Zom wrote:Ye, and the Commentary (probably very old one) to this sutta says that here an anagami is being described. Which coincedes perfectly with other suttas which say, that direct seeing of nibbana is possible only for anagamis and arahants.
Spk: The seeing of water in the well represents the seeing of Nibbāna by the nonreturner. The man afflicted by heat represents the nonreturner; the water bucket, the path of arahantship. As the man oppressed by heat sees water in the well, the nonreturner knows by reviewing knowledge, “There exists a breakthrough to the path of arahantship” (reading with Se arahattaphalābhisamaya). But as the man lacking the bucket cannot draw out the water and touch it with the body, so the nonreturner, lacking the path of arahantship, cannot sit down and become absorbed in the attainment of the fruit of arahantship, which has Nibbāna as its object.
http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... _link-1973
Hi Zom
I think a more critical examination of the Commentarial position might show another way of interpreting the Kosambi Sutta's reference to Ven Nārada's "personal knowledge" (
paccattameva ñāṇaṃ) of
Nibbāṇa. Both Ven T (see his footnote 3 to SN 12.68) and the Commentaries have this habit of interpreting the
kāyena passages in a very "solid" manner -
So taṃ udapānaṃ olokeyya. Tassa udakanti hi kho ñāṇaṃ assa, na ca kāyena phusitvā vihareyya
He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. [3] (per Ven T)
Compare to the Spk explanation given above -
But as the man lacking the bucket cannot draw out the water and touch it with the body
Na ca kāyena phusitvāti udakaṃ pana nīharitvā kāyena phusitvā viharituṃ na sakkuṇeyya.
Leaving aside the doctrinal development of "Nibbāna as an object" (
nibbānaṃ ārammaṇaṃ) in the Comy, you can already see from the Vibhanga onwards that
kāyena is given an almost exclusively nominal sense (ie as a noun in the instrumental -
ena, ie with the body). However, it is also a feature of the suttas when -
ena end-forms are used with words aligned to verbs, they do not have to function as nominals, but will function as adverbials to predicate the verb. A stark example of this would be the experience of the
santā vimokkhā in AN 10.9. There, one is said to -
...santā vimokkhā atikkamma rūpe āruppā te kāyena phusitvā viharati
Elsewhere,
kāyena assumes a clear adverbial sense in AN 4.113, in the context of the experience of the highest truth -
Pahitatto kāyena ceva paramasaccaṃ sacchikaroti, paññāya ca ativijjha passati.
What the Comy is doing is nothing more than following how
kāyena is explained by the Abhidhamma, where at least the concept of the
nāmakāya (not the DN 15 version, but as interpreted according to the Abhidhammic method) can be resorted to to furnish a nominal perspective, instead of an adverbial one. In my opinion, what "
kāyena phusitvā" means in SN 12.68 is "directly/personally experiences/touches". This implies that there is in fact a contrary case where the experience is indirect.
Note that Stream-Winners are supposed to "see" both aspects of
idappaccayatā. The Dependant Cessation sequence is explicitly identified with the 3rd Noble Truth in AN 3.61, which suggests that Stream Entry includes a "vision" of the 3rd Noble Truth. It need not be a personal experience like an Arahant's experience of Nibbāna, but SN 12.68 seems to suggest that the trainee's experience is indirect.