DN9 gives four possibilities for perception, causless, self made, made by brahmins, made by spirits. DA28 gives only three, causeless, self made, made by spirits.
I think the “self made” option is a cryptic reference to materialism, ala the “annihilationists” basically because in what follows we will see that the “self made” turns out to be all about the physical body and the meditative attainments it can achieve.
The spirits can be read as a form of idealism, and thus a reference to eternalists.
DN9 gives the peak of perception at nothingness while DA28 goes all the way up to the cessation of perception and feeling.
there is then a sort of dispute in the texts, DA seems to acknowledge that in incorperating the neither perception nor non perception above nothingness and the cessation of perception and feeling above that they have done some kind of editorialising, and there is a question an answer that subtly distinguishes between the summit of perception and the supreme summit of perception, or something like that. The Pali here therefore seems to have the earlier, though still somewhat garbled form. so the summit of perception is to perceive nothing at all, and then a kind of mental process of choosing not to form conceptions of intentions regarding the nothing is what constitutes touching cessation, and later becomes synonymus with the attainment of the “cessation of perception and feeling”.
DN9 says this is why we describe things as both one and many, DA, which actually has the mroe varied answers in it’s Q and A, denies this and says they are one. Luckily the dispute seems trivial and related to the editorial decisions, not the underlying philosophy.
These disputes continue in the next sequence regarding the self. DA moves progressively from the physical body all the way to the formless attainments and neither perception nor non perception, DN just moves through the physical, mental, and then formless, recalling the tripartate sensual realm, realm of form and formless realm. Allowing that DN preserves the older structure here, it still seems to feel the need to add to the explination:
“Kaṁ pana tvaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, attānaṁ paccesī”ti?
“But Poṭṭhapāda, do you believe in a self?”
佛告梵志：「汝說何等人是 我？」
The Buddha told the wanderer, “What type of person is the self in your teaching?”“Oḷārikaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, attānaṁ paccemi rūpiṁ cātumahābhūtikaṁ kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkhan”ti.
“I believe in a solid self, sir, which has form, made up of the four principal states, and consumes solid food.”梵志白佛言：「我不說人是我，我自說色 身四大、六入，父母生育，乳餔成長，衣服莊嚴， 無常、磨滅法，我說此人是我。」
The wanderer said to the Buddha, “I don’t claim that a person is the self. My claim is about the form body of four elements and six senses that’s born, nurtured by parents, drinks milk until it’s grown, wears clothes and ornaments, and that’s an impermanent, eroding thing. I say this person is the self.”“Oḷāriko ca hi te, poṭṭhapāda, attā abhavissa rūpī cātumahābhūtiko kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkho. Evaṁ santaṁ kho te, poṭṭhapāda, aññāva saññā bhavissati añño attā.
“Suppose there were such a solid self, Poṭṭhapāda. In that case, perception would be one thing, the self another.
佛告梵志：「汝 言色身四大、六入，父母生育，乳餔長成，衣服 莊嚴，無常、磨滅法，說此人是我。梵志！且置 此我，但人想生、人想滅。」
The Buddha told the wanderer, “You say, ‘It’s the form body of four elements and six senses that’s born, nurtured by parents, drinks milk until it’s grown, wears clothes and ornaments, and that’s an impermanent, eroding thing. I say this person is the self.’ Wanderer, setting aside this self, this is just a concept of a person that arises and a concept of a person that ceases.”
DN adds:
Tadamināpetaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, pariyāyena veditabbaṁ yathā aññāva saññā bhavissati añño attā.
Here is another way to understand how perception and self are different things.Tiṭṭhateva sāyaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, oḷāriko attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkho, atha imassa purisassa aññā ca saññā uppajjanti, aññā ca saññā nirujjhanti.
So long as that solid self remains, still some perceptions arise in a person and others cease.Iminā kho etaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, pariyāyena veditabbaṁ yathā aññāva saññā bhavissati añño attā”ti.
That is a way to understand how perception and self are different things.”
Even with the 2 versions and the additional explanation in the Pali, it is not exactly clear what is going on, Patton’s translation of the Chinese seems to gloss the passage as saying “the physical body fed on mothers milk” is just a conception/perception like any other, and conceptions/perceptions arise and cease (with training as per previous.) While the Pali seems to say that even granting te reality of a physical body, some (other?) conceptions/perceptions arise and cease, therefore the physical body, being a thing that remains, is unlike perceptions, which arise and cease.
The sense in the Pali seems weaker and less congruent with the dhamma than the Chinese, where each of the “selfs” (gah) is sequentially iterated and shown to be a perception that arises and ceases, mirroring the preceding stages.
DN then turns to a seemingly unrelated topic of the cosmos, again the DA version here is better, instead talking about “the self and the cosmos” and thus also agreeing with DN1 and thus apparently preserving the more coherent text.
DA also has the neatest and most complete version of the undeclared points:
“‘Self and the world are permanent. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and the world are impermanent. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and the world are permanent and impermanent. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and the world are neither permanent nor impermanent. This is true; anything else is false.’
“‘Self and the world have limits. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and the world are limitless. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and world have limits and are limitless. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘Self and the world are neither limited nor limitless. This is true; anything else is false.’
“‘The soul is the body. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The soul is one thing, and the body is another. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The body and soul are neither different nor not different. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘There’s no soul and no body. This is true; anything else is false.’
“‘The Tathāgata dies. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The Tathāgata doesn’t die. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The Tathāgata dies and doesn’t die. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The Tathāgata neither dies nor doesn’t die. This is true; anything else is false.’”
DN then immediatly backtracks and again conflates a self with a world for that self to be in, which after all makes sense;
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
Santi, poṭṭhapāda, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino:
‘The self is exclusively happy and free of disease after death.’
‘ekantasukhī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā’ti.
I go up to them and say,
Tyāhaṁ upasaṅkamitvā evaṁ vadāmi:
‘Is it really true that this is the venerables’ view?’
‘saccaṁ kira tumhe āyasmanto evaṁvādino evaṁdiṭṭhino:
“ekantasukhī attā hoti arogo paraṁ maraṇā”’ti?
And they answer, ‘Yes’.
Te ce me evaṁ puṭṭhā ‘āmā’ti paṭijānanti.
I say to them,
Tyāhaṁ evaṁ vadāmi:
‘But do you meditate knowing and seeing an exclusively happy world?’
‘api pana tumhe āyasmanto ekantasukhaṁ lokaṁ jānaṁ passaṁ viharathā’ti?
Asked this, they say, ‘No.’
Iti puṭṭhā ‘no’ti vadanti.
After this comes the famous “most beutiful woman in the world” story and the ladder to a house in the sky story in both DN and DA.
Next we continue with our confusion, although here Sujato adds to it rather than clarifies it"
“Poṭṭhapāda, there are these three kinds of reincarnation in a life-form:
“Tayo kho me, poṭṭhapāda, attapaṭilābhā—
a solid life-form, a mind-made life-form, and a formless life-form.
oḷāriko attapaṭilābho, manomayo attapaṭilābho, arūpo attapaṭilābho.
And what is reincarnation in a solid life-form?
Katamo ca, poṭṭhapāda, oḷāriko attapaṭilābho?
It has form, made up of the four principal states, and consumes solid food.
Rūpī cātumahābhūtiko kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkho, ayaṁ oḷāriko attapaṭilābho.
life-form? reincartnation? A quite Theravadan instinct to obscure attapaṭilābhā under synonyms drags the text away from the previous discussion, which is clearly being returned to here i.e;
“Sir, is perception a person’s self, or are perception and self different things?”
“Saññā nu kho, bhante, purisassa attā, udāhu aññā saññā añño attā”ti?
“But Poṭṭhapāda, do you believe in a self?”
“Kaṁ pana tvaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, attānaṁ paccesī”ti?
“I believe in a solid self, sir, which has form, made up of the four principal states, and consumes solid food.”
“Oḷārikaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, attānaṁ paccemi rūpiṁ cātumahābhūtikaṁ kabaḷīkārāhārabhakkhan”ti.
Changing the subject to reincarnation and life-forms just adds verbage and makes it seem like a new theme has been taken up rather than a return made to an old one.
In terms of the actual texts, once again DN appeals to the older and simpler sequence of body - mind - formlessness while the DA parallel appeals to the more complex body - mind - space - conciousness - nothingness neither perception nor sequence.
DN then goes on with
I teach the Dhamma for the giving up of reincarnation in these three kinds of life-form.
Oḷārikassapi kho ahaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, attapaṭilābhassa pahānāya dhammaṁ desemi:
‘When you practice accordingly, corrupting qualities will be given up in you and cleansing qualities will grow. You’ll enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with your own insight in this very life.’
‘yathāpaṭipannānaṁ vo saṅkilesikā dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissathā’ti.
Poṭṭhapāda, you might think:
Siyā kho pana te, poṭṭhapāda, evamassa:
‘Corrupting qualities will be given up and cleansing qualities will grow. One will enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with one’s own insight in this very life. But such a life is suffering.’
‘saṅkilesikā dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissati, dukkho ca kho vihāro’ti.
But you should not see it like this.
Na kho panetaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, evaṁ daṭṭhabbaṁ.
Corrupting qualities will be given up and cleansing qualities will grow. One will enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with one’s own insight in this very life. And there will be only joy and happiness, tranquility, mindfulness and awareness. Such a life is blissful.
Saṅkilesikā ceva dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā ca dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissati, pāmujjañceva bhavissati pīti ca passaddhi ca sati ca sampajaññañca sukho ca vihāro.
While DA has
The Buddha addressed [Poṭṭhapāda], “You say that self is the body of four elements and six senses that’s born, nurtured by parents, drinks milk until it’s grown, wears clothes and ornaments, and which is an impermanent, eroding thing. You say this is the self, but I ask, ‘Is this defilement or purity, and does it attain freedom?’
"You might think that defilement cannot cease, that purity cannot arise, and that suffering is eternal, but don’t think that. Why is that? The cessation of defilement is possible, and the production of purity is possible. Dwelling in a place of well-being is joyful and delightful. By focusing attention and unifying one’s mind, wisdom increases and broadens.
SO they both make a muddled allusion to the jhana practice, and again, refer back to the training of ones own perception to have certain perceptions cease and certain perceptions arise, and to the freeing of the mind from attachment to these perceptions/meditative attainments.
this then explains the obscure passage that follows in the Pali:
Poṭṭhapāda, if others should ask us,
Pare ce, poṭṭhapāda, amhe evaṁ puccheyyuṁ:
‘But reverends, what is that reincarnation in a solid life-form for the giving up of which you teach?’ We’d answer like this,
‘katamo pana so, āvuso, oḷāriko attapaṭilābho, yassa tumhe pahānāya dhammaṁ desetha, yathāpaṭipannānaṁ vo saṅkilesikā dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissathā’ti, tesaṁ mayaṁ evaṁ puṭṭhā evaṁ byākareyyāma:
‘This is that reincarnation in a solid life-form.’
‘ayaṁ vā so, āvuso, oḷāriko attapaṭilābho, yassa mayaṁ pahānāya dhammaṁ desema, yathāpaṭipannānaṁ vo saṅkilesikā dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissathā’ti.
the This is the meditative practice alluded to in the passage (again, weirdly obscured by the translators desision to simply leave most of it untranslated) i.e
“yassa mayaṁ pahānāya dhammaṁ desema, yathāpaṭipannānaṁ vo saṅkilesikā dhammā pahīyissanti, vodāniyā dhammā abhivaḍḍhissanti, paññāpāripūriṁ vepullattañca diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṁ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharissathā’ti.”
which in DA is
“You might think that defilement cannot cease, that purity cannot arise, and that suffering is eternal, but don’t think that. Why is that? The cessation of defilement is possible, and the production of purity is possible. Dwelling in a place of well-being is joyful and delightful. By focusing attention and unifying one’s mind, wisdom increases and broadens.
more clearly alluding to the jhanas of unification of mind.
So, unlike the heaven of pure happiness of the other ascetics, which is like an imaginary babe or a ladder to a castle in the air, the happy abiding of buddhism, the jhana’s, have a real and demonstrable basis.
The conversation next turns to temporal issues, again seemingly made frightfully obscure by the translator of the Pali because why would anyone think that the physical body really existed after we had physically died and been rincarnated into a luminous body? that makes no sense.
But with the help of the parallels and the original Pali we can see that the discussion is about the experience of jhanas or other meditative attainments, so the question about the reality of the physical body when in the attaainment of luminous mentalness or formlessness or infinite space etc etc seems perfectly germaine and congruent with reality, the Buddha is saying that when we are in the realm of not having a body, i.e a meditative attainment where we haved no sensations-feelings-perceptions or consciousness of the physical body then we are existing in a state as different to physical embodiment as butter is different to milk.
the problems in the translation continue with the handling of “hoti” where the translator decides to use a mix of fictitious, real and " not refered to" where the olriginal simply asks “when the mind one exists do the other two exist (at the same time)?” and the buddha simply answers, “when we say the mind one exists we dont at that time say the other two exist (at that time) ala milk butter and clarified butter”
There is not really any need for all the reincarnations, life-forms, realities, fictions and references, the original is much more direct and consistent, and makes much more sense when meditative attainments (i.e training of the perception) is kept in mind.
This then also clarifies the whole next passage, which in DA is put rather nice and simply:
“Hastikaśīrṣa, what do you think? If someone asked you, ‘If when you had a body in the past, did you possess a future and present body at the same time? When you’ll possess a body in the future, will you possess a past and present body at the same time? When you possess a body in the present, do you possess a past and future body at the same time?’ Supposing these questions were put to you, what would your reply be?”
Hastikaśīrṣa said, “Supposing that such questions were put to me, I would reply, ‘When I possessed a body in the past, there was only that past body and none in the future or present. When I will possess a body in the future, there will only be that future body and none in the past or present. When I possess a body in the present, there’s just this present body and none in the past or future.’”
So all this simply says that when I am in a jhana without a perception of a body, at that time i am without a body. simple.
Anyway, that’s the basic picture, I was led here from MN2 which I was led to by a passage in SN12.20 and here I find myself pointed back to DN1 and DN2 as almost always seems to be the case on these excursions.
Metta!