Does Ud 1.10 provide insight into a difficult passage in Snp 4.11?

I would like to start by looking at what Ud 1.10 tells us about the state where suffering has ended.

First we see is that there is a seen and a heard. What is a seen an a heard?

Snp 4.13 comes to the rescue.

If what we see is name and form, the seen is name and form(at least in the Atthakavagga). Likewise, I think its safe to say that the heard is also name and form. The passage also tells us name and form is no way to purity.

We also see in Ud 1.10 that there is a merely seen and a merely heard. That tells us a few of things.

  1. This state is not normal perception.
  2. This state is not formless.
  3. This state is not one of being unconscious.

We also know by Snp 4.13 that

  1. This state is not name and form.

Another thing we learn from Ud 1.10 is that there is no you in that. In other words, there is no self in that. Before there appeared to be a self in that, but the delusion or derangement of mistaking part of that for self has ceased. So by AN 4.49

  1. This state is not one of derangement.

As it turns out, four out of the five points I made about Ud 1.10 are in Bapat’s translation of the Chinese parallel to Snp 4.11. found here

The difficult passage is the first two verses of stanza (13) below found on the PDF page 119, or page 90 on the actual print.

As per @cdpatton, the Chinese character for sanna is being translated to conscious or consciousness. So I will change this to

The question “By the attainment of what does the good form cease?” is, essentially, how does name and form cease. Good form is literally beautiful form and were previously referred to as worldly objects. This would be the seen and heard, that is name and form,as per Snp 4.13 .

So the state described in Snp 4.11 is not name and form and therefore not the normally seen and heard(Snp 4.13) or, in other words, not normal perception, just like in Ud 1.10. According to Bapat, it is not formless and it is not unconscious(not lacking perception).

The only thing out of kilter is that perception being inactive is not obviously deranged perception. That said, 4 out of 5 is very close.

Now I’ll look at the Pali.

One thing that immediately jumps out is the question appears to be about how to make form disappear. I believe that the meter forced the author to abbreviate name and form to form. After all, we see above that name and form cause contact so when it ceases contact ceases. This would make it similar to the Chinese translation by Bapat. Both Bapat and Bhante @sujuto have that the state is described is not normal perception, and not unconscious/not perceived.

Bapat has the state as not formless and not inactive, @sujato does not. The Pali in the analog to these terms are: vibhūtasaññī and visaññasaññī respectively.

I agree with Bhante @sujato that visaññasaññī is distorted or deranged (there is no self), but I believe vibhūtasaññī should be translated to formless perception which I believe is reasonable in the Pali. It would literally be “perception of being without [form]” which is how the Chinese translator translated it. I believe @sujato translated it to what he did because he took the question to be how to make form, not name and form, disappear. I think in the context, name was used as the abbreviation of name and form to conform to the meter.

If I am correct the difficult passage in Snp 4.11 and the passage from Ud 1.10 describe the same state. What has disappeared without remainder in both is ‘you’ or ‘self’, as well as, name and form.

1 Like