Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Ud 7.8 PTS: Ud 77
Kaccāyana Sutta: Kaccāyana
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. Now at that time Ven. Mahā Kaccāyana was sitting not far from the Blessed One, his legs crossed, his body held erect, having mindfulness immersed in the body well-established to the fore within. The Blessed One saw Ven. Mahā Kaccāyana sitting not far away, his legs crossed, his body held erect, having mindfulness immersed in the body well-established to the fore within.

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

• If one were to have
  mindfulness always
  established, continually
  immersed in the body,
  (thinking,)
  
  "It should not be,
  it should not be mine;
  it will not be,
  it will not be mine"[1] —
  
  there,
  in that step-by-step dwelling,
  one in no long time
  would cross over
  attachment.

Note

1. This passage can also be translated as:

• It should not be,
  it should not occur to me;
  it will not be,
  it will not occur to me.

In AN 10.29, the Buddha recommends this view as conducive to developing dispassion for becoming. However, in MN 106 he warns that it can lead to the refined equanimity of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, which can become an object of clinging. Only if that subtle clinging is detected can all clinging be abandoned.

The Canon's most extended discussion of this theme of meditation is in SN 22.55.

For more on this topic, see The Paradox of Becoming, chapter 5.

A very gratifying sutta, especially read with SN 22.55. The latter promises Non-return if one practises as such.

As for the clinging cautioned in MN 106, I think it's a Non-returner's residual clinging, probably the higher Fetter of Conceit. You can see that residue there in the "me" lingering in this modified Nihilist view. I wrote something on this view and the ariyan variant according to SN 22.55 in Robert's "No Self" thread.

Hi Mike (and any others)

"It should not be,
it should not be mine;
it will not be,
it will not be mine"

A bit of help with this, please. Does it mean that the meditator is aware of the body but does not identify with it? Or have I misunderstood this completely?

I would paraphrase it in this way:

Things which are might not have come to be, and in any event I might not have been born, so even though they are, they might not have been something I experienced.

Things end, inevitably, and therefore any experience I have will necessarily end as well.

Many thanks Dave.

Keep 'em coming, you other folks, if you are inclined...

Hi everyone,

Here is a simplified [edited] version of a part of SN 12.31

This may be a more detailed exposition of the same doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One sees that 'this has come into being.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of what has come into being.

One sees that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of the nutriment by which it has come into being.

One sees that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a learner.

"One sees that 'this has come into being.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from what has come into being.

One sees that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from the nutriment by which it has come into being.

One sees that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma.

Link to the original version on ATI:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Vincent.

Sylvester wrote:A very gratifying sutta, especially read with SN 22.55. The latter promises Non-return if one practises as such.

As for the clinging cautioned in MN 106, I think it's a Non-returner's residual clinging, probably the higher Fetter of Conceit. You can see that residue there in the "me" lingering in this modified Nihilist view. I wrote something on this view and the ariyan variant according to SN 22.55 in Robert's "No Self" thread.

I've just checked out SN 22.55. Thank you Sylvester, this is all very profound stuff, and makes things a lot clearer.

vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,

Here is a simplified [edited] version of a part of SN 12.31

This may be a more detailed exposition of the same doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One sees that 'this has come into being.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of what has come into being.

One sees that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of the nutriment by which it has come into being.

One sees that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing that, one practices for disenchantment with, for dispassion toward, for the cessation of what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a learner.

"One sees that 'this has come into being.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from what has come into being.

One sees that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from the nutriment by which it has come into being.

One sees that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing that, one is — through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance — released from what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma.

Link to the original version on ATI:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards, Vincent.

Hi Vincent,

I was reminded of Nanavira's explanation of Sankhara in Notes on Dhamma (p. 87)

Why, instead of telling us that things (dhamma) are impermanent and bound to disappear, should the Buddha take us out of our way to let us know that things that things depend on are impermanent and bound to disappear? The answer is that the Dhamma does not set out to explain, but to lead - it is opanayika. This means the Dhamma is not seeking disinterested intellectual approval, but to provoke an effort of comprehension or insight leading to the abandonment of attavada and eventually of asmimana. Its method is therefore necessarily indirect: we can only stop regarding this as "self" if we see that what this depends on is impermanent.

Sam Vara wrote:

Sylvester wrote:A very gratifying sutta, especially read with SN 22.55. The latter promises Non-return if one practises as such.

As for the clinging cautioned in MN 106, I think it's a Non-returner's residual clinging, probably the higher Fetter of Conceit. You can see that residue there in the "me" lingering in this modified Nihilist view. I wrote something on this view and the ariyan variant according to SN 22.55 in Robert's "No Self" thread.

I've just checked out SN 22.55. Thank you Sylvester, this is all very profound stuff, and makes things a lot clearer.

Anyway, here was my previous analysis of the grammatical structures of the Nihilist view versus the Ariyan view of SN 22.55 that leads to Non-Return -

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 21#p215021" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Language, it appears, does make a difference to perception...

Hi Sam Vara,

Yes, the Ven. Nanavira quote explains the general principle of Dependent Cessation.

But SN 12.31 is more specific. It uses the word 'nutriment.' These are what sustain
a being. The particular nutriment here is probably 'mental volition.'

Mental volition leads to the mental action which creates the 'being' from moment to
moment.

The important thing is to see that this 'being' does not just exist by nature, but is
something which we are creating. The action of making it is something which we are doing.

If we stop doing it the 'being' vanishes.

Regards, Vincent.

Hi Vincent,

SN 12.31 is more specific. It uses the word 'nutriment.' These are what sustain
a being. The particular nutriment here is probably 'mental volition.'

Very possibly, but it doesn't say so in the Sutta.

Apologies to Mike if this is going a bit off-topic!

Sam Vara wrote:
"It should not be,
it should not be mine;
it will not be,
it will not be mine"
A bit of help with this, please...

Woodward's rendering and note:

"It could not be, for me it cannot be;
It shall not become, for me it shall not become"
In this Udana version Comy. expl. 'at first the mass of passions was in my person; then on my attaining the Ariyan way it was not'. 'My purification at first did not exist, but came about when I reached the heights. The Ariyan way at first had not arisen, come about; the mass of passions will no more come to be, nor is it now to be seen';

santa100 wrote:

Sam Vara wrote:
"It should not be,
it should not be mine;
it will not be,
it will not be mine"
A bit of help with this, please...

Woodward's rendering and note:

"It could not be, for me it cannot be;
It shall not become, for me it shall not become"
In this Udana version Comy. expl. 'at first the mass of passions was in my person; then on my attaining the Ariyan way it was not'. 'My purification at first did not exist, but came about when I reached the heights. The Ariyan way at first had not arisen, come about; the mass of passions will no more come to be, nor is it now to be seen';

Many thanks santa100.

I'm beginning to think that this little Pali phrase can generate an awful lot of different translations, all of them profound in their implications.

Hi everyone,

Translation by Peter Masefield, PTS, The Udana, 1997.

"He for whom there might be mindfulness despatched to body continually present, viz.

"Were there not, there could not be for me" and
"There will not be, nor will there be for me"

as one progressively abiding therein, might, solely at the right time (37), cross
entanglement."

Note 37. Kaalen' eva; taken by Woodward (V of U 94) and Ireland (p 105) as "in time",
but Ud-a clearly takes this to mean the moment of the arising of the ariyan path and,
with it, arahantship.

Regards, Vincent.