This is one of the densest, most critically examined poems of the entire canon. It’s full of linguistic pitfalls, variant readings, and a cryptic message. 
Let’s tackle it piece by piece (my attempt at a translation):
“Eko ahaṁ sakka mahantamoghaṁ,
(iccāyasmā upasīvo)
Anissito no visahāmi tārituṁ;
Ārammaṇaṁ brūhi samantacakkhu,
Yaṁ nissito oghamimaṁ tareyyaṁ”.I’m alone, Sakyan, facing the great flood,
(thus spoke Venerable Upasīva)
I can not cross over without a support.
Tell me the foundation, All-Seeing One,
Supported by which I may cross the flood.
It starts off emotional, sincere, by a Venerable, who we presume has good ethics, doing everything right, but still left on the precipice of the flood, pleading the Buddha for something by which he can cross the flood.
“Ākiñcaññaṁ pekkhamāno satimā,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
Natthīti nissāya tarassu oghaṁ;
Kāme pahāya virato kathāhi,
Taṇhakkhayaṁ nattamahābhipassa”.Observing nothingness, having recollection,
(Bhagavā said to Upasīva)
You should cross the flood depending on the ‘Doesn’t exist’.
Having abandoned desire, abstaining from speech,
Seek the destruction of craving night and day.
Satimā: I’m not trying to write something for general consumption, just glossing out; therefore, I’m trying to capture all the nuances being as literal as possible.
Abstaining from speech is a very important point, which I’ll tie to nāma down to road.
It seems the Buddha is giving a clear instruction on a specific contemplation regarding Nothingness to cross the flood. That should be it, this is the answer. But the next part is interesting, and the reasons why Upasīva keeps insisting on questions is not apparent:
“Sabbesu kāmesu yo vītarāgo,
(iccāyasmā upasīvo)
Ākiñcaññaṁ nissito hitvā maññaṁ;
Saññāvimokkhe parame vimutto*,
Tiṭṭhe nu so tattha anānuyāyī”.One who’s gone beyond lust in all desires,
(thus spoke Venerable Upasīva)
Depending on nothingness, having abandoned conception,
Liberated with / Intent on the supreme liberation of perception:
Would he remain there, being a non-traveler?
Mañña: I’m reading this straightforward as “conception”, which might be ideological. Maññi sometimes has the sense of Conceit, as in pride as a vice, however, I think this meaning of the word is dependent on mañña being literally “conception”, as attested numerous times in the suttas (also remember, abstaining from speech?).
*: MS2500 edition reads this , while Nidd and PTS reads this as <‘dhimutto>. @Alex-Wynne wrote whole pages on this. MN 105 has examples of how this “intent on” meaning of <‘dhimutto> is testified.
This is an important distinction, that I admit I don’t know how to read.
The theme of this poem is, generally, Upasīva’s anxiety on what happens when one is liberated. So I don’t think he’s asking an abstract question about someone being intent on liberation, remaining in the rebirth of nothingness dimension - that seems way too scholastic and weird for a poem.
But then, that line of reading contradicts what happens next in the poem. So, perhaps it is indeed a question about someone being an anāgāmī that’s fixated on the basis of nothingness.
“Sabbesu kāmesu yo vītarāgo,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
Ākiñcaññaṁ nissito hitvā maññaṁ;
Saññāvimokkhe parame vimutto,
Tiṭṭheyya so tattha anānuyāyī”.One who’s gone beyond lust in all desires,
(Bhagavā said to Upasīva)
Depending on nothingness, having abandoned conception,
Liberated with / Intent on the supreme liberation of perception:
He could remain there, being a non-traveler.
Moving on.
“Tiṭṭhe ce so tattha anānuyāyī,
Pūgampi vassānaṁ samantacakkhu;
Tattheva so sītisiyā vimutto,
Cavetha viññāṇaṁ tathāvidhassa”.If he could remain there, being a non-traveler,
Even for so many years, O All-seeing One—
Could he, right there, cool down and be liberated?
Could the consciousness of someone like that die off?
There’s some interesting things (like why mention “heaps of years”?) but, moving on.
“Accī yathā vātavegena khittā,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ;
Evaṁ munī nāmakāyā vimutto,
Atthaṁ paleti na upeti saṅkhaṁ”.As a flame, blown away with the force of wind,
(Bhagavā said to Upasīva)
Comes to its conclusion, not a subject of classification;
So does a sage, freed from the apparatus of naming,
Come to his conclusion, not a subject of classification.
How nāma is treated in Pāli is weird. Nāma doesn’t (just) refer to a person’s name, but the assemblage of mental qualities that allow them to name, appropriate, touch and cling to things: According to Sariputta, nāma is vedanā, saññā, cetanā, phasso, manasikāro.
Very weird to think that these are our names. They’re functions of perception, feeling, intention, contact and attention - the processes by which we engage with the world. Rather, they’re things by which we name the world.
That’s one thing. But is it also that we’re called by what we feel, what we touch, what we perceive, etc? That’s not altogether out of the picture, either.
This is why I’m reading nāmakāya as apparatus of naming.
Now, we do come a full circle though!
If nāma is all those attributes; then interestingly, a sage freed from this apparatus can no longer be classified either! So, “One who doesn’t name things, can not be named” either.
“Atthaṅgato so uda vā so natthi,
Udāhu ve sassatiyā arogo;
Taṁ me munī sādhu viyākarohi,
Tathā hi te vidito esa dhammo”.“Atthaṅgatassa na pamāṇamatthi,
(upasīvāti bhagavā)
Yena naṁ vajjuṁ taṁ tassa natthi;
Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu,
Samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbe”ti.“One gone to his conclusion—does he not exist?
Or is he eternally free from affliction?
O Sage, answer me well clearly;
For indeed this Dharma is known to you.”“There’s no measuring the one gone to his conclusion.
(Bhagavā said to Upasīva)
There’s nothing by which they could speak of him.
When all Dharma have been struck down altogether;
Likewise all manner of speech are struck down altogether too.”
Just as it’s problematic to never use a different word when translating a word in different contexts, so it is problematic to pick and choose a reading based on our preferences.
Upasīva is asking “This Dharma is known to you, give me that!” to Buddha, when Buddha is saying “What Dharma? All such Dharma to describe him have been eradicated.”
One who does not name the world, has no name by which others might call him. This kind of reflexive point is very important, I think. This poem has ample examples of talking about both.
Vādapathāpi: Is another very interesting word. It’s sometimes used in a way as “Manner of Doctrine” or things like that. Therefore, there is a reading that says something like:
When all Principles have been struck down altogether;
Likewise all Doctrines are struck down altogether too.
But, this might be pushing too far.
There’s something to tie this to SN12.44, where the origin of the world is equated to contact, and the rest of DO - the world is born through contact, the world is what we experience.
Do we have a name, or is there just names floating around? Are we what we make of the world?
The absence of this division, might be forming the basis of non-dual, non-conceptual ideas spelled out explicitly in later Buddhism.
There’s so many things to be uncovered and analysed with this poem, and I can barely scratch the surface. So I’ll be happy to hear where I might be wrong, pushing things too far, or if you have otherwise anything else to contribute !
