It appears that he was still in the grip of the dhammarāga (dhamma-passion) and dhammanandi (dhamma-delight) mentioned in AN 11.16. But what a happy sort of craving and clinging to have, if it leads to Non-Return.
I have not read your entire discussion, nor have I consulted the suttas in great detail. But I’ll make a few general comments. I hope they are relevant!
I am not sure if na (ca) kiñci loke upādiyati can pinned down to a narrow interpretation. It obviously refers to the arahant who never clings to anything: upādāna has ceased without remainder. In this case it refers to a permanent state that lasts until the arahant dies.
But this does not seem to exhaust the use of this expression. The various suttas you refer to as containing this expression connect the insight of a stream-enterer with na (ca) kiñci loke upādiyati, as pointed out by Sylvester. The natural reading of this, I think, is that the insight of a stream-enterer is sufficient for na (ca) kiñci loke upādiyati. The difference between the stream-enterer and the arahant is just that the non-clinging is temporary for the stream-enterer. As his insight fades from memory and his remaining defilements again make their presence felt, attaching re-arises. In both cases I would take loke to mean the five khandhas in their entirety, because all ariyas have full insight into the nature of reality.
I believe, however, that the expression may be used even more broadly, as pointed out by @florian, when he refers to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. Since satipaṭṭhāna concerns the practice leading to the goal, it would be strange to limit the expression to arahants in this instance. But a careful look at the context in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta suggest to me that na (ca) kiñci loke upādiyati is not even limited to ariyas. Here is context:
Yāvadeva ñāṇamattāya paṭissatimattāya anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati.
Even for the sake of a partial knowledge and partial mindfulness, he remains unsupported and does not attach to anything in the world.
To me it seems natural here to regard anissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati as the mode of practice, not the goal. Moreover, since it is repeated throughout the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta and therefore is integral to it, I take it to refer to the ideal way of practising satipaṭṭhāna at any stage in one’s development of the path, including pre-ariyan stages. This understanding also follows from the way the Pali above is punctuated, that is, there is an apparent connection between “partial knowledge/mindfulness” and the subsequent “does not attach to anything in the world.” Partial knowledge can only refer to non-ariyans. (But the Pali can be read differently and so this is only a suggestion.)
But how does this work even as a suggestion? The critical word is loke, “in the world,” which has a number of different connotations in Pali, just as does the English word “world.” One of these meanings is “the world of kāma,” the end of which is reached in first jhāna (AN 9.38). Being free from the world of kāma would entail having given up all sensual desire. This is how I would understand na ca kiñci loke upādiyati in the context of satipaṭṭāna, that is, you practice without sensual desire and as a consequence your mind will be largely purified of the remaining hindrances as well.
This “higher” form of satipaṭṭhāna is in fact mentioned in the suttas in a number of places as catūsu satipaṭṭhānesu suppatiṭṭhitacitto, “with mind well established in the four applications of mindfulness,” e.g. at SN 22.80. The context in this sutta shows that this refers to practising satipaṭṭhāna with a mind free of sensuality:
Tayome, bhikkhave, akusalavitakkā – kāmavitakko, byāpādavitakko, vihiṃsāvitakko. Ime ca bhikkhave, tayo akusalavitakkā kva aparisesā nirujjhanti? Catūsu vā satipaṭṭhānesu suppatiṭṭhitacittassa viharato …
There are, bhikkhus, these three kinds of unwholesome thoughts: sensual thought, ill-will thought, ruthless thought. And where, bhikkhus, do these three unwholesome thoughts cease without remainder? For one who remains with a mind well established in the four applications of mindfulness …
Then there is the question of whether na ca kiñci loke upādiyati belongs in the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta at all, but that’s for another time.
Bhante, do you mean DN 15?
Ānanda, when a bhikkhu does not consider feeling as self, and does not consider self as without experience of feeling, and does not consider: ‘My self feels; for my self is subject to feeling’—then, being without such considerations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no returning to this state of being.’
Hi Bhante, and thank you for the above.
There’s also something else interesting in that sutta -
There are, bhikkhus, these two views: the view of existence and the view of extermination. Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: ‘Is there anything in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy?’ He understand thus: ‘There is nothing in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy. (natthi nu kho taṃ kiñci lokasmiṃ yamahaṃ upādiyamāno na vajjavā assaṃ ) For if I should cling, it is only form that I would be clinging to, only feeling … only perception … only volitional formations … only consciousness that I would be clinging to.
It does look as if the monastic here is equating the “world” with the 5 Aggregates. There is no mention of the Sixfold Base here as suffering; might it be a situation that the monastic had just started her Traineeship?
Well, the insight into feelings discussed at DN 15 is the insight of the stream-enterer. So in this context na ca kiñci loke upādiyati presumably refers to someone who is at least stream-enterer. For non-arahants, this could be the moment of insight or a subsequent clear recollection of the insight.
I would say so. This person has right view and as such would have to be at least a stream-enterer, a trainee.
Part of the problem is translating upadana as clinging.
see Upadana? Let go of clinging where I argued:
SN22.79 is quite clear when it says: “a noble disciple who gets rid of things and does not accumulate them, who abandons things and does not take them up [I.e. NOT “cling to them”], who scatters things and does not amass them…”. Accumulating and amassing are synonyms for taking things up, not for clinging. Moreover, this speaks about the sekha, and to say that a sekha does not cling or grasp sounds like he/she is already enlightened (as it does in Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation for example). Instead the sekha is not taking up more things as a self and is abandoning them instead.
The whole process of perception, beginning with Nama and Rupa (sights, sounds,thoughts, etc).
This standard formula — it is repeated throughout the Canon — may not seem that remarkable an insight. However, the texts make clear that this insight is not a matter of belief or contemplation, but of direct seeing. As the following passages show, belief and contemplation may be conducive to the seeing — and an undefined level of belief and discernment may actually guarantee that someday in this lifetime the seeing will occur — but only with the actual seeing does there come a dramatic shift in the course of one’s life and one’s relationship to the Dhamma.
"Monks, the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear… The nose… The tongue… The body… The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
Forms… Sounds … Aromas… Flavors… Tactile sensations… Ideas are inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Eye-consciousness… Ear-consciousness… Nose-consciousness… Tongue-consciousness… Body-consciousness… Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Eye-contact…Ear-contact…Nose-contact…Tongue-contact…Body-contact… Intellect-contact is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Feeling born of eye-contact… Feeling born of ear-contact… Feeling born of nose-contact… Feeling born of tongue-contact… Feeling born of body-contact… Feeling born of intellect-contact is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Perception of forms… Perception of sounds… Perception of smells… Perception of tastes… Perception of tactile sensations…Perception of ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Intention for forms… Intention for sounds… Intention for smells… Intention for tastes… Intention for tactile sensations… Intention for ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Craving for forms… Craving for sounds… Craving for smells… Craving for tastes… Craving for tactile sensations… Craving for ideas is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"The earth property… The liquid property… The fire property… The wind property… The space property… The consciousness property is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"Form… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications… Consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream entry.
"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry ghosts. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream entry.
"One who knows and sees that these phenomena are this way is called a stream-enterer, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening."
To Upali the householder, as he was sitting right there, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation. Then — having seen the Dhamma, having reached the Dhamma, known the Dhamma, gained a footing in the Dhamma, having crossed over & beyond doubt, having had no more questioning — Upali the householder gained fearlessness and was independent of others with regard to the Teacher’s message.
— MN 56
This is correct. There is only one path to Nibbana and these suttas feature that. This description is not subject to time or variations in personal practice. To bring the four fold variation re the four stages of attainment, the 3 cycled 12 fold version of the four Noble Truths would be useful to bring the levels of attainment into the picture. The third Noble Truth (Nibbana) occurs at least three times in it.
The idea (commentarial?) of suppression (tadanga pahana) of avijja at stream entry is a useful way of discussing what happens when the mind reaches Nibbana at stream entry.
IMO you could argue that it is the ten fetters that bind consciousness to phenomena (Nama and Rupa) or samsara. At stream entry three of those are disbanded. The remaining seven pull the mind back from Nibbana into Samsara at stream entry. I take this to mean that the higher one is in the path, the easier it is to access the meditative experiences of Nibbana. This model would explain why a non- returner can experience cessation of feeling and perception after the 8th jhana while those below cannot, even if they can attain the 8th jhana. I think arahanth maybe able to attain into Nibbana very easily (arahath phala?). This is just my theory at this point and it may change to some degree.
Could it not be precisely what DN 15 says?
I like your previous citation of SN 12.66.
I think there’s a lot of merit to the suggestions offered by others in Bhante’s “Clinging” thread, that perhaps “Clinging” is better rendered by “appropriation”. The verb would then be “he appropriates”.
Does DN 15 necessarily refer to the arahant with the stock phrase “she does not appropriate anything in the world”?
We have a variant of the above formula in SN 22.80 -
There are, bhikkhus, these two views: the view of existence and the view of extermination.
Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: ‘Is there anything in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy?’ He understand thus: ‘There is nothing in the world that I could cling to without being blameworthy. For if I should cling, it is only form that I would be clinging to, only feeling … only perception … only volitional formations … only consciousness that I would be clinging to. With that clinging of mine as condition, there would be existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair would come to be. Such would be the origin of this whole mass of suffering.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent? … Is feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.
SN 24.2 explicitly identifies the abandonment of the “This is mine, this I am, this is my self” view with the Stream Winner.
As I’ve mentioned before, I think the stock formula in question is just a compressed formula that is applicable to all Noble Ones, in terms of describing their journey towards full awakening. Compression of the journey also occurs in another pericope “niyato sambodhiparāyano” that is applied to Stream Winners.
I think I need to make an amendment to my position on SN 12.51. Certainly, it is the case that the arahant does not abhisaṅkharoti(generates/fashions) volitions. But I just remembered from DN 9, that the person attaining the Cessation of Feelings and Perception does so also on the basis of not fashioning volitions. And that attainment appears to be accessible to Non-Returners as well.
I think there can be better clarity if we read the formula as sequential as follows (instead of describing one consistent state of “no clinging”) -
- na kiñci loke upādiyati > 2. anupādiyaṃ na paritassati > 3. aparitassaṃ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati
The sequential reading is the only way I can think of to accommodate the fact that Trainees too can experience moments when they do not cling/appropriate the 5 Aggregates and Sixfold Base. That appears to be the clear import of SN 24.2, ie that Stream Entry occurs, not because there is no clinging, but the person does not cling to the 5 Aggregates. The thing to remember about appropriation is that it is dependant on craving. If one does not crave, clinging does not arise then. Why then? Because craving is in turn a response to feeling, making it impermanent : SN 25.8. Feeling is not something constantly in the background but is in turn dependant on contact. See what MN 28 says about contact.
Dependant Origination does not permit Clinging to be a constant background noise; otherwise we will have found the seat of Self. What it does permit is a series of “clingings” dependant on craving, which is also a series of cravings that follow each qualia it is dependant upon. In an arahant, that series or flow of clingings has been extirpated, but in Trainees and sense restraint achievers, that stream of “clingings” can be interrupted by not craving in response to a particular feeling.
And what, bhikkhus, are the dependently arisen phenomena? Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. Birth is impermanent … Existence is impermanent … Clinging is impermanent … Craving is impermanent … Feeling is impermanent … Contact is impermanent … The six sense bases are impermanent … Name-and-form is impermanent … Consciousness is impermanent … Volitional formations are impermanent … Ignorance is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation. These, bhikkhus, are called the dependently arisen phenomena.
“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist
in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and where will it go?’
“For what reason is this impossible? Because, bhikkhus, the noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.” : SN 12.20
See the non-agitation that is the privilege of Noble Ones?
A number of suttas, including but not limited to MN 44, MN 109, and SN 22.121 give chandarāgo as synonym for upādāna… that might lead to some discoveries
But if you ask me whether someone who does not upadiyati should be considered an arahant, I would say surely yes, in virtue of dependent origination.
“yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, api nu taṃ anupādāya evaṃ diṭṭhi uppajjeyya: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti? “no hetaṃ, bhante”.
“But without clinging to what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, could such a view as that arise?” “No, Bhante”
“yato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa imesu ca ṭhānesu kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti, dukkhepissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti … pe … dukkhanirodhagāminiyā paṭipadāyapissa kaṅkhā pahīnā hoti, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpanno
When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has abandoned perplexity in these six cases, and when, further, he has abandoned perplexity about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering, he is then called a noble disciple who is a stream-enterer - SN 24.2
Again, it appears you misrepresent the quote above. Stream entry occurs because perplexity is abandoned in the 6 cases as well as about the 4NT, not because one does not updiyati towards the 5Ag.
Perplexity is abandoned because stream entrants have right view. If they stopping clinging to all the five aggregates permanently the anagamin wouldn’t need to get rid of sense desire (kamacanda ) to become a non-returner. Also there’s nothing else to cling to.
Monks, conscious of matter, grasping and settling in matter, arise the view, `This is mine. I am here, and this is my self.’” SN24.2
Self view certainly arises due to clinging. It passes away due samadhi and panna OR wise contemplation (yonisomanasikara), Voice of another (paratogoso) and right view. When something is seen, it cannot be unseen and leaves a strong imprint. The clinging persists, giving rise to suffering and becoming (bhava).
Hope that makes more sense.
I frankly wonder how in the world you can interpret my statement -
Where in my statement above do I imply or say that all the qualifiers in SN 24.2 need not be satisfied for Stream Entry?
In your desperation to “project” onto my reading of SN 24.2, you overlooked the most important outcome of correctly pointing out that Stream Entry is attained at the end of the sequence in that sutta. The sequence goes like this, in REVERSE order -
(4) when one abandons perplexity about the 4 Realities (ie Stream Entry here) < (3) when a noble disciple has abandoned perplexity about the 5 Aggregates and the Upanisadic “seen, heard, sensed, cognised etc” < (2) non-arising of the view “This is mine, this I am, this is my self” < (1) not clinging to what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change.
For ease of presentation, I have split up (2) and (3), but they are the same.
I would have thought I need not point out the obvious here. Since Stream Entry only occurs with stage (4), then it must mean that the preceding stages of the process is not undergone by a Stream Winner. Or are you going to insist like this -
That being the case, you would have to argue that at stage (1) of the SN 24.2 process, the proto-Stream Winner was already an arahant!
Your interpretation of Dependant Origination does not appear to (1) accomodate situations of partial cessations, such as the total loss of a type of Existence for Non-Returners on account of the cessation of kāmūpādāna, nor (2) account for the situation that the nidānas in DO are not in themselves a priori sufficient to give rise to the sequel. (2) is in fact the key interpretation of DO given in DN 15 when it defines the Second Reality in terms of the Third Reality.
A very, very, very good suggestion! To that I would add this -
On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging (Yā vedanāsu nandī tadupādānaṃ ). With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition, birth; 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.
This can the starting point for a discussion of the utility and place for chanda and striving in the Noble Eightfold Path, and the point at which the meditator reaches not only the point of diminishing returns with “energy”, but where he will reap his share of distress if he does not see the drawback in even the 5 Spiritual Faculties : SN 48.2.
Am I reading you wrongly when you say ‘Stream Entry occurs because the person does not cling to the 5 Aggregates’? If not, how does rephrasing ‘one does not updiyati towards the 5Ag’ misinterpret your statement?
It appears in your explanation that your are resorting to the fallacy of ‘affirming the consequent’:
The sutta states (1) implies (2) which implies (3) and if (4) also happens then one is a sotapanna.
When you say things like
you are assuming that (3) and (4) imply (2) which in turn, in your opinion, implies (1), which is why you qualify stage (1) as describing a ‘proto-Stream Winner’.
What I am saying is that is not necessarily the case. Or that at least, this is not what one can validly infer logically from the text.
On the other hand, the implications of what you are saying don’t seem to make much sense. If indeed (2) implies (1), then in order to not have the view ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’, one would have to not cling to any of the 5Ag or any of ‘what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, and ranged over by the mind’.
Is it not the case that first one acquires the view (stream entry) and then later on one fully realizes the truth with his/her body, in which case s/he becomes an arahant and does not upadiyati any more in relation to any of the above?
It does. Once again, I fail to see the relevance of your objection to my argument.
Do I really need to mention this every time I talk about DO? You seem to think so. I just don’t.
Nice, thank you!
Please feel free to create a new topic and engage other participants to the forum to contribute and give their opinions as well
I like the no feeling no upadāna part. But such ideas are a bit too technical for me.
I typed this offline a week or so ago:
The poll is missing the option “it refers to different people in different contexts”, as Venerable Brahmali argued. Before reading his reply, I had a quick look at the suttas referred here, and concluded:
- AN7.61, MM37: arahant, since “he fully knows”.
- SN12.51: arahant, since “he has abandoned ignorance”.
- SN35.30-31, 90-91: arahant, since “he does not conceive anything”
- SN35.234: arguably any ariya, since “does not recognize either a self or anything belonging to a self”.
- DN15: idem, since “he does not consider feeling (etc) as self”
- MN10, DN22: seems like anybody who does the practice of satipatthana correctly.
I do not agree with V. Brahmali’s speculation that it means “the non-clinging [non-taking] is temporary for the stream-enterer”. May be true technically, but that’s not something the suttas ever say, nor is it how the suttas sound to me.
The Pali present tense has a sense of “general truth” or imaginable/certain future, which can help explain why the passages for the arahant and the other ariyas are quite similar. (Also helps is that upadiyati = ‘to take up’, not ‘to cling’.) The passage sounds not like a momentary thing, but like this general truth that “he will not take up anything in the world”. You can see how this sentence can have slightly different connotations for the arahants and the stream winners if translated in this way, which is certainly possible, and how I would do it. It means all ariyas will eventually become totally enlightened, and “not take up anything in the world” at all in whatever way.
The standard passages containing na kiñci loke upādiyati are not in the realis mood, but portray an hypothetical future or “general truth”, which is to say, things do not actually occur while the Buddha is speaking, all at the same time, but in the context of “if this happens”. Take SN35.234 (paraphrased): “if you don’t see things a self, you will not take anything up, you will not be moved, you will become enlightened, and you will know rebirth has ended.” This is a general statement of what can happen. So na kiñci loke upādiyati, even when the sutta talks about the stream-winner before, can well refer to the attitude of the arahant! (if it doesn’t also imply something slightly different, which I wouldn’t rule out. Cf. SN22.79.).
Let’s also not forget that this expression is first of all a pragmatic instruction. It’s mostly about how to relate to the world, whether we are an ariya or not. It not so much meant to give a deep description of the stream winner’s or arahant’s state of mind. So in this sense it applies to everybody!
I wasn’t taking about DN15. But I hope I’ve answered your question in what I just said.
ps. I’m not reading everything in this thread, just so people know. Saving for reading offline isn’t working well.
I’ve made an attempt to explain that appropriation is an occurrence dependant upon craving, and that it is not a background state of being, on account of Dependant Origination. To say “the person does not cling to the 5 Aggregates” allows this occassional reprieve from appropriation, whereas saying that “one does not upadiyati towards the 5 Aggregates” sounds like a persistent background state of never appropriating at all.
Before I respond to your critique of my reasoning on the sequence, I have to clarify the sequence I proposed in response to this -
It may be a problem with the English translation of SN 24.2. I’ve looked carefully at the Pali, and all we have is pissa, after the locative of each of the 4 Noble Truths. I understand that this is pi+assa, basically meaning “as well as”. BB’s rendition of pissa into “further” may not be incorrect as an idiomatic rendition, but it has led me to unnecessarily read a temporal sequence to the passage.
The fact that it cannot be a temporal sequence is borne out of the Stream Entry pericope -
Then the Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of liberality, virtue, the heavens, on the evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures, and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas, viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path.
Just as a clean cloth, free from stain, would take the dye perfectly, even so, to Upāli, the householder, whilst seated in that place, there arose (in him) the spotless, stainless vision of Truth. He knew: Whatsoever has causally arisen must inevitably pass utterly away.’
The Noble Truths actually come before Stream Entry. This does suggest that (4) might actually be in the same pool as (2) and (3).
What exactly does SN 24.2 mean? According to SN 24.2 -
When there is form, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, such a view as this arises: “This is mine, this I am, this is my self”.
I’m leaving BB’s translation of the absolutive upādāya intact, even if it is not my preferred rendering of “having appropriated”.
If we render this into a proper syllogism, where A = “It is the case that one has appropriated” and B = “It is the case that there is arising of that view”, we will get -
If A, then B
= If not-B, then not-A (by contraposition)
Since (1) = not-A = not having appropriated what is impermanent, suffering and subject to change; and
(2) = not-B = non-arising of the view “This is mine, this I am, this is my self”
you will get -
If appropriation, then arising of that view
If not-arising of that view, then not-appropriation. (by contraposition)
Not-arising of that view.
Therefore, not appropriation.
Can you now see why it is logically valid to infer from (2) to (1)? It’s actually an a priori derivation. It’s not affirming the consequent, but affirming the negation of the consequent, which is Modus Tollens in action. It might not have been so obvious, on account the fact that the elements in the sequence were negative propositions, instead of affirmative propositions.
Hopefully, this now explains my position and derivation clearly. So, in response to -
The outcome of the Modus Tollens is so radical, and that is perhaps what makes entering the stream so counter-intuitive. I won’t say it’s in plain sight, since its presence in MN 22 has been missed by so many who did not recognise its use to establish “No-Self”.
As mentioned previously, “to cling” is a sequel dependant upon craving, which in itself is dependant upon feeling. I do not think we can interpret “from craving as condition, clinging comes to be” to mean a constant state of clinging. This makes it possible for occassions to present itself where the person does not cling. It can happen when that person does not crave in response to feeling, which appears to be the outcome of well-established sense restraint.
I’ll pass on starting that new thread; it’s received as much ventilation as it needs on other threads.
Now I see the problem. You are referring to the beginning of the sutta, where it says
When there is Form, by ‘taking up’ Form, by being inclined to Form, such a view arises: ‘This is me, this is my self, this is what I am’.
I was referring to the end of the sutta where it says
But without ‘taking up’ what is inconstant, suffering, subject to change, could such a view arise: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?
I think a proper modus ponens can be built in the latter case, but not in the former. I have created a new thread to discuss this point.
Indeed. A bit too radical for me. Which is in part why I think that modus tollens is not valid.
We agree on that. Can you point out what exactly I have said that directly contradicts this, and how? Of course, feel free to refuse, I don’t mean to sealion you.
Perhaps, but that is far from constituting hard evidence it is actually the case. It could very well be that ‘clinging’ arises and passes away constantly towards multiple objects at the same time, at a very fast pace and down to the deepest levels of the mind, far beyond the limit of an ordinary ability to see within oneself.
For example, it would imply that there is not the slightest trace of fear of death in such a state.