Non about 10 fetters in the Chinese Agama!

Hi friends ,

Has anyone notice that in the Samyukta Agama Sutta one is unable to find Sutta Regarding 10 fetters !
Only 5 fetters can be found !

1 Like

Sometimes these lists are presented in embryonic forms, just like in the Pāli suttas.

SA 103 doesn’t necessarily name it as-so (as a “fetter” specifically), but the 8th fetter (慢, màn) makes a possible proto-appearance in SA 103 in a discourse on anattā, but the context it appears in makes it problematic to claim it as a “fetter” in as much as how it is presented in the language of the discourse:[quote]「我於五受陰觀察非我、非我所,而非阿羅漢者,我於我慢、我欲、我使,未斷、未知、未離、未吐。」[/quote]

1 Like


There is overlap with 10 fetters
And 5 hindrances !

10 fetters :
belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)
sensual desire (kāmacchando)
ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)
lust for material existence,
lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
lust for immaterial existence,
lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)
conceit (māna)
restlessness (uddhacca)
ignorance (avijjā)

5 hindrances :
sensuous desire (kāmacchanda),
ill-will (vyāpāda),
sloth and torpor (thīna-middha),
restlessness and scruples (uddhacca-kukkucca), and
skeptical doubt (vicikicchā).

So, restlessness (uddhacca) &
Doubt (vicikicchā)
being repeated ,
and sloth & torpor
Those are hindrances ,
Not fetters !

[quote=“James2997, post:3, topic:5260”]
Those are hindrances ,
Not fetters !
[/quote]Forgive me if I am mistaken, but is 慢 not māma, the 8th fetter?

1 Like

Also, for the record, not found in the Majjhima Nikaya, and only once in the Digha. There are a couple of mentions in the Anguttara.

But they only systematically occur in the Samyutta, where in several of the later samyuttas dealing with the path, the various formulations of the path are said to abandon the defilements as listed in various ways. Such recurring formulas (peyyala) are, of course, a sign of late formalism.

Consider the literal text of the Satipatthana Samyutta, SN 47.95–194:

Imesaṃ kho, bhikkhave, pañcannaṃ uddhambhāgiyānaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ abhiññāya pariññāya parikkhayāya pahānāya ime cattāro satipaṭṭhānā bhāvetabbā”ti.
These four kinds of mindfulness meditation should be developed for the direct knowledge, complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these five higher fetters.”
(Yathā maggasaṃyuttaṃ tathā satipaṭṭhānasaṃyuttaṃ vitthāretabbaṃ.)
(The Linked Discourses on Mindfulness Meditation should be expanded as in the Linked Discourses on the Path.)

Here the fetters become a “template” on which the abbreviated suttas are expanded.

So the ten fetters, while found in the EBTs, appear to be a minor doctrine whose importance grew later. I know a monk who did a Phd on this topic, which unfortunately I do not have.





I think ,
10 fetters was mistakenly layout
or Wrongly comprehended .

The actual kilesa
to be abandoned
is 5 ( lower ) fetters , Whereas ,
desire for Rupa & Arupa planes
belong to Sensuous desire ,
conceit belong to Self View .

" And Ignorance
already abandoned
At the first turning of the 4 NT. "

Here’s the correct sequence :

So, One abandoned ignorance
Self View , doubts ,
attachment To rites and rituals ,
And attained Dhamma eye
at the same time .

Then continue to abandoned the
Sensuous desire and ill will .
Continue onto second turning
In Abandoning the kilesa ,

Upon completion of Abandoning
the kilesa one also completed
The third turning .

Thanks .


About mama :

Mamaṅkāra,[mamaṁ (=mama)+kāra,cp.ahaṁ+kāra] selfish attachment,self-interest,selfishness PvA.230.In canonic books only in combn with ahaṅkāra & mān’ânusaya (belief in an ego and bias of conceit)

Defilements (kilesas) are still around even after stream entry because even though it is seen that there is nothing worth clinging to, a degree of ignorance is ingrained in the brain/neurons. At stream entry develop Right view (samma ditti) but have yet to apply it to our thinking, speech and behaviors in a sense. We have the right view ‘manual’ and now we train the mind to act accordingly. So this training (Sekha- trainee) happens after stream entry. When we are fully trained we are not trainees anymore (Asekha) : full enlightenment.

So I dont think it is a mistake that the 10th fetter is ignorance, that we need to get rid of to be fully enlightened arahanth.

with metta


So , is ignorance consider to be kilesa ?

Ignorance is at the root of defilements. For example if someone believed something was impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self and foul (asubha), they wouldn’t cling to it. However people often cling to the body for example, despite it being all these things. The craving arises only as long as the deep seated ignorance lasts. The whole purpose of seeing the three marks is to let go of craving, in one sense. If everything was not-Self, who could you get angry with. If everything was unsatisfactory what would you be jealous about. Yet even stream entrants who have seen these Truths still have craving and other defilements. They need to work their insight into thought, speech and behaviour pathways.

Another way to work on ignorance at increasing levels of subtlety (‘Vipallasa’):
View (ditti), Mind (emotions), Perception (Sanna)

With metta


I would think not 。
Because ,
Ignorance just being
" not knowing " !

It is not consider defilements .

Ignorance is EBTs is very precisely defined.
It is not just “not knowing”.

It is all about perpetuation of suffering by not having vision and knowledge of the four noble truths, it’s respective enobbling tasks and the cessation it brings about.

That’s why knowing the Dhamma in word only does not suffice for awakening. It may and should trigger things that point to it but the threshold of direct knowledge or insight needs to be reached and surpassed.

It is not a positive quality, it is a fact of mundane dependent​ origination as a process. A suffering-marked existence, in which desire, delusion a d anger drives and shapes choices is its ultimate e evidence.


[quote=“James2997, post:13, topic:5260”]
Ignorance just being
" not knowing " !

It is not consider defilements .
[/quote]In English, “ignorant” can sometimes have the neutral meaning of “simply not knowing”, but it also implies a certain attitude one has, a certain tendency to believe one’s self wiser, grander, better, than one rightly deserves to be considered. Ignorant and arrogant are often “folk synonyms”, that is to say, people easily confuse one meaning for another if they are not educated. Most of the people I live around have not finished High School, and a lot of my family (older members) only have a grade 6 education at most (this was and sometimes still is “normal” in rural Canada), so this is the level of literacy I am referring to when I say they are often “folk synonyms”.

I was in the middle of typing this when @Gabriel_L posted and now everything else I had wanted to say has been said. Ignorance is a significant condition, not necessarily rightly describable as “only” simply the absence of something, it is even called “causeless” either directly or indirectly, but I will have to do look for what I am half-remembering to give a proper citation.


[quote=“Coemgenu, post:15, topic:5260”]
it is even called “causeless” either directly or indirectly, but I will have to do look for what I am half-remembering to give a proper citation.
[/quote]I think I was thinking of AN 10.61.