Namo Buddhaya!
Where is the lower fetter taught like this?
Other than this, the analysis is agreeable.
There is more support for this in the suttas themself.
For example;
“I say that this, bhikkhus, is a certain body among the bodies, namely, the breath. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body in the body, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief regarding the world." - mn118
“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.” - SN5.10
This gets into a subtle point of the dhamma which has to do with understanding Name in general.
“Name has conquered everything,
There is nothing greater than name,
All have gone under the sway
Of this one thing called name.”“Beings are conscious of what can be named,
They are established on the nameable,
By not comprehending the nameable things,
They come under the yoke of death.”
In brief it gets at understanding that one should understand that names refer to this or that in as far as there is communication but that is the extent of it.
“Sentient beings who perceive the communicable,
become established in the communicable.
Not understanding the communicable,
they fall under the yoke of Death.But having fully understood the communicable,
they don’t conceive a communicator,
for they have nothing
by which they might be described.
Tell me if you understand, spirit.” -SN1.20
I’ll give an analogy
Suppose there is a man and a woman and some third person desiring to have the man speak up would say"Speak up good Man" but suppose the the woman there identified as a man and therefore both the man and the woman would speak up.
Thus communication would require one to use different names to differentiate between the Man1 and Man2 and if the woman kept on insisting on identifying in the exact same manner as the other, that would render communication impossible.
Suppose a family wanted to arrange marriage for their son, as to propagate their bloodline, and asked for a daughter of a good family but were given a bride with a male organ identifying as a female, that would likewise be a miscommunication.
The words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are therefore just names and are a means of communication and can not be pinned down beyond the intended referent.
Another example
Suppose a surgeon wanting to be handed a scalpel would ask his assistant for a ‘scalpel’ and his assistant would hand him scissors because the assistant identified the scissors as a scalpel.
Now the assistant might say ‘but what is a scalpel really?’ for there is but a pile of nameable fabrication such as metal, iron, steel, atoms, electron, etc, and no scalpel can be pinned down.
If one was to try to pin down a scalpel as ‘that which cuts’ then per that definition a blunted scalpel is not a scalpel, and so on.
The surgeon only wants the assistant to be trained as to properly understand what the surgeon refers to and if the assistant is not adhering to the same system of communication then he is useless at best.
Therefore one ought not ask what is a ‘man’ or what is a ‘scalpel’ because these are but communicable names in a given system of communication. What we ought to ask is what does the surgeon refer to when he uses that word, only then can there be effective communication.
Thus it is most important to understand what words are and what they are not.
When we understand these things then we comprehend the communicable and can lay down the banner, uprooting the mantra ‘I am’, all whilst still being able to communicate.
One to whom it might occur,
‘I’m a woman’ or ‘I’m a man’
Or ‘I’m anything at all’ —
Is fit for Mara to address. -Sn5.2
This applies to the entirety of nameable things which is everything and when one comprehends this then it doesn’t occur to him ‘all exists’ or ‘all doesn’t exist’.
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two views, to existence or to non-existence. But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is, ‘non-existence of the world’ does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, ‘existence of the world’ does not apply.
"The world in general, Kaccaayana, grasps after systems and is imprisoned by dogmas. But he does not go along with that system-grasping, that mental obstinacy and dogmatic bias, does not grasp at it, does not affirm: ‘This is my self.’ He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.
"‘Everything exists,’ this is one extreme; ‘nothing exists,’ this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations … -SN12.15
