Here’s a little thought experiment. I presume you’re wearing your pants now (I don’t want to know if otherwise). Before I drew your attention to it, were you conscious of it?
The important thing to note in MN 10’s reference to “having given up like and dislike with reference to the world” is that it is not talking about the world in the abstract. It is actually discussing “like and dislike”. These are emotional responses. Assuming we can agree that like or dislike fall under the Formations Aggregate, we can now have a sense of what the world entails.
What is the Formations Aggregate dependant on?
What is the cause and condition, venerable sir, for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate? …
Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the volitional formations aggregate.
SN 22.82
The world outside is meaningless without contact. It can exist on its own to not much consequence in the Dhamma, but once there is consciousness of the form of your pants, once there’s perception of your pants, once there is the feeling felt of your pant, there will also be the volitions directed at your pants.
We never suffer on acount of the contents of the external world, until contact is made with that world. The world that then arises upon contact is that world mentioned in SN 2.26, SN 12.44, SN 35.82, SN 35.84 - 85, SN 35.116.
BB puts it more eloquently in his CDB, fn 182 at pp 393 -394.
Instead of saying “he does not cling to anything in his realm of experience”, I would say “he does not cling to any of his experiences”.
This is a note on the ending of SN 2.26, just before the gathas:
Spk glosses loka with dukkhasacca and each of the other terms
by way of the other three noble truths. Thus the Buddha shows: “I do
not make known these four truths in external things like grass and
wood, but right here in this body composed of the four great
elements.”
This pithy utterance of the Buddha, which may well be the most
profound proposition in the history of human thought, is elucidated at
35:116 by the Venerable Ānanda, who explains that in the Noble
One’s Discipline “the world” is “that in the world by which one is a
perceiver and conceiver of the world,” i.e., the six sense bases.
F r o m Ānanda’s explanation we can draw out the following
implications: The world with which the Buddha’s teaching is
principally concerned is “the world of experience,” and even the
objective world is of interest only to the extent that it serves as the
necessary external condition for experience. The world is identified
with the six sense bases because the latter are the necessary internal
condition for experience and thus for the presence of a world. As
long as the six sense bases persist, a world will always be spread
out before us as the objective range of perception and cognition.
Thus one cannot reach the end of the world by travelling, for
wherever one goes one inevitably brings along the six sense bases,
which necessarily disclose a world extended on all sides.
Nevertheless, by reversing the direction of the search it is possible
to reach the end of the world. For if the world ultimately stems from
the six sense bases, then by bringing an end to the sense bases it is
possible to arrive at the end of the world.
Now the six sense bases are themselves conditioned, having
arisen from a chain of conditions rooted in one’s own ignorance and
craving (see 12:44 = 35:107). Thus by removing ignorance and
craving the re-arising of the six sense bases can be prevented, and
therewith the manifestation of the world is terminated. This end of
the world cannot be reached by travelling, but it can be arrived at by
cultivating the Noble Eightfold Path. Perfect development of the path
brings about the eradication of ignorance and craving, and with their
removal the underlying ground is removed for the renewed
emergence of the six senses, and therewith for the reappearance of a
world. For a long philosophical commentary on this sutta by
Ñān ̣ananda, see SN-Anth 2:70-85.
Brahmacariya in the EBT has two meanings: the older is ‘monastic studentship’, the second is celibacy. In brahmanism it’s the same. The meaning of celibacy became popular around the Dharmasutras, i.e. about 200-100 BCE.
The pericope you quoted is of older material and refers to the ‘fulfillment of monastic studentship’ - celibacy doesn’t make much sense here, don’t you think?
To make my opinion clearer and more understandable. This is opinion, I do not pretend it is incontrovertible fact, which is actually why I created this thread in the first place.
That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world . The ear … The nose … The tongue … The body … The mind is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world. That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.
Now if one does not cling to anything in any of those six spheres (including the entire mind), is there anything in the entire world that he might cling to?
Again, that is my interpretation of what cessation (nirodha). Perhaps ‘at all’ can render ‘asesa’ (without remainder).
Actually the phrase from the sutta is ‘he does not cling to anything in the world’. It is impossible to assess the depth of the difference between those propositions if you don’t have the rest of the sentence. Might you give an order of magnitude of that ‘world of difference’, and what the implications are, according to you?
Thank you for clarifying that it’s your interpretation. I am also glad that you acknowledge that the proper reading of na upādiyati is “he does not cling”, instead of “no clinging”. I would also add that I agree that “remainderless”/asesa is an adjective that can predicate the noun “cessation”; however, I don’t think it is possible to infer that the adverb “at all” must apply to the verb na upādiyati in that proposition.
If I consider the “na kiñci loke upādiyati” proposition with its sequel “anupādiyaṃ na paritassati”, we might be able to tease out the degree. The result of the person not clinging to anything in the world is that she is not agitated. Here’s an example of a form of agitation that distinguishes the Noble One from the worldling -
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? : SN 12.20
The same set of agitation is discussed in MN 2, with the explicit statement -
This is how he attends unwisely: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? etc etc…
“When he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view ‘self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established; or the view etc etc
“Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, understands what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since that is so, he does not attend to those things unfit for attention and he attends to those things fit for attention.
“What are the things unfit for attention that he does not attend to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him…etc etc… By not attending to things unfit for attention and by attending to things fit for attention, unarisen taints do not arise in him and arisen taints are abandoned.
“He attends wisely: ‘This is suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; he attends wisely: ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’ When he attends wisely in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: personality view, doubt, and adherence to rules and observances. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by seeing.
It’s Stream Entry, which explains my vote. Notice also the italicised portion. The abandonment of taints already begins with Stream Entry.
See the parallel from MA 10 -
Now, the Noble disciple is well-versed and hears the right Dharma, encounters the true friend, is tamed by the Noble’s Dharma, and knows the Dharma of the real. He knows the reality of distress, knows the sources of distress, knows the cessation of distress, and knows the reality of the path to the cessation of distress. Thus having known it as it really is, then the three fetters are ended. Seeing it for himself, taking the precepts, and having the doubts of the three fetters ended, he attains śrota-apanna (stream entry). He will not fall into evil things. He is certain to arrive at the perfect awakening, experiencing at most seven more existences. Having been reborn seven times in the heavens or among humans, he will then reach the limit of distress. If one does not know and see, then affliction and sorrow will arise in him. Knowing and seeing, affliction and sorrow will not arise in him. This is called the outflows being stopped by views.
This is how I think such passages from the suttas should be understood. They simply compress the time taken for the Third Noble Reality to be fully realised. I don’t think the Buddha was really keen to map out a detailed typology of the consequences of different types of non-clinging undergone by the Noble Ones. It really is not necessary, given that the same principle undergrids the different degrees to which Cessation/Third Noble Reality is achieved by the different Trainees, ie the Noble Eightfold Path as a virtuous cycle.
For example, the Stream Winner may be distinguished from the Non-Returner in that the Non-Returner never returns to the sensual world. The escape of sensuality depends on the experience of jhana, since that is the occassion when one is secluded from that sensuality. The Stream Winner is unlikely to know the danger and escape of sensuality if she has not experienced jhana, which accounts for why she has not yet transcended kāmupādāna.
On account of this, I see the explanation to SN 36.116 which you raise. Again, it’s a matter of degree of letting go. With Stream Entry, the basic awakening experienced is (1) the universal principle of idappaccayatā, and (2) its application to the Five Aggregates as arising dependently from craving. However, I can’t find any text to suggest that the Stream Winner understands the dependency of the Sixfold Base upon Name-&-Form. This probably comes later in the training and development. How so? Mired in the 5 senses, without discerning the escape from sensual things, the Sixfold Base will appear insurmountable. That belief is broken by an experience of jhana, when the world of sensual pleasure and pain disappears in jhana. Perhaps it is at that point that one fully realises the dependency of the Sixfold Base on name-&-form.
That is how I understand how a Stream Winner does not cling (na upādiyati), even if there remains Clinging (upādāna).
All that is nice, but I have failed to find convincing evidence for your case in your explanation, that looks somewhat idiosyncratic to me. Let’s agree to disagree and hope that some of the senior members will weigh in and give valuable opinions.
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 @anon31486827, 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.
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.’
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.
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.
"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.”
SN 25.1-10
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 Into the Stream: A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
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.
