Notes on Kaccānagotta Sutta

[Dogen]

@yeshe.tenley

Thanks for pointing this out, but it is quite a long essay. I will try to find time to read it.

I took the time to get to the heart of the matter in as few and convincing points as possible for the benefit of people who may not have so much time on their hands.

Posts here:

The ‘world’ in the Kaccānagotta Sutta

Hi all, This is part of a series of draft essays related to the famous Kaccānagotta Sutta. One day I might collect all these into a book, so any feedback, questions, or critique is much appreciated. Other parts were on the Buddha declaring “only suffering”, on saññāvedayitanirodha as a temporary nibbana and on a seemingly paradoxical perception of nibbāna. In the Kaccānagotta Sutta, a monk named Kaccāna asks the Buddha about right view. The Buddha’s answer starts as follows (m…

"Existence" and "nonexistence" in the Kaccānagotta Sutta

Dear friends, Some months ago we discussed the “world” in the Kaccānagotta Sutta. The central passage of this text is, in my translation: To properly understand the following, I recommend reading my previous essay in full. In brief, I suggested that the term “world” in this context refers to the individual being—or, more precisely, to the six senses. This is not a new idea, nor is my general understanding of the terms atthitā and natthitā. But what may be a novelty is my translations ‘the …

---

Bhante’s translation:

@Sunyo

Once a venerable one from the Kaccāna clan went to the Buddha. He bowed to him, sat down to a side, and asked: “Venerable sir, you mentioned right view, but what constitutes right view?”

“Kaccāna, most of the world relies on a duality: the notion of survival (atthitā) and the notion of nonsurvival (natthitā). But if you see the origin of the ‘world’ by understanding it in line with reality, you won’t have the notion of nonsurvival with respect to it. And if you see the cessation of the ‘world’ by understanding it in line with reality, you won’t have the notion of survival with respect to it.

Most of the world is stuck because of their attraction, assumption, and adherence. But if—when it comes to this attraction, assumption, and fixation, this tendency and adherence—you are not attracted to, don’t assume, and don’t commit to the idea that you have a self, then you know without question or doubt that it is only suffering which arises and only suffering which ceases. Your knowledge of this will not depend on others. That is what constitutes right view.” (SN12.15)

First to understand what world here refers to:

@Sunyo

“Venerable sir, we say ‘the world’, but to what extent is there the world or the designation ‘the world’?”

“Samiddhi, when there are the sense of sight, sights, sight-consciousness, and things cognizable by sight-consciousness, then there is the world or the designation ‘the world’. When there are the sense of hearing … the sense of smell … the sense of taste … the sense of touch … the mind, mental phenomena, mind-consciousness, and things cognizable by mind-consciousness, then there is the world or the designation ‘the world’.” (SN35.68)

World as Six Senses in Pāli Canon

“Mendicants, I will teach you the origination and disappearance of ‘the world’ [i.e. the being]. Please listen and pay close attention to what I shall say.”

“Yes, sir,” the mendicants replied.

The Buddha then said: “And how does the world originate? A sight-consciousness arises dependent on the sense of sight and sights. The coming together of the three is a sense impression. Dependent on sense impressions, there are sensations. Dependent on sensations, there is craving. Dependent on craving, there is fuel/taking up. Dependent on fuel/taking up, there is existence. Dependent on existence, there is birth. And dependent on birth, old age and death, and sorrow, grief, pain, sadness, and distress come to be. That is how the world originates.

A hearing-consciousness … A smell-consciousness … A taste-consciousness … A touch-consciousness … A mind-consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mental phenomena. The coming together of the three is a sense impression. Dependent on sense impressions, there are sensations. Dependent on sensations, there is craving. Dependent on craving, there is fuel/taking up. Dependent on fuel/taking up, existence. Dependent on existence, birth. And dependent on birth, old age and death, and sorrow, grief, pain, sadness, and distress come to be. That is how the world originates.

And how does the world disappear? A sight-consciousness arises dependent on the sense of sight and sights. The coming together of the three is a sense impression. Dependent on sense impressions, there are sensations. Dependent on sensations, there is craving. But if that craving totally fades away and ceases, fuel/taking up will cease. If fuel/taking up ceases, existence will cease. If existence ceases, birth will cease. And if birth ceases, old age and death, and sorrow, grief, pain, sadness, and distress, will cease. That is how this whole mass of suffering ceases.13 That is how the world disappears.

A hearing-consciousness … A smell-consciousness … A taste-consciousness … A touch-consciousness … A mind-consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mental phenomena. The coming together of the three is a sense impression. Dependent on sense impressions, there are sensations. Dependent on sensations, there is craving. But if that craving totally fades away and ceases, fuel/taking up will cease. If fuel/taking up ceases, existence will cease. If existence ceases, birth will cease. And if birth ceases, old age and death, and sorrow, grief, pain, sadness, and distress, will cease. That is how this whole mass of suffering ceases. That is how the world disappears.” (SN12.44, SN35.107)

World as Inner Six Sense Fields in Agamas

“What is the world? It’s the six inner sense fields. What are the six? The inner sense field of the eye … ear … nose … tongue … body … the inner sense field of the mind.

“What is the world’s formation? It’s craving, delight, and greed for a future existence. Those things are attached to its formation.

“What is the world’s cessation? There’s craving, delight, and greed for a future existence. The attachment of those things to its formation is stopped without remainder. Having been abandoned, rejected, and ended, then one is free of desire, and it ceases, stops, and disappears.

“What is the path to the world’s cessation? It’s the eightfold path, which is right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right method, right mindfulness, and right samādhi.” SA 233

When Buddha talks about origin & cessation of the world in Kaccānagotta Sutta, it would be prudent read in line with rest of the suttas, which link the world to six [inner] sense fields.

Atthi and Natthi:

The Pāli terms used in the sutta deserve a special mention. An example from the canon:

King Pasenadi once asked the Buddha whether gods will stay forever in their heaven or are reborn as humans again:

“But sir, do gods survive (atthi devā)?”

“But what exactly are you asking?”

“Whether those gods come back to this [human] state of existence or not.” MN90

To translate atthi devā literally as ‘do gods exist?’ wouldn’t fit the context. The fact that the Buddha asks for clarification indicates that the question is ambiguous in Pali, but King Pasenadi’s clarification shows he already presumes the existence of gods. He is not asking whether gods exist in general. He uses the present tense with future connotations, asking, “Do gods continue to exist?” That is, “Do gods survive?”

Buddha’s descriptions of eternalism and annihilationism should not be understood as ‘the self exists’ and ‘the self does not exist’ but as ‘the self survives’ (atthi attā) and ‘the self does not survive’ (natthi attā). And these two are, in effect, the wrong notions of survival (atthitā) and nonsurvival (natthitā) of the Kaccānagotta Sutta.

We encounter near-identical statements in the Sabbāsava Sutta: atthi me attā and natthi me attā, which would translate as ‘my self will survive’ and ‘my self won’t survive’. The commentary explains:

‘My self will survive’ is the view of eternalism. It assumes the existence of a self for all time. […] And ‘my self won’t survive’, this is the view of annihilation, which comes from the assumption that a truly existing being [i.e. self] gets eradicationed in each and every case [i.e. without exception for any being].

Furthermore, āstika and nāstika are common terms in Indian philosophical debates:

Dasgupta's Summary of A & N

Jayāditya […] explains āstika as one who believes in the existence of the other world (para­loka ), nāstika as one who does not believe in its existence […]. But we have the definition of nāstika in Manu’s own words as one who controverts the Vedic doctrines. Thus the word nāstika means, firstly, those who do not believe in the existence of the other world or life after death, and, secondly, those who repudiate the Vedic doctrines. These two views, however, seem to be related to each other, for [to Brahmins] a refusal to believe in Vedic doctrines is equivalent to the denial of an after-life for the soul and also of the efficacy of the sacrifice. The nāstika view that there is no other life after the present one and that all consciousness ceases with death seems to be fairly well established in the Upaniṣadic period; and this view the Upaniṣads sought to refute.

The Right View in the Middle

So, before Buddhism, people generally thought in an ever-endless cycle of rebirth (atthi) or one-lifetime materialistic / annihilationist view (natthi).

Unlike āstikas, Buddhism believes the cycle of rebirth can end.

Unlike nāstikas, Buddhism believes that there is in fact a cycle of rebirth.

So both common designations of ancient India are incorrect to explain the Buddha-dhamma perspective:

@Sunyo

• If you see the origin of the “world”, you understand the origination sequence of Dependent Arising. You understand that ignorance and craving lead to rebirth, to the arising of the “world” of the six senses in a next life. Since you know for a fact that there is rebirth, you will no longer have the notion of nonsurvival, the belief that there is no existence after death.

• If you see the cessation of the “world”, you understand the cessation sequence of Dependent Arising. You understand that if ignorance and craving cease, rebirth will come to an end. Since you also know that existence will completely cease when rebirth stops, you will no longer have the notion of survival, the belief in any kind of permanent existence after death.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Dogen

I took the time to get to the heart of the matter in as few and convincing points as possible for the benefit of people who may not have so much time on their hands.

Wonderful!

@Dogen

First we should understand what world here refers to:

I’ll point out it was never satisfactorily answered to my mind why we should feel obliged to use an idiosyncratic definition. The previous essay already attested that ‘the world’ may be used in ordinary non-idiosyncratic ways. Or at least if we are so obliged I haven’t heard the reason or I’m too obtuse to get it.

@Dogen

When Buddha talks about origin & cessation of the world in Kaccānagotta Sutta, it should be read in line with rest of the suttas, which link the world to six [inner] sense fields.

I’ll go ahead and quote the last paragraph of that essay:

To prevent any possible misunderstandings, I should note that these creative redefinitions of ‘the world’ do not apply across the discourses.

The ‘world’ can be just the ordinary definition.

@Dogen

Atthi and Natthi:

The Pāli terms used in the sutta deserve a special mention.

It would seem this is the crux of the new essay then? It is asserted that because of this translation - based on another sutta where it would seem the question was about “what happens after death” - that the Kaccānagotta must be read to be about that question and only that question?

Is there evidence other than an example from another sutta where the words were used seemingly with this question in mind? Maybe I’m missing something, but why does that circumscribe the Kaccānagotta from questions other than “what happens after death?”

Absent more evidence, why is it important to accept this assertion? What error is encountered if one doesn’t subscribe to the idiosyncratic definition of the world or that it solely focused on questions about about “what happens after death?” That’s what I’d really like to understand.

[Dogen]

@yeshe.tenley

Hypothesis: because a few different sutta seemingly are about that subject matter of what happens after death it is proposed we circumscribe the particular definition of the words commonly translated as “existence” and “non-existence” to that subject matter.

A large amount of suttas, as well as ancient indian sources, and a general historical context of astika & nastika.

@yeshe.tenley

Is there other evidence other than an example from another sutta where the words were used seemingly with this question in mind? Maybe I’m missing something, but why does that circumscribe the Kaccānagotta from questions other than “what happens after death?”

It could mean other things as well, and it might be a creative / imaginative reading to do so; but generally, to understand why a word is being used, we need to look at the history of the word to see what it’s used for generally.

Bhante provides multiple Upanishad, Sutta, Indian historical examples related to astika & nastika, as well as traditional commentarial exegesis. I think briefing them would make me copy paste his entire work.

When astika & nastika (and pāli counterpart atthika / natthika) are established as staple philosophical items well defined, I think the question becomes - why should we not use those terms in the historical context that they’ve always been used? What evidence is there for a new reading?

[yeshe.tenley]

@Dogen

are established as staple philosophical items well defined

I’ll have to think about this and examine sutta more thoroughly to be sure, but I’m quite wary of pronouncements of very certain knowledge that such is the case. I’m reminded of a recent post by you talking about how words can evolve radically different from the the way they might have originally been used.

The english words “existence” and “non-existence” frequently pop-up when the subject matter is questions about what happens after death. But that subject matter is far far far from the only places they pop-up, right?

Hypothesis: because a few different sutta seemingly are about the subject matter of what happens after death it is proposed we circumscribe the particular definition of the words commonly translated as “existence” and “non-existence” to that subject matter.

Is that what is going on here?

[Dogen]

@yeshe.tenley

that it solely focused on questions about about “what happens after death?” That’s what I’d really like to understand.

Personally, I’m fine with creative readings! My Zen background even has a wild reading on Kaccānagotta sutta influenced by Nagarjuna.

But I’ve always found it a weird reading. Putting in the historical context, I believe this makes so much sense to me, given how the terms have been used. “The world exists / doesn’t exist are wrong” computes nill to my poor brain. I don’t even know what it’s supposed to help me understand (tautologically, I’d define exists as related to my experience, so things do exist in such a vocabulary. I don’t have a need to differentiate whether things actually exist or not; I’m only concerned with my experience).

But learning about the history of these terms and the general attitudes of the indian school, I see why Pāli suttas might’ve opted for that.

If any other reading serves others, more power to them! And I do not seek to convert anyone of their position. This is a way to read, for me; one that makes sense in a historical and philosophical context, and I’m sharing it so that others might find it beneficial or not!

@yeshe.tenley

I’ll have to think about this and examine sutta more thoroughly to be sure that this is the case, but I’m quite wary of pronouncements of very certain knowledge that such is the case. I’m reminded of a recent post by you talking about how words can evolve radically different from the the way they might have originally been used.

Do you think reading Kaccānagotta sutta as per Nagarjuna exegesis excludes the reading that is presented in here?

In short, are you against this perspective, or promotion of it at the expense of other readings? If latter, then that’s perhaps something you should bring up to Bhante (who even says that he’s not personally against such readings, but that is perhaps not the traditional way to read it. But he is a traditionalist Theravadin, after all. ;)) and not me; if you think that this reading is invalid based on its own arguments, then I’m all ears.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Dogen

Do you think reading Kaccānagotta sutta as per Nagarjuna exegesis excludes the reading that is presented in here?

No, not necessarily. But circumscribing it does. To short circuit the carousel I’ll re-post an excerpt of my own paraphrase:

"Good question. Yes, I’ll bite the bullet. I think ‘the world’ in the sutta was using the common non-idiosyncratic definition of the world. In fact, I’d say that ‘the world’ in the sutta should be understood as encompassing all the relevant definitions, both idiosyncratic and otherwise.

To put it as plainly as I can, I think the sutta is talking about the inadequacy of all these meanings of ‘the world’ and everything in it; they don’t point to substantive things that could be said to exist (arise) or to not exist (cease).

When you directly see the non substantive arising of [insert any dependent phenomena] with right understanding you won’t have the notion that it can substantively cease. When you directly see the non substantive cessation of [insert any dependent phenomena] with right understanding won’t have the notion that it ever substantively arose."

Does that help with, “The world exists / doesn’t exist are wrong” computes nill to my poor brain?"

[Dogen]

@yeshe.tenley

Does that help with, “The world exists / doesn’t exist are wrong” computes nill to my poor brain?"

Again, not really.

Experientially, I can differentiate impression and non-impression, and I do not need to make a statement about the underlying metaphysical (non-)existence of such experiences (from the perspective of another entity?).

In short, I see no benefit whether my experiences have a substantive property (or absence thereof) that I’m unaware of at this moment. I’m not even sure it could be ever proven that my experience indeed don’t have a substantial reality (to begin with, we’d need to define what substantive existence means, and why my experiences do not fit that definition!) but I’m not sure that’s a rabbit hole I should chase.

[Green]

@Dogen

When Buddha talks about origin & cessation of the world in Kaccānagotta Sutta, it should be read in line with rest of the suttas, which link the world to six [inner] sense fields.

Yes, and also that this world always momentary arises. The sense-vinnanas all arise momentary. If there is no sense object, for exmaple, also no corresponding sense vinnana arises. Sense-vinnanas are not present in a stable way. So they arise and cease in a momentary way. And so does the All, right?

But that is not our impression. We live with the impression that the world is out there as we experience it. It seems to us present in a constant, stable way as green grass, a blue sky, inpenetrable rocks, cold and warm weather, with existing trees, houses etc. But this world is our world. Other beings do not live in this world.
It is our dimension, coarse.

@Dogen

Buddha’s descriptions of eternalism and annihilationism should not be understood as ‘the self exists’ and ‘the self does not exist’ but as ‘the self survives’ (atthi attā) and ‘the self does not survive’ (natthi attā). And these two are, in effect, the wrong notions of survival (atthitā) and nonsurvival (natthitā) of the Kaccānagotta Sutta.

There are four grounds for eternalist views mentioned in DN1.

Three of them are really based upon heavenly eye, the ability of people to see deep in the past. With their intuitive abilities they see their former lifes and kosmic cycles.
Based upon that they conclude they themselves and the world must have always been there. So based upon what they see with the heavely eye, they conclude that they themselves as person or as lifestream (that does not matter) have always been there and also the world is eternal. Because that is what they see.

It is not that memories about former lifes are about an eternal self/soul or surving self. Never. But just as in this very life former experiences are memorized as ones own experiences, also experiences of former lifes are known this way. If this would not be valid even the idea of memories of former lives is delusional.

So, this is all never really about a surviving self. But we remember things that happened, as things that happened to us. That is the nature of things.
It would be sick, problematic, if awakening would mean that we do not at all acknowledge ownership of former deeds and experiences. Such is denial, selfdeceit.

Experiences in this life and former lifes are just unique in nature, and personal, that will and cannot end. This has no relation at all with a doctrine of self but the nature of experience is that it is personal, individual, unique. That cannot change.

Another root for eternalism is not actual memories of former lifes and kosmological periods but logic and thinking. People hammer out by reasoning that the self and the world are eternal. This is probably most seen among philosophers.
By the way also the opposite happens a lot.

A general point of concern:
In the end what i see is: people try to proof to themselves and others that 1. the goal of true Dhamma is a mere cessation…2. that this is not scary 3. that only suffering will end and there is no destruction of a self…

Endless ways of reasoning, logic, re-translations, study of Upanishads etc. this all seems to have one purpose, finding as much proof as possible that support all these points. All sutta study seems to have that one purpose. At least that is my impression.

Is this wise? Is this not an extremely biased way of dealing with the suttas or even buddhism in general? If one has once made up the mind that the true goal of Dhamma is mere cessation, is one not very liable to develop tunnel-vision in regard to the meaning of the suttas?

I know i am only seen as a nagging fool that constantly wants to fight and debate but i am sincerly worried about all this. And if people choose to ignore it, oke, what can I do about it? I sincery feel it is not the right way to deal with the suttas.

[Dogen]

@Green

I know i am only seen as a nagging fool that constantly wants to fight and debate but i am sincerly worried about all this. And if people choose to ignore it, oke, what can I do about it? I sincery feel it is not the right way to deal with the suttas.

In the past I’ve tried to reconcile why what you call “mere cessation” and “pure citta” might be conceptual designations for the same thing. I’ve tried to argue that both are ideas of conceiving mind.

I don’t think you’re interested to explore why this might be so, and that you’re too hung up on your crusade against “mere cessation” without understanding what it means. And you bring emotional arguments to basic sutta / grammar discussions, which are unnecessary.

If you want to discuss this topic, please make a new thread and stop detailing this thread again. But I’m not sure you’re interested in an honest discussion which is why I usually don’t engage. You seem to want people to subscribe to what you believe is true and you don’t seem to try to reconcile with what you consider to be opposite views.

Again, if you want to discuss this subject, make a new thread, otherwise, I’d appreciate if this thread stuck to topic at hand.

[hdvd2309]

Thank you for sharing this great sutta

[Green]

@Dogen

Again, if you want to discuss this subject, make a new thread, otherwise, I’d appreciate if this thread stuck to topic at hand.

You are always so negative towards me, i feel. I commented in my reply on the sutta.
You shared how the suttas define the world, the All. I shared that the All always momentary arises because the sense-vinnanas do.

I also commented on that idea of survival or non-survival. I feel it is not relevant.
Eternalist views do not have to be rooted in the idea of a surviving self. I refered to DN1 who describes the 4 grounds for eternalist views.

If Buddha has memories of former lifes does that mean he is involved in a doctrine of an eternal self or a surviving self? No, he only does what we do in our lifes too; we know that it were our feelings, perceptions, experiences that we experienced in the past.

[Sunyo]

I’m happy to let you all discuss this without me! Then you can come to your own conclusions. Just be kind to each other, ok?

But I just want to clarify a small thing.

@Dogen

even says that he’s not personally against such readings, but that is perhaps not the traditional way to read it. But he is a traditionalist Theravadin, after all.

I’m a Theravadin in the Vinaya, because that’s the tradition I ordained in. But in Dhamma I don’t adhere to any tradition. Last Sunday I even gave a talk in which I addressed the benefits of the Bodhisattva vows.

And not only am I not against such readings. I think they can actually be helpful, for people stuck in certain ontological views, like actually the traditional Theravada Abhidhammist might have been! (As many scholars agree, that’s exactly why such alternative interpretations developed: as a reply to the Abhidharmas.)

But in the Buddha’s time apparently such views weren’t really an issue. And in my writings, that’s what I’m trying to get at: what was the Buddha himself on about. That inquiry may also rely upon non-Theravada sources, such as the Agamas or Sanskrit texts. Note for example that one of my major indicators for the meaning of natthitā came from a Mūlasarvāstivāda text.

It’s just that in this case the Theravada commentaries seem to understand the Kaccanagotta Sutta quite well, which is why I quote them quite a bit. But only after coming to the same conclusion independently from the earlier texts. I don’t rely upon them as a primary source.

[Emptiness]

The issue really are on 2 sentences:

If you see the origin of the “world”

and

If you see the cessation of the “world”

This isn’t an easy piece of text…. one would need to realise it so all will become clear. There are no need to make projections and assumptions after death or about self, these are termed as over-reaching …. and are not relevant to the path of stopping rebirth, escaping the cycle of samsara!

@stephen and @Green posted something recently on another thread and it is very much directly relevant. MN26: in bold.

This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute. But people like clinging, they love it and enjoy it. It’s hard for them to see this topic; that is, specific conditionality, dependent origination.

It refers to the same thing ! …… do you know what it refers to ? and why it is so important ? What does it even mean to you ?

Perhaps some food for thought:

1NT: This is suffering.
2NT: This is the origin of suffering.

AN4.23: Monks, the world has been fully awakened to by a Tathāgata. A Tathāgata is unbound from the world. Monks, the origin of the world has been fully awakened to by a Tathāgata. A Tathāgata has discarded the origin of the world. Monks, the cessation of the world has been fully awakened to by a Tathāgata. A Tathāgata has realized the cessation of the world. Monks, the path which leads to the cessation of the world has been fully awakened to by a Tathāgata. A Tathāgata has practiced the path which leads to the cessation of the world.

SN55.53:… you should train like this: ‘We will have experiential confidence in the Buddha …

Snp 2.13:
with rebirth transcended and truth comprehended,
they’d rightly wander the world.
.
they’ve rightly understood the teaching.
Aspiring to the state of extinguishment,
they’d rightly wander the world.
.
among worldly things master, transcendent, stilled;
expert in knowledge of conditions’ cessation,
they’d rightly wander the world.

…… and many more pointing to the same thing !