Khila: emotional 'barrenness'?

Translations
1

The PTS dictionary defines ‘khila’ as follows: waste or fallow land (AN iii.248); fig. barrenness of mind, mental obstruction. But the sutta given to illustrate the first definition (AN 5.195), does not actually contain the word ‘khila’ (unless I’m somehow missing it.)

I’m wondering then what the basis of this definition is - is there a context in which it unambiguously means ‘wasteland’ or ‘barrenness’? I have not been able to find any.

In fact, in Snp1.2, the only sutta I’ve found where it has a literal as opposed to figurative sense, it quite clearly means something like ‘stake’: Khilā nikhātā asampavedhī.
(Plus, this is an agricultural context, which is exactly where you’d expect to find it used in the former sense.)

Most often in the suttas khila is used in the second idiomatic or figurative sense, where it gets translated as ‘emotional barrenness’ or ‘wasteland of the mind’. I’ve often found this a bit strange, and it seems to me that the word ‘stake’ would actually make for a much more fitting metaphor.

To give a couple of examples:

  1. In MN16, it’s the counterpart to cetasovinibandhā - ‘mental shackle’.
    The sutta is about things by which a monk is shackled or tied down so that they do not progress in the teaching and training. He is mentally ‘staked’ to those things just as he is ‘shackled’ by them.

  2. The first verse of Snp4.3 also has it in a context where ‘stake’ would make more sense: the sage does not embark in debate regarding the true or the false, and in this way has nothing ‘staking him’ anywhere - as one would say in English, he has no stake in anything.
    It would also give the sense of something that demarcates and makes something visible, which is also very much what is at issue in this and other related verses in the Atthakavaga; how one is knowable or marked out by the views he has taken up.

  3. And in Snp1.12, ‘barrenness’ is actually quite explicitly described as the state of the accomplished sage, the Muni: ‘having cut down what has grown, they would not replant, nor would they nurture what is growing.’
    But then a few verses later in the same sutta, the sage is described as ‘akhilaṁ’ - rather bizarre if this means ‘free of barrenness’! The line here reads Saṅgā pamuttaṁ akhilaṁ anāsavaṁ, where ‘unstaked’ would again fit quite well in the context: ‘freed of bonds, unstaked, undefiled.’

khīla meanwhile is definitely is defined as ‘a stake or post.’ - it possible that ‘khila’ in the suttas is an alternative spelling of the same word?
My Pali is very rudimentary, so I wondered would more knowledgeable others have a more informed opinion on this.

2 Likes
2

Did you have a look at the next entry?:

Khīla [Sk. kīla & khīla] a stake, post, bolt, peg Vin ii.116 (khīlaŋ nikhanitvā digging in or erecting a post); S iii.150 (kh˚ vā thambha vā); iv.200 (daḷha˚ a strong post, Ep. of satī); Mhvs 29, 49.

Have a look at Majjhima 16 for usage of the former, ‘barreness’.

Katamāssa pañca cetokhilā appahīnā honti?

3

Hi @An.Medhini,

Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.

Regards,
Danny (on behalf of the moderators)

4

Thanks for the reply!

Did you have a look at the next entry?: Khīla [Sk. kīla & khīla] a stake, post, bolt, peg Vin ii.116 (khīlaŋ nikhanitvā digging in or erecting a post); S iii.150 (kh˚ vā thambha vā); iv.200 (daḷha˚ a strong post, Ep. of satī); Mhvs 29, 49.

Yes (see the last line in my post, but I didn’t cite the full definition, thanks for providing it.) Part of my question was whether ‘khila’ in the suttas might at least in some cases be an alternative spelling of the same word, rather than a different word with a different meaning.

Have a look at Majjhima 16 for usage of the former, ‘barreness’.

Indeed, this was one of the examples I gave above as well, but I made a mistake in the citation and wrote MN18 rather than MN16 - it’s corrected now. My point there was that there’s nothing in that sutta that would lead us to assume that it must mean ‘emotional barrenness’ as opposed to, say, an emotional ‘stake or post’ (there’s no explicit comparison with a barren field, for example) and in fact, I find the latter would make more sense in the overall theme.

5

It seems that khilaṃ has multiple meanings, also with some overlap between the senses of “obduracy,” “barrenness,” and “stake.” The choice of translations (in dictionaries entries and elsewhere) seems to be based upon the commentaries. In Snp1.2 you alluded to, khilaṃ occurs two times. I think they are encapsulating the above senses:

“I boil not with anger and am without oduracy" (vigatakhilohamasmi) (Snp1.2).

"Without obduracy [means]: with no obduracy. Indeed, that which is mental obduracy has been spoken of due to the state of a bond of mind and that which is the mind being barren (khilabhūte). Just like on a barren plot of land crops don’t grow, even when the clouds give off rain for four months, in the exact same way, even when it rains the root cause of wholesomeness as the hearing of the true Dhamma and so forth, wholesomeness doesn’t grow. The Blessed One, on the other hand, has given these up in every way on the place of awakening … (Snp-a).

Vigatakhiloti apagatakhilo. ye hi te cittabandhabhāvena pañca cetokhilā vuttā, ye hi ca khilabhūte citte seyyathāpi nāma khile bhūmibhāge cattāro māse vassantepi deve sassāni na ruhanti, evamevaṃ saddhammassavanādikusalahetuvasse vassantepi kusalaṃ na ruhati te ca bhagavatā bodhimaṇḍeyeva sabbaso pahīnā …

The second occurrence:

“The stakes are fixed, unshakable” (khilā nikhātā asampavedhī) (Snp1.2).

“Therein, ‘stakes’ means a pillar for the binding of cattle [figuratively]” (tattha khilāti gunnaṃ bandhanatthambhā) (Snp-a).

In the context of MN 16, the “five mental obduracies” (pañca cetokhilā) are mentioned and as part of the fifth also someone who has “become obdurate” (khilajāto): “Furthermore, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu has become angry and displeased with their companions in the holy life, resentful and obdurate” (puna caparaṁ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sabrahmacārīsu kupito hoti anattamano āhatacitto khilajāto). Note that “has become” (jāto) fits better with an adjective (like “obdurate”), although it would not be impossible to adjust the translation to be used with some noun, too.

The commentary explains “mental obduracies” (cetokhilā) in the following way: "Mental obduracies [means]: The mind’s states of being stiff, [like] waste [or ‘rubbish’], a small stake (cetokhilāti cittassa thaddhabhāvā kacavarabhāvā khāṇukabhāvā) (MN-a). “Become rigid” (khilajāto) is explained elsewhere as: “One’s obduracy of aversion that has arisen, reckoned as the mind’s states of being stiff, [being like] waste [or ‘rubbish’] …” (cittathaddhabhāvacittakacavarasaṅkhātaṃ paṭighakhīlaṃ jātamassa …) (Vin-a). Based on that picture, there seems to be a considerable overlap. So, what resonates in many (if not all) occurrences, is the mind’s becoming obdurate (or “rigid”) like a stake on a barren field, or something like that.

khīla meanwhile is definitely is defined as ‘a stake or post.’ - it possible that ‘khila’ in the suttas is an alternative spelling of the same word?

Right; Cone (Vol. I, s.v. khila) notes that khila is sometimes written for khīla. The dictionary entries for khilaṃ in one of the Burmese dictionaries is, in general, also interesting:

(1) A spike. Obstacle. (2) The pillar that is to tie a cow. (3) A skewer. (4) It is like a spike (a thief, demerits, callus [or] corn, a lump or boil).

6

It is often the case in language that two words that sound almost or even identical have rather different meanings.

In the case of Majjhima 16 the commentary’s explanation,
Mental obduracies [means]: The mind’s states of being stiff, [like] waste [or ‘rubbish’…

seems apt.

I can easily imagine that, but not a mind like a stake.

I found these definitions at an online Sanskrit dictionary, perhaps helpful:

Khila (खिल).—[khil-ka]

  1. A piece of waste or uncultivated land, desert or bare soil; a desert, waste; खिले गा विष्ठिता इव (khile gā viṣṭhitā iva) Av.7.115.4.

  2. A gap, vacant place.

1 Like
7

Thank you very much for all this, it’s very useful and is the sort of information I do not have access to.

Interesting that the commentary to MN 16 mentions ‘fixity’ and stiffness as well as a state of a bond of mind. And that the Burmese dictionary does not mention ‘wasteland’ at all.
The ubiquitous English translation of it as ‘mental wasteland’ or ‘mental barrenness’ does therefore seem a bit unjustified.

Based on these additional explanations, it seems more like ‘stake/post’ is one of the first literal meanings, with a figurative sense of ‘something that fixes, i.e. makes one obdurate, stubborn or unyielding’ - and at the same time, as it often seems to indicate as well in the verses of the Atthakavaga, something that ‘marks you out’; with a third sense/interpretation as ‘barrenness’.

Obviously, it’s a seemingly minor point, but it’s a word that occurs fairly often especially in those early verses, and understanding it in this way would clarify the sense in which it often tends to occur there, in my opinion.

1 Like
8

In the case of Majjhima 16 the commentary’s explanation,
Mental obduracies [means]: The mind’s states of being stiff, [like] waste [or ‘rubbish’…

seems apt.

I can easily imagine that, but not a mind like a stake.

I agree - a general state of being ‘stiff’ or ‘fixed’ seems to be the main point, and ‘obduracy’ is probably a pretty good translation. I wasn’t necessarily suggesting that it should instead literally be translated as ‘stake’ - my point, rather, was that this ‘fixity’ is exactly the literal purpose of a stake.
When you tie a tree to a stake, the idea is to make it stiff and fixed; when you tie a cow to a stake it is to fix it to that place and prevent it wandering around. This seems to me to fit quite well with all the other metaphors that the suttas use; ‘chains’ ‘bonds’ ‘fetters’ ‘yoke’ etc.

Of course, one can interpret it either way - especially in MN 16, either translation ‘obduracy’ or ‘barrenness’ would be almost equally fitting.