I don’t know if it helps, but I think that the idea is that a fire isn’t a real entity, it’s a process. While a process (such as a fire) is still ongoing, there is lots you can say about it, but all you can say about it when it has ended is that it has ended
1 Like
sorry @stu but that doesn’t help me at all. First of all, in contemporary metaphysics and ontology, entity is used very generally, and includes processes, and that is the way I am using it here, kind of like ‘thing’. Secondly, even if we restrict entity to a static thing in distinction to a process thing, and claim that the fire is a process thing not an entity thing, the simile still relies on the fire being a real such process thing, about which the real cardinal directions really don’t apply to the question “when it went out, which direction did it go?”
Also what you say about what we can say about processes makes no sense, I can say anything at all about the process of fire regardless of whether or not there is a fire going, its status has no relation to the epistemology about it.
Also if we apply this argument to the buddha and the undeclared we again get a broken simile; if the buddha was a process before, then it woud be true to say that after death, the process does not continue, and this is the second of the undeclared positions, so your idea doesn’t just contradict MN72, it contradicts @Sunyo 's argument as well.
claiming that a person is a process does not succeed in resolving either the abyakata or the anatta in the ebt. sorry.
1 Like
No worries, maybe it will help someone else
6 Likes
Buddha knew from experience, i believe, that all those ideas and perceptions about ‘this is my self, this I am, this is mine’, hinder the process of lettting go. They hinder detachment. That is the context, i feel.
This process of letting go is for us fearful. Because all these khandha’s circle around our notion of ‘I am’…‘I exist’…and also vice versa, we cannot let go of them. We keep them alive. We feed them all the time. All these identity issues are in fact only nutrition for the khandha’s and vice versa.
But, the Buddha says…do not fear Friends…only suffering gets lost. Not you get lost. This is our fear. For example, if you would have no bodily sense at all at a certain moment, most likely panic, fear would arise. This is because your sense of ‘I exist’ is so closely related to experiencing a body and vice versa.
The Khandhas uphold in this way our notion of ’ I am’ and vice versa. Like mirroring. That is why this notion lies at the root of feeding the khandha’s day in day out. For example, excessive thinking is only a way to feel alive as I am. What is unconsciously going on: “I think, so i exist. I exist because I think”
Such schema’s are present in the mind also in regard to passion, emotions, feelings, perceptions.
Compare this with seeing in a mirror and suddenly seeing no face. You would probably be really shocked and maybe in panic. When your face again manifests you think…all is oke…
The same is happening internaly. If the mind does not feel or perceive this or that, it, most likely, can also be shocked and in panic because such a long time it is identified with all this.
This is why all doctrines of self are blocking the Path.
So we have to develop an experiential understanding that we do not cease when for example thoughts cease, or passions, desires, anger, sounds, smells, plans, ideas etc. If this becomes more real for us, we also do loose the need and desire to uphold these khandha’s, and feed them.
Identity issues keep us trapped in this world of attachment, feeding khandha’s, fear, anxiety, limitations. We have to solve this to see and realise the mind without limits (AN10.81)
So, i understanding it as a comforting and inspiring statement. An inspiration to let go, be brave.
Hi all, thanks for thinking along.
These questions are good and worth answering, but I think they take us a bit too far off track in this topic, sorry.
Accurate enough. My main objection is that the saying is not a pragmatic statement about what the Buddha teaches, which doesn’t fit the contexts, but a statement on what exists. The translation issue (the inclusion of ‘only’) is secondary to this. But this inclusion does help to get the point across and is supported by other passages that teach the same principles, because they do use eva in the restrictive (‘only’) sense.
Instead of arguing along Stu’s lines (with which I do agree), let’s take a different route.
The Buddha actually does take one of the four positions on whether enlightened beings are reborn, namely the second. In MN120 he says: "And, mendicants, that mendicant is not reborn anywhere.” (na katthaci upapajjati) This is the exact same wording that in MN72 he says doesn’t apply: "‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” (“Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.)
Unless the Buddha was being inconsistent, this can only be reconciled if the statement is true in one way but false in another. It’s true because enlightened beings exist in some form (as the five aggregates), and these aggregates are not reborn. On the other hand, it’s not true because “THEY are not reborn” is easily taken to refer to some solid entity, a self, a they that does not get reborn. This assumption of a self is where Vacchagotta comes from, because in the discourses again and again he has trouble understanding anatta.
Likewise, in many instances the Buddha uses the term “Tathāgata” in a conventional sense, some of which you’ve quoted. But when the discussion is on anatta he makes clear that there is no real essence behind the Tathāgata, that it is just a label people use for the five aggregates. For instance, SN44.8 says the views about the tathāgata after death arise when one has a sense of self with regards to the aggregates. If one doesn’t, then such views don’t arise. In DN15 it is said:
This whole passage falls under the section header “regarding as self”, so that’s what the statements about the Realized One after death are about as well. Without a concept of self, there is also no concept of a “Realized One” as being some solid, fixed entity.
The issue is largely one of language. Elsewhere (DN9) the Buddha also says he uses the term ‘self’ conventionally. SN1.25 is of relevance as well, where it is said enlightened ones still say “they speak to me”, following worldly convention. The Buddha did so too. However, sometimes he spoke from the higher point of view of anatta, such as when he refuses to say, “they don’t get reborn”.
I think a large part of why you do not understand my posts on these matters, is that you aren’t keeping these two ways of speaking apart.
Of interest to you may also be Selfless Persons by Stephen Collins. I haven’t read the whole thing, but the issue of the Tathāgata after death he treats quite well, I think. He isn’t the only one by far to interpret these statements as such, though. As I’ve already quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi: "the “Tathagata” is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations”
8 Likes
Its corresponding Chinese counterpart SA 106 does not have such a statement “I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation”.
I think, it is correct to say the word ‘only’ is not correct in the Pali text. The Buddha also did teach more than just these two things according to SN/SA suttas regarding the notion of “seeing things as they really are”:
1 Like
Thank you for the interesting and informed analysis.
I would largely agree, but think there is a nuance here that is extremely important. The Buddha is not saying what he declares to be the only thing to exist. He is saying that the only thing he does declare is dukkha and its cessation. In other words, he doesn’t talk in terms of self, or no self, or both, or neither. It’s the same as the ‘declared’ vs ‘undeclared points’ in my opinion.
The Buddha does not declare that a Tathāgata exists after death, nor that a Tathāgata does not exist after death, nor both, nor neither. Rather, he declares *only suffering and the cessation of suffering as the limit of phenomenological reality one can experience, describe, and designate with language (as in DN 15). That is his concern, rather than ontological or metaphysical doctrines of noumena or no-noumenon behind the ‘curtain’ of phenomena. He simply doesn’t go there, as he recognizes that speculating in those ways is simply based on contact (phassa), leads to grasping, and therefore to further existence in such and such a way (see DN 1).
I hope what I’m proposing is clear. In one sense, we may say “there is only suffering.” But if we take that statement in a more absolute, ontological sense, we instead need to talk about the limits of language, knowledge, and the structure or conditionality of experience (again, as in DN 1 or DN 15).
I’m grateful for the connections you made between this statement and other suttas which helps contextualize and understand it much better than a random maxim removed from particular teachings. Sadhu!
All the best.
4 Likes
The Buddha taught a system of liberation, not a system of beliefs. Beliefs are a honey trap.
3 Likes
One thing seems clear- the Buddha did not only declare suffering and its cessation!
(The sutta pitaka would be a lot shorter if this was the case…)
2 Likes
You assume that the whole of the canon is homogeneous. That is something that has to be proven. I think the evidence suggests otherwise.
1 Like
This statement is not about the only content of his teaching, but about the only context of not only his teaching, but of all his actions as a teacher, as the Buddha. To understand this, we need to look not at what exactly he was talking about in particular circumstances, but first and foremost at why he decided to teach at all, and for what purpose.
It is like visiting a doctor when the doctor has already understood the essence of the patient’s illness. From the patient’s point of view, the doctor’s questions and explanations may seem completely unrelated to the problem, but the patient, at least the thoughtful one, understands that the doctor is not just teaching him life on various distant topics, but is specifically trying to explain the essence of the disease and its solution to the patient himself. The difference here is that everybody knows who the doctor is, what is the purpose of his actions, but not everybody understands who the Buddha is.
1 Like
Yes! Thanks from me too.
It’s never a good idea to reduce such deep thinking to mere soundbites or ‘refrigerator-magnet’ sayings.
1 Like
If dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṁ (MN22) meant “what I declare is that there is only suffering and a cessation of suffering,” should we not expect:
• Nirodha to be in the nominative case, not the accusative?
• The “is” to be explicitly expressed by some copula as it is in the Vaijira and Kaccānagotta suttas?
• Some device (e.g., an iti particle) to show that (contrary to appearances) the sentence actually comprises two clauses, not one, and to distinguish the supposed independent clause (paññapemi) from the supposed declarative content clause (dukkhañceva … dukkhassa ca nirodhaṁ)?
3 Likes
Bhante, would that have to look something like,
*dukkhañceva paññāpemi, ‘dukkhassa nirodho’ti hoti.
Or perhaps,
dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhameva hi sambhoti…
2 Likes
Namo Buddhaya!
I don’t think that this is a reasonable way to interpret it.
If i was to teach you about infectious disease and it’s eradication i would teach
- The disease; symptomology etc
- The origin of disease; pathogen etc
- The cure for the disease; eg antibiotics
- The treatment protocol; dosage etc
I could say i teach only the infectious disease & it’s eradication. A comprehensive teaching about infectious disease & it’s eradication would include many things.
I didn’t bother reading the rest of the essay and so i only comment on this.
2 Likes
I just check the Chinese version MA 200, counterpart of MN 22. MA200 also does not have such a statement “I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation”.
2 Likes
If the Buddha declares the second of the four positions in relation to the undeclared, and we are to infer this from MN120 where the undeclared are not mentioned (despite this being a painfully long sutta), then why does he say at DN9;
‘A Realized One exists after death …’ …
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, anything else is wrong’?”
‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti?“This too has not been declared by me.”
“Etampi kho, poṭṭhapāda, mayā abyākataṁ: ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.
Why do they do it again at MN63?
“There are several convictions that the Buddha has left undeclared; he has set them aside and refused to comment on them.
“yānimāni diṭṭhigatāni bhagavatā abyākatāni ṭhapitāni paṭikkhittāni:
For example: the cosmos is eternal, or not eternal, or finite, or infinite; the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things; after death, a Realized One still exists, or no longer exists, or both still exists and no longer exists, or neither still exists nor no longer exists.
‘sassato loko’tipi, ‘asassato loko’tipi, ‘antavā loko’tipi, ‘anantavā loko’tipi, ‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīran’tipi, ‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīran’tipi, ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi—
The Buddha does not explain these points to me.
tāni me bhagavā na byākaroti.
Basically @sunyo it seems to me that your argument relies, very heavily, on their being a meaning in the suttas that is esoteric, hidden, not explicated, not explicitly stated.
This hidden meaning is that when it appears that the buddha is not taking a view, not holding a conviction, not declaring something, not endorsing something, what they are really doing is correcting an (unstated) misconception on the part of the other speaker in the sutta, that is that there is self before death that is either destroyed or survives.
Why not just say that?
even the yamaka and related suttas, that form a tiny minority of the explanations given for the undeclared, don’t do this, prefering rather to attack the premise that a self outside the aggregates and the undeclared could be found or defined.
why not just say;
“Well, is there no such thing as suffering?”
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, natthi dukkhan’ti?“It’s not that there’s no such thing as suffering.
‘Na kho, kassapa, natthi dukkhaṁ.Suffering is real.”
Atthi kho, kassapa, dukkhan’ti.
SN12.17
but with atta for dukkha and natthi for atthi?
But, as far as I am aware, this statement is simply never made, in over 10,000 suttas at over 4 million words, why spend so much time on painstakingly avoiding a statement of this sort and instead exhaustively refuting its opposite, while also saying, in suttas that occur in all four collections, in both languages, that positions of the type; “X exists”, “X doesn’t exist”, “both”, “neither”, are not declared by the buddha?
Also, while if you squint it might be just barely plausible that the
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipi
part of the undeclared points might be explained because concepts of a personal self are mistaken and therefore don’t apply after death (although again, in over 4 million words of teaching the buddha never says this explicitly, despite it being very easy to do so), I cannot fathom how you can shoehorn the
‘sassato loko’tipi, ‘asassato loko’tipi, ‘antavā loko’tipi, ‘anantavā loko’tipi,
part into this explination, how does my mistakenly taking myself to be a self bear at all on wether the universe is infinite or finite? or eternal or not? how does the “hidden assumption” argument work here?
And finally, I still have yet to here you or anyone else directly address the issue I have, that of the simile at MN72, the simile says
What do you think, Vaccha?
Taṁ kiṁ maññasi, vaccha,
Suppose a fire was burning in front of you. Would you know:
sace te purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāsi tvaṁ:
‘This fire is burning in front of me’?”
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti?“Yes, I would, Master Gotama.”
“Sace me, bho gotama, purato aggi jaleyya, jāneyyāhaṁ:
‘ayaṁ me purato aggi jalatī’”ti.
how is this reconciled with the argument that the buddha meant us to interpret the simile as implying that the fire was not real to begin with?
Happy to hear from anyone with knowledge of the issue and a willingness to actually discuss the simile itself rather than other suttas.
1 Like
You know Stephen, it’s interesting, because I really can’t think of another view of the human condition that offers so much hope as Buddhism, in the sense that Buddha declares suffering and the possibility for its cessation - in this very life. Now. If you’re serious about it, you’ll be working on it now.
Dukkha is a pithy expression of the human condition. Anyone who wouldn’t say that life is suffering needs to go check themselves out, but look at some of the thinking available to the Western world: Calvinism - you’re all lost. There isn’t a single thing you can do about it, because it is God who will call you, or not; Catholicism - confess, repent, eat this very body of Christ, the Son of God who died on the cross to save us from our sins, and do what you’re told, or you’re excommunicated. You’re damned for all time. Exorcist City for you.
And that’s just religious stuff. There are vast traditions of humanism, coloured by centuries and millennia of cultural engagement.
So, going back to what I was saying, in terms of one of the greatest existential problems - a real problem - encountered by every single person that has preoccupied pretty much all religious thought and anyone who is at all sensitive to other people (in the West we call it the problem of evil) as far as I can see Buddha’s declaration of suffering and its cessation does mark his distinction in terms of what he holds out for the world.
Cheers.
4 Likes
Yes, I agree with everything you say in your post and hope that I didn’t say anything to the contrary.
One does not need to look further than the 4 Noble Truths to see an accurate description of the human condition and its remedy.
It’s wonderful and hopefully a source of great hope.
2 Likes
Hey Stephen, nothing contrary. It’s hard work. Even coming into present-mindedness can be traumatic and painful, depending on where people are coming from when the rubber hits the road. Coming to terms with yourself and the layers of it, is not a pleasant thing. Like I said before, I’ve seen big, rough, macho guys come off the oil patch, which is such a debilitating existence, bawl and bawl like babies as the come into, simply, feeling themselves - all the way down. And the one thing they do have when they come to speak of it, is that they discover they aren’t alone. They are surrounded by people who are listening, sitting quietly and nodding in empathy, understanding and compassionate support. It’s a long road. We are, after all, talking about addiction here. Even our dopamine-seratonin talk, he really wasn’t that far off. It’s not all he talks about, but he did need to incise it.
Oh, and I hope you caught my riff off Raccoon City and Resident Evil. 
4 Likes