Questions on a stock passage in DN1

The following are three different translations of the same stock passage in DN1:

Bhikkhu Sujato:

The Realized One understands this: If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life. He understands this, and what goes beyond this. And since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping.

Bhikkhu Bodhi:

This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond. He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.

Karl Eugen Neumann (German, my amended Gooogle translation):

Then, monks, the perfected One recognizes: Such views, thus accepted, thus persistently acquired, allow one to get there [lit. to such and such conclusion], allow such a future to be expected. The perfected One recognizes this and recognizes what goes beyond that. But he does not persist in this knowledge, and because he does not persist in it, he finds contemplation within himself: and because he has really understood the feelings of rise and fall, refreshment and misery and overcoming, he has been released without attachments, monks, he, the perfected One.

a) What is the literal word for word translation of the bold passage?

b) What exactly is it that “goes beyond that”?

c) Why does the Sutta relativize the view that later appears in the MN as the Buddha’s standard view (hundred thousands of births, then I had such a name etc.) in the same way as the others?

Thanks, Lunky

All these views are derived from attavada and sakkayadithi. Abandoning attavada and sakkayadithi “goes beyond” all of these views

Sutta describes here simply one type of the wrong views namely eternalism. But eternalism isn’t Buddha’s standard view.

Now, this particular view is based on memory, and as far as unbroken line of action and results of action goes, there is nothing wrong with it. That is to say, memory works well, but in this case we deal with puthujjana who takes for granted that he exists as a person (sakkaya) living in the world. And he misunderstands his past experiences as mach as his present experience, interpreting them in terms of “I” and “mine”.

But since in fact samsara is real, the memory of arahat remember precisely the same unbroken line of action and results of action, but now and here he doesn’t misunderstand the past experiences, but due to the nature of language such words as “I” and “mine” has to be used.

But as far as right view goes, the past is not self, and with cessation of asmimana or “conceit I am”, since self-identification with past is abandoned arahat says:

‘I was’ is not for me, not for me is ‘I shall be’;
Determinations will un-be: therein what place for sighs?
Pure arising of things, pure series of determinants—
For one who sees this as it is, chieftain, there is no fear.

Theragāthā 715, 716

These words refer to the cessation of being now and here. While from your point of view they are spoken by certain puggala, so obviously seem to be nonsense and not true, since the puggala -individual- has a past and future. The point is that arahat is an individual - puggala- without the burden of personality (sakkaya) so they refer precisely to subjective “experience” of not having any duration whatsoever since self-identification with things which have past and future in the case at arahat is totally abandoned.

Arahat and asankhata dhatu are synonyms, and precisely this words describe the state of not being extended in space and time.

For using such words as “I” and “mine” by arahat, see:

A monk who is a worthy one, his task done,
His cankers destroyed, wearing his last body,—
Is it because this monk has arrived at conceit
That he might say ‘I say’,
And that he might say 'They say to me '?
—For one who is rid of conceit there are no ties,
All his ties of conceit (mānaganthā’ssa ) are dissolved;
This wise man, having got beyond conceiving (yam matam ),
Might say ‘I say’,
And he might say 'They say to me ':
Skilled in worldly expressions, knowing about them,
He might use them within the limits of usage.

Devatā Samy. iii,5

That makes a lot of sense ! I can see which concept of Western philosophy would parallel this … and how it would lead Neumann, who was without a doubt influenced by it, to his small diversion, whitout changing the general meaning of the passage.

Fantastic answer, many thanks !