Understanding MN 152's "agreeable" and "disagreeable"

[Christopher]

Hello Friends,

How do you understand the meaning of “agreeable” and “disagreeable” in MN 152?

when a bhikkhu sees a form with the eye, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable.

The Pali is manāpaṃ / amanāpaṃ. A quick survey of its usage in other suttas seems to indicate that they mean generally pleasant or unpleasant sense experience, without necessarily implying greed or aversion associated with them.

But in MN 152, these are said to arise “within” one, and one is instructed to see them as “conditioned, gross, and dependently arisen”, whereupon equanimity immediately arises and “both the agreeable and disagreeable cease”.

If the meaning is simply “pleasant and unpleasant sense experience”, then what was happening that would necessitate setting up equanimity? We can assume greed, aversion, or some other kind of agitation was arising. But later in the sutta, the exact same conditions are repeated for the arahant:

And how, Ānanda, is one a noble one with developed faculties? Here, Ānanda, when a bhikkhu sees a form with the eye…hears a sound with the ear…smells an odor with the nose…tastes a flavor with the tongue…touches a tangible with the body…cognizes a mind-object with the mind, there arises in him what is agreeable, there arises what is disagreeable, there arises what is both agreeable and disagreeable.

So it seems that the agreeable and disagreeable couldn’t, by themselves, imply greedy or aversive reactions.

The sutta also discusses the sekha, who also has the agreeable and disagreeable arise within. But the sekha…

is ashamed, humiliated and disgusted by the agreeable that arose, by the disagreeable that arose, and by the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose.

…which would seem to indicate that the agreeable and disagreeable is unskillful (unless it means that the sekha in this example is simply experiencing nibbidā toward all conditioned experience).

So, questions for this thread are:

1. How should agreeable/disagreeable be understood here?
2. If it implies greed, aversion, or agitation, why does the arahant experience it?
3. If it doesn’t imply greed, aversion, or agitation, why does the sekha have nibbidā toward it?

[Sylvester]

Try SN 35.248.

[Linda]

@Christopher

But in MN 152, these are said to arise “within” one, and one is instructed to see them as “conditioned, gross, and dependently arisen”, whereupon equanimity immediately arises and “both the agreeable and disagreeable cease”.

If the meaning is simply “pleasant and unpleasant sense experience”, then what was happening that would necessitate setting up equanimity? We can assume greed, aversion, or some other kind of agitation was arising.

I agree in taking the terms as the arising of ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ vedana based on contact, and I don’t think there is a problems with the idea of ‘arising within’ (not sure if you were implying that) because even though it involves sense ‘objects’ the feeling/vedana still arises within an individual’s mind.

So it seems that the agreeable and disagreeable couldn’t, by themselves, imply greedy or aversive reactions.

Yes, I agree, and think it’s simply that, in an unawakended individaul, the agreeable and disagreeable active the underlying tendencies to desire/greed or aversion. Thus then the need for mindfulness to establish equanimity so they don’t actually manifest. As for the sekha, I would agree with you that

it means that the sekha in this example is simply experiencing nibbidā toward all conditioned experience.

I think the point being made in terms of the arahant, who of course, as you imply, would have eradicated the underlying tendencies and all defilements, is just that he/she would have a choice in terms of the perception he/she abides in in response to what is felt as agreeable or disagreeable.

I just now checked Bhikhu Bodhi’s translation footnote # 1359 on the arahant in this case, and he also seems to take it this way:

Since the arahant has eradicated all the defilements along with their underlying tendencies, in this passge the three terms–the agreeable, etc-must be understood simply as the feelings that arise through contact with sense objects and not as the subtle traces of liking, aversion, and indifference relevant to the preceeding passage.

[Christopher]

Thank you for the reference. Based on that sutta, it seems to me that the answers to my questions would be:

1. Agreeable and disagreeable should be understood as sense contact (with concomitant vedana).
2. It doesn’t, on its own, imply greed, aversion, or agitation.
3. The sekha has nibbidā toward them because of their role in being a basis for further becoming (the 7th flail), which the sekha would have seen clearly at stream entry and would still be training to eradicate.

Do you agree?

Being “struck” by the flails in this sutta reminded me of SN 12.63’s simile of the flayed cow. In fact, all of SN 12.63’s perceptions seem to be designed to induce nibbidā, just like the contemplations in the last part of your referenced sutta.

[Sylvester]

Hi Christopher

I agree with 1 and 2. For 3, I think the only Trainee who has managed to transcend the latent tendencies of greed and aversion would be the Non-Returner. That is what makes it easy for them to attain the jhanas.

Naturally, the other 2 Trainees have an easy time of temporarily abandoning greed and aversion through sense restraint, since they have understood the 2nd and 3rd Truths in relation to the defilements and their nutriment. I’m beginning to see the indispensability of Right View to practice…

I’m just not so sure if even the Non-Returner has an easy time with Conceit as a latent tendency. Even if he sees the role played by the 2 grosser anusayas of lust and aversion in rebirth, he may find it difficult to even get a handle on something as subtle as Conceit. See MN 1.

[Christopher]

@Linda

I agree in taking the terms as the arising of ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’ vedana based on contact, and I don’t think there is a problems with the idea of ‘arising within’ (not sure if you were implying that) because even though it involves sense ‘objects’ the feeling/vedana still arises within an individual’s mind.

Yes, that’s how I was seeing it. I just wanted to clarify that it was referring to the subjective experience within oneself (to use a horribly misleading phrase).

@Linda

I think the point being made in terms of the arahant, who of course, as you imply, would have eradicated the underlying tendencies and all defilements, is just that he/she would have a choice in terms of the perception he/she abides in in response to what is felt as agreeable or disagreeable.

This is also what I thought, that the section on the arahant is simply showing the arahant’s complete mastery over perception, such that they can choose what to perceive or can remain removed from it altogether.

But that raises a little nit that I had. Why is equanimity listed as the fifth perception for the arahant? Wouldn’t the arahant already be equanimous toward sense experience? Or is this just saying that the arahant can manipulate their perception at will and can also choose not to play around with perception at all and put the toy down, so to speak (equanimity)?

@Linda

I just now checked Bhikhu Bodhi’s translation footnote # 1359 on the arahant in this case, and he also seems to take it this way:

Since the arahant has eradicated all the defilements along with their underlying tendencies, in this passge the three terms–the agreeable, etc-must be understood simply as the feelings that arise through contact with sense objects and not as the subtle traces of liking, aversion, and indifference relevant to the preceeding passage.

Part of why I raised this topic was because some of the footnotes to that sutta (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation) seemed dubious to me. In particular, in footnote 1353 he states:

It should be noted that though these three terms [agreeable, disagreeable, and both agreeable and disagreeable] are ordinarily used to qualify the sense objects, here they also seem to signify subtle states of liking, aversion, and dull indifference that arise due to the influence of the underlying tendencies. MṬ identifies “the agreeable” with wholesome and unwholesome states of mind associated with joy, “the disagreeable” with unwholesome states of mind associated with grief (displeasure), and “the agreeable and disagreeable” with states of mind associated with equanimous feeling.

Then, in reference to the arahant, he suggests that the three terms no longer imply wholesome and unwholesome states of mind. The commentarial redefining of a term when it isn’t explicitly redefined in the sutta always makes me a little uneasy. But perhaps he was simply saying that these three kinds of experiences should be understood to be accompanied by kilesas in the puthujjana/sekha and not in the arahant, rather than implying that the experiences themselves change meaning.

[Mat]

Arahanth still experience unpleasant stimuli from the sense bases. They do not react with aversion to this, as aversion and ignorance has been removed in their training, by this time. As long as they have sense organs they will experience this. All unpleasantness will vanish upon the parinibbana- the death of the arahanth, so this is an important incident.

Equanamous feeling (adukkamasukha vedana) and equanimity (upekkha) should be clearly understood. One arrives with the original (uninspiring) stimulus (vedana) and but the other is a response to a pleasant or unpleasant stimulus, replacing the more ignorance based craving or aversion.

with metta

[Linda]

@Christopher

But that raises a little nit that I had. Why is equanimity listed as the fifth perception for the arahant? Wouldn’t the arahant already be equanimous toward sense experience? Or is this just saying that the arahant can manipulate their perception at will and can also choose not to play around with perception at all and put the toy down, so to speak (equanimity)?

I certainly agree that the arahant would already be equanimous. I like your way of putting it.

Then, in reference to the arahant, he suggests that the three terms no longer imply wholesome and unwholesome states of mind. The commentarial redefining of a term when it isn’t explicitly redefined in the sutta always makes me a little uneasy. But perhaps he was simply saying that these three kinds of experiences should be understood to be accompanied by kilesas in the puthujjana/sekha and not in the arahant, rather than implying that the experiences themselves change meaning.

Oh, I hadn’t read the other footnotes, only that one I looked up in terms of the arahant, and I had simply seen the terms related to the actual vedana that naturally arises and that those (pleasant or unpleasant) have the tendency to activate greed, aversion, etc in the mind of one who is not an arahant (except also a non-returner if talking about sensual greed or aversion), so not implying implicitly in any way (or ascribing the terms to) the sense objects themselves. So I’m not even sure why his need for this footnote. I basically think the sutta simply shows a progression of experience/different stages of development and what is necessary and possible at each stage, so to speak.

Yeah, I’m with you re:
<The commentarial redefining of a term
and would certainly agree with your conclusion. In the MN, BB relies more heavily on the commentaries than in his other translations (as I’m sure you already know), especially given that it’s originally Ven Nanamoli’s translation. Maybe he felt the need to somehow bring this in.

[Christopher]

OK, friends. One more sticking point. The majority of the sutta is concerned with the first stage of training–establishing equanimity by considering the conditioned, gross, and dependently arisen nature of the agreeable and disagreeable that arose. There are a section and simile for each of the sense doors. Each section repeats the following:

The agreeable that arose, the disagreeable that arose, and the both agreeable and disagreeable that arose cease in him and equanimity is established.

Each simile makes the point that the agreeable and disagreeable disappear very quickly and very easily once they’re considered in this manner.

If we have identified the agreeable and disagreeable as being sense contact plus vedana, in what way do they disappear?

[silence]

Perhaps the contact ceases by itself and one doesn’t cherish it and lets it go.

Perhaps one tries to withdraw from the experience, in some cases.

Perhaps one changes their perception by refocusing on anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Perhaps one moves to the 4th jhana and achieves perfect equanimity, whereas the lower 3 are still beset by what is agreeable.

It seems that it could mean any of those, and there are probably more ways to understand this.

[Christopher]

I think I’ve found a way of understanding agreeable and disagreeable that works well, thanks to my wonderful and wise wife. If they are understood as preferences, it makes sense to me.

This way, in the first stage of training outlined in the sutta, once equanimity is established, preferences quickly cease. Establishing equanimity will also prevent preferences from growing into craving and clinging.

The sekhas will naturally have nibbida toward these preferences because they know that they are the doorway to craving, clinging, and further becoming.

The arahants still have preferences, though it is impossible for those preferences to lead to craving, clinging, or becoming due to the previous eradication of ignorance. Though the arahants have preferences, these do not lead to dukkha. They also have such mastery over perception that they can either manipulate their experience or simply remain equanimous toward it.