Alternative interpretation of AN 4.173 Mahākoṭṭhikasutta Vs. effort to understand Nibbana

Discussion
1

Hi friends,

Many thanks for your previous help.

I’m trying to use the Chinese Agama parallel of AN 4.173, SA 249, to interpret AN 4.173:

(1) "Friend, with the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact* [when an arahant dies], does something else exist?” [*"Does he exist after death?]
“Do not say so, friend.”

(2) “… Does nothing else exist?" [“Does he not exist after death?”]
“Do not say so, friend.”

(3) “… Do both something else and nothing else exist*?" [*“Do he both exist and not exist after death?”]
“Do not say so, friend.”

(4) “… Do neither something else nor nothing else exist*?" [*“Do he neither exist nor not exist after death?”]
“Do not say so, friend.”

“Friend, when you are asked: …. you say ‘do not say so, friend.’ In what way should the meaning of this statement be understood?”

"Friend, if one says: ‘With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact, does something else exist?,’ he distorts which is not to be distorted”.
[In SA 249, there’s no sentence “iti vadaṃ appapañcaṃ papañceti”, but only “this is distorted talking”. “虛言” (虚伪之言） is better translated as “distorted talking” instead of “empty words”.]

…

“Friend, as far as the range of the six bases for contact extends, just so far extends the range of distorted thinking. As far as the range of distorted thinking extends, just so far extends the range of the six bases for contact. With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact there is the cessation and subsiding of distorted thinking.”
[This paragraph is not found in SA 249; SA 249 simply states:
“If one says, with the ending, dispassion, cessation, stilling and disappearance of the six bases for contact, he relinquishes all distortions and attains nibbana, then this is what the Buddha taught."
SA 249: 尊者阿難問尊者舍利弗：「六觸入處盡，離欲、滅、息、 沒已，更有餘不？」… “尊者舍利弗語尊者阿難：「六觸入 處盡，離欲、滅、息、沒已，有餘耶？此則虛言。無 餘耶？此則虛言。有餘無餘耶？此則虛言。非 有餘非無餘耶？此則虛言。若言六觸入處 盡，離欲、滅、息、沒已，離諸虛偽，得般涅槃，此 則佛說。」]

In the Chinese parallel SA 249, the four questions appear to concern: the liberated person exists, or does not exist, or both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not exist after death. These questions apply only to the conditioned phenomena and don’t apply to nibbana.

Please note that in MN 72 virtually the same four views were criticized by the Buddha as the fetter of views which are beset with anguish, distress, and fever, and which don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and Nibbana.

This alternative interpretation would not discourage us from striving to understand Nibbana.

I’ve realized that the first and most important step on the path for a trainee is to establish Right Understanding about the 4NT, including the 3rd NT – Nibbana. I thought I understood the 3rd NT which is the cessation of craving (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence and craving for extermination). Only recently I found out I didn’t really understand Nibbana, and hence didn’t truly comprehend the 3rd NT.

In MN 1, the Buddha clearly defined the ordinary person as one who can only perceive Nibbana and has not fully understood Nibbana. Instead he defined the trainee (the noble disciples) as one who directly knows nibbana, but yet to fully comprehend it without conceit:

[The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person …]
"He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana, he conceives [“I am”] in Nibbana, he conceives [“I am”] apart from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully comprehended it, I tell you. [Please note even for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person, the Buddha didn’t say he should not perceive nibbana, but only he shouldn’t conceive nibbana and he should try to fully comprehend nibbana].

[The Trainee …]
He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Directly knowing Nibbana as Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana, let him not conceive [“I am”] in Nibbana, let him not conceive [“I am”] apart from Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.

The Buddha described Nibbana in many suttas, from which we can gain understanding of Nibbana. I hope this alternative interpretation of AN 4.173 can help more effort to understand Nibbana.

Your corrections and comments are much appreciated. With Metta,

Starter

2

I take this to mean one can relate some experience of unconditioned reality, no matter how incohate, to one’s current stage of practice, which is a necessity. Two feet are needed to walk step by step, just like two realities are needed to progress.
MN 121 shows that from the earliest stages, progress is to be categorised as emptiness and non-emptiness:

“This mode of perception is empty of the perception of human being. There is only this non-emptiness: the singleness based on the perception of wilderness.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, & pure.”

3

An alternative translation to the above-cited paragraphs in MN 1:

“Nibbānaṁ nibbānato sañjānāti; nibbānaṁ nibbānato saññatvā nibbānaṁ maññati, nibbānasmiṁ maññati, nibbānato maññati, nibbānaṁ meti maññati, nibbānaṁ abhinandati. Taṁ kissa hetu? ‘Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi.”

[THE ORDINARY PERSON …]
"He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana, he conceives [“I am”] in Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana is “in me”, he conceives Nibbana as ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not fully comprehended it, I tell you.

[The Trainee …]

“nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṁ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṁ mā maññi, nibbānasmiṁ mā maññi, nibbānato mā maññi, nibbānaṁ meti mā maññi, nibbānaṁ mābhinandi. Taṁ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññeyyaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi.”

“He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Directly knowing Nibbana as Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana, let him not conceive [“I am”] in Nibbana, let him not conceive Nibbana is “in me”, let him not conceive Nibbana as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it, I say.”

4

That the paragraph on the All precedes that on Nibbana is due to the division between conventional and ultimate reality (or between mundane and transcendent right view), and shows how the trainee understands that division:

The trainee:
“He directly knows …the All as the All…

“He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding.”—MN 1

THE ELEMENTS

  1. “But, venerable sir, might there be another way in which a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements?”

“There might be, Ānanda. There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a bhikkhu can be called skilled in the elements.”—-MN 115

5

Regarding AN 1.173, it makes better sense to me to read papañca as an obstacle rather than proliferation. Then Sariputta’s answer becomes: “You are making something that’s not an obstacle into an obstacle.” In other words, making a problem by overthinking a something like the cessation of the six sense fields. I suppose it means the same thing either way, but it’s clearer.

I agree, though, that SA 249 has a clearer conclusion, as it doesn’t mince words about the four alternatives.