TO BE OR NOT TO BE, the undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas:

Essays
21

My impression of SN 22.85 is it about the wrong view the Tathagata is a “self” or “being”. Having the wrong view the Tathagata is a “self” or “being”, there arises the idea “death” occurs to the Tathagata or to an Arahant. My impression is the reference to the “aggregates” is ultimately not that important because the aggregates are ultimately used to point out the not-self nature of the Tathagata. Ultimately, the sutta ends discussing “the killer”, which is grasping. It says:

They don’t truly understand form—which is a killer—as a killer. They don’t truly understand feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is a killer—as a killer.

They’re attracted to form, grasp it, and commit to the notion that it is ‘my self’. They’re attracted to feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, grasp it, and commit to the notion that it is ‘my self’. And when you’ve gotten involved with and grasped these five grasping aggregates, they lead to your lasting harm and suffering.

22

I think the wrong view is more along the lines that a “self” exists somehow independent of or apart form appearances, that is I think there is actually nothing particularly wrong with “i myself am partial to chocolate” or “she is being rather disagreeable today”. the issue is when we take the appearances of things and make claims to things that we impute existence (or non existence) to beyond the appearances.

basically I think “identity view” isn’t a mistake we make about being ourselves in the world, rather it is a mistake we make in imputing being as an identity behind the appearances of the world. (or imputing a being behind the appearances of ourselves)

so it’s not a mistake we particularly make with regards to our concept of ourselves, (although this is probably the place we make it most and most egrigiouosly) but with regard to any concept whatever, all of which are apparitional.

1 Like
23

Here is a machine translation of the Agama parallel to the Yamaka Sutta SN22.85 , SA108:

source: “T02n0099_005:0030c12_0”

（一〇四）如是我聞：一時，佛住舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園。",
“(108) Thus I have heard: One time, the Buddha was staying at Anāthapiṇḍada Park in Jeta Grove in Śrāvastī.”,

“爾時，有比丘名焰摩迦，起惡邪見，作如是言：「如我解佛所說法，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終更無所有。」”,
“It was then that a monk named Yamaka gave rise to a bad and wrong view and said, As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, the contaminants will cease when the arhat’s body breaks up and his life ends, and there won’t be anything else.”,

“時，有眾多比丘聞彼所說，往詣其所，語焰摩迦比丘言：「汝實作是說：『如我解佛所說法，”,
“Then, having heard these words of the Licchavi Vimalakīrti, a large group of monks approached him and said to the bhikṣu Yamaka:”,

“漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終更無所有』耶？」”,
“Is there nothing more to the arhat whose body breaks up and his life ends when the contaminants are ended?”,

“答言：「實爾。”,
“He replied, Indeed.”,

“諸尊！」”,
“venerable ones!”,

“時，諸比丘語焰摩迦：「勿謗世尊！”,
“The monks then said to Yamaka, Don’t denigrate the Bhagavān!”,

“謗世尊者不善，世尊不作是說，汝當盡捨此惡邪見。」”,
“A person who denigrates the Bhagavān is unwholesome, and if the Bhagavān doesn’t say that, you must abandon this bad and wrong view completely.”,

“諸比丘說此語時，焰摩迦比丘猶執惡邪見，作如是言：「諸尊！”,
“When the monks spoke these words, the monk Yamaka still held a bad mistaken view and said, Venerables!”,

“唯此真實，異則虛妄。」”,
“Only this is true, and what’s different is false.”,

“如是三說。”,
“These are the three teachings.”,

“時，諸比丘不能調伏焰摩迦比丘，即便捨去，往詣尊者舍利弗所，語尊者舍利弗言：「尊者！”,
“The monks then couldn’t subdue the monk Yamaka, so they left and went to Venerable Śāriputra and said to Venerable Śāriputra, Venerable!”,

“當知彼焰摩迦比丘起如是惡邪見言：『我解知佛所說法，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終更無所有。』”,
“You should know that the monk Yamaka gives rise to this kind of bad and mistaken view, saying, ‘I understand that the Buddha teaches that the contaminants will cease when the arhat’s body breaks up and his life ends, and there won’t be anything else.’”,

“我等聞彼所說已，故往問焰摩迦比丘：『汝實作如是知見耶？』”,
“After hearing what they said, we went to the monk Yamaka and asked him, ‘Have you really done this kind of knowing and seeing?’”,

“彼答我言：『諸尊！”,
“They answered me, saying, 'Venerables!”,

“實爾，異則愚說。』”,
“It’s true, but when it’s different, it’s a foolish statement.'”,

“我即語言：『汝勿謗世尊！”,
“I then said, 'Don’t denigrate the Bhagavān!”,

“世尊不作此語，汝當捨此惡邪見。』”,
“If the Bhagavān doesn’t make these words, you must abandon this bad and wrong view.'”,

“再三諫彼，猶不捨惡邪見，是故我今詣尊者所，唯願尊者，當令焰摩迦比丘息惡邪見，”,
“Because of this, I am now approaching you. All I ask, venerable sir, is that you exhort the monk Yamaka to cease his evil views.”,

“憐愍彼故！」”,
“Because of pitying them!”,

“舍利弗言：「如是，我當令彼息惡邪見。」”,
“Śāriputra said, So it is, I will cause them to stop bad and wrong views.”,

“時，眾多比丘聞舍利弗語，歡喜隨喜，而還本處。”,
“When the many monks heard what Śāriputra said, they rejoiced and joyfully returned to their original place.”,

“爾時，尊者舍利弗晨朝著衣持鉢，入舍衛城乞食。”,
“At the time, Venerable Śāriputra put on his robe and bowl in the morning and entered Sāvatthī to solicit alms.”,

“食已，出城，還精舍舉衣鉢已，往詣焰摩迦比丘所。”,
“After he had eaten, he left the city, returned to the monastery, raised his robe and bowl, and went to the monk Yamaka.”,

“時，焰摩迦比丘遙見尊者舍利弗來，即為敷座洗足，安停脚机奉迎，為執衣鉢，”,
“Seeing Venerable Śāriputra approaching them from a distance, the bhikṣu Yamaka spread out his seat to wash his feet, placed his feet on a stand to receive him, and took his robes, bowl, and almsbowl into his hands.”,

“請令就座。”,
“He asked to be ordered to take his seat.”,

“尊者舍利弗就座、洗足已，語焰摩迦比丘：「汝實作如是語：『我解知世尊所說法，”,
“Venerable Śāriputra, having taken his seat and washed his feet, said to the monk Yamaka:”,

“漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有』耶？」”,
Is the body of an arhat whose contaminants have ended and his life ends without existence?",

“焰摩迦比丘白舍利弗言：「實爾，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“The monk Yamaka said to Śāriputra, Indeed, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“舍利弗言：「我今問汝，隨意答我。”,
“Śāriputra said, Now, I’ll ask you to answer me as you wish.”,

“云何，焰摩迦！”,
“What do you think, Yamaka?”,

“色為常耶？”,
“Is form permanent?”,

“為非常耶？」”,
“Is it impermanent?”,

“答言：「尊者舍利弗！”,
“He replied, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“無常。」”,
“impermanent.”,

“復問：「若無常者，是苦不？」”,
“Again, he asked, If it’s impermanent, is it painful?”,

“答言：「是苦。」”,
“He replied, It’s painful.”,

“復問：「若無常、苦，是變易法，多聞聖弟子寧於中見我、異我、相在不？」”,
“Again, he asked, If impermanence and suffering are the dharmas of change, how would well-versed noble disciples see self, dissimilar self, or marks in them?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
“T02n0099_005:0031a20_16”

“「受、想、行、識亦復如是。」”,
“So it is with feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.”,

“復問：「云何，焰摩迦！”,
“Again, he asked, What’s the matter, Yamaka!”,

“色是如來耶？」”,
“Is form the Tathāgata?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“「受、想、行、識是如來耶？」”,
“Is feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness the Tathāgata?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“復問：「云何，焰摩迦！”,
“Again, he asked, What’s the matter, Yamaka!”,

“異色有如來耶？”,
“Is there a tathāgata other than form?”,

“異受、想、行、識有如來耶？」”,
“Are there tathāgatas other than feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“復問：「色中有如來耶？”,
“Again, he asked, Is there a Tathāgata in form?”,

“受、想、行、識中有如來耶？」”,
“Is there a tathāgata in feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“復問：「如來中有色耶？”,
“Again, he asked, Is there form in the Tathāgata?”,

“如來中有受、想、行、識耶？」”,
“Is there feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness in the Tathāgata?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“復問：「非色、受、想、行、識有如來耶？」”,
“Again, he asked, Isn’t there a tathāgata in form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“「如是，焰摩迦！”,
So it is, Yamaka!",

“如來見法真實、如住，無所得、無所施設，汝云何言：『我解知世尊所說，”,
“The Tathāgata sees things as they really are and thus abide. They have no acquisition or attachment whatsoever. How can you say, “I understand and know what the World-honored One has said:”,

“漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』”,
“When the contaminants end, the arhat’s body breaks up and his life ends, there’s nothing to be possessed.'”,

“為時說耶？」”,
“Is it taught at the right time?”,

“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“復問：「焰摩迦！”,
“Again, he asked, Yamaka!”,

“先言：『我解知世尊所說，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』”,
“First, he said, ‘I understand what the Bhagavān teaches, namely, that the body of an arhat whose contaminants have ended and his life ends has no existence.’”,

“云何今復言非耶？」”,
“How can we now say it’s not?”,

“焰摩迦比丘言：「尊者舍利弗！”,
“The monk Yamaka said, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“我先不解、無明故，作如是惡邪見說，聞尊者舍利弗說已，不解、無明，”,
“Having heard what Venerable Sāriputta said, I did not understand and ignorance.”,

“一切悉斷。」”,
“All of them are completely eliminated.”,

“復問：「焰摩迦！”,
“Again, he asked, Yamaka!”,

“若復問：『比丘！”,
“Suppose someone again asks, 'Monk!”,

“如先惡邪見所說，今何所知見一切悉得遠離？』”,
“As was explained in the past by bad mistaken views, what’s the way to know and see all of them now that they’re completely removed?'”,

“汝當云何答？」”,
“What will you answer?”,

“焰摩迦答言：「尊者舍利弗！”,
“Yamaka replied, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“若有來問者，我當如是答：『漏盡阿羅漢色無常，無常者是苦，苦者寂靜、清涼、永沒。”,
“If someone comes and asks me questions, I will answer in this way: The form of an arhat who has ended the contaminants is impermanent; what’s impermanent is painful; what’s painful is tranquil, cool, and eternally disappearing.”,

“受、想、行、識亦復如是。』”,
“So it is with feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.'”,

“有來問者，作如是答。」”,
“Anyone who comes to ask a question will give an answer like this.”,

“舍利弗言：「善哉！”,
“Śāriputra said, Good!”,

“善哉！”,
“Excellent, good!”,

“焰摩迦比丘！”,
“Monk Yamaka!”,

“汝應如是答。”,
“You should answer in this way.”,

“所以者何？”,
“Why is that?”,

“漏盡阿羅漢色無常，無常者是苦，若無常、苦者，是生滅法。”,
“The form of an arhat who has ended contamination is impermanent, and what’s impermanent is painful; if it’s impermanent and painful, it’s the law of arising and ceasing.”,

“受、想、行、識亦復如是。」”,
“So it is with feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness.”,

“尊者舍利弗說是法時，焰摩迦比丘遠塵離垢，得法眼淨。”,
“When Venerable Śāriputra explained this teaching, the monk Yamaka was far removed from the dust and stain and attained purity of the Dharma eye.”,

“尊者舍利弗語焰摩迦比丘：「今當說譬，夫智者以譬得解。”,
“Venerable Śāriputra said to the monk Yamaka, Now, I’ll explain an analogy, for a wise person understands by using an analogy.”,

“如長者子，長者子大富多財，廣求僕從，善守護財物。”,
“Suppose an elderly man’s son is very wealthy and has plenty of possessions, seeks extensive servants, and well guards his possessions.”,

“時，有怨家惡人，詐來親附，為作僕從，常伺其便，晚眠早起，侍息左右，”,
“At that time there was an evil enemy of the householders, a fraudulent friend and intimate associate, acting as servants or attendants. They always waited for someone to give them an advantageous place to sleep late at night and rose early in the morning. Their attendants stayed on their left and right sides.”,

“謹敬其事，遜其言辭，令主意悅，作親友想、子想，極信不疑，不自防護，”,
“With utmost respect and reverence for the monk’s words, I humbly think of him as my close friend or my only child. Without doubt or suspicion, without being self-indulgent, I cherish no thoughts of enmity toward anyone.”,

“然後手執利刀，以斷其命。”,
“Then he held a sharp sword in his hand and cut off his life.”,

“焰摩迦比丘！”,
“Monk Yamaka!”,

“於意云何？”,
“What do you think?”,

“彼惡怨家，為長者親友，非為初始方便，害心常伺其便，至其終耶？”,
“That bad enemy’s family is a friend of the wealthy man, isn’t it because of his initial skillful means and harmful intentions that he always waits for an opportunity to reach their end?”,

“而彼長者，不能覺知，至今受害。」”,
“That elderly man, however, couldn’t perceive it and has been harmed so far.”,

“答言：「實爾。”,
“He replied, Indeed.”,

“尊者！」”,
“Venerable!”,

“舍利弗語焰摩迦比丘：「於意云何？”,
“Śāriputra said to the monk Yamaka, What do you think?”,

“彼長者本知彼人詐親欲害，善自防護，不受害耶？」”,
“Did the elderly man know that person’s fraudulent relatives wanted to harm them, so he guarded himself well and didn’t harm them?”,

“答言：「如是，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, So it is, Venerable Śāriputra!”,

“「如是，焰摩迦比丘！”,
“So it is, monk Yamaka!”,

“愚癡無聞凡夫於五受陰作常想、安隱想、不病想、我想、我所想，於此五受陰保持護惜，”,
“Ordinary people who are ignorant and unheard think of the five acquired aggregates as eternal, peaceful, free from illness, self, and what belongs to me. They preserve and cherish these five acquired aggregates.”,

“終為此五受陰怨家所害。”,
“They’ll end up being harmed by these five recipients of the aggregates and their enemies.”,

“如彼長者，為詐親怨家所害而不覺知。”,
“Suppose that elder is harmed by a fraudulent friend or enemy and doesn’t perceive it.”,

“焰摩迦！”,
“Yamaka!”,

“多聞聖弟子於此五受陰，觀察如病、如癰、如刺、如殺，無常、苦、空、非我、非我所，”,
“Well-versed holy disciples observe these five acquired aggregates as illness, as abscess, as abscess, as thorn, as killing, impermanent, painful, empty, not self, and not what belongs to self.”,

“於此五受陰不著、不受、不受故不著，不著故自覺涅槃：『我生已盡，”,
“Because they are not attached to these five acquired aggregates, they do not cling to them. Because they are not attached, they realize nirvana on their own:”,

“梵行已立，所作已作，自知不受後有。』」”,
“After the religious practice has been established and what’s done, they know for themselves that they won’t be subject to later existence.'”,

“尊者舍利弗說是法時，焰摩迦比丘不起諸漏，心得解脫，尊者舍利弗為焰摩迦比丘說法，”,
“When Venerable Śāriputra had discoursed thus, the monk Yamaka did not give rise to the contaminants and his mind was liberated.”,

“示、教、照、喜已，從座起去。”,
“After showing, teaching, illuminating, and rejoicing, he rose from his seat and departed.”,

Now obviously I don’t speak classical chinese, and I don’t recommend relying on a machine translation for complex and subtle arguments about the dhamma, but, it does appear that this version of the sutta agrees very closely with the pali version, however it seems to omit the “genuine fact” argument, the relevent sections are:

Do you regard the Realized One as one who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
ayaṁ so arūpī … avedano … asaññī … asaṅkhāro … aviññāṇo tathāgatoti samanupassasī”ti?

“No, reverend.”
“No hetaṁ, āvuso”.

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is it appropriate to declare:
“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:

‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi, yathā khīṇāsavo bhikkhu kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṁ maraṇā’”ti?

“Reverend Sāriputta, in my ignorance, I used to have that misconception.
“Ahu kho me taṁ, āvuso sāriputta, pubbe aviddasuno pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ;

But now that I’ve heard the teaching from Venerable Sāriputta I’ve given up that misconception, and I’ve comprehended the teaching.”
idañca panāyasmato sāriputtassa dhammadesanaṁ sutvā tañceva pāpakaṁ diṭṭhigataṁ pahīnaṁ, dhammo ca me abhisamito”ti.

compare:

“復問：「非色、受、想、行、識有如來耶？」”,
“Again, he asked, Isn’t there a tathāgata in form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness?”,
“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
“「如是，焰摩迦！”,
So it is, Yamaka!",
“如來見法真實、如住，無所得、無所施設，汝云何言：『我解知世尊所說，”,
“The Tathāgata sees things as they really are and thus abide. They have no acquisition or attachment whatsoever. How can you say, “I understand and know what the World-honored One has said:”,
“漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』”,
“When the contaminants end, the arhat’s body breaks up and his life ends, there’s nothing to be possessed.'”,
“為時說耶？」”,
“Is it taught at the right time?”,
“答言：「不也，尊者舍利弗！」”,
“He replied, No, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
“復問：「焰摩迦！”,
“Again, he asked, Yamaka!”,
“先言：『我解知世尊所說，漏盡阿羅漢身壞命終無所有。』”,
“First, he said, ‘I understand what the Bhagavān teaches, namely, that the body of an arhat whose contaminants have ended and his life ends has no existence.’”,
“云何今復言非耶？」”,
“How can we now say it’s not?”,
“焰摩迦比丘言：「尊者舍利弗！”,
“The monk Yamaka said, Venerable Śāriputra!”,
“我先不解、無明故，作如是惡邪見說，聞尊者舍利弗說已，不解、無明，”,
“Having heard what Venerable Sāriputta said, I did not understand and ignorance.”,
“一切悉斷。」”,
“All of them are completely eliminated.”,

or more succinctly:

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is it appropriate to declare:
“Ettha ca te, āvuso yamaka, diṭṭheva dhamme saccato thetato tathāgate anupalabbhiyamāne, kallaṁ nu te taṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:

“如來見法真實、如住，無所得、無所施設，汝云何言：『我解知世尊所說，”,
“The Tathāgata sees things as they really are and thus abides. They have no acquisition or attachment whatsoever. How can you say, “I understand and know what the World-honored One has said:”,

So to summarise, the “genuine fact” line is absent from the parallel, is rarely attested in the EBT’s, cannot be made to work with the simile in MN72, contradicts the dictum at SN12.15:

But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world.
Lokasamudayaṁ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti.

and is therefore suspect as a statement of bhuddadhamma.

It may be possible to rehabilitate it along the lines suggested by @dhamma012 but I do not see how or frankly why one would feel they had to.

Metta

1 Like
24

That was an interesting read @josephzizys.

Yes, there seems to be quite a difference between the Pali and Chinese versions.

The reason that I personally look for a way to make the Pali fit rather than say it is an anomaly is because it then becomes too easy to pick and choose whatever version of the suttas suit us. There is an entire section of Wikipedia arguing that the four noble truths are not central to early Buddhism, even though the logic used by the scholars in question is deeply flawed.

I understand that in this case you’ve done a lot of analysis to come to your conclusion, and you’ve been careful about bias. Still, if there is an interpretation of the Pali suttas that works with the rest of the canon, then I generally lean towards taking the Pali suttas as they are.

1 Like
25

Ok! Part two of my series examining the undeclared points:

Next, the SN12 sequence; starting with SN12.17 there is a slightly different angle taken into the undeclared points:

“Ask what you wish, Kassapa.”
“Puccha, kassapa, yadākaṅkhasī”ti.

“Well, Master Gotama, is suffering made by oneself?”
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘sayaṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti?

“Not so, Kassapa,” said the Buddha.
‘Mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti bhagavā avoca.

“Then is suffering made by another?”
‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, paraṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti?

“Not so, Kassapa,” said the Buddha.
‘Mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti bhagavā avoca.

“Well, is suffering made by both oneself and another?”
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca dukkhan’ti?

“Not so, Kassapa,” said the Buddha.
‘Mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti bhagavā avoca.

“Then does suffering arise by chance, not made by oneself or another?”
‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ dukkhan’ti?

“Not so, Kassapa,” said the Buddha.
‘Mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti bhagavā avoca.

“Well, is there no such thing as suffering?”
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, natthi dukkhan’ti?

“It’s not that there’s no such thing as suffering.
‘Na kho, kassapa, natthi dukkhaṁ.

Suffering is real.”
Atthi kho, kassapa, dukkhan’ti.

“Then Master Gotama doesn’t know nor see suffering.”
‘Tena hi bhavaṁ gotamo dukkhaṁ na jānāti, na passatī’ti.

“It’s not that I don’t know or see suffering.
‘Na khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhaṁ na jānāmi, na passāmi.

I do know suffering,
Jānāmi khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhaṁ;

I do see suffering.”
passāmi khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhan’”ti.

“Master Gotama, when asked these questions, you say ‘not so’.
“Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, ‘sayaṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, paraṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca dukkhan’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti vadesi. ‘Kiṁ pana, bho gotama, asayaṅkāraṁ aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ dukkhan’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘mā hevaṁ, kassapā’ti vadesi.

Yet you say that there is such a thing as suffering.
‘Kiṁ nu kho, bho gotama, natthi dukkhan’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na kho, kassapa, natthi dukkhaṁ, atthi kho, kassapa, dukkhan’ti vadesi. ‘Tena hi bhavaṁ gotamo dukkhaṁ na jānāti na passatī’ti iti puṭṭho samāno ‘na khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhaṁ na jānāmi na passāmi.

And you say that you do know suffering,
Jānāmi khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhaṁ;

and you do see suffering.
passāmi khvāhaṁ, kassapa, dukkhan’ti vadesi.

Sir, explain suffering to me!
Ācikkhatu ca me, bhante, bhagavā dukkhaṁ.

Teach me about suffering!”
Desetu ca me, bhante, bhagavā dukkhan”ti.

“Suppose that the person who does the deed experiences the result. Then for one who has existed since the beginning, suffering is made by oneself. This statement leans toward eternalism.
“‘So karoti so paṭisaṁvedayatī’ti kho, kassapa, ādito sato ‘sayaṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti vadaṁ sassataṁ etaṁ pareti.

Suppose that one person does the deed and another experiences the result. Then for one stricken by feeling, suffering is made by another. This statement leans toward annihilationism.
‘Añño karoti añño paṭisaṁvedayatī’ti kho, kassapa, vedanābhitunnassa sato ‘paraṅkataṁ dukkhan’ti iti vadaṁ ucchedaṁ etaṁ pareti.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:
Ete te, kassapa, ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato dhammaṁ deseti:

‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.
‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā;

Choices are a condition for consciousness. …
saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ …pe…

That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.

When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.
Avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho;

When choices cease, consciousness ceases. …
saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho …pe…

That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.’”
evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī’”ti.

This basic structure is then repeated, with variations, in SN12.18 SN12.24 SN12.25 SN12.26 SN12.46 SN12.67 and finally summarized at AN6.95 with:

“Mendicants, these six things can’t be done.
“Chayimāni, bhikkhave, abhabbaṭṭhānāni.

What six?
Katamāni cha?

A person accomplished in view can’t fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, or that they’re made by another, or that they’re made by both. Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both.
Abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṅkataṁ sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo paraṅkataṁ sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṅkatañca paraṅkatañca sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo aparaṅkāraṁ adhiccasamuppannaṁ sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṁ sukhadukkhaṁ paccāgantuṁ.

Why is that?
Taṁ kissa hetu?

It is because a person accomplished in view has clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes.
Tathā hissa, bhikkhave, diṭṭhisampannassa puggalassa hetu ca sudiṭṭho hetusamuppannā ca dhammā. These are the six things that can’t be done.” Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cha abhabbaṭṭhānānī”ti.

we will examine these suttas and look at some of the explanations given in them, but it will have to wait for an edit to this post, as I have been called to dinner :slight_smile:

3 Likes
26

Doing some research into papañcasaññā to post to another thread led me to another undeclared points sutta and reminded me I had left this thread hanging since months ago.

AN4.173 gives:

Then Venerable Mahākoṭṭhita went up to Venerable Sāriputta, and exchanged greetings with him.
Atha kho āyasmā mahākoṭṭhiko yenāyasmā sāriputto tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā āyasmatā sāriputtena saddhiṁ sammodi.

When the greetings and polite conversation were over, Mahākoṭṭhita sat down to one side, and said to Sāriputta:
Sammodanīyaṁ kathaṁ sāraṇīyaṁ vītisāretvā ekamantaṁ nisīdi. Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā mahākoṭṭhiko āyasmantaṁ sāriputtaṁ etadavoca:

“Reverend, when the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, does something else exist?”
“Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṁ kiñcī”ti?

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.

“Does nothing else exist?”
“Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā natthaññaṁ kiñcī”ti?

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.

“Do both something else and nothing else exist?”
“Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthi ca natthi ca aññaṁ kiñcī”ti?

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.

“Do neither something else nor nothing else exist?”
“Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā nevatthi no natthaññaṁ kiñcī”ti?

“Don’t put it like that, reverend.”
“Mā hevaṁ, āvuso”.

…

How then should we see the meaning of this statement?”
Yathā kathaṁ pana, āvuso, imassa bhāsitassa attho daṭṭhabbo”ti?

“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
“‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā natthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘both something else and nothing else exist’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthi ca natthi ca aññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

If you say that ‘neither something else nor nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā nevatthi no natthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.

The scope of proliferation extends as far as the scope of the six fields of contact.
Yāvatā, āvuso, channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ gati tāvatā papañcassa gati;

The scope of the six fields of contact extends as far as the scope of proliferation.
yāvatā papañcassa gati tāvatā channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ gati.

When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, proliferation stops and is stilled.”
Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā papañcanirodho papañcavūpasamo”ti.

This is a fantastic example of why the undeclared points cannot be explained by appeal to a fictionalist account of persons. The situation described is one where the senses have ceased, and the question is if one can say that nothing else exists, this is said to be wrongly put, and the reason given is that statements about existing and non existing are proliferations dependent on the sense fields, and that it is therefore not possible to use the predicates “exist” “not exist” etc of the state of affairs obtaining of cessation.

This is probably about as clear as it is possible to be.

Anyway, I will one of these days get back to this thread, but wanted to get this on here while it was to hand.

Metta

27

I think it is more accurate to say that normal perception of the six sense fields have ceased.

I think that the Buddha made his statements about the undeclared points because talk about the undeclared points is talk about name and form which is delusion, castles in the air or mirages that so called experts debate(See below). Strangely, a great deal of the canon is a violation of the undeclared points leaving me very skeptical of those parts.

I think that you are right that you can talk about you in the world, but there is a sense of irony in it.

28

The last is of the type cited in §908. It is unanswerable since the answers yes and no alike confirm an assumption. An affirmative or negative answer to the double question, e.g., ‘Is the world finite? infinite?’ alike both affirm the ideas worded by ‘world’ and ‘is’ as unquestionably valid ideas not subject to analysis; affirmative or negative answers to the quadruple question, e.g., ‘After death, does a Perfect One exist? not exist? both exist and not exist? neither exist nor not exist?’ alike all affirm a ‘person’ and ‘being’ (existence) as unquestionably valid ultimate ideas not subject to analysis.
But the Buddha put Being (existence and non-existence) into question, placing it in perspective with Consciousness in the pattern of Dependent Arising. There they cannot become rivals for meta-physical Absoluteness, and are subordinated to Action and its Cessation.

Quote from the book The Guide - Neti
Ven Nyanamoli’s footnote

29

I prefer inference to “proliferation”

Whsn the six spheres have ceased, inference has ceased.

30

…… Most words cannot be used to describe that which is beyond for very obvious reasons …… they don’t / can’t apply …… as the teachings are transcendent …… beyond extremes …… beyond duality …… the unborn.

31

Figured i would ise @cdpatton s translations to have a look at the agamas, here is an interesting bit:

  1. “‘The soul is the body. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The soul is one thing, and the body is another. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘The body and soul are neither different nor not different. This is true; anything else is false.’ ‘There’s no soul and no body. This is true; anything else is false.’

Ill try and work my way through the rest later, but already i would say there are passages in SA that have the “not similar not different not otherwise” where SN has “anatta”

32

while I’m here, here is a nonsectarian composite of the abyākata revised from MN25

Still, they had such views as these: Api ca kho evaṁdiṭṭhikā ahesuṁ— ‘The cosmos is eternal’ or ‘The cosmos is not eternal’; sassato loko itipi, asassato loko itipi; ‘The world is finite’ or ‘The world is infinite’; antavā loko itipi, anantavā loko itipi; ‘The soul and the body are the same thing’ or ‘The soul and the body are different things’; taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ itipi, aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ itipi; or that after death, a Realized One still exists, or no longer exists, or both still exists and no longer exists, or neither still exists nor no longer exists. hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā itipi, na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā itipi, hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā itipi, neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā itipi. And that’s how the third group of ascetics and brahmins failed to get free from Māra’s power. Evañhi te, bhikkhave, tatiyāpi samaṇabrāhmaṇā na parimucciṁsu mārassa iddhānubhāvā. This third group of ascetics and brahmins is just like the third herd of deer, I say. Seyyathāpi te, bhikkhave, tatiyā migajātā tathūpame ahaṁ ime tatiye samaṇabrāhmaṇe vadāmi.

the self (or the world) is eternal
the self (or the world) is not eternal
the self (or the world) is both eternal and not eternal (eg has eternal and non eternal parts)
the self (or the world) is neither eternal nor not eternal (eg is something else, a fiction, a 3rd substance, etc)
the self (or the world) is finite
infinite
both
neither
the self (or the world) is the body
is not
both
neither
the self (or the world (or your religious leader)) exists postmortem
doesn’t
both
neither.

these 16 questions (or 32, depending how you count them) are all undeclarable, and are not declared by the buddha
it is not about selves any more than about worlds
it could be about practically anything.

these 16 questions reduce to 4: A, B, +, X (a, b, both, neither).

these are not logical connectives. (the problem I have with Priest et al), they are constraints.

a thing at time t2 cannot be the same thing as at t1 nor distinct from it nor both nor neither, its a pretty strong argument.

otherwise your committed to eternal things or annihilated things.

again, not about “self” of “not there to begin with and for my next trick…”,

as applicable to fire as to persons, as to any phenomena at all,

and no need to split cases and claim special circumstances for buddhas or shoes or anything else.

convincing myself:

“I am real”
“I am not real”
“I have both real and unreal parts”
“I have neither real nor unreal parts”

assists me no more than convincing myself:

“the world is real”
“the world is not real”
“the world has both real and unreal parts”*
“the world is something else, neither real nor unreal”

of anything at all

except that those are the wrong questions.

*obviously in some common sense the “world” has both Trump and Unicorns, but of course the buddha is asking is the place with both real trumps and fictional unicorns real, unreal, both? niether?

Have finally read Nagarjunas mahaMadyamakakarika and think that they are more or less spot on in there analysis.

Why did i wait to long?

lol

33

I think that the six fields of contact are mentioned here in the context of PS, which means that their cessation here should not be understood in any ‘physical’ sense, but in the sense in which their cessation is understood in PS. After all, stopping proliferation does not require a destruction of the six fields of contact, but only a cessation of ignorance. In the absence of the six spheres in a ‘physical’ sense, the proliferation of views does not cease, but is simply cannot be defined at all.

SN12.12
…
These are the four fuels that maintain sentient beings that have been born and help those that are about to be born.”
Ime kho, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā bhūtānaṁ vā sattānaṁ ṭhitiyā sambhavesīnaṁ vā anuggahāyā”ti.

When he said this, Venerable Phagguna of the Top-Knot said to the Buddha,
Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā moḷiyaphagguno bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: Variant: moḷiyaphagguno → moḷiyaphagguṇo (bj); moliyaphagguno (sya-all, pts1ed, pts2ed)
“But sir, who consumes the fuel for consciousness?”
“ko nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāraṁ āhāretī”ti?

“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha.
“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:

“I don’t speak of one who consumes.
“‘āhāretī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.
If I were to speak of one who consumes, then it would be fitting to ask
‘Āhāretī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
who consumes.
‘ko nu kho, bhante, āhāretī’ti?
But I don’t speak like that.
Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
Hence it would be fitting to ask:
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:
‘Consciousness is a fuel for what?’
‘kissa nu kho, bhante, viññāṇāhāro’ti, esa kallo pañho.
And a fitting answer to this would be:
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:
‘Consciousness is a fuel that conditions rebirth into a new state of existence in the future. When that which has been reborn is present, there are the six sense fields. The six sense fields are a condition for contact.’”
‘viññāṇāhāro āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbattiyā paccayo, tasmiṁ bhūte sati saḷāyatanaṁ, saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso’”ti.

“But sir, who contacts?”
“Ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī”ti?

“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha.
“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:

“I don’t speak of one who contacts.
“‘phusatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.
If I were to speak of one who contacts, then it would be fitting to ask
‘Phusatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
who contacts.
‘ko nu kho, bhante, phusatī’ti?
But I don’t speak like that.
Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
Hence it would be fitting to ask:
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:
‘What is a condition for contact?’
‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, phasso’ti, esa kallo pañho.
…
“But sir, who grasps?”
“Ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī”ti?

“That’s not a fitting question,” said the Buddha.
“No kallo pañho”ti bhagavā avoca:

“I don’t speak of one who grasps.
“‘upādiyatī’ti ahaṁ na vadāmi.
If I were to speak of one who grasps, then it would be fitting to ask
‘Upādiyatī’ti cāhaṁ vadeyyaṁ, tatrassa kallo pañho:
who grasps.
‘ko nu kho, bhante, upādiyatī’ti?
But I don’t speak like that.
Evañcāhaṁ na vadāmi.
Hence it would be fitting to ask:
Evaṁ maṁ avadantaṁ yo evaṁ puccheyya:
‘What is a condition for grasping?’
‘kiṁpaccayā nu kho, bhante, upādānan’ti, esa kallo pañho.
And a fitting answer to this would be:
Tatra kallaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ:
‘Craving is a condition for grasping.
‘taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ;
Grasping is a condition for continued existence.’ …
upādānapaccayā bhavo’ti …pe…
That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti.

When the six fields of contact fade away and cease with nothing left over, contact ceases.
Channaṁ tveva, phagguna, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā phassanirodho;
When contact ceases, feeling ceases.
phassanirodhā vedanānirodho;
When feeling ceases, craving ceases.
vedanānirodhā taṇhānirodho;
When craving ceases, grasping ceases.
taṇhānirodhā upādānanirodho;
When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases.
upādānanirodhā bhavanirodho;
When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases.
bhavanirodhā jātinirodho;
When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease.
jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇaṁ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā nirujjhanti.
That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.”
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī”ti.

1 Like
34

Nagarjuna says it well:

No entities whatsoever are evident anywhere that are arisen from
themselves, from another, from both, or from a non-cause. (niether)

so its a much broader argument than “souls” or “selves” or “aggregates”.

and it is a really weird feeling to realise, that the mahamadyamakakarika is actually a short poem, and as far as I can tell for the most part, merely points out the orthodox abyakata doctrine in the common core of D M S and E (of which there is slightly more in the agama sources) and following it to its logical conclusions.

it really seemed to me that it made not one whit of difference to his argument if he was Mahayana or not, in fact I suppose he probably invented Mahayana by becoming so famous that people refused to let him fall out of print.

but there seems to be very little philosophical innovation, other than pointing out that the central argument of abyaktaka/conditionality buddhism applies to a wide variety of phenomena, even in the ebt, not limited to selves even there but encompassing fire, causality, spacetime, and more besides.

taking this argument seriously is not motivated by any desire to sneak a self in by the back door on either my or Nagarjunas part.

Anyway, it reminds me, like with Sun Tzu , often the poem is actually much shorter than the pretentious books you buy them in.

35

So for @Sunyo here is the standard, orthodox verbatim most famous passage on the issue:

then is this right: ‘The cosmos is eternal. This is the only truth, anything else is wrong’?”
kiṁ pana, bhante, ‘sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti?

“This has not been declared by me, Poṭṭhapāda.”
“Abyākataṁ kho etaṁ, poṭṭhapāda, mayā: ‘sassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.

SO we start with a temporal example, involving the question of a “cosmos” being eternal

“Then is this right: ‘The cosmos is not eternal. This is the only truth, anything else is wrong’?”
“Kiṁ pana, bhante, ‘asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti?

“This too has not been declared by me.”
“Etampi kho, poṭṭhapāda, mayā abyākataṁ: ‘asassato loko, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.

NOT eternal (both would be a “cosmos having both eternal and non eternal parts, neither would be a cosmos having no temporal structure at all, or, if you like, the position that the “cosmos” doesn’t exist! or is mere contingent chance, or whatever.

“Then is this right: ‘The cosmos is finite …’ …
“Kiṁ pana, bhante, ‘antavā loko …pe…

‘The cosmos is infinite …’ …
‘anantavā loko …

HAVING mounted an argument about the imposibility of time being a real feature of reality the buddha then demolishes space the same way, using mereological reasoning about wholes and parts.

‘The soul and the body are the same thing …’ …
‘taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīraṁ …

THE argument THEN turns to identifying oneself with ones body, which is demonstrated to be just as bad as believing in time or space, making much the same error, for how could one thing be part or whole or both or neither of another thing? …

‘The soul and the body are different things …’ …
‘aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīraṁ …

BUT to positively believe that there IS no soul is equally misguided in that its like believing one can say something about nothing

‘A Realized One exists after death …’ …
‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …

‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …

‘A Realized One both exists and doesn’t exist after death …’ …
‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā …

‘A Realized One neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death. This is the only truth, anything else is wrong’?”
‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti?

“This too has not been declared by me.”
“Etampi kho, poṭṭhapāda, mayā abyākataṁ: ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā, idameva saccaṁ moghamaññan’”ti.

AND FINALLY the classic buddhist exposition culminates in the only part that has anything to do with post mortem survival, is only applicable to a person who is already awakened, and is read by Therevada, i.e SN is the best buddhists, to be an argument about all of us not existing.

So @Sunyo I guess my point is that just the DN9 case, literally the first time you see the list discussed from a buddhist perspective in the canon, it starts with cosmoses and spacetimes, not selves, and when it addresses selves, or souls or whatever the same argument is being used, its a general argument that I now realise Nagarjuna makes in MMK, and as far as I am now conserned it is the Theravada school who have rejected the ebt evidence regarding the abyakata, not the Mahayana.

Nagarjunas exposition of the buddhas philosophy of the declared and undeclared is the most accurate representation of the original presectarian position as evidenced in the EBT IMO.

36

I feel like renaming my thread: “The Buddha invented Buddhism, Nagarjuna just pointed it out!”

37

Sorry, what is PS? I am not sure what you mean.

38

PS - paticcasamuppāda.

1 Like
39

Oh of course! Silly me. Yes.

40

I feel you might be interested in this as well: Precise details of the five fold analysis in SN 22.85 and SN 22.86 - #3 by yeshe.tenley

1 Like