Pāli word study: three fetters with greed, hate, and delusion (DN29)

Discussion
1

As I make my way through Klaus Klostermaier’s A Survey of Hinduism – difficult but rewarding – I note this reference to the Bhagavadgītā:

Both popular and scholarly books describe moha, lobha, krodha – delusion, greed, and anger – as the root of all vices: “the gates to hell,” as the Bhagavadgītā says.

Naturally I researched this reference (BG 16.21) which, apparently, is quite famous:

There are three gates leading to the hell of self-destruction for the soul—lust, anger, and greed [kāmaḥ krodhaḥ lobhah]. Therefore, one should abandon all three.

For example, it was famous enough for Jayanta Bhatta to write to it in his Nyayamanjari treatise; it was famous enough for Śaṅkarācārya to speak to it in his commentary on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. (But it is not actually stated in this or any upaniṣad, from what I can tell.)

According to Klostermaier, it’s Jayanta who expands on BG 16.21 to include moha as part of the original kāmaḥ krodhaḥ lobhah triad

…[mohā is] pāpatama, the “head sin,” because without delusion, [Jayanta] says, there cannot be greed and anger.

Moving over to the suttas, I focus on DN29:

Furthermore, a mendicant—with the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion—becomes a once-returner. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.
Puna caparaṁ, āvuso, bhikkhu tiṇṇaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṁ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṁ lokaṁ āgantvā dukkhassantaṁ karoti.

It’s interesting to me that the suttas employ the similar (but different) triad of

rāga dosa moha

compared to BG 16.21

kāmaḥ krodhaḥ lobhaha (Sanskrit in BG 16.21)

where rāga is not wholly dissimilar to kāmaḥ or (kāma in pāli) in meaning; krodhaḥ in Sanskrit is similar to dosa in pāli (but I can’t find a pāli cognate); and lobhaha is a synonym for kāmaḥ apparently in Sanskrit.

By the time of the Gita, can I assume the lust-anger-greed triad – or some form of it – was common to Brahmanism? I can’t find it anywhere else other than the Gita followed by Jayanta and Śaṅkarācārya.

Assuming the Buddha’s teaching pre-dates the Gita (?), it’s curious to me that the Buddha talks about the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion – as if they are fires to be put out (SN35.28) – in the same teaching as the ending of the three fetters (DN29 above):

the ending of three fetters
tiṇṇaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā

where the verb parikkhīyati means for something to be exhausted or consumed. Would that verb be understood as referring to a fire?

Finally, I wonder why putting out the fires of greed-hatred-delusion – the three unwholesome roots (akusala-mūla) – are taught more frequently in Insight centers and similar venues than the abandoning of the three fetters. For example, when I look at Tricycle’s beginners Buddhism guide, the outline presents “all the best hits” (my words) but includes The Three Poisons and not The Fetters.

I didn’t even learn about the fetters until I started on SuttaCentral.

This was long and meandering but presents my research and questions. I appreciate any and all feedback.

8 Likes
2

In Pali it is kōdha (anger) I think.

5 Likes
3

yes. From PED:

Kodha [Vedic krodha fr. krudh, cp. kujjhati] anger.

(there isn’t a long o in Pāli)

4 Likes
4

Maybe it’s because they cannot decide how to translate sakkāyadiṭṭhi ! :laughing:

I think the concept of “poisons” doesn’t exist in the canon, it’s a later label.

5 Likes
5

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is unambiguously explained in MN 44 therefore there is no need for an exact translation of the term.

Parikkhīyati is specifically applied to the fetters rather than to the three fires (of SN 35.28). In the stock phrases about the fetters, we find parikkhīyati applied to the fetters. The word “tanuttā” means “weakening”.

For in this Saṅgha there are perfected mendicants, who have ended the defilements, completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and are rightly freed through enlightenment.

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe arahanto khīṇāsavā vusitavanto katakaraṇīyā ohitabhārā anuppattasadatthā parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojanā sammadaññāvimuttā—

There are such mendicants in this Saṅgha.

evarūpāpi, bhikkhave, santi bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe.

In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of the five lower fetters are reborn spontaneously. They are extinguished there, and are not liable to return from that world.

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe pañcannaṁ orambhāgiyānaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā opapātikā tattha parinibbāyino anāvattidhammā tasmā lokā—

There are such mendicants in this Saṅgha.

evarūpāpi, bhikkhave, santi bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe.

In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters, and the weakening of greed, hate, and delusion, are once-returners. They come back to this world once only, then make an end of suffering.

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe tiṇṇaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṁ tanuttā sakadāgāmino sakideva imaṁ lokaṁ āgantvā dukkhassantaṁ karissanti—

There are such mendicants in this Saṅgha.

evarūpāpi, bhikkhave, santi bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe.

In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters are stream-enterers, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe tiṇṇaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā sotāpannā avinipātadhammā niyatā sambodhiparāyanā—

There are such mendicants in this Saṅgha.

evarūpāpi, bhikkhave, santi bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe.

MN 118

I would assume this might be a Mahayana influence. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like
6
off topic nitpick

Sorry to nitpick… I believe it is more accurate to say that in “standard” Pali transliteration, we never put a long mark over the o because the length can be understood from context, meaning that it is usually long but only short when in a syllable with a double consonant.

So the convention has been adopted that for o and e we don’t use diacritics. Since Sinhala does have short and long o and e that can’t be determined from context, you will often see Pali transliterated by Sinhala speakers with diacritics on the long o and e.

Interestingly, this can also be seen as a carryover from the way that Pali is written traditionally. In formal written Pali using the Sinhala alphabet, vowels are removed by making the consonants touch one another. In Sinhala there would be a small flag ් on the consonant denoting the deletion. So no flags for that. Just touching letters. The other reason that these flags are used in Sinhala writing is to make o and e long. And for some reason, traditional Pali written in Sinhala doesn’t use any flags at all on the o and e. So no flags at all in Pali.

I don’t know if this is worth its own thread, but I don’t really want to derail here.

2 Likes
7

If you are reading this sutta in a language other than Pāli, someone has done the work for you deciding what the words mean.

It’s wonderful that a translation exists that’s so excellent everything rendered is “unambiguous. “

8

I am not referring to the translation of the word sakkāyadiṭṭhi as unambiguous. I am referring to the explanation of sakkāyadiṭṭhi as unambiguous, below:

That is, the grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness .The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are substantial reality.”

They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
These are the twenty kinds of substantialist view.
rūpaṁ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṁ vā attānaṁ, attani vā rūpaṁ, rūpasmiṁ vā attānaṁ.
They regard feeling …
Vedanaṁ …pe…
perception …
saññaṁ …
choices …
saṅkhāre …
consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness.
viññāṇaṁ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṁ vā attānaṁ, attani vā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇasmiṁ vā attānaṁ.

That’s how sakkāyadiṭṭhi comes about.”

MN 44

Sakkāyadiṭṭhi is regarding the five aggregates as self. How the term sakkāyadiṭṭhi is linguistically constructed has no relevance.

9

You seem to be quoting an English language translation.
I’m glad it’s successful in conveying the meaning of the Pāli to you.

10

Anyway, can you kindly assist with this, returning to topic. The stock phrase below says:

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe arahanto khīṇāsavā vusitavanto katakaraṇīyā ohitabhārā anuppattasadatthā parikkhīṇa bhavasaṁyojanā sammadaññāvimuttā—

For in this Saṅgha there are perfected mendicants, who have ended the defilements, completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own goal, utterly ended the fetter of continued existence, and are rightly freed through enlightenment.

Santi, bhikkhave, bhikkhū imasmiṁ bhikkhusaṅghe tiṇṇaṁ saṁyojanānaṁ parikkhayā sotāpannā avinipātadhammā niyatā sambodhiparāyanā—

In this Saṅgha there are mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters are stream-enterers, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.

Is “bhavasaṁyojanā” here instrumental singular instead of nominative plural? Why would this be? Thanks. Is saṁyojanānaṁ genitive as I assume? Thanks

11

Hi!

Is “bhavasaṁyojanā ” here instrumental singular instead of nominative plural?

I guess Stephen is still sleeping (given that it’s night in the U.S. :slight_smile: ).

It’s a bahubbīhi compound (very roughly speaking, a compound that characterizes something/someone). These Arahants are parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojanā, i.e., “[characterized as] those who are liberated from the fetter of being/becoming” (literally, “those who ended/exhausted bhavasaṁyojana”). Grammatically saṁyojanā is nominative plural.

Is saṁyojanānaṁ genitive as I assume?

Yes, it is.

1 Like
12

Thanks so much. If this is the case, why is not the translation “fetters of being/becoming” (plural)?

1 Like
13

Because grammatically, here the compound needs to be in accord with the subject, arahanto.

Basically, it’s the same logic as in khīṇāsavā, but with the difference that there are many āsavas, while there is only one bhavasaṁyojana (out of many different saṁyojana).

Basically, one needs to know the context to say if it is “fetter” or “fetters”.

See here for some good explanations (about bahubbīhi in general):

https://www.digitalpalireader.online/docs/pali/compound.htm#bb

3 Likes
14

By the way, I meant to name the three fetters (tīṇi saṁyojanāni) from DN33:

substantialist view, doubt, and misapprehension of precepts and observances
sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbataparāmāso

We certainly have our fair share of discussion on sakkāyadiṭṭhi on this forum! I did a pāli word study previously on vicikicchā which generated a good discussion. I just searched for sīlabbataparāmāso, which didn’t generate many results. Would that be a term meant for the saṅgha only?

Thanks for this helpful reference – expanding my understanding of the fetters :slightly_smiling_face:. Still, it’s worth noting that the same root √khī is used in reference to “the ending of greed, hate, and delusion” in, for example, SN38.1

“Reverend, the ending of greed, hate, and delusion—is called extinguishment."
"Yo kho, āvuso, rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo
idaṁ vuccati nibbānan”ti.

This is interesting from Snp1.3

Having given up greed, hate, and delusion,
having burst apart the fetters
Rāgañca dosañca pahāya mohaṁ,
Sandālayitvāna saṁyojanāni

where the triad is given up, and the fetters have been shattered (infrequent pāli word!).

So it appears that there’s some kind of equivalency established (?). Did “modern Buddhism” (in Western culture, anyway) decide that it was too hard for people to understand the fetters? Or that people just couldn’t relate?

Indeed, maybe that’s it.

Maybe it has to do with the view that abandoning the fetters is to end saṃsāra, which is decidedly a reference to cyclic rebirth.

I suppose I could thrown in the āsavā – the defilements – for that matter, when it comes to what lay communities tend to avoid teaching.

MN2:

Because of not applying the mind to what they should not and applying the mind to what they should, unarisen defilements don’t arise and arisen defilements are given up.

They rationally apply the mind: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.

And as they do so, they give up three fetters…

Ah, now I get this :hugs:

2 Likes
15

I think the first 3 fetters are important for anyone intent on stream-entry.
A fundamental part of the whole Buddhist project.
It is a tricky compound to translate.
The component parts are sīla, vata, and parāmāsa.

1 Like
16

Thanks for providing this great explanation.
Sometimes I say it’s easy to understand a bahubbīhi if the (somewhat made up) English suffix ‘-ed’ is added to the compound.
So, the arahants are ‘freed from the fetter of existence-ed.’

yes, the compound must match the case and number of what it refers to (arahanto).

2 Likes
17

I have never heard of the “fetter of bhava” (out of many different saṁyojana - view, rituals, doubt, sensual, ill-will, rupa, arupa. conceit, restlessness, ignorance) before. Where is this explained in the suttas? I would think each of the 10 fetters (plural) is a bhavasaṁyojana (singular). Unless there is evidence for the singular, I would think bhavasaṁyojana means “fetters of bhava” (plural).

Only in MN 139 could i find the singular bhavasaṁyojanaṁ.

The root in SN 38.1 is applied to each single defilement individually. Where as the prefix ‘pari’ is applied to multiple different fetters collectively. This could possibly be the difference.

1 Like
18

That doesn’t seem right or I don’t understand what you mean by this. Which verb are you referring to?

19

The term seems to be referred to in a few suttas. I think a case can be made for the plural, though ?: ‘fetters of [continued] existence.’

-AN book of 3s, Samanavagga, 5. Sekkhasuttaṃ

‘‘Tato aññāvimuttassa, ñāṇaṃ ve hoti tādino;
Akuppā me vimuttī’ti, bhavasaṃyojanakkhaye’’ti.

Then, for one with final knowledge,
there is indeed the knowing for such a one:
‘My liberation is unshakeable,
with [in] the destruction of the fetter(s) of continued existence’

(locative singular)

-AN book of 6s, Dhammika Vagga, 3. Iṇasuttaṃ
(exactly same as above)

-Itivuttaka 3. Indriyasuttaṃ

#62
‘‘Tato aññā vimuttassa, ñāṇaṃ ve hoti tādino;
Akuppā me vimuttī’ti, bhavasaṃyojanakkhayā.

‘through the destruction of the fetter(s) of continued existence’
(ablative singular)

Although in MN 139 the compound is clearly singular…
‘Yesaṃ kesañci bhavasaṃyojanaṃ appahīnaṃ…

Additionally, for the stock phrase in Samyutta Sagāthavagga #3, Jarāmaraṇasutta,
“bhikkhū arahanto khīṇāsavā vusitavanto katakaraṇīyā ohitabhārā anuppattasadatthā parikkhīṇabhavasaṁyojanā …”

the commentary says here,:
“Dasavidhampi parikkhīṇaṃ bhavasaṃyojanaṃ etesanti parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojanā.”

which seems to me to point to 10 items under one term.

2 Likes
20

Yes, you have a point here! I always assumed that that there is only one bhavasaṃyojana, but I’ve just searched and found a couple of places where it is clearly plural (saṃyojanāni).

The commentarial tradition understands it in both ways:

1). It glosses the singular bhavasaṃyojana as taṇhā:

Bhavasaṃyojanaṃ vuccati taṇhā, sā parikkhīṇā assāti parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano. (DN 3.862-3)

(the expression being commented on is from DN 3.82, with the same bahubbīhi construction as in your initial question, but singular:

Imesañhi, vāseṭṭha, catunnaṃ vaṇṇānaṃ yo hoti bhikkhu arahaṃ khīṇāsavo vusitavā katakaraṇīyo ohitabhāro anuppattasadattho parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojano sammadaññāvimutto, so nesaṃ aggamakkhāyati dhammeneva, no adhammena.)

2). And it glosses the plural parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojanā as ten saṃyojanas

Dasavidhampi parikkhīṇaṃ bhavasaṃyojanaṃ etesanti parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojanā.

(SN 3.136-137, the formula being commented on exactly the same as in your initial question)

So, both interpretations exist. Choose whichever you like/prefer :slight_smile: .

2 Likes