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

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:

2 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.