Different interpretations of jāti and maraṇa

These same standard definitions of jāti and maraṇa (in the context of dependent origination) can also be found in SN and MN:

3 Likes

These words are probably bracketed because they obviously do not exist in the Pali. Since these words themselves are ‘interpretations’ rather than the actual teaching, it is probably best they are excluded from the translations which serve as the basis of this topic.

Yes. I agree these are the standard definitions that should be considered in this topic (rather than what is in DN 15). However, what is posted here are obviously merely translations. Such translations, in themselves, I would personally regard as not satisfactory because, ideally, each Pali word in these definitions should be understood according to how it is used contextually throughout the suttas. Therefore, I think copying & pasting word definitions from dictionaries is, again, inadequate.

I think my idea here conforms with what the EBTs instruct, such as MN 95, which exhorted & emphasised deep reflection, examination & actual meditation upon the teachings. :seedling:

Bhāradvāja, in regard to their statement the brahmins seem to be like a file of blind men: the first one does not see, the middle one does not see, and the last one does not see. What do you think, Bhāradvāja, that being so, does not the faith of the brahmins turn out to be groundless? The brahmins honour this not only out of faith, Master Gotama. They also honour it as oral tradition. We ask Master Gotama about the discovery of truth.

He hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the supreme truth and sees it (passati) by penetrating it with wisdom (paññāya).

The final arrival at truth, Bhāradvāja, lies in the repetition, development and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth.

But what, Master Gotama, is most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings? We ask Master Gotama about the thing most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings.

Examination of the meaning is most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings, Bhāradvāja. If one does not examine their meaning, one will not gain a reflective acceptance of the teachings; but because one examines their meaning, one gains a reflective acceptance of the teachings. That is why examination of the meaning is most helpful for a reflective acceptance of the teachings.

MN 95

:anjal:

marana is used as such in Tamil (maranam) and simply means death. There is no ambiguity in the usage with any kind of metaphysical meaning. Death of a living being is all that it means and the word is very commonly used. jāti is not used in Tamil for birth, though.

Thought I’ll mention this here, since there are some Pali words that are used in Tamil. Like puñña, muni etc.

1 Like

It seems in Hindu India, ‘jati’ has always meant ‘caste’ or ‘social identity’ . This usage seems also found in MN 86 and in the Visuddhimagga.

‘Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.’ MN 86

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally “birth”) is a group of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis.[citation needed] Among the Muslims, the equivalent category is Qom or Biradri. A person’s surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[quote=“Sujith, post:13, topic:5547”]
marana is used as such in Tamil (maranam) and simply means death… Death of a living being[/quote]

In Tamil it may simply mean ‘death’ but in Pali it seems not so simple because ‘death’ is never used for the termination of life of an arahant (e.g., in SN 22.85) but other words may possibly used for the termination of life of an arahant apart from Parinibbana, such as ‘kālaṅkato’ (‘done time’) or ‘kālakiriyā’ (‘completed time’).

If, friend Yamaka, they were to [wrongly] ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death (paraṃ maraṇā)?’— being asked thus, what would you answer?”

If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is unsatisfactory; what is unsatisfactory has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is unsatisfactory; what is unsatisfactory has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

“Good, good, friend Yamaka!

SN 22.85

For example, in AN 6.16, Nakulamata, who was at least a stream-enterer, said to her husband:

Mā kho tvaṃ, gahapati, sāpekkho kālamakāsi. Dukkhā, gahapati, sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā; garahitā ca bhagavatā sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā

Don’t be worried as you die, householder. Death is painful for one who is worried. The Blessed One has criticized being worried at the time of death.

In MN 140, when Pukkusati was killed by a cow:

yo so, bhante, pukkusāti nāma kulaputto bhagavatā saṃkhittena ovādena ovadito so kālaṅkato

Venerable sir, the clansman Pukkusāti, who was given brief instruction by the Blessed One, has died.

Or in MN 43:

Yvāyaṃ, āvuso, mato kālaṅkato, yo cāyaṃ bhikkhu saññā­ve­dayi­ta­nirodhaṃ samāpanno—imesaṃ kiṃ nānākaraṇan”ti?

What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?

In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications … his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided & his (five sense) faculties are scattered.

:seedling:

The commentators understood the term jāti in the Canon as having eight distinct senses: Becoming, group, concept, characteristic of the formed, rebirth-linking, parturition, clan, and virtue (bhava, nikāya, paññatti, saṅkhatalakkhaṇa, paṭisandhi, pasūti, kula, sīla).

The Sammohavinodanī gives the following sutta passages as examples:

Birth - this word jāti has many meanings.

Tathā hesa ekampi jātiṃ, dvepi jātiyo ti ettha bhave āgato.
Thus in the passage: “[He recollects …] one birth, two births…”, it has come down as becoming.

Atthi visākhe, nigaṇṭhā nāma samaṇajātikā ti ettha nikāye.
In the passage: “Visākha, there is a kind of ascetics called Nigaṇṭhas…” it is group.

Tiriyā nāma tiṇajāti nābhiyā uggantvā nabhaṃ āhacca ṭhitā ahosī ti ettha paññattiyaṃ.
In the passage: “A kind of grass called tiriyā rose up from his navel and stood touching the sky…” it is a concept.

Jāti dvīhi khandhehi saṅgahitā ti ettha saṅkhatalakkhaṇe.
In the passage: “Birth is included in two aggregates…” it is a characteristic of the formed.

Yaṃ, bhikkhave, mātukucchimhi paṭhamaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ, paṭhamaṃ viññāṇaṃ pātubhūtaṃ, tadupādāya sāvassa jātī ti ettha paṭisandhiyaṃ.
In the passage: “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first consciousness manifested, in the mother’s womb…” it is rebirth-linking.

Sampatijāto, ānanda, bodhisatto ti ettha pasūtiyaṃ.
In the passage: “[Seven days], Ānanda, after the birth of the Bodhisatta…” it is parturition.

Anupakkuṭṭho jātivādenā ti ettha kule.
In the passage: “One who is not rejected and despised on account of his birth…” it is clan.

Yatohaṃ, bhagini, ariyāya jātiyā jāto ti ettha ariyasīle.
In the passage: “Sister, since I was born with the noble birth…” it is the noble virtue.

See the attached file from Ñāṇamoli’s translation for the full discussion.

Jati-Birth.pdf (1.9 MB)

8 Likes

Much appreciated bhante. :anjal:

The raw view of birth in that excerpt is quite unsettling, Bhante !

Indeed. It has some pretty memorable imagery – particularly the comparison of birth to an :elephant: trying to get through a keyhole. :cold_sweat:

The grasp of physiology shown in para. 458 might benefit from a little revision. I doubt, for example, that a fœtus would feel as if he were in a freezing hell every time his mother drank a glass of cold water.

3 Likes

“cooked like a pudding in a bag”

Comic but tragic! :cold_sweat:

1 Like

[quote=“Gabriel_L, post:1, topic:5547”]alternative interpretations of the terms jāti and maraṇa.
[/quote]

In my reading, what results in alternative interpretations is the definitions of these words ‘jati’ & ‘marana’ in SN 12.2, MN 9, DN 22, etc, include the word ‘beings’ or ‘sattanam’, as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings (sattānaṃ) into the various orders of beings (sattanikāye), their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth.

Now, in the suttas, it appears to primary definition of the word ‘a being’ or ‘satta’ is found in SN 23.2, which does not appear to define ‘a being’ (‘satta’) as a ‘living & breathing organism’ (similar to the Mahayana term ‘sentient being’) but, instead only appears to define ‘a being’ as a psychological state of bound to craving & attachment, as follows:

Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’ SN 23.2

SN 23.2 then gives a clear metaphor describing ‘a being’ as something built up in the mind:

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that’s how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form

This psychological interpretation appears to also be supported by SN 5.10, for example, which appears to state ‘a being’ is merely a ‘wrong view’:

Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.

Then SN 22.81, for example, also uses the term ‘jati’ to refer to the birth of a psychological ‘self-view’:

… regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born

Then MN 86, for example, refers to Angulimala’s new social identity & virtuousness as a monk as a ‘jati’:

Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, ‘Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.’"

“But, lord, wouldn’t that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally killed many living beings.”

“Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, ‘Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.’”

Responding, “As you say, lord,” to the Blessed One, Angulimala went to that woman and on arrival said to her, “Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.” And there was wellbeing for the woman, wellbeing for her fetus.

Then MN 38 gives the impression ‘birth’ & ‘death’ end while the mind is conscious:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

Then suttas such as MN 140 & Dhp21 state an arahant is not born or does not die:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn? MN 140

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already. Dhp21

In my experience, it is sutta interpretation such as above that result in alternative interpretations of the terms jāti and maraṇa.

:seedling:

2 Likes

So “birth” just means, not surprisingly, birth.

2 Likes

Please kindly consider exploring the concept of being here:

Isn’t this inference knowledge?

An awakened individual infers that given that the root cause of the mundane dependent origination is now eradicated it is doomed to stop turning.

Hence the knowledge of end of taints comes to one’s mind as soon as the task is finished but not necessarily the wheel of dependent origination has finally ceased with no future birth to be caused?

This is consistent with the not unusual rendering of awakening as the deathless.

Continuous origination of births and necessarily deaths through time is ultimately fueled by the practical ignorance with regards to the four noble truths.

Once the four ennobling tasks have been fullfiled such practical ignorance is dispelled.

The knowledge and vision that replaces it instead allows for the awakened individual to infer “the task is done, no future birth will be originated, hence deathless awaits instead!

1 Like

For me, no, because my reading of D.O. is it describes the 12 conditions that must ‘co-dependently-arise-together’ for the occurring of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.

For example, I (the mind) experience sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair due to the death of my mother or father. “Mother” & “father” is “a being” (“satta”) born from identification. This only occurs because I identify those aggregates as “my mother” & “my father”. When I see corpses on TV after an earthquake in Mongolia, I do not have sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair because I have no identification with those lifeless aggregates on TV.

I think the reincarnation interpretation of D.O. cannot account for the very common experiences of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, which are dependent on “death” or “loss”.

People grieve when their loved ones die or are lost. Or when they lose wealth or possessions (refer to SN 15.3). People do not grieve in a future life.

Anyway, I must work now. Some $$$ business has appeared on my computer screen.

…with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. MN 38

He lives obsessed by the notions: ‘I am form, form is mine.’ As he lives obsessed by these notions, that form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair. SN 22.1

Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear & beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and crying out, ‘Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone, my only little child?’ “That’s the way it is, householder. That’s the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear.” MN 97

“Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans. “Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans. SN 15.3

:seedling:

Hi , isn’t that just being
" indifferent " ,
It is After the " contact " where
feeling arises with either " happy " , " unhappy " , or " indifferent " .

If that is the case , an arahant
would be in the state of
" indifferent "
all the time , wouldn’t it be ?

Any arahant do not
remain holding to Indifferent ,
but , I suppose we do ,
only we are Not Aware of it !

Best wishes .

No. It is not being merely indifferent. I was referring to being indifferent because there is no personal attachment to those corpses (aggregates) in Mongolia.

Regards :seedling:

This is a direct translation of a sinhala article from another author:

People perceive sansära dukhā to be something experienced after death. However sansära dukhā is something experienced in the past, present, from now till death and then continued on to any other existence after that. Therefore one should experience sansära dukhā at infant, child, young and old ages equally. So how do one experience jāti dukhā , jarā dukhā and marana dukhā in all stages of life?

In-order to understand this, one must understand jāti dhamma, jarā dhamma and marana dhamma. Let’s look at how jāti dhamma, jarā dhamma and marana dhamma are explained in Ariyapariyesanā sutta MN26 :

Bhikkhus, what is jāti dhamma? wife and kids are jāti dhamma, servants are jāti dhamma, goats and sheeps are jāti dhamma, pigs and fowls are jāti dhamma, elephants, cattle, horses, and mares are jāti dhamma, gold and silver are jāti dhamma. These dhamma with qualities of five sense pleasures coming into existence is jāti dhamma. one who is tied to these things, infatuated with them, and utterly committed to them, being himself a jāti dhamma, seeks what it is also jāti dhamma…. Bhikkhus, what is jarā dhamma?wife and kids are jarā dhamma, servants are jarā dhamma, goats and sheeps are jarā dhamma, pigs and fowls are jarā dhamma, …. , being himself a jarā dhamma, seeks what is also jarā dhamma.

It goes on to explain byādhidhamma dhamma, maraṇa dhamma, soka dhamma, saṅki­lesa ­dhamma (dhamma that helps develop kilesa). Therefore jāti dhamma entails all living things one is acquainted with such as friends,family, dogs and cats. As well as all non-living things. So aren’t all these living and non-living jāti, not jāti dhamma?

If one is attached to any of these jāti dhamma that one comes into contact with, when they are perished or no longer available, one is left with sorrow. Let’s investigate how a 3-4 year old child would experience jāti dukhā . If you give a child a toy, the child would get attached to different features of this toy. Child would develop desire for the toy. Slowly when the toy starts to deteriorate and lose some of it’s functionality child would feel dukhā . In this way the child by association of the toy would go through jāti dukhā , jarā dukka and marana dukhā ( toy stops functioning). Similarly think of giving a new bicycle to a 15 year old teenager. If the bicycle breaks down or when it starts to deteriorate the teenager would feel sorrow. If a household pet get sick or die, wouldn’t everyone in that house attached to that pet feel jarā dukhā and marana dukhā? How much are we attached to our possessions (non-living jāti)? If any of these gets destroyed wouldn’t anyone attached to them feel dukhā?

Coming into contact with these living and non-living jāti, seeking them out and getting attached to them would give rise to jarā, maraṇa, soka­pari­deva,­ ­dukhā, do­manas­sa, upāyāsā. Therefore one should grasp that seeing jāti dukhā only in reference to the time of one’s birth is a very narrow view of jāti dukhā .

Original author : Dr R. G Weerasinghe

Full article: Unobserved suffering of sansära existence.pdf (240.5 KB)

With Metta
Oshan
(Translation was done as a meditation exercise in contemplating these ideas)

If we take jati to be the present manifestation of aggregates, then we can use the term life for it.

Right now and always in the present, death is the underlying inevitability of life, it manifests right now as an ever-present-possibility. As long as life/manifestation of the aggregates/jati is present, then so is the death-possibility present.
“With the presence of birth, ageing and death is present”;
" With the presence of this MY jati, MY ageing and MY possibility of death is present".
Seeing this presently arisen fact will help to undo the notion of ownership to MY life, because it is seen to be always and presently undermined and determined by elements or possibilities beyond my control i.e if that death-possibility-thing became an actuality, all other possibilities and actualities would end immediately. It shows that all of my life’s possibilities rest upon this inevitable-death-possibility. Seeing this dependently arisen nature, ones passion for life will drain away because no matter how meaningful one makes life, that personal meaning is always undermined by the actual meaning, that my life means my inevitable death.
It also means that my life is not my own because it is determined by that death-possibility-thing, being present first.
I cannot remove that underlying determination of my life.

There is a thought “I will die”, it is usually abstract and pertaining to the future inevitability of ending of life, and it is not enough to be unaffected by lives ups and downs. In other words, it makes no difference to me, I still feel that life is first, life takes priority and death is something that happens later on. But seeing that death-possibility-thing is present always simultaneously(D.O) with life reveals the secondary importance of life and the priority of the dependent origination principle.

For a puthujjana, there will not be DEATH as THE END, but only my-death of a particular arrangement of experience/ five-assumed-aggregates. Therefore the puthujjana actually has no freedom from the *change of circumstance possibility(death) *, he is bound with change and cannot create the changeless. He cannot experience ultimate ENDING but only the change of circumstance, however much he wants to access death or control it or own it, it is forever out of reach. One could set things in motion for a future change of circumstance/death, but how that change manifests is also beyond ones reach because it is an underlying determination for ones so-called controlled life I.e it is the bases upon which my control manifests, that base is a thing which is not mine, I cannot create the possibility of death because it is given with life.

All I can know without a doubt is that the possibility of this life stopping is possible at any point. The possibility of a circumstantial change of life is always possible, it could manifest on any occasion, completely indifferent to the current circumstance. The ageing of this current life is indifferent to the desire for it not to age or to age, and the manifestation of life is completely indifferent to one’s desire for it not to manifest or to manifest.

Whether one has desires towards life or death, makes no difference to life or death, but thinking that it makes a difference, one is then subjecting oneself to life and death I.e creating a relationship with that which is indifferent to your needs of ownership. Which means that as long as life manifests one will be subject to its change being out of sync with ones assumed ownership views, one will be subjecting oneself to the suffering of a self-created discrepancy.
By generating or fuelling the assumption of life and death being one’s own, one goes along for the ride, which is the inevitable loop of life, decay and change.

1 Like

In DO jati arises in dependence upon bhava, so it might be worth examining the meaning of bhava. In DO birth, old age and death are described in physical/biological terms, which suggests that bhava also has a physical/biological dimension. In SN 12.2 bhava is described as existence or becoming in the 3 realms, which sounds cyclical, particularly when combined with the 3 knowledges and EBT descriptions of kamma, ie beings reappearing in different realms according to their actions. On the other hand I don’t think that old age and death are dukkha for an Arahant, given the cessation of craving, aversion and identification. If you’re not attached to the aggregates as “me and mine” then presumably decline and cessation is not a cause for dukkha. By the way, I don’t see any support in the EBT for the idea of “moment-to-moment rebirth”, and I see it as fudging the issue.

1 Like