Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:33 am

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


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

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.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10561
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sylvester » Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:06 pm

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.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:47 pm

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?
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby daverupa » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:55 pm

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.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:31 pm

Many thanks Dave.

Keep 'em coming, you other folks, if you are inclined...
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby vinasp » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:32 pm

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

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:43 pm

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.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:40 pm

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

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.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sylvester » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:54 am

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.



:anjali:

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 -

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14502&p=215021#p215021

Language, it appears, does make a difference to perception...
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby vinasp » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:56 am

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:21 am

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!
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby santa100 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:52 pm

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
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sam Vara » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:03 pm

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.
User avatar
Sam Vara
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby vinasp » Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:58 am

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.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby plwk » Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:11 am

Bhikkhus, if you develop and make much this one thing,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.
What is it? It is recollecting the Enlightened One.
If this single thing is recollected and made much,
it invariably leads to weariness, cessation, appeasement, realization and extinction.

Anguttara-Nikaya: Ekanipata: Ekadhammapali: Pañhamavagga
VSM VMM WBB TBHT WTBT My Page
plwk
 
Posts: 1162
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:27 am

Here is John Ireland's translation of the verse:

He for whom mindfulness of the body
Is always constantly established thus:
"If there had not been there would not be for me;
There will not be, and there will not be for me," [*]
If he dwells upon that in graded steps
In time he will pass beyond attachment.


[*] This cryptic saying can be paraphrased with the help of the Commentary thus:
"If there had not been" impure deeds (kilesa-kamma) that I had done in the past, then "there would not be for me" now, in this life, the experiences of their ripening (vipaka). And since "there will not be" any impure deeds when he is an arahant, so "there will not be" anything to ripen in the future.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10561
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sylvester » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:12 am

Sam Vara wrote:
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.


See BB's note 75 to SN 22, explaining the difficulty of this passage at p.1061 of the CDB. The optative tenses can be used for hypotheticals, with a rather broad range of meanings in English.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby danieLion » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:39 am

Sylvester wrote: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 -

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14502&p=215021#p215021

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

So this devolves to: to avoid nihilistic self-view, it's more accurate to refer the self as an "I" rather than an "It"?
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby Sylvester » Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:55 am

Quite the opposite Daniel. The Nihilist version uses bhavissāmi (I will not be), while the Ariyan version uses bhavissati (it will not be). The Nihilist labours under the view that an "I" (1st person singular) will be destroyed, while the Ariyan views it in the impersonal 3rd person singular.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1552
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Ud 7.8: Kaccāyana Sutta

Postby danieLion » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:32 pm

Sylvester wrote:Quite the opposite Daniel. The Nihilist version uses bhavissāmi (I will not be), while the Ariyan version uses bhavissati (it will not be). The Nihilist labours under the view that an "I" (1st person singular) will be destroyed, while the Ariyan views it in the impersonal 3rd person singular.

Honestly, Sylvester, I was very tired when I wrote that, and thought, "Well, I've got a 50/50 chance here (nihilistic-'I' OR nihilistic-'It'), and if I'm wrong Sylvester will correct me/it"--which you did. So, thanks. Again.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Next

Return to Study Group

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests