Reading SN 12.15 in light of its parallel SA 301

Discussion
23

I trust I already mentioned, the word “loka” (“world”) seems to be used in many ways, such as:

  1. social world AN 4.23; SN 12.10

In this world—with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind, all that has been understood by the Realized One.

Yaṁ, bhikkhave, sadevakassa lokassa samārakassa sabrahmakassa sassamaṇabrāhmaṇiyā pajāya sadevamanussāya diṭṭhaṁ sutaṁ mutaṁ viññātaṁ pattaṁ pariyesitaṁ anuvicaritaṁ manasā, sabbaṁ taṁ tathāgatena abhisambuddhaṁ.

‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn,

‘kicchaṁ vatāyaṁ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca upapajjati ca.

  1. the sense spheres which falls apart - SN 35.82

How is the world defined?

”Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, lokoti vuccatī”ti?

“It wears away, mendicant, that’s why it’s called ‘the world’.“

‘Lujjatī’ti kho, bhikkhu, tasmā lokoti vuccati.

  1. that which is dependent originated from craving (excluding the sense spheres) - SN 12.44; SN 2.26

For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.

Api ca khvāhaṁ, āvuso, imasmiṁyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññapemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadanti.

Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact.
manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.
Contact is a condition for feeling.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;
Feeling is a condition for craving.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.
When that craving fades away and ceases with nothing left over, grasping ceases.
Tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodhā upādānanirodho;
When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. …
upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho …pe…
That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti.
This is the ending of the world.”
Ayaṁ kho, bhikkhave, lokassa atthaṅgamo”ti.

  1. mental states, such as jhana - MN 79

“Well sir, at what point is a perfectly happy world realized?”

“kittāvatā panāssa, bhante, ekantasukho loko sacchikato hotī”ti?

“It’s when, giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and sadness, a mendicant enters and remains in the fourth absorption.

“Idhudāyi, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ … upasampajja viharati.

The Bahiya Sutta does not mention the word “world” (“loka”); apart from referring to the geographical “world”. It seems to be not relevant to SN 12.15, as I already suggested.

24

It mentions a seen and a heard. What do you think is seen and heard?

25

What is seen & heard are sights & sounds. :+1:t2:

26

Sights and sounds of what?

Also, the world is mentioned in the Ud 1.10 quote. Look again.

27

I already posted, Bahiya the puthujjana refers to the geographical world, that is all, as follows:

“I am one of those in the world who are perfected or on the path to perfection.”

“ye kho keci loke arahanto vā arahattamaggaṁ vā samāpannā, ahaṁ tesaṁ aññataro”ti.

Ud 1.10

Oh… I looked again. Bhikkhu Sujato’s translation includes “world” but seems to not exist in the Pali.

you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two.
tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, nevidha na huraṁ na ubhayamantarena.

Sujato

Some alternate translations are:

There is no ‘you’ here, or beyond, or in between. (Suddhāso)

Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two (Ānandajoti)

Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two (Thanissaro)

The Bahiya Sutta instructs:

‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’

In other words, if what is seen, heard & thought is then later called “the world”; this appears to be a transgression of the instruction of the Bahiya Sutta. All that is experienced in the Bahiya Sutta is the seen, the heard & the thought.

SN 12.44 clearly explains “the world” arises from craving & becoming.

The Bahiya Sutta instructs:

When you have trained in this way,
Yato kho te, bāhiya, diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṁ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṁ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṁ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṁ bhavissati,
you won’t be ‘by that’.
tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tena.
When you’re not ‘by that’,
Yato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tena;
you won’t be ‘in that’.
tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tattha.
When you’re not ‘in that’,
Yato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tattha,
Above, what or that which is translated as “that” seems to be the same as your idea of “what”.

In the Bahiya Sutta, it seems there is no “what” or no “that” seen or heard. All that is seen or heard is the seen & heard.

All the best.

28

The “seen, heard, cognised” likely refers to religious/philosophical doctrines and meditative experiences. Here is Yājñavalkya’s teaching on this, as recorded in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (with Ādi Śaṅkarācāryaḥ commentary below)

  1. He said: It is not for the sake of the husband, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the wife, my dear, that she is loved, but for one’s own sake that she is loved. It is not for the sake of the sons, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of wealth, my dear, that it is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. It is not for the sake of the Brāhmaṇa, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the Kṣatriya, my dear, that he is loved, but for one’s own sake that he is loved. It is not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the gods, my dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of the beings, my -dear, that they are loved, but for one’s own sake that they are loved. It is not for the sake of all, my dear, that all is loved, but for one’s own sake that it is loved. The Self, my dear Maitreyī, should be realised—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

With a view to teaching renunciation as a means to immortality, Yājñavalkya creates a distaste for the wife, husband, sons, etc., so that they may be given up. He said, ‘It is not for the sake or necessity of the husband that he is loved by the wife, but it is for one’s own sake that he is loved by her.’ The particle ‘vai’ (indeed) recalls something that is well-known, signifying that this is a matter of common knowledge. Similarly it is not for the sake of the wife, etc. The rest is to be explained as before. Likewise it is not for the sake of the sons, wealth, the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya, the worlds, the gods, the beings, and all. The priority of enumeration is in the order of their closeness to us as sources of joy; for it is all the more desirable to create a distaste for them. The use of the word ‘all’ is for including everything that has and has not been mentioned. Hence it is a well-known fact that the Self alone is dear, and nothing else. It has already been said, ‘This (Self) is dearer than a son,’ etc. (I. iv. 8). The present text serves as a detailed commentary on that. Therefore our love for other objects is secondary, since they contribute to the pleasure of the Self; and our love for the Self alone is primary. Therefore ‘the Self, my dear Maitreyī, should he realised, is worthy of realisation, or should be made the object of realisation. It should first be heard of from a teacher and from the scriptures, then reflected on through reasoning, and then steadfastly meditated upon.’ Thus only is It realised—when these means, viz. hearing, reflection and meditation, have been gone through. When these three are combined, then only true realisation of the unity of Brahman is accomplished, not otherwise—by hearing alone. The different castes such as the Brāhmaṇa or the Kṣatriya, the various orders of life, and so on, upon which rites depend, and which consist of actions, their factors and their results, are objects of notions superimposed on the Self by ignorance—based on false notions like that of a snake in a rope. In order to destroy these he says, ‘By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and’meditation, all this is known.

29

It seems unlikely to me that the Buddha was teaching the Brahmanic notion of Atman. Even if you mean hearing and meditating on Buddhist doctrine, I doubt that is what is meant.

The Buddha may have been enlightened, but he still had to see and recognize people, hear what people said, think about how he should reply, etc … I am pretty sure this is what he is talking about in Ud 1.10.

30

I didn’t say he was teaching Atman. I said “seeing” etc refers to religious doctrines and experiences. In other words, the Buddha is telling us not to get caught up in looking for the Atman.

31

Thank you for clarifying that for me. That said, I think it is more mundane in a sense. The Buddha still had to function in the world. That would require the use of his senses. What he did not do was identify with those. He did not experience a self, yet he could still function.

32

Well I agree, but I don’t think he’s is talking about sense experience when he discusses “the seen, heard, cognised”.

33

If it were made into a formal concept and doctrine, yes. I would say they would. In fact, I know of a couple cases of Chinese Mahayana commentators inspired by Madhyamika writings getting into a recursive spiral that bordered on the ridiculous: Not a, not not-a, neither a nor not-a, neither neither-a-nor-not-a nor not neither-a-nor-not-a. Etc. The idea is to not consider ideas (dharmas) real. Mahayanists were trying to dislodge us from inaccurate conceptualizations of reality so we could glimpse reality itself, so whenever a person appeared attached to an idea, they would negate it.

First, I’d just say that “world” in SA 301 is another world for the social world, as CurlyCarl pointed out. It means “worldy (people),” which is why Choong inserts “people” into his translation. In Chinese, there are two different words for worldly/secular (世間) and the physical world (世界) that disambiguates these two readings of P. loka. Chinese isn’t always the more indistinct language to translate.

That said, though, I think there is a tension in the EBTs that’s mirrored in (or perhaps inspired by) the conflict between Abhidharmists and their mystic Buddhist critics. One side believed there is a set of basic dharmas that exist on a temporary basis in a real way. In Abhidharma, these were usually things that consist of the five aggregates, twelve sense fields, and/or eighteen elements. Outside of those phenomena, nothing else exists for them. Then, there were the proponents of two truths, conventional and absolute, who say that strictly speaking it’s a misnomer to say anything really exists, but it’s okay for ordinary communication. This is also how they deterred people from going around correcting anyone who uses the word “I”. “Yes, there’s no real ‘I’, but we can use the word to communicate with each other. Don’t make a problem out of this.”

I often get the impression that Buddhists were having to avoid saying things exist or not because of the essentialism that was common in ancient India. Buddhists (like Nagarjuna) who criticized existence often say it’s not possible for something to be eternal or unchanging. This was apparently the criteria for existing to many people at the time. Buddhists didn’t believe anything was eternal or unchanging, at least nothing that arose and passed away. So, they sidestepped the whole issue with dependent origination, talking about how things arise and cease but often not mentioning that they exist in the meantime.

It sounds strange to modern people today, I think, who generally assume things aren’t eternal or unchanging. Science has demonstrated that the phenomenal world is in constant flux, even the basic elements of matter are created through fusion and can decay into other elements. Matter and energy can be converted back and forth between each other. There’s no basic element that’s eternal and unchanging. In ancient times, people didn’t understand these things directly yet. They also thought evil yakkha spirits caused plagues and the world was flat. Buddhists were pioneers in arriving at a more accurate understanding of existence that we take for granted today, which is remarkable given how little direct knowledge existed at the time. Some of them became idealists, and some of them realists, but they all agreed on the impermanence of conditioned things.

You can access the first half of the Madhyama Agama in English through BDK’s free PDF editions of the Analayo translation: Volume 1 and Volume 2. Volumes 3 and 4 haven’t been released yet, but they will eventually.

1 Like
34

There are differences that matter and there are differences that do not. I think that the people in the world who hold to the extremes

are a mutually exclusive group from the group of people who are not attached to self.

The first group have the feeling of being in that, by that, etc. and the second group do not have the feeling of being in that, by that, etc.
Whether or not SA 301 is using the word “world” in a sense different than it is used when meaning the source of suffering (the psychological state of the feeling of being in the world) it still identifies the same group of people who have a sense of being in that.

So you and @CurlyCarl may be technically correct, but I don’t think it matters. The actual group of people identified is the same regardless of the usage. They are logically equivalent here.

I have been thinking about what you said in an earlier post about there being two things being discussed at the same time in SA 301. And I think you are correct. That said, I think the talk about the twelve links of dependent origination is not compatible with Snp 4.3 where the Buddha warns of such theories

That SN 12.15 and SA 301 teach a formulated view (the twelve links of dependent arising) and, at least SN 12.15, appears to be a shot across the bow in a sectarian dispute on a philosophical issue as opposed to what really matters, training to attain a state of mind that will end needless suffering, I see these suttas of limited use. I suspect the original teaching was about the extremes experienced by ordinary men and ascetics and the alternative of living in the state described to Bahiya.

I find the history of the evolution of Buddhist thought very interesting from an historical perspective, and some of it is useful, but my primary interests are in the practice which is what I think leads to liberation.