Rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā

The Watercooler
1

rūpaṃ niccaṃ vā aniccaṃ vā “is form permanent or impermanent?”

occurs

DN: 0
MN: 3
SN: 45
AN: 0
KN: 0
VN: 1
AB: 0
VM: 0

In the Agama parallel of MN22, MA200 the rhetorical question and answer seem to be missing, while for MN35 and MN109 the Agama parallels are in SA not MA.

Does anyone know if there are any occurrences of the questioning “is form permanent or impermanent? But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness? But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and liable to wear out, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” in MA?

Are there other spellings, declensions, phrasing of the rhetorical question “is form permanent or impermanent?” that I am missing from the Nikayas? I feel like there are more occurrences but I am a bit at a loss as to where to start looking.

Similarly

sabbaṃ rūpaṃ “all form”

occurs:
DN: 0
MN: 9
SN:17
AN: 4
KN: 3
VN: 1
AB: 7
VM: 3

in MN, the first occurance is at MN22, Agama parallel MA200 the parallel appears to omit the intensifier all :

“Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṁ kiñci rūpaṁ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṁ, ajjhattaṁ vā bahiddhā vā, oḷārikaṁ vā sukhumaṁ vā, hīnaṁ vā paṇītaṁ vā, yaṁ dūre santike vā, sabbaṁ rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.

“So, mendicants, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

MN22

A monk regarding existent forms in the past, future, and present, whether internal or external, fine or crude, wonderful or not wonderful, near or distant [thinks]:
比丘者所有色。過去未來現在。或内或外。或精或麤。或妙或不妙。或近或遠。

‘None of them are possessed by me, I am not possessed by them, nor are they the soul.’
彼一切非我有。我非彼有。亦非是神。

Wisely observing them this way, he knows them as they really are.
如是慧觀知其如眞。

MA200

Once again, the other suttas in MN that mention sabbaṃ rūpaṃ; MN33, MN35, MN62, MN109, have thier parallels in the Agamas in SA and EA, not MA.

Same two questions here, am I missing statements about “all forms” from the Nikayas because of spelling or grammar considerations, and are there occurrences of “all forms” to be found in MA?

continuing on a bit, as far as I can tell the Literary Chinese Dharmaguptaka Bikkhu Vibanga Pacittiya 68 omits all mention of the aggregates. As does the Literary Chinese Mahisasaka Bikkhu VIbanga Pacittiya 38 and Pacittiya 46 and the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya Bhikkhu Vibhaṅga Pācittiya 55

Taisho 23 1442 39 beginning at 840b21 also appears to make no mention of the aggregates, no mention of the raft, and no mention of the snake.

So a follow up question, in the remaining parallels to MN22 how common is the aggregates question and answer part?

Metta

2

just as a side note @sujato EA43.5 is listed as a parallel to MN22 but appears to be a parallel of the parable of the raft only, so should perhaps be listed as a parallel to “MN22:13” rather than a to the whole sutta.

EA50.8 appears to be a more complete parallel, (and is by far the most sexually explicit I have found so far) as it includes both the non-obstruction argument and the snake parable, however it omits the raft and aggregates/not self.

Maybe @cdpatton can confirm these observations?

Just to summarize, it appears that the only complete parallel to MN22 is MA200, with EA50.8 being the next most complete, containing both the sexual misconduct issue and the parable of the handling of a snake (but no rafts or selves), EA43.5 is just the raft parable, the 4 Pacittiya’s listed are all just the sexual misconduct issue without the snake or raft parables (or selves or aggregates) and Taisho 23 1442 39 840b21 is the same.

None of the above outside MN22 and MA200 mention the aggregates at all as far as I can tell.

I have been unable to find Up 8.029 nyu74b6 thu 119b7 what is this a reference to? is it available online?

Oh wow, I just realized that MA200 doesn’t mention the 5 aggregates at all! !slaps forehead! I just saw

A monk regarding [1] existent forms in the past, future, and present, whether internal or external, fine or crude, wonderful or not wonderful, near or distant [thinks]: 比丘者所有色。過去未來現在。或内或外。或精或麤。或妙或不妙。或近或遠。 ‘None of them are possessed by me, I am not possessed by them, nor are they the soul.’ 彼一切非我有。我非彼有亦非是神。 Wisely observing them this way, he knows them as they really are. 如是慧觀知其如眞。

“Regarding [2] existent feelings, [3] existent perceptions, and [4] anything viewed like this: 所有覺所有想所有此見 ‘They aren’t possessed by me, and I’m not possessed by them. I will become nothing; I will not exist.’ 非我有。我非彼有。我當無我。當不有。 [He thinks:] ‘None of them are possessed by me, I am not possessed by them, nor are they the soul.’ 彼一切非我有。我非彼有。亦非是神。 Wisely observing them this way, he knows them as they really are. 如是慧觀知其如眞。

saw forms, feelings, perceptions… and thought “there they are” but in fact those are the only 3 listed, and we are not given choices and consciousness. Looking back to MN22 I now notice that the equivalent passage gives:

But a learned noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons.
Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako ariyānaṁ dassāvī ariyadhammassa kovido ariyadhamme suvinīto, sappurisānaṁ dassāvī sappurisadhammassa kovido sappurisadhamme suvinīto,

They regard form like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
rūpaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati;

They also regard feeling …
vedanaṁ ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati;
perception …
saññaṁ
‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati;
choices …
saṅkhāre ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati;

whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
yampi taṁ diṭṭhaṁ sutaṁ mutaṁ viññātaṁ pattaṁ pariyesitaṁ, anuvicaritaṁ manasā, tampi ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati;

And the same for this ground for views:
yampi taṁ diṭṭhiṭṭhānaṁ—
‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever.’
so loko so attā, so pecca bhavissāmi nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāmadhammo, sassatisamaṁ tatheva ṭhassāmīti—
They also regard this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
tampi ‘netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti samanupassati.

So MN22 first gives 4 of the 5 aggregates and “whatever is seen, heard, thought, known etc” in the place of viññāṇaṁ.

This might explain the repetition of the standard sequence at MN22:26, the previous sequence misses viññāṇaṁ, replacing it with a sequence of synonyms, so the second sequence, absent from MA200, is there to clarify that the 5 aggregates are indeed what is meant.

It does appear possible to say now however that there are no parallels to MN22 that include the 5 aggregates (although I guess 3 out of 5 ain’t bad).

This allows us to make the stronger claim that as far as we can tell, there are no suttas describing the 5 aggregates in detail in the Majjhima Nikāya that have parallels in the Madhyamāgama.

Come at me suttacentralists! There must be counter-examples, different formula, holes in my argument, etc that can save me from this pernicious wrong view: “The aggregates emanate from the Samyutta and are mostly absent from DN and MN” :slight_smile:

Metta

3

OK, I have found my own counter-example, MN122 has a Agama parallel at MA191. MN122 gives:

A mendicant should meditate observing rise and fall in these five grasping aggregates:
Pañca kho ime, ānanda, upādānakkhandhā yattha bhikkhunā udayabbayānupassinā vihātabbaṁ:
‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
‘iti rūpaṁ iti rūpassa samudayo iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo,
Such is feeling …
iti vedanā …
Such is perception …
iti saññā …
Such are choices …
iti saṅkhārā …
Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’
iti viññāṇaṁ iti viññāṇassa samudayo iti viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo’ti.

MA191 gives:

“有五盛陰，色盛陰，覺、想、行、識盛陰，謂比丘如是觀興衰，是色、是色習、是色滅，是覺、想、行、識，是識、是識習、是識滅。”
“There are five proliferating aggregates, the proliferating aggregate of form and the proliferating aggregates of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, which are monks who thus observe the rise and fall of form, the accumulation of form, and the cessation of form, and feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness, which are consciousnesses, the accumulation of consciousnesses, and the cessation of consciousnesses.”

iti saññā is interesting, it is the from the five aggregates are enumerated in the insertion at DN14, it reoccurs at MN10 and DN22 which I have not been considering, seeing as they both seem to obviously eminate from SN and apart from there and here(MN122), it occurs in MN again only at MN72 which has no parallel in MA.

Metta.

4

Yeah, EA is full of these little surprises. It switches the opening stories between the parable of the raft and the parable of the snake. They both involve a monk with wrong views that won’t recant when confronted, so it works, but it’s the opposite of the sutras in MN and MA, if I remember correctly.

1 Like