Misunderstanding the intent behind the Kaccānagotta Sutta (effects on practice)

A motivation of the recent essays by Venerable Sunyo (here and here) on the Kaccānagotta Sutta was described here:

But then people (I’m not saying people here) go and teach others that this is what the text is really about, that this is what the Buddha was teaching too. There I do have a problem. Because then we dilute the Teacher’s message as I see it.

The two central questions seem to be:

  1. Did the Teacher intend more than simply addressing the questions around survival/(non-survival) of beings after death?

  2. Do those who promulgate that a fair reading of SN 12.15 implies “yes” to #1, “dilute the Teacher’s message?”

This thread is not meant to continue the debate over #1 and #2, but rather draw out the implications for practice - if any - for different answers to the above. We already have threads devoted to the debate so please refrain from debating it here. I ask the moderators to keep this on-topic.

As Venerable said:

And then lastly, I think these differences matter not just textually, but for our practice too. Because I think the original message of the sutta is much more helpful in telling people whether they have right view or not. Which is of course it’s ultimate point.

This thread is about this last point. For myself, I do disagree with Venerable on the answer to #1, but I agree that how you answer can have an effect on practice. I’ve written before of what I believe those effects might be, but I haven’t seen a fleshed out description of the inverse.

I’ll ask Venerable and others who hold that the answer to #1 should be seen as “no” to explain more. What concrete detrimental effects can be seen in practice for those who answer yes to #1 above?

I’m looking for detail beyond just, “you’ll misunderstand the Teacher” or “dilute his message” because that can be offered as a generic consequence for misreading of any sutta. What are the specific consequences that come from regarding SN 12.15 to be about more than questions around the survival/non-survival of beings after death?

:pray:

1 Like

Those who think it’s simply about the emptiness of a self will view nibbana as a final somethingness or nothingness. Those who see it to be about both that and the insubstantial nature of dhammas, since one implies the other, won’t.

The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”

Tālapuṭattheragāthā

1 Like

Hi!

I don’t have much internet time now, so I’ll keep it brief. I would say: The insight into Dependent Origination is an insight into the mechanics of rebirth. We need to inquire into this mechanism specifically (through our meditation, not the intellect). That’s why it matters how we interpret such suttas as SN12.15.

The key passage therefore is not the disagreement with other views but the following:

By the way, if I thought it didn’t matter for practice, I wouldn’t have written these things in the first place. :wink:

3 Likes

Is there really anything simple about this??

1 Like

It’s a figure of speech.

Hello Venerable!

And I appreciate that :slight_smile: In the discussions surrounding your essays it seemed to me that relatively little has been said about the consequences for different readings of SN12.15 in terms of practice. Since we’re in agreement these consequences are the primary motivation it seemed pertinent to devote more discussion to them.

Count me on the skeptical end of whether textual analysis can ever be dispositive on this matter. OTOH, I do think fleshing out the consequences for practice could be convincing; hence the thread.

The proponents sympathetic to a more expansive reading of SN12.15 (ceisiwr, vaddha, myself) have articulated in some detail the consequences for practice as we see them in those other threads. Still, I’m less sure of the consequences according to the proponents of the narrow reading (sunyo, dogen) so I’d like to understand more. Perhaps we can understand each other better by focusing the discussion on practice?

From what you said above it seems that the major detrimental consequence of an expansive reading is misunderstanding dependent origination to be other than a mechanism focused only on the mechanics of rebirth of beings. Do I have that right?

If so, can you articulate how it is that an expansive reading can lead one astray in misunderstanding DO? What specific errors can occur with an expansive reading? How do they occur? If one understands a fair reading of SN12.15 to shed light on questions around the existence/non-existence of dhammas how does that lead to error in misunderstanding DO?

Although the actual insights into these principles are incredibly profound, the basic idea is simple: You know for a fact that there is rebirth but you also know that existence won’t last forever.

How does an expansive reading contravene?

Thanks!
:pray:

PS: Maybe you can say more about your understanding of DO that may shed light - do you ascribe to a particular orthodox understanding like say the three life / two life model?

4 Likes

First of all, I’m a great proponent of “Let people read how they want”. And I’m less and less interested in dhamma discussions lately, both because I usually don’t think they’re done in good faith (which I exclude the present company) but also because I find more and more how limited my perspective is, so I rather learn than assume to teach. :slight_smile:

So I can only say why Bhante’s work is interesting to me :slight_smile:.

If the sutta’s a statement on the shortcomings of logical language and how the denomination “existence/non-existence” is insufficient to explain the phenomena… That sounds like something cool I’d be excited about when I was still interested in Wittgenstein. :slight_smile: Then I guess it’s just a roundabout way of talking about anatta / anicca (saying “it exists” would be possibly giving it object permanence; saying “it doesn’t exist” would be denying it’s phenomenological reality or so).

Again, these are still the same concepts of anatta / anicca / even suññata perhaps, just worded differently.

On the other hand, Astika/Nastika difference still exists in Indian schools today, and there’s a rich history of such debates that now I’ve read that’s fascinating. Saying it is exclusively about existence/nonexistence classifications is then to ignore such a rich history of debates that’ve raged in India for millenia, and so I’m grateful for the scholarly work Bhante’s put in to explain it all.

As for their consequences on practice; ultimately (!) I don’t think either position is saying something different than general Dhamma: Buddha does teach that rebirth exists, and that it can end (something that wasn’t taught in Indic schools before Buddha according to our history); he does also teach that nothing has permanence, and yet still can be a source of dukkha.

Whether Kaccānagotta is specifically about the one or the other; the other position is also well explained, and I think is in line with Dhamma as well.

This is how I weasel my way out of this question! :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

Hi Yeshe. :slight_smile:

To be clear, I (and it looked like Ceisiwr as well) agree that SN12.15 is largely about rebirth. The terms ‘lokasamudaya’ and ‘lokanirodha’ are not only found in this sutta. The terms appear in various places that have the exact same context: ‘samudaya’ is a word referring to the second noble truth, ‘nirodha’ refers to the third. For some examples, see: AN 4.45, AN 4.46, SN 2.26, SN 12.49, SN 12.50, SN 35.107, etc.

Please see my comment here on why this is relevant.

Likewise, the suttas repeatedly mention the opposing views of eternalism (sassata) and annihilationism (uccheda) which they also refer to as the views of existence (bhava) and non-existence (vibhava). See Iti 49, for example. DN 1 has a massive volume of the types of wrong views the Buddha refutes, and these are the two major categories of views there. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the Indic ‘atthi’ can carry the sense of survival or continued existence, specifically when referring to beings.

Setting aside the issue of ‘loka-’ and the meanings of ‘(n)atthitā’ however, the sutta itself is quite clear that dependent origination is the middle way. And in the early texts, the 12 factor exposition of dependent arising is about cyclic existence in samsāra. So if we set aside less clear terms and focus on establishing more well-known ones, it should be rather obvious what the text is referring to when it mentions the links of dependent arising. Ven. Nāgārjuna’s description of dependent arising in Chapter 26 of his MMK is in agreement with this.

From a practical perspective, I would refer you to David Hume, who was an empiricist philosopher opposed to substance theory and ideas of an underlying self, though I’m no expert. And yet Hume also believed that, based on his experience of life which he could find no substance in, that his experience would cease at death. He was an annihilationist. He believed in substance-less flux of experience without a self or metaphysical causation, and yet he had no insight into the four noble truths, which state that craving produces future lives. He investigated the first truth — ‘the world’ shall we say — in terms of certain notions of existence and non-existence. But he did not understand the origin or end of that ‘world’ he was investigating.

However, this does not mean there are other implications of the sutta in question that are not relevant. And so I would say that any interpretation of the text should include the above, but it does not need to stop short there and exclude other ideas.

1 Like

Yes, I understand. In short:

a) SN 12.15 is only about beings
b) SN 12.15 is only about dhammas
c) neither a nor b

I’m saying ‘c’ and I put you and ceisiwr in the same boat while sunyo and dogen I took to be saying ‘a’. And the topic is what happens to practice depending upon a, b, or c. I take it you think ‘b’ can lead to denial of rebirth and denial of dependent origination and cite Hume? :pray:

2 Likes

I suppose I don’t think that. If someone were to interpret the text as only about dhammas, but they take that in the full sense and still accept that the sutta is describing the 12 dependently arisen dhammas of cyclic existence, then that would include dhammas such as ‘bhava,’ jāti,’ etc.

I think the problem with Hume and my point is that denying substances alone is not a sufficient examination of life nor is is the limit of what SN 12.15 is talking about. There are other factors involved beyond the question of substance. So restricting the sutta just to the question of substance is not satisfactory. Because in order to make an examination of the ‘world’ you cannot leave parts of it out from your examination.

1 Like

I guess this is the point. It is possible to develop an appreciation for “substanceless dhammas” to some extent, but still have no knowledge of DO and/or rebirth. I think I’d agree with this, but caution that I don’t know how well Hume’s understanding of “substanceless dhammas” accords with the dhamma, right?

Maybe a better and more modern example would be Carlo Rovelli who has an appreciation for Nagarjuna that is pretty sophisticated, but I think has zero belief in rebirth. I base that on personal/private correspondence with him. :pray:

2 Likes

Right. I think one could object that he did not have sufficient understanding.

One thing that we can say is certain from a Buddhist perspective though is that he could not have had a complete understanding of emptiness despite his intuitions. Because in order for someone to truly understand impermanence, emptiness, etc., they must have knowledge of rebirth as well according to the suttas. They are not separable. If someone understands emptiness fully, they will also gain the insight into dependent origination (and vice versa).

And I think this is probably Ven. Sunyo’s main concern. If people think that they understand emptiness, but they don’t understand rebirth, then their understanding of emptiness is not complete. To avoid over-estimation in people or watering down the depth of what is required, it is important not to remove the aspect of rebirth from SN 12.15. Otherwise they may also settle for something sub-par, stall their own progress, and potentially mislead others as well.

1 Like

I’m not sure. I guess I’ll wait for Venerable Sunyo to clarify, but I thought his claim was rather stronger. Namely, that not restricting the understanding of SN12.15 to only be about rebirth of beings will necessarily lead to detrimental consequences (TBE) and misunderstanding of dependent origination (TBE). :pray:

2 Likes

He was more a sceptic than annihilationist. It’s interesting you equate the ending of experience with annihilationism. That is the view of a number of people here regarding nibbana.

Saying it’s about rebirth is to say it’s about the insubstantial nature of dhammas. I mentioned before the example of milk, butter and ghee. Dependent origination, as per the 12 links, is just another example. Think of another. There is infant hood, adolescence, adulthood and old age. No essence or substance persists through these stages nor is one destroyed. These are merely conventions for a set of conditions. All we can say is there is a dependent relationship between them. This is what the 12 links are about, just applied to lives instead of one life.

Milk, butter, ghee

Baby, adult, old age,

Death, existence, birth

Hi, Ceisiwr. You’ve misread my point, which is in precisely the opposite order. To say it’s about the insubstantial nature of dhammas is not to say it is about rebirth. The dairy product example is case-in-point, as someone may be perfectly convinced by the example with phsyical phenomena, and yet be ignorant of, if not utterly dismissive of, the notion of afterlife. The question is what dhammas precisely are insubstantial, otherwise we risk talking solely about physical objects and miss the point entirely.

I equated Hume’s belief that after a single life, with the dissolution of the body, his experience would end with annihilationism. And in fact, Hume uses a form of the word himself:

“And were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect nonentity.”

Perhaps his intent here was something other, but the above passage is at least one case where he seems to lean into the possibility of experience being, in some sense, reducible to the body. Whether or not he believed such a thing with certainty, he certainly does not seem to have a notion other than the options being either of (1) an eternal afterlife or (2) no afterlife whatsoever, i.e. precisely two major extremes in SN 12.15. Despite his inquiries into substances and empirical qualities, then, he did not even approach transcending the two extremes of survival.

Regardless of Hume, that is the issue here. Not insubstantiality, but to what extent one applies it.

And I will add to this, that contemplating the insubstantiality of dairy products, human development, or quantum-level reality does not require one to practice generosity, virtue, kindness, compassion, restraint, renunciation, or abandon the hindrances in much of a significant way at all. So we could add this to the possible detriments to practice. The types of effort someone applies will vary based on what inquiries and reflections they think are relevant and what conditions they believe are necessary to make such inquiries. Otherwise, the quantum physicists and philosophy professors’ would be just as well-off as those who spend a lifetime practicing the eightfold path (or six perfections).

2 Likes

Well yes, if you remove all this from its Buddhist context then sure. You can equally say that of impermanence or dukkha too. Within the Buddhist context though dependent origination is about rebirth, and it shows the lack of a substance or essence in all things.

Hello. Is here an implicit singularity, as in dependent origination is just about rebirth? or your comment says it’s about rebirth and another concepts/things?

OK, @yeshe.tenley, Hi again,

I got some more time now, so I can answer in more detail. :slight_smile:

However, Yeshe, your question is just too broad to answer satisfyingly, I’m afraid. You want me (and others) to tell you what specific detrimental practical effects there can be for any individual who thinks something along the lines of “the Teacher [did] intend more than simply addressing the questions around survival/(non-survival) of beings after death”?…

For starters, I don’t even really know what you mean by “more than”.

Also, I agree the Buddha teaches “more than” this, even in the very same sutta. As Stephen pointed out, quite funnily imo, nothing is simple about this! :smiley: You’re summarizing my interpretation too narrowlly, I think. I say atthitā and natthitā are about the survival of beings, and so are the arising and cessation of the “world”, in a sense. But not the entire sutta, nor is that all there is to right view or even the entirety of Dependent Arising. So, judging by your summary, perhaps you have a too narrow notion of my understanding of these matters.

I don’t believe I make the exact separation between the two interpretations you seem to be suggesting. I don’t even disagree that insight into the mechanics of rebirth involves an insight in the non-substantiality of “dhammas”.

What do we both mean by “dhammas”, though? That’s perhaps the key point here. To me, it is life and experienced phenomena. For them to be non-substantial: that’s what it means for the factors of Dependent Arising to be without self. This what the Buddha explains in the Kaccānagotta Sutta too, albeit very succinctly.

I just disagree with interpretations which include in “dhammas” also the non-phenomenal, like insentient, unexperienced objects or even more abstract philosophical principles. By definition, such things can only be theorized about. Their nature can never be known through direct, empirical insight. And hence they are not a matter of concern of the right view of the Kaccānagotta Sutta. Well, they are a concern, in that they are specifically excluded from the “world” the Buddha wanted us to investigate the origin and cessation of.

But even then, I was challenging interpretations which tend to exclude rebirth in favor of other principles. I referred some examples in the footnotes of the essays you referred to. If, however, people acknowledge rebirth as a central principle in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, while they also add some tangential philosophical concepts which I think aren’t a matter of concern, then whatever! The difference is probably just a technicality, then.

That’s not what tends to be the case, though. Rebirth often becomes a side-issue, if not a complete non-issue, because alongside different interpretations of (n)atthitā the whole of Dependent Arising is often interpreted differently too. In that case, we’d be contemplating something very different from what the Buddha wanted us to. I won’t explain why I think that can be detrimental. That would take too much time, and it should largely speak for itself.

I forgot to say, but in all of that I was also challenging interpretations of the texts. I don’t intend to tell others how to practice. Anybody should practice however you want, of course. I’m just pointing out what I think the Buddha is telling us in the suttas. People can derive their own practical implications from that.

Here again, I don’t really know what you mean by “an expansive reading”, let alone for “one” in general. You’ll have to be more specific if you want a specific answer. And even then my answer will probably still be, “it depends”! :smiley:

Anyway, let’s say I include in the Kaccānagotta Sutta also the nature of, hmmm… geopolitics! I would still include rebirth as well, but also added geopolitics. The arising of the “world” in this case I take to refer to the arising of certain worldly affairs, the cessation of the “world” to their ending.

Is that going to help me, or will I “dilute the Teacher’s message” and therefore also diminish my practice? Will I waste time on contemplating matters which won’t get me out of suffering? Or would you argue that it’s helpful for me to contemplate geopolitics as part of my Dhamma practice?

I made up this extreme example because to me you made it seem like you think a more expansive reading just can’t be worse. I think you’ll agree that in my example that wouldn’t be the case, though. By expanding the scope of our contemplation beyond what’s encouraged by the Buddha, we will also be wasting some of our precious time on non-Dhamma. It takes away from what really matters to the path. So adding stuff can have negative practical consequences, depending.

An important thing to realize here, is that in the Kaccānagotta Sutta, the Buddha is limiting what right view is about. Although translated variously, he literally says “to that extent (ettāvatā) there is right view, Kaccāna”. He does this so that, once we understand how he defines it, we can understand whether we ourselves have right view, or more specifically, whether we do not. But if instead of limiting the scope of right view, we instead expand it, then we risk misjudging ourselves here.

The arising of the world to the Buddha is the arising of the self-less (or “insubstantial”, if you will) six senses through rebirth. Their cessation is the end of existence, the end the “world” at parinibbāna. If we haven’t seen these things as they really are, we don’t have right view. That’s what (I say) the Buddha is saying.

But someone else may think along the following lines: “Well, I don’t really see rebirth and its cessation, but I do understand the arising of the ‘world’ of momentary experiences (or the ‘world’ of insentient ‘dhammas’ or the ‘world’ of politics) so I have right view too.” I’m saying that in such cases, according to the Kaccānagotta Sutta, that person wouldn’t have right view. The stream winner’s insights actually revolve around rebirth. And to realize this, that can have very practical consequences for that person.

Those consequences I will again let speak for themselves, as it’s individual.

And I intend to keep it that way. :slight_smile: I think an internet board is not the right place to discuss practice too much.

I surely can! :smiley: I’ve written an entire book about it! (clickety-click here)

Thanks for explaining that, Venerable. It is, indeed.

… well, in context of this discussion on the “effects of practice”, that is! :slight_smile: Otherwise, my main concern is just to point out what the Buddha had in mind, and what not. My belief is that if this is done correctly—and I hope I personally do a decent enough job—then his words will naturally have the right effects on people’s practice, at least for those who are ready to hear these aspects of Dhamma I’m addressing.

So that’s what I’ll continue to do! even if people continue to point out (since dear yeshe is not alone in this) that in my writings I don’t tend to discuss the practical consequences much. :slight_smile: That’s on purpose. I think the suttas themselves, when properly understood, will point people towards proper practice.

6 Likes

I think that’s a case of speculating about what’s behind sense experience, which the Buddha warned against.