SuttaCentral
Bhante, how do you understand the meaning of that passage? If we’re going with the near consensus reading of gradual training… gradual… with NO sudden penetration into nirvana, what is that passage really trying to say, what is trying to teach us? I’m just dumbfounded and don’t know what lesson to draw from it.
and how do understand aññāpaṭivedho? Is that arahantship? or just a quick experiential glimpse of nirvana that results in stream entry minimum? or something else?
Using geography does not seem to help much because both options are possible depending on scale: on a small scale, most oceans do indeed slope gently without a sudden break (for the first few hundred meters or hundreds of kms) . But on a larger scale, most oceans are indeed divided into a shelf, a slope and an abyssal plain, the slope being relatively steep in comparison to the shelf and abyssal plain, so the slope could be a candidate for this sudden break (which is very visible on bathymetric maps).
One could say that the Buddha could not be aware of this but in another sutta he describes Earth at a time where there is no water anymore so he could have had a peak. 
However, since it is a simile, it should be understandable by his listeners who would not have his arcane knowledge of the deep ocean. On the contrary, most people would only be aware of the gentle slope when entering an ocean by foot. Could this also be put in contrast with their experience about crossing the Ganges and other NE India rivers? In some rivers the banks can sometimes be very steep, with no gentle slope to get into the river…
I think the point is that realization happens due to conditions. Normally that is a process that unfolds through the practice of the eightfold path. Sometimes that is supported by previous practice of one sort or another, say if one has already developed good meditation before encountering Buddhism. But there’s always a gradual process of penetration. So really what I think it’s saying is simply this: the path is conditioned, and we must patiently work on those conditions.
If this reading is correct, then when it says “no sudden penetration to enlightenment” it just means that there are always supporting conditions. You can’t force it, or invoke some special spell or empowerment or trick to leapfrog the process. Realization still happens at a point in time, but only as a culmination of conditions.
I admit, this reading is not the most natural one on the surface. But bear in mind that this is just one passage. And note that the Chinese parallels I quoted above do not seem to have the final phrase about sudden penetration. A closer examination of the parallels might be helpful, but at least we can say there is some question as to whether this phrase was part of the original text. In addition, don’t forget the unusual textual situation: the passage starts out as a series of statements about the ocean, which are then adapted to the path. So the wording, both the use of āyataka and the emphatic particle eva, may convey nuances that we’re not fully aware of.
Yes, it means arahantship.
Right, yes.
Indeed. The most accessible ocean to the people of the Ganges valley would be, I think, the northern most part of the Bay of Bengal, at the Ganges delta. And there, as the massive silt of the Ganges has filled the bay for millenia, it is very much a gradual slope, like this:
As usual I am in general agreement with Bhante Sujato and I don’t have much to add.
Here’s a heretical suggestion.
āyataka also occurs in the context of the recitation of dhamma in this fashion -
pañcime, bhikkhave, ādīnavā āyatakena gītassarena dhammaṃ gāyantassa. Attanāpi tasmiṃ sare sārajjati, parepi tasmiṃ sare sārajjanti, gahapatikāpi ujjhāyanti, sarakuttimpi nikāmayamānassa samādhissa bhaṅgo hoti, pacchimā janatā diṭṭhānugatiṃ āpajjati—ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca ādīnavā āyatakena gītassarena dhammaṃ gāyantassa. Na, bhikkhave, āyatakena gītassarena dhammo gāyitabbo. Yo gāyeyya, āpatti dukkaṭassā”ti.
Monks, there are these five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with a long-drawn plain-song sound: he is pleased with himself in regard to that sound, and others are pleased in regard to that sound, and housepeople look down upon, and while he is himself striving after accuracy in the sound there is an interruption in his concentration, and people coming after fall into the way of (wrong) views. These, monks, are the five disadvantages to one singing dhamma with a long-drawn plain-song sound. Monks, dhamma should not be sung with a long-drawn plain-song sound. Whoever should (so) sing it, there is an offence of wrong-doing. : Vin ii 108”
This Vinaya passage is also found in part in AN 5.209.
Although the CPD offers that āyataka means “long, prolonged, long-drawn (of a tone)”, we might perhaps get a better sense of what this entails in chanting by looking at one of the 5 drawbacks of such chanting. It is said that -
sarakuttimpi nikāmayamānassa samādhissa bhaṅgo hoti
while he is himself striving after accuracy in the sound there is an interruption in his concentration,
Could the sarakutti simply mean “melody”, taking sara as “flow” and kutti as the musical arrangement? Instead of the individual words, or clauses, or stock phrases being rendered clearly, these are forced artificially into rhythms in service of the melody or harmony. If so, the criticism of āyataka chanting is that intelligible language propositions are lost for the sake of the syllables and linguistic units conforming to a melodic structure, instead of retaining its linguistic comprehensibility. One of the first casualties would of course be the loss of distinction between short and long vowels (something that is attested to in verse); the other casualty would be the breaking up of a word, with parts being distributed to different parts of the musical structure.
If I’m correct in this, then perhaps āyataka means “un-punctuated”, not in a grammatical sense, but in a musical sense, in that the melody is not disturbed by the inconvenience of word forms taking precedence over the musical form.
Now, let’s see if we can interpret Ud 5.5’s na āyatakena as meaning “not unpunctuated”. Firstly, the anupubbas in the preceding section can all be equally read as “successive”, instead of gradual. This gives us -
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, mahāsamuddo anupubbaninno anupubbapoṇo anupubbapabbhāro, na āyatakeneva papāto
Monks, just as the ocean is of a successive inclination, is of a successive sloping, is of a successive slant, certainly without an āyataka drop
evamevaṃ kho, bhikkhave, imasmiṃ dhammavinaye anupubbasikkhā anupubbakiriyā anupubbapaṭipadā, na āyatakeneva aññāpaṭivedho.
So too in this Dhamma and Vinaya, there is a graduated training, a graduated doing, a graduated practice, with penetration to knowledge that is not āyataka.
I’ve chosen to translate the 3 anupubbas as such, as they appear to have been part of the existing Indian lexicon, being applied to the study of the Vedas, archery and accountancy : MN 107. See especially the illustration of this step-by-step education of an accountant in that sutta.
In light of the overall structure of the simile and the 3 anupubbas meaning “graduated” (instead of gradual), it looks to me that Ud 5.5 is saying that āyataka must mean the very opposite of anupubba. This comes closest to the reading of āyataka as “un-punctuated” in the musical sense.
What could the graduated training in the Dhamma-Vinaya be punctuated by? Stream Entry, Once-Return and Non-Return.
Alternatively, MN 107 suggests that the graduated training is the DN 2 model.
Interstingly, I do not take the Ud as an early text in general, only the First Four Nikāyas and wonder if there are any such cases in the latter.
Secondly, I think a distinction should be made between first penetration and final penetration.
In any case I agree with Bh. Sujāto that they both require gradual preparation.
I don’t think the idea of a gradual penetration is logical, because by definition it must be sudden. If someone hasn’t finished the training at a certain point, by definition the they are still continuing to train. If there is such a moment, then it must be identifiable, and the states on either side clear as in the distinction between trainee and the adept (sekha, aseksha). Either one stops being a trainee, or not. No limbo period has been identifiable, in the EBTs.
A limbo period maybe identifiable practically, because a glimpse of Nibbana in stream entry doesn’t come with a label and hasn’t been recognised as such. Especially only the Buddha may be having the ability to sense these quick transitions, and perhaps not even the practitioner knew about this for certain, despite developing the qualities of a stream entrant, such as faith, like Suppabuddha, Ud5.3. Here the gradual talk (anupubbiya kata) was the ‘gradual’ bit while the penetration happens at a predetermined point in this talk :
The Gracious One saw the leper Suppabuddha sat in that assembly, and having seen him, this occurred to him: “This one here is able to understand the Dhamma”, and having regard to the leper Suppabuddha he related a gradual talk, that is to say: talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on heaven, the danger, degradation, and defilement of sensual desires, and the advantages in renunciation—these he explained. When the Gracious One knew that the leper Suppabuddha was of ready mind, malleable mind, unhindered mind, uplifted mind, trusting mind, then he explained the Dhamma teaching the Awakened Ones have discovered themselves: suffering, origination, cessation, path.
Just as it is known that a clean cloth without a stain would take the dye well, so to the leper Suppabuddha on that very seat, the dust-free, stainless Vision-of-the-Dhamma arose: “Whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing.” Ud5.3
Loosing one’s cravings and aversions is obviously more hard work, and there is no Buddha to deliver a gradual talk that will take someone to the non-returner state. It will be that much more apparent to the trainee that they have done the work. I believe there is a sutta that asks whether an arahanth knows whether they have become an arahanth- and the answer is yes. The Buddha illustrates it with a simile that just like a person who has a leg amputated knows this fact, an arahanth knows that the causes for further becoming (ie defilements and ignorance) have been destroyed-sutta?.
with metta,
It would be relevant to consider fishermen. To consider the knowledge of rural fishing communities in North East India, and see if they are aware of a sudden drop off or not. We can view is as sudden or gradual, but more interesting is how those people who directly experience the sea in that region, experience it. Of course I mean manual fishing boats, not modern vehicles with longer range and sonar and all that.
That would be a start, although to be thorough it would be worth considering the influence of trade routes also, or other sources of information on the view of the ocean floor people had in the Buddha’s place and time.
All this talk about “penetration” - is that canonical? It sounds suspicious to me, like a displaced sexual longing for some kind of spiritual orgasm.
I prefer the “effacement” metaphors for realization: a gradual cleaning and polishing of the mind until there are no defilements left.
Maybe… but if the view is supported by many other suttas, then perhaps it is the sutta which is problematic, not the view?
Agreed.
I am not sure this is talking about the same thing. From the English at least, it seems to just be saying that if you see one, you see them all. But it does not seem to discuss whether the seeing of one (and therefore all) is a gradual process or not. I would more see this as refuting the 4 seeings as being sequential, rather than refuting that being gradual.
Yes that is my view that I gather from reading the suttas. It is also in harmony with the Tibetan view. And with reports from many Buddhists, Hindus, Sufi and so on in their experience. I find it hard to understand why this would be a controversial point. But also this is why this particular sutta seems to me to be giving an erroneous view (unless Thanissaro’s interpretation is right), because it is gradual, but there also is a sudden drop off, a sudden awakening.
I would say the sequence is like this:
MN 95 appears to give that view:
“When he has investigated him and has seen that he is purified from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him; filled with faith he visits him and pays respect to him; having paid respect to him, he gives ear; when he gives ear, he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorises it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom. In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the discovery of truth; in this way one discovers truth; in this way we describe the discovery of truth. But as yet there is no final arrival at truth.”
34
“In that way, Master Gotama, there is the discovery of truth; in that way one discovers truth; in that way we recognise the discovery of truth. But in what way, Master Gotama, is there the final arrival at truth? In what way does one finally arrive at truth? We ask Master Gotama about the final arrival at truth.”
mn.ii.174
“The final arrival at truth, Bhāradvāja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth.”
Of course we could imagine the gradual slope in the sutta we are discussing to only refer to the gradual aspect of the path. But to me that would seem illogical, since it specifically says there is no sudden drop off, which implies it is not only talking about that one aspect, but rather the whole story.
I would guess that perhaps the monks who were proposing the view that there is no sudden awakening, were the ones who had had no awakening. Often people who have not attained something claim that that thing does not exist. And also people wihtout attainments often end up in positions of power (perhaps enough to alter or compose some suttas!) - could this be an explanation for this?
Without that part, it would seem that it could be referring to the gradual aspect, while not mentioning the sudden aspect. And that would then still make sense. So, if this extra part about there being no sudden penetration, is absent from the parallels, and its presence contradicts many many other suttas, does this not indicate that that part about no sudden penetration may have been added later? Would that not be the simplest explanation to account for those two factors?
I agree and disagree. There seems no apparent reason to not include “some special spell or empowerment or trick” among the category of “supporting conditions”.
The Buddha had good tricks. Apparently he could talk someone to awakening - many apparently attained stream entry during a discourse. That seems to be potentially exactly the same type of thing that some Advaita masters can pull off in satsang, and some Tibetan Buddhists as they ‘point out the nature of mind’.
I think this sutta is correct. It says there is no sudden final enlightenment but that to reach it there has to be a gradual path of practice. We are probably reading too much into it.
There are some special use of abilities mentioned in EBTs by the Buddha and few of his close disciple monks, which is a the ability to teach using supernatural powers. They could sometimes read the minds of others, know who would benefit from a dhamma talk and say wtwas needed for others to see the truth. This isn’t any empowerment though it is empowering for the listeners. Also getting someone to see their own mind momentarily has little practical use. Better to be able to reflect, do cittanupassana or watch the mind cease completely, in Nibbana.
With metta
Yes, it’s a literal rendering:
https://suttacentral.net/define/paṭivedha
http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencoding=iast&q=vyadh*&lang=sans&action=Search
The Buddha used many different metaphors: that is the richness of language.
A bit of a slow response, here, I wanted to get some time to look at it more closely.
I agree, this is likely. I had “vocal arrangement” here, but I will change it to “melody”, which is more natural. It’s also more natural to read nikāmeti as “enjoys” rather than “strives after”.
I’m struggling to follow the reasoning here. It seems like a stretch (ha ha, no Pali pun intended!)
The Malay borrowing nikmati would confirm this.
For the other bit, I’m afraid as a non-musicologist I can’t really do more than to speculate. I’m thinking along the lines that melody have appropriate stasis and pauses. Yet, these serve the musical structure more than they serve the spoken word. A sutta text (assuming the Buddha laid down the rule in relation to the early mnemonic passages for memorisation) would require precision in enunciation and emphasis. If a musical structure is to prevail over a spoken structure, would the individual words still be recognisable? I’m guessing a melodious chant would not accommodate this, if the melody is not punctuated with stops and pauses to reflect the spoken word but drones along.
I get the point, and obviously the “musicality” of it is in some sense the issue. But simply having a rhythm and metre isn’t going to make it incomprehensible; if anything, it makes memorizing easier. Bad rhythm can of course be harmful to the sense, but I don’t think that’s the issue. On the other hand elaborate, drawn-out chanting, which is quite characteristic of many Asian vocal styles, certainly does impede comprehension.
It reminds me of one of Ven Analayo’s observations in his MN study. He opines that the Vedic material was successfully memorized but the suttas were not organised for memorization per se but the drawing out of the implications. Perhaps comprehensibility was more important for the suttas.
Bhikkhu @Sujato,
I guess my post above was quite long, and I do not expect you to respond to it all. But I was wondering if you might be interested to reply to this last part or it? No worries if not:
It may do, yes. Given that this issue was one of the questions that divided the early community, it is quite possible that such differences may be felt here and there in the suttas. However I have not studied this question in detail so at the moment I would regard it as no more than a possibility.
Very interesting. Thank you @sujato, and that possibility does make a lot of sense. I wonder if anyone has looked into this more deeply - it would seem like a worthwhile research project!
