The Root of All Things¶

MN 1, the Mūlapariyāya Sutta — set 5, Advanced and Reference Texts

Reading time: about 22 min · 3,939 words

Before you read¶

The hardest text here, placed last on purpose.

The Buddha takes twenty-four things — earth, water, fire, air, beings, gods, the formless spheres, the seen, the heard, the sensed, the cognized, oneness, diversity, all, nibbāna — and runs each one through four kinds of person. The ordinary person recognizes earth as earth, then takes himself to be earth, takes earth as his, and delights in it. The trainee is told not to. The arahant does not. The Buddha does not, and knows exactly why.

The whole difficulty sits in one move: the step from recognizing something to taking a position about it. The claim is that the trouble does not start with wanting, but earlier — in that first tipping of recognition into a stance, including a stance about nibbāna itself.

The text famously ends without the monks delighting in it. Read cold it gives up very little; read after everything else, it explains why the collection kept circling back to recognition.

Translation¶

The Setting¶

So I heard.

At one time the Buddha was staying at Ukkaṭṭhā, in the Subhaga grove, at the root of a royal sāla tree.

There the Buddha addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus."

"Bhante," they replied.

The Buddha said this:

The Root Sequence¶

"Bhikkhus, I will teach you the root sequence of all things. Listen carefully and attend well. I will speak."

"Yes, bhante," the bhikkhus replied.

The Buddha said this:

The Ordinary Person¶

"Bhikkhus, an unlearned ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is untrained and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for good people and is untrained and undisciplined in their Dhamma:

They recognize earth as earth. Once they have recognized earth as earth, they think of themselves as earth, they think of themselves in earth, they think of themselves apart from earth, they think of earth as 'mine', and they delight in earth. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize water as water. Once they have recognized water as water, they think of themselves as water, they think of themselves in water, they think of themselves apart from water, they think of water as 'mine', and they delight in water. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize fire as fire. Once they have recognized fire as fire, they think of themselves as fire, they think of themselves in fire, they think of themselves apart from fire, they think of fire as 'mine', and they delight in fire. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize air as air. Once they have recognized air as air, they think of themselves as air, they think of themselves in air, they think of themselves apart from air, they think of air as 'mine', and they delight in air. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize beings as beings. Once they have recognized beings as beings, they think of themselves as beings, they think of themselves in beings, they think of themselves apart from beings, they think of beings as 'mine', and they delight in beings. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize gods as gods. Once they have recognized gods as gods, they think of themselves as gods, they think of themselves in gods, they think of themselves apart from gods, they think of gods as 'mine', and they delight in gods. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Pajāpati as Pajāpati. Once they have recognized Pajāpati as Pajāpati, they think of themselves as Pajāpati, they think of themselves in Pajāpati, they think of themselves apart from Pajāpati, they think of Pajāpati as 'mine', and they delight in Pajāpati. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Brahmā as Brahmā. Once they have recognized Brahmā as Brahmā, they think of themselves as Brahmā, they think of themselves in Brahmā, they think of themselves apart from Brahmā, they think of Brahmā as 'mine', and they delight in Brahmā. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Abhassara as Abhassara. Once they have recognized Abhassara as Abhassara, they think of themselves as Abhassara, they think of themselves in Abhassara, they think of themselves apart from Abhassara, they think of Abhassara as 'mine', and they delight in Abhassara. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Subhakiṇha as Subhakiṇha. Once they have recognized Subhakiṇha as Subhakiṇha, they think of themselves as Subhakiṇha, they think of themselves in Subhakiṇha, they think of themselves apart from Subhakiṇha, they think of Subhakiṇha as 'mine', and they delight in Subhakiṇha. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Vehapphala as Vehapphala. Once they have recognized Vehapphala as Vehapphala, they think of themselves as Vehapphala, they think of themselves in Vehapphala, they think of themselves apart from Vehapphala, they think of Vehapphala as 'mine', and they delight in Vehapphala. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize Abhibhū as Abhibhū. Once they have recognized Abhibhū as Abhibhū, they think of themselves as Abhibhū, they think of themselves in Abhibhū, they think of themselves apart from Abhibhū, they think of Abhibhū as 'mine', and they delight in Abhibhū. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the sphere of boundless space as the sphere of boundless space. Once they have recognized the sphere of boundless space as the sphere of boundless space, they think of themselves as the sphere of boundless space, they think of themselves in the sphere of boundless space, they think of themselves apart from the sphere of boundless space, they think of the sphere of boundless space as 'mine', and they delight in the sphere of boundless space. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the sphere of boundless knowing as the sphere of boundless knowing. Once they have recognized the sphere of boundless knowing as the sphere of boundless knowing, they think of themselves as the sphere of boundless knowing, they think of themselves in the sphere of boundless knowing, they think of themselves apart from the sphere of boundless knowing, they think of the sphere of boundless knowing as 'mine', and they delight in the sphere of boundless knowing. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the sphere of nothingness as the sphere of nothingness. Once they have recognized the sphere of nothingness as the sphere of nothingness, they think of themselves as the sphere of nothingness, they think of themselves in the sphere of nothingness, they think of themselves apart from the sphere of nothingness, they think of the sphere of nothingness as 'mine', and they delight in the sphere of nothingness. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition. Once they have recognized the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they think of themselves as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they think of themselves in the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they think of themselves apart from the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they think of the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as 'mine', and they delight in the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the seen as the seen. Once they have recognized the seen as the seen, they think of themselves as the seen, they think of themselves in the seen, they think of themselves apart from the seen, they think of the seen as 'mine', and they delight in the seen. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the heard as the heard. Once they have recognized the heard as the heard, they think of themselves as the heard, they think of themselves in the heard, they think of themselves apart from the heard, they think of the heard as 'mine', and they delight in the heard. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the sensed as the sensed. Once they have recognized the sensed as the sensed, they think of themselves as the sensed, they think of themselves in the sensed, they think of themselves apart from the sensed, they think of the sensed as 'mine', and they delight in the sensed. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize the cognized as the cognized. Once they have recognized the cognized as the cognized, they think of themselves as the cognized, they think of themselves in the cognized, they think of themselves apart from the cognized, they think of the cognized as 'mine', and they delight in the cognized. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize oneness as oneness. Once they have recognized oneness as oneness, they think of themselves as oneness, they think of themselves in oneness, they think of themselves apart from oneness, they think of oneness as 'mine', and they delight in oneness. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize diversity as diversity. Once they have recognized diversity as diversity, they think of themselves as diversity, they think of themselves in diversity, they think of themselves apart from diversity, they think of diversity as 'mine', and they delight in diversity. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize all as all. Once they have recognized all as all, they think of themselves as all, they think of themselves in all, they think of themselves apart from all, they think of all as 'mine', and they delight in all. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.
They recognize nibbāna as nibbāna. Once they have recognized nibbāna as nibbāna, they think of themselves as nibbāna, they think of themselves in nibbāna, they think of themselves apart from nibbāna, they think of nibbāna as 'mine', and they delight in nibbāna. Why? Because they have not fully understood it, I say.

The Trainee¶

"Bhikkhus, a trainee bhikkhu, whose mind has not yet reached the goal and who is still aspiring to the unsurpassed security from the yoke:

They directly know earth as earth. Once they have directly known earth as earth, they should not think of themselves as earth, they should not think of themselves in earth, they should not think of themselves apart from earth, they should not think of earth as 'mine', and they should not delight in earth. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know water as water. Once they have directly known water as water, they should not think of themselves as water, they should not think of themselves in water, they should not think of themselves apart from water, they should not think of water as 'mine', and they should not delight in water. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know fire as fire. Once they have directly known fire as fire, they should not think of themselves as fire, they should not think of themselves in fire, they should not think of themselves apart from fire, they should not think of fire as 'mine', and they should not delight in fire. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know air as air. Once they have directly known air as air, they should not think of themselves as air, they should not think of themselves in air, they should not think of themselves apart from air, they should not think of air as 'mine', and they should not delight in air. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know beings as beings. Once they have directly known beings as beings, they should not think of themselves as beings, they should not think of themselves in beings, they should not think of themselves apart from beings, they should not think of beings as 'mine', and they should not delight in beings. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know gods as gods. Once they have directly known gods as gods, they should not think of themselves as gods, they should not think of themselves in gods, they should not think of themselves apart from gods, they should not think of gods as 'mine', and they should not delight in gods. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Pajāpati as Pajāpati. Once they have directly known Pajāpati as Pajāpati, they should not think of themselves as Pajāpati, they should not think of themselves in Pajāpati, they should not think of themselves apart from Pajāpati, they should not think of Pajāpati as 'mine', and they should not delight in Pajāpati. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Brahmā as Brahmā. Once they have directly known Brahmā as Brahmā, they should not think of themselves as Brahmā, they should not think of themselves in Brahmā, they should not think of themselves apart from Brahmā, they should not think of Brahmā as 'mine', and they should not delight in Brahmā. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Abhassara as Abhassara. Once they have directly known Abhassara as Abhassara, they should not think of themselves as Abhassara, they should not think of themselves in Abhassara, they should not think of themselves apart from Abhassara, they should not think of Abhassara as 'mine', and they should not delight in Abhassara. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Subhakiṇha as Subhakiṇha. Once they have directly known Subhakiṇha as Subhakiṇha, they should not think of themselves as Subhakiṇha, they should not think of themselves in Subhakiṇha, they should not think of themselves apart from Subhakiṇha, they should not think of Subhakiṇha as 'mine', and they should not delight in Subhakiṇha. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Vehapphala as Vehapphala. Once they have directly known Vehapphala as Vehapphala, they should not think of themselves as Vehapphala, they should not think of themselves in Vehapphala, they should not think of themselves apart from Vehapphala, they should not think of Vehapphala as 'mine', and they should not delight in Vehapphala. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know Abhibhū as Abhibhū. Once they have directly known Abhibhū as Abhibhū, they should not think of themselves as Abhibhū, they should not think of themselves in Abhibhū, they should not think of themselves apart from Abhibhū, they should not think of Abhibhū as 'mine', and they should not delight in Abhibhū. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the sphere of boundless space as the sphere of boundless space. Once they have directly known the sphere of boundless space as the sphere of boundless space, they should not think of themselves as the sphere of boundless space, they should not think of themselves in the sphere of boundless space, they should not think of themselves apart from the sphere of boundless space, they should not think of the sphere of boundless space as 'mine', and they should not delight in the sphere of boundless space. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the sphere of boundless knowing as the sphere of boundless knowing. Once they have directly known the sphere of boundless knowing as the sphere of boundless knowing, they should not think of themselves as the sphere of boundless knowing, they should not think of themselves in the sphere of boundless knowing, they should not think of themselves apart from the sphere of boundless knowing, they should not think of the sphere of boundless knowing as 'mine', and they should not delight in the sphere of boundless knowing. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the sphere of nothingness as the sphere of nothingness. Once they have directly known the sphere of nothingness as the sphere of nothingness, they should not think of themselves as the sphere of nothingness, they should not think of themselves in the sphere of nothingness, they should not think of themselves apart from the sphere of nothingness, they should not think of the sphere of nothingness as 'mine', and they should not delight in the sphere of nothingness. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition. Once they have directly known the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they should not think of themselves as the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they should not think of themselves in the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non- recognition, they should not think of themselves apart from the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, they should not think of the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition as 'mine', and they should not delight in the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the seen as the seen. Once they have directly known the seen as the seen, they should not think of themselves as the seen, they should not think of themselves in the seen, they should not think of themselves apart from the seen, they should not think of the seen as 'mine', and they should not delight in the seen. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the heard as the heard. Once they have directly known the heard as the heard, they should not think of themselves as the heard, they should not think of themselves in the heard, they should not think of themselves apart from the heard, they should not think of the heard as 'mine', and they should not delight in the heard. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the sensed as the sensed. Once they have directly known the sensed as the sensed, they should not think of themselves as the sensed, they should not think of themselves in the sensed, they should not think of themselves apart from the sensed, they should not think of the sensed as 'mine', and they should not delight in the sensed. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know the cognized as the cognized. Once they have directly known the cognized as the cognized, they should not think of themselves as the cognized, they should not think of themselves in the cognized, they should not think of themselves apart from the cognized, they should not think of the cognized as 'mine', and they should not delight in the cognized. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know oneness as oneness. Once they have directly known oneness as oneness, they should not think of themselves as oneness, they should not think of themselves in oneness, they should not think of themselves apart from oneness, they should not think of oneness as 'mine', and they should not delight in oneness. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know diversity as diversity. Once they have directly known diversity as diversity, they should not think of themselves as diversity, they should not think of themselves in diversity, they should not think of themselves apart from diversity, they should not think of diversity as 'mine', and they should not delight in diversity. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know all as all. Once they have directly known all as all, they should not think of themselves as all, they should not think of themselves in all, they should not think of themselves apart from all, they should not think of all as 'mine', and they should not delight in all. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.
They directly know nibbāna as nibbāna. Once they have directly known nibbāna as nibbāna, they should not think of themselves as nibbāna, they should not think of themselves in nibbāna, they should not think of themselves apart from nibbāna, they should not think of nibbāna as 'mine', and they should not delight in nibbāna. Why? Because it should be fully understood, I say.

The Arahant: Fully Understood¶

"Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, whose outflows are worn away, who has lived the spiritual life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the goal, worn away the fetters of becoming, and is rightly released through final knowledge:

They directly know earth as earth. Once they have directly known earth as earth, they do not think of themselves as earth, do not think of themselves in earth, do not think of themselves apart from earth, do not think of earth as 'mine', and do not delight in earth. Why? Because it has been fully understood, I say.
The same pattern holds for water, fire, air, beings, gods, Pajāpati, Brahmā, Abhassara, Subhakiṇha, Vehapphala, Abhibhū, the sphere of boundless space, the sphere of boundless knowing, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither-recognition-nor-non-recognition, the seen, the heard, the sensed, the cognized, oneness, diversity, all, and nibbāna: the arahant directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it. Why? Because it has been fully understood, I say.

The Arahant: Lust Worn Away¶

"Bhikkhus, again, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, whose outflows are worn away, who has lived the spiritual life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the goal, worn away the fetters of becoming, and is rightly released through final knowledge:

From earth through nibbāna, the same pattern applies: the arahant directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it. Why is that? Because lust is absent through the wearing away of lust.

The Arahant: Aversion Worn Away¶

"Bhikkhus, again, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, whose outflows are worn away, who has lived the spiritual life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the goal, worn away the fetters of becoming, and is rightly released through final knowledge:

From earth through nibbāna, the same pattern applies: the arahant directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it. Why is that? Because aversion is absent through the wearing away of aversion.

The Arahant: Delusion Worn Away¶

"Bhikkhus, again, a bhikkhu who is an arahant, whose outflows are worn away, who has lived the spiritual life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, reached the goal, worn away the fetters of becoming, and is rightly released through final knowledge:

From earth through nibbāna, the same pattern applies: the arahant directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it. Why is that? Because delusion is absent through the wearing away of delusion.

The Tathāgata: Understood to the End¶

"Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, the arahant, the fully awakened Buddha:

The same pattern applies from earth through nibbāna: the Tathāgata directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it. Why is that? Because it has been fully understood to the end by the Tathāgata, I say.

The Tathāgata: Fully Awakened¶

"Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, the arahant, the fully awakened Buddha:

From earth through nibbāna, the same pattern applies: the Tathāgata directly knows each as it is named, does not think of themselves as it, in it, or apart from it, does not think of it as 'mine', and does not delight in it.
Why? The Tathāgata knows that delight is the root of dissatisfaction, that with becoming there is birth, and that for whatever is born there are ageing and death. Therefore, with the wearing away, fading, quenching, giving up, and relinquishment of ignorant wanting in every way, the Tathāgata has awakened to unsurpassed full awakening, I say.

That is what the Buddha said. The bhikkhus did not delight in what the Buddha had said.

Words used in this translation (29)

arahant: Someone who has completed the path and has nothing further to do. Left untranslated; "saint" and "perfected one" both mislead.
aversion: One of the three "roots" behind unwholesome action, alongside greed and delusion -- the pushback against what's unwanted or unpleasant.
awakening: Coming fully awake to how things are. Sometimes translated "enlightenment," a word this project avoids as needlessly mystical.
becoming: This project's rendering of "bhava" -- the settling of experience into a way of being that feels like somebody being something. Often translated "existence."
Bhante: A respectful way of addressing a senior monastic, roughly "venerable sir." Left untranslated because English has no natural equivalent.
bhikkhu: A Buddhist monk -- someone who has left household life to practise full time. Left untranslated because "monk" carries centuries of unrelated European associations.
bhikkhus: Buddhist monks -- those who have left household life to practise full time. The Buddha's usual way of addressing the assembly, roughly "friends" in force.
birth: This project's rendering of "jāti": birth, coming into being. In the dependent-arising sequence, ageing and dying depend on it. In MN 141 the word appears once in its everyday sense instead, in a simile about a mother.
burden: The five clung-to heaps pictured as a load: experience taken personally. Ignorant wanting picks it up; someone who has laid down the burden no longer takes it up.
delusion: One of the three "roots" behind unwholesome action, alongside greed and aversion -- the confusion that keeps you from seeing what's actually happening.
Dhamma: The Buddha's teaching taken as a whole -- both what he taught and the way things actually are, which the teaching describes.
dissatisfaction: This translation's rendering of "dukkha," the Buddhist term for the unsatisfying, unstable quality of ordinary experience. Often translated "suffering," but that can sound more dramatic than the everyday sense of things not quite being right.
fading: The fading away of attraction and investment in experience, as passion cools.
ignorant wanting: Wanting something you can't have right now. This project's rendering of "taṇhā", often translated "craving". We call it ignorant because it comes from not seeing clearly; ordinary, sensible wanting is something else.
nibbāna: The end of greed, hatred, and confusion -- the traditional goal of Buddhist practice. Left untranslated because no single English word covers it; "quenching" is the closest one-word gloss.
oneness: This project's rendering of "ekatta" in MN 121: the single recognition the mind rests on at each step, once it has set the coarser ones aside.
ordinary person: This project's rendering of "puthujjana" -- someone who has not yet had the breakthrough into the path. It is the standard term for the untrained starting point, not an insult.
outflows: This project's rendering of "āsavā" -- deep-running habits that keep seeping out and driving behaviour, classically sensuality, becoming, and ignorance. Often translated "taints" or "defilements."
quenching: An extinguishing image for dissatisfaction and its causes going out. Different Pali words use this image on different pages, so the exact scope comes from the sentence.
recognition: This project's rendering of "saññā" (often translated "perception") -- the mind's act of identifying and labeling what it encounters.
relinquishment: This project's rendering of "vossagga" -- letting go, in the sense of releasing a hold rather than pushing something away.
security from the yoke: A name for nibbāna: safety from the yokes of sensuality, becoming, views, and ignorance that bind a person to further becoming.
sphere of boundless knowing: A deep meditative state in which awareness rests on knowing itself without limit.
sphere of boundless space: A deep meditative state in which awareness rests on space without limit.
sphere of nothingness: A deep meditative state in which awareness rests on there being nothing at all to take up.
spiritual life: The Buddhist path of practice as a whole -- not just a set of beliefs, but a whole way of living.
Tathāgata: A title for the Buddha, traditionally left untranslated. It means roughly "the one who has arrived at things as they truly are."
trainee: Someone who has entered the noble path and is still completing the training; not a beginner.
wearing away: The gradual using-up of something until it runs out completely. The texts use it especially for what has to run out before release.

Source and corrections

Pali text: Majjhimanikāya, Mūlapaṇṇāsapāḷi, in the Chaṭṭha Saṅgāyana Tipiṭaka, Vipassana Research Institute
Translation notes: Editorial decisions and source audit
Text last revised: 2026-11-09 · body version de3c8da7
Report a problem with this page · License and reuse