Interesting to listen to types of Nibbana prevailed in Buddha’s time.
What is this strange ritual practiced by BB?
I have never seen something like this.
What is that statue he is bowing to?
The BB address the question in OP.
In a way it is funny how the text has just one additional word ‘na’ and it spawns so many scholarly debates. I don’t think that the narratives, especially in the MN, are the most trustworthy parts of the suttas, they are uniform and repetitive.
MN 1 is no exception, the sutta doesn’t bother to give us a context to this ‘na’ - and the rest is speculation.
An interesting side-topic though is @SarathW1 's and Bodhi’s point about ‘owning Nibbana’. To me it leads to the question: Was nibbana an exclusively Buddhist term? Or was it a widely spread term of ascetics at that time?
The EBT surely have the earliest record of using ‘nibbana’, but there are some hints that it might have been a samana term:
- The Jains also use ‘nirvana’ in their oldest texts (which are a bit post-EBT)
- Bh. Bodhi mentions DN 1 (there is also AN 10.29) where “some ascetics and brahmins speak of nibbana in the present life”
- In AN 5.52 the Buddha converses with a Brahmin about different types of people in general (warriors, Brahmins, householders, women, thieves). About ascetics, Samaṇās, he says: “Patience and mildness, brahmin, is the aim of ascetics; their quest is for wisdom; virtuous behavior is their support; they are intent on nothingness; and their final goal is nibbāna”
- If we take the wording in MN 26 seriously (I wouldn’t rely on that too much) the Bodhisatta would have said “Why don’t I seek the unborn, … nibbana?” So the notion would have been there already. Again, later, being dissatisfied with Alara Kalama’s practice he said “This teaching doesn’t lead to disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and nibbana” - both before realizing nibbana
There is only circumstantial evidence for it, but it might be the case that there were different ideas about nibbana around and that this is what MN 1 refers to when it says not to appropriate nibbana.
2 Likes
I’m listening to the video which I watched a long time ago.
In the mean time I did check the pali sources, just to see if the word uses are similar or not.
So, we have:
“Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto— pathaviṃ pathavito sañjānāti; pathaviṃ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṃ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṃ meti maññati, pathaviṃ abhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (1)
Āpaṃ āpato sañjānāti; āpaṃ āpato saññatvā āpaṃ maññati, āpasmiṃ maññati, āpato maññati, āpaṃ meti maññati, āpaṃ abhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (2)
Tejaṃ tejato sañjānāti; tejaṃ tejato saññatvā tejaṃ maññati, tejasmiṃ maññati, tejato maññati, tejaṃ meti maññati, tejaṃ abhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (3)
…
Nibbānaṃ nibbānato sañjānāti; nibbānaṃ nibbānato saññatvā nibbānaṃ maññati, nibbānasmiṃ maññati, nibbānato maññati, nibbānaṃ meti maññati, nibbānaṃ abhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (24)Puthujjanavasena paṭhamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sekkho appattamānaso anuttaraṃ yogakkhemaṃ patthayamāno viharati, sopi pathaviṃ pathavito abhijānāti; pathaviṃ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṃ mā maññi, pathaviyā mā maññi, pathavito mā maññi, pathaviṃ meti mā maññi, pathaviṃ mābhinandi. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññeyyaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.
Āpaṃ … pe … tejaṃ … vāyaṃ … bhūte … deve … pajāpatiṃ … brahmaṃ … ābhassare … subhakiṇhe … vehapphale … abhibhuṃ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ … nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ … diṭṭhaṃ … sutaṃ … mutaṃ … viññātaṃ … ekattaṃ … nānattaṃ … sabbaṃ … nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṃ mā maññi, nibbānasmiṃ mā maññi, nibbānato mā maññi, nibbānaṃ meti mā maññi, nibbānaṃ mābhinandi. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññeyyaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.
Sekkhavasena dutiyanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
Yopi so, bhikkhave, bhikkhu arahaṃ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññāvimutto, sopi pathaviṃ pathavito abhijānāti; pathaviṃ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṃ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṃ meti na maññati, pathaviṃ nābhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.
Āpaṃ … pe … tejaṃ … vāyaṃ … bhūte … deve … pajāpatiṃ … brahmaṃ … ābhassare … subhakiṇhe … vehapphale … abhibhuṃ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ … nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ … diṭṭhaṃ … sutaṃ … mutaṃ … viññātaṃ … ekattaṃ … nānattaṃ … sabbaṃ … nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṃ na maññati, nibbānasmiṃ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṃ meti na maññati, nibbānaṃ nābhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi.
Khīṇāsavavasena tatiyanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
…
Khīṇāsavavasena catutthanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
…
Khīṇāsavavasena
pañcamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
…
Khīṇāsavavasena chaṭṭhanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
…
Tathāgatopi, bhikkhave, arahaṃ sammāsambuddho pathaviṃ pathavito abhijānāti; pathaviṃ pathavito abhiññāya pathaviṃ na maññati, pathaviyā na maññati, pathavito na maññati, pathaviṃ meti na maññati, pathaviṃ nābhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññātantaṃ tathāgatassā’ti vadāmi.Āpaṃ … pe … tejaṃ … vāyaṃ … bhūte … deve … pajāpatiṃ … brahmaṃ … ābhassare … subhakiṇhe … vehapphale … abhibhuṃ … ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ … viññāṇañcāyatanaṃ … ākiñcaññāyatanaṃ … nevasaññānāsaññāyatanaṃ … diṭṭhaṃ … sutaṃ … mutaṃ … viññātaṃ … ekattaṃ … nānattaṃ … sabbaṃ … nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhijānāti; nibbānaṃ nibbānato abhiññāya nibbānaṃ na maññati, nibbānasmiṃ na maññati, nibbānato na maññati, nibbānaṃ meti na maññati, nibbānaṃ nābhinandati. Taṃ kissa hetu? ‘Pariññātantaṃ tathāgatassā’ti vadāmi.
Tathāgatavasena sattamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.
…
Tathāgatavasena aṭṭhamanayabhūmiparicchedo niṭṭhito.Idamavoca bhagavā. Na te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti.
Using Eisel Mazard pali sources, that contains all repetitions (attached the 15 pages of MN1 in PDF extract from [1]) we get the following counts:
- abhinand: 191
- mabhinandi : 25
- nabhinandati. : 138
- abhinandati. : 20 (note leading white space)
There are 7 instances unaccounted for that could be in the comment sections, or not found with the leading white space (in case the word starts in a new line).
Anyhow, this give us the following proportions, working with the accounted for terms:
puthujjana -> abhinandati = 11%
sekkhavasena -> mabhinandi = 13%
Araham / Tathagata -> nabinandati = 75%
Now, there’s one abhinandati full word I accounted for the “puthujjana” which is the final one, where the bhiddkhu na… abhinandati.
But it’s kind of a show case of the whole thing: if you do delight there and then in the buddha’s word, then you have not paid attention at all (you puthujjana 
).
Can someone please refute this explanation???
MN1.pdf (96.0 KB)
2 Likes
My objection would be the consistency in the EBT. As so often the compilers of the MN chose certain formulas from SN and AN and elevated them to an MN standard - e.g. the evam me suttam, or just this very bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti (delighting in the words of the Buddha) at the end. Being not too frequent in SN and AN, more than 1/3 of the MN suttas end with this formula.
Nowhere does the Buddha object to this delight. And it somehow misses the point. It’s not about the delight at all. It’s a self-assuring formula of the EBT, addressing the reader, a redundant formula at the end of a sutta. Kind of “The Buddha spoke, happy end”. Of course it’s not a happy end, the struggle of practice continued. But like Hollywood movies this is just a formula to end a sutta. So I don’t see any reason why MN 1 should divert from this without any explanation.
2 Likes
Yes… but 
Clearly, nothing stopped the “editor” to actually reflect upon the content of the sutta to intentionally make the changes.
It relates directly to the content of the sutta, so it’s a critical review of those generic phrases that can also indicate that the “editors” have thought this out.
Additional, the consistency objection is often countered with the fact that when it’s so obvious something is out of place, then often it’s because that 's how it was meant.
I.e. anything that would normally be redacted out or normalised but remains as-is often point to something genuine.
May be Venerable @sujato as a better way to express this message, as I’ve heard him and Venerable @Brahmali do a much better job of explaining this.
It’s a good argument, but really, the only thing we have here is a ‘na’. There is nothing controversial about the content of MN 1. We have to assume that everytime the Buddha spoke against me- and mine-making it was addressing people who actually did those objectionable things - why else would the Buddha talk to them about it? And they were always ‘delighted’, just not here in MN1?
Again, we don’t have a fully formulated alternative doctrine that would qualify as ‘the odd one out’, it’s just one syllable. Don’t you think it would be note-worthy if a whole group of Bhikkhus would object the word of their spiritual leader?
Devadatta could jump in, or Mara, or a brahmin, what a beautiful story this could be, the Buddha would debate and gloriously defeat them, some fool or another could go to hell - then we’d have something to scholarly discuss about.
The only thing I see is a scribal/recitation error that one generation faithfully recited and the next didn’t dare to change. That’d be my application of Ockham’s razor at least.
Clearly we see what we want to see.
If you pass the Ockham’s razon on this Sutta alone then the simplest answer is that it is consistant.
Note that you have not address a single time the fact that all the mentions of “abhinandati” are found onthe putujjana section.
So, I agree that treated at a global level, with regards to other suttas, this is odd, but I arguee that at a “local” level this is consistant.
Now, I’m not saying that I’m absolutely right and you’re wrong.
I don’t know. Only asking 
.
1 Like
Of course, we both don’t know. It will also never be fully resolved because we don’t have manuscripts that old.
I’m sure you are aware of Analayo’s comparative discussion of MN 1? In EA 44.6 apparently really Mara readily jumps in to explain the dissent to the puzzled audience.
Even though many parallels feature this disagreeing ending, Analayo also suggests that there were different suttas for what became this particular content. So no doubt it’s old, I’m just saying it’s not ‘original’.
because to me this is completely conventional Buddhist doctrine, following the logic of
Delight in the world = bad
Delight in the Buddha’s teaching = good
2 Likes
I take what’s being said here, and note some points which I think are great. Here’s my take on it:
- The Buddha initiates the discussion- he is known to like seclusion and generally says little, but enough to get the meaning across. Here is a more lengthy refutation of various positions usually done to dispel view which the audience might be clinging to, as it takes that level of thorough explanation.
- My hunch is that they monks were believers of Brahma. And Brahmanism becomes refuted- the Buddha makes it easy, by including it as one of the elements on a progressive scale. He also counteracts (or records for posterity) any beliefs that could arise based on Nibbana. He clearly asked this sermon to be memorised. I suppose it is easy to believe in a God and Heaven whatever century you lived in and he differentiates out theistic belief from the beliefs projected on to Nibbana, which is a different beast.
- He is speaking to Putajjana monks. Possibly newly ordained as they aren’t very learned. They are upset at having their former beliefs challenged by the Buddha. If someone is told to give up pleasures of the senses, they will likely become crestfallen and dejected. The Buddha is asking them to do this and also give up comforting beliefs about Mahabrahma, Prajapati etc. Their clinging leads to suffering and they are not happy with this discourse- its not a fantasy one with unicorns, rainbows, God, heaven, virgins etc.
with metta
1 Like
If I may add a linguistic interpretation: Some terms are significantly rare in the EBT, and ‘Pajapati’ is one of them. I don’t think this is a coincidence but rather a sign of a specific transmission line from a decade when the Sangha spread into more Brahmin mainland and incorporated the deities of that region. References to Brahma and Sakka are abundant, they also appear as ‘real’ interlocutors in contrast to Pajapati.
We find references to him only in: SN 11.3, SN 22.79—AN 11.9—MN 22 (belong to the same voice), MN 1—MN 49 (probably same voice), DN 13, DN 21, DN 32.
It’s not too surprising that most references are in the MN and DN (which to me are compiliation-nikayas and therefore later).
So my additional interpretation would be not that the Bhikkhus in the sutta were followers of Prajapati but that the (monastic) audience of the reciters were coming from a subculture/region in which an idealization of Prajapati was common.
2 Likes
To answer your question, Bhikkhu Bodhi states they will make three bows to the Buddha, the statue presumably offscreen. The statue you see is Avalokiteshvara, or Kuan Yin bodhisattva, to which he is not bowing in the video, as far as I can tell.
3 Likes
Thanks. Why he has to ring that bell?
The bell is used ceremonially to mark the time for everyone to bow together. It’s like a cue.
3 Likes
Yes, this is the text critical principle known as lectio difficilior potior, “the more difficult reading is stronger.” And I would say it applies here. Although, as @Gabriel points out, the addition of a na is a very minor change - barely an alternative reading - it is still hard for me to see how scribes would make such a mistake. They would have come across the standard formulation time and again and I don’t know why they would get it wrong in one place. In any case, whichever reading is correct, it does not affect the overall message of the sutta.
6 Likes
I personally love the surprise that they were not happy. It shows me that identity view(sakkāyadiṭṭhi) is hard to see, hard to give up and overcome even though it is shown in all of its aspects directly by the Buddha to the monks (not to say to lay people).
If at the end, all monks were happy then identity view is not a big problem, and everybody can easily understand and recognize identity view after listening to that discourse.
MN1 is the first in this collection, and sakkāyadiṭṭhi is also the first fetter to overcome for a monk.
To me, that surprise statement is beautiful and to the point. However, this is just my own impression and understanding.
3 Likes
There is a discussion in DW and a member came up with the following interpretation.
I like to know your opinion specially from Bhante @sujato
Read the final paragraph again. “Delight is the root of suffering… the bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha’s words”
If they delighted in him saying that delight itself is the root of suffering, it wouldn’t make sense. This, in my opinion is an example of some dry humor in the Suttas which is not directly traceable to the Buddha but perhaps Ananda or later reciters.
========
Why does the monks not happy with Buddha's teaching ? - Dhamma Wheel
1 Like