seeing (misery) in the (philosophical) views, without adopting (any of them), searching (for truth) I saw “inward peace.”’

‘All the (philosophical) resolutions that have been formed,’—so said Magandiya,—‘those indeed thou explainest without adopting (any of them); the notion “inward peace” which (thou mentionest), how is this explained by the wise?’

‘Not by (any philosophical) opinion, not by tradition, not by knowledge,’—O Magandiya, so said Bhagavat,—‘not by virtue and (holy) works can any one say that purity exists; nor by absence of (philosophical) opinion, by absence of tradition, by absence of knowledge, by absence of virtue and (holy) works either; having abandoned these without adopting (anything else), let him, calm and independent, not desire existence.

‘If one cannot say by (any philosophical) opinion, or by tradition, or by knowledge,’—so said Magandiya,—‘or by virtue and (holy) works that purity exists, nor by absence of (philosophical) opinion, by absence of tradition, by absence of knowledge, by absence of virtue and (holy) works, then I consider the doctrine foolish, for by (philosophical) opinions some return to purity.’

‘And asking on account of (thy philosophical) opinion,’ O Magandiya,—so said Bhagavat,—‘thou hast gone to infatuation in what thou hast embraced, and of this (inward peace) thou hast not the least idea, therefore thou holdest it foolish.

‘He who thinks himself equal (to others), or distinguished, or low, he for that very reason disputes; but he who is unmoved under those three conditions, for him (the notions) “equal” and “distinguished” do not exist.

‘The Brahmana for whom (the notions) “equal” and “unequal” do not exist, would he say, “This is true?” Or with whom should he dispute, saying, “This is false?” With whom should he enter into dispute?

‘Having left his house, wandering about houseless, not making acquaintances in the village, free from lust, not desiring (any future existence), let the Muni not get into quarrelsome talk with people.

‘Let not an eminent man (naga) dispute after having embraced those (views) separated from which he (formerly) wandered in the world; as the thorny lotus elambuja is undefiled by water and mud, so the Muni, the confessor of peace, free from greed, does not cling to sensual pleasures and the world.

‘An accomplished man does not by (a philosophical) view, or by thinking become arrogant, for he is not of that sort; not by (holy) works, nor by tradition is he to be led, he is not led into any of the resting-places (of the mind).

‘For him who is free from marks there are no ties, to him who is delivered by understanding there are no follies; (but those) who grasped after marks and (philosophical) views, they wander about in the world annoying (people).’