SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

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

Moderator: mikenz66

SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:40 am

SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up {S iii 86; CDB i 914}
How to gain release from identification with the five aggregates.

translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

"And why do you call it 'form'?[1] Because it is afflicted,[2] thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling.

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. [3]

"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by form. But in the past I was also chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form. And if I delight in future form, then in the future I will be chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past form, does not delight in future form, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present form.

"[He reflects:] ''I am now being chewed up by feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. But in the past I was also chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness. And if I delight in future consciousness, then in the future I will be chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past consciousness, does not delight in future consciousness, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present consciousness.

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.

"And what does he tear down and not build up? He tears down form and does not build it up. He tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not build it up.

"And what does he abandon and not cling to? He abandons form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not cling to it.

"And what does he discard and not pull in? He discards form and does not pull it in. He discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pull it in.

"And what does he scatter and not pile up? He scatters form and does not pile it up. He scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pile it up.

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who neither builds up nor tears down, but who stands having torn down; who neither clings nor abandons, but who stands having abandoned; who neither pulls in nor discards, but who stands having discarded; who neither piles up nor scatters, but who stands having scattered.

"And what is it that he neither builds up nor tears down, but stands having torn it down? He neither builds up nor tears down form, but stands having torn it down. He neither builds up nor tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having torn it down.

"And what is it that he neither clings to nor abandons, but stands having abandoned it? He neither clings to nor abandons form, but stands having abandoned it. He neither clings to nor abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having abandoned it.

"And what is it that he neither pulls in nor discards, but stands having discarded it? He neither pulls in nor discards form, but stands having discarded it. He neither pulls in nor discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having discarded it.

"And what is it that he neither piles up nor scatters, but stands having scattered it? He neither piles up nor scatters form, but stands having scattered it. He neither piles up nor scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having scattered it.

"And to the monk whose mind is thus released, the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man — you of whom we don't know even what dependent on which you're absorbed.'"

Notes

1. Rupa.

2. Ruppati.

3. This passage suggests that there is a potential for each of the aggregates (form-ness, feeling-ness, etc.) to turn into discernible aggregates through the process of fabrication. See MN 109, note 2. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#fn-2
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:44 am

SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta
Translated by John D. Ireland

"Those recluses or braahmanas, bhikkhus, who remember a number of former lives, they all remember one or another of these five aggregates of grasping. 'In the past I had this sort of body': thus remembering, it is just body he remembers. 'In the past I had this sort of feeling': thus remembering, it is just feeling he remembers. 'In the past I had this sort of perception': thus remembering, it is just perception he remembers. 'In the past I had this sort of mental activity': thus remembering, it is just mental activity he remembers. 'In the past I had this sort of consciousness': thus remembering, it is just consciousness he remembers.

"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'body'? 'It is afflicted' (ruppati), bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'body' (ruupa). Afflicted by what? Afflicted by cold and heat, hunger and thirst, afflicted by coming into contact with gnats, mosquitoes, wind, sun and snakes. 'It is afflicted,' bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'body.'

"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'feeling'? 'It is felt' (vediyati), bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'feeling' (vedanaa). What is felt? Pleasure is felt, pain is felt, neutral feeling is felt. 'It is felt,' bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'feeling.'

"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'perception'? 'It is perceived' (sañjaanaatii), bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'perception' (saññaa). What is perceived? Blue is perceived, yellow is perceived, red is perceived, white is perceived. 'It is perceived,' bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'perception.'

"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'mental activities'? They activate that which is formed and conditioned (sa"nkhata.m abhisa"nkharonti), bhikkhus, therefore they are called 'mental activities' (sa"nkhaara).[62] What is the formed and conditioned that they activate? They activate body in its corporeal nature, feeling in its nature of feeling, perception in its perceptual nature, mental activities in their activating [directing] nature, consciousness in its cognitive nature. They activate that which is formed and conditioned, bhikkhus, therefore they are called 'mental activities.'

"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'consciousness'? 'It cognizes' (vijaanaati), bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'consciousness' (viññaa.na). What does it cognize? It cognizes sour and bitter, acid and sweet, alkaline and non-alkaline, salty and non-salty. 'It cognizes,' bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'consciousness.'

"As to this, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am being consumed by the body now. Just as in the past I was consumed by the body. And if in the future I should have an expectation of pleasure from the body, so in the future would I be consumed by the body just as I am now in the present.'[63] Thus reflecting he has no yearning for a past body, he has no expectation of pleasure from a future body and towards the present body he cultivates dispassion, detachment, cessation.

"What do you think, bhikkhus, is the body permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Sir."

"What is impermanent, is that dissatisfying or satisfying?"

"Dissatisfying, Sir."

"What is impermanent, dissatisfying, of a nature to change, is it suitable to regard as, 'This is mine,' 'I am this,' 'This is myself'?"

"No, Sir."

"Is feeling... perception... mental activities... consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, Sir."

"What is impermanent, dissatisfying, of a nature to change, is it suitable to regard as, 'This is mine.' 'I am this,' 'This is myself'?"

"No, Sir."

"Therefore, bhikkhus, I say, whatsoever body... feeling... perception... mental activities... consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, should be looked upon as, 'This is not mine,' 'I am not this,' 'This is not myself.' In this manner it should be seen according to actuality with perfect wisdom."

Notes

62. Alternatively, "They activate within a conditioned complex..." This is a very difficult phrase. According to the commentary, cetanaa (volition) is prominent here in the meaning of sankhaaraa (activities) in its function of coordinating, organizing and directing. Cetanaa thus integrates the five aggregates together into an evanescent whole and directs and coordinates their various functions.

63. "Consumed" means "suffering discomfort." "As a person clad in a filthy robe suffers discomfort and says, 'The robe eats me' so does body and the other aggregates cause one discomfort" (Commentary).
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:47 am

John Ireland's translation seems to be rather truncated.

Bhikkhu Bodhi has an extensive discussion of the plays on words in:
"And why, bhikkhus, do you say 'body'? 'It is afflicted' (ruppati), bhikkhus, therefore it is called 'body' (ruupa).

and so on...

I'll transcribe some of them later...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:52 am

http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ggo-e.html

(79) Khajjanīya - Oppression

1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anāthapiṇḍika in Jeta's grove in Sāvatthi.

2. From there the Blessed One addressed the monks:

3. “Monks, all recluses and brahmins that recall their previous births, recall it through recalling one or the other of the five holding masses. What five?

4. “In the past I was of this matter.' Thus he recalls it through recalling only matter. `In the past I was of these feelings.' Thus he recalls it through recalling only feelings. `In the past I was of these perceptions.' Thus he recalls it through recalling only perceptions. `In the past I was of these intentions.' Thus he recalls it through recalling only intentions. `In the past I was of this consciousness.' Thus he recalls it through recalling only consciousness.

5. “Monks, why is it called matter? One is oppressed, therefore it is called matter. How is the oppression? Is oppressed by cold, heat, hunger, thirst, by the sting of gadflies and yellow flies, by the heat of the air and the touch of creeping things. Monks because it matters, it is called matter.

6. “Monks, to what are called feelings? Is felt, therefore they are called feelings. What is felt? Pleasantness is felt, unpleasantness is felt and neither unpleasantness nor pleasantness is felt. Monks, is felt, therefore they are called feelings.

7. “Monks, to what are called perceptions? Is perceived, therefore they are called perceptions. What is perceived? Blue is perceived, yellow is perceived, red is perceived and white is perceived.

Monks, is perceived, therefore they are called perceptions.

8. “Monks, to what are called intentions? Prepares to perform, therefore are called intentions. What is prepared to perform? Matter is prepared to perform as matter Feelings are prepared to perform as feelings. Perceptions are prepared to perform as perceptions. Intentions are prepared to perform as intentions. And consciousness is prepared to perform as consciousness.

9. “Monks, to what is called consciousness? Is known, therefore is called consciousness. What is known? The sour is known, the bitter is known. Roughness and softness are known. Hardness and non hardness are known. Taste of salt is known. Therefore it is said consciousness.

10. “Monks, the learned noble disciple reflects thus:

11. `At present I am oppressed by matter. In this same manner I was oppressed by matter in the past. If I enjoy matter in the future, then too I will be oppressed, in this same manner.' Reflecting in this manner he does not desire past matter, is not interested in future matter, and falls to the method of turning, loosing interest, and ceasing from present matter.

12. `At present I am oppressed by feelings. In this same manner I was oppressed by feelings in the past. If I enjoy feelings in the future, then too I will be oppressed, in this same manner.' Reflecting in this manner he does not desire past feelings, is not interested in future feelings and falls to the method of turning, loosing interest, and ceasing from present feelings.

13. “`At present I am oppressed by perceptions. In this same manner I was oppressed by perceptions in the past. If I enjoy perceptions in the future, then too I will be oppressed, in this same manner.' Reflecting in this manner he does not desire past perceptions, is not interested in future perceptions and falls to the method of turning, loosing interest, and ceasing from present perceptions.

14. “`At present I am oppressed by intentions. In this same manner I was oppressed by intentions in the past. If I enjoy intentions in the future, then too I will be oppressed, in this same manner.' Reflecting in this manner he does not desire past intentions, is not interested in future intentions and falls to the method of turning, loosing interest, and ceasing from present intentions.

15. “`At present I am oppressed by consciousness. In this same manner I was oppressed by consciousness in the past. If I enjoy consciousness in the future, then too I will be oppressed, in this same manner.' Reflecting in this manner he does not desire past consciousness, is not interested in future consciousness and falls to the method of turning, loosing interest, and ceasing from present consciousness

16. “Monks, is matter permanent or impermanent?”

“Venerable sir, it is impermanent.”

“That which is impermanent, is it unpleasant or pleasant?”

“Venerable sir, it is unpleasant.”

“That which is impermanent, unpleasant changing, is it suitable to be reflected,`It is mine, I am there, it is my self'?”

“That is not so, venerable sir.”

17. “Monks, are feelings permanent or impermanent?”

“Venerable sir, they are impermanent.”

“Those that are impermanent, are they unpleasant or pleasant?”

“Venerable sir, they are unpleasant.”

“Those that are impermanent, unpleasant changing are they suitable to be reflected, they are mine, I am there, it is my self?”

“That is not so, venerable sir.”

18.-19. Monks are perceptions, intentions, permanent or impermanent?”

“Venerable sir, they are impermanent.”

“Those that are impermanent, are they unpleasant or pleasant?”

“Venerable sir, they are unpleasant.”

“Those that are impermanent, unpleasant and changing are they suitable to be reflected, they are mine, I am there, they are my self?”

“That is not so, venerable sir.”

20. “Monks, is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Venerable sir, it is impermanent.”

“That which is impermanent, is it unpleasant or pleasant?”

“Venerable sir, it is unpleasant.”

“That which is impermanent, unpleasant, changing, is it suitable to be reflected,`It is mine, I am there, it is my self'?”

“That is not so, venerable sir.”

21. “Therefore, monks, whatever matter in the past, future or at present, internal or external rough or fine, unexalted or exalted, far or near, is not mine, I am not there it is not my self.

22-23. “Monks, whatever feelings, whatever perceptions in the past, future or at present, internal or external rough or fine, unexalted or exalted, far or near, is not mine, I am not there, it is not my self.

24. “Monks, whatever intentions in the past, future or at present, internal or external, rough or fine, unexalted or exalted, far or near, is not mine, I am not there, it is not my self.

25. “Monks, whatever consciousness in the past, future or at present, internal or external rough or fine, unexalted or exalted, far or near, is not mine, I am not there, is not my self.

26. “Monks, to this, is said, the noble disciple gets rid does not heap: renounces does not grasp; turns out does not draw towards; and scatters does not make a thick smoke.

27. “What is got rid not heaped? Matter is got rid and not heaped. Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness, are got rid not heaped.

28. “What is renounced and not grasped? Matter is renounced not grasped. Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness, are renounced not grasped.

29. “What is turned out not drawn towards? Matter is turned out not drawn towards. Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness, are turned out not drawn towards.

30. “What is scattered not made a thick smoke? Matter is scattered not made a thick smoke Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness, are scattered not made a thick smoke.

31. “Monks, the learned noble disciple seeing it thus turns from matter, turns from feelings, turns from perceptions, turns from intentions and turns from consciousness. Turning, he looses interest. Loosing interest is released and knowledge arises I am released. He knows birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done and I have nothing more to wish.

32. “Monks, to this, it is said, the monk neither heaps nor gets rid, in getting rid, neither renounces nor grasps; in renouncing neither turns out nor draws towards; in getting rid neither scatters nor makes a thick smoke.

33. “In scattering what is neither heaped nor got rid? In getting rid matter is neither heaped nor got rid. In getting rid feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness are neither heaped nor got rid.

34. “In getting rid what is neither renounced nor grasped? In getting rid matter is neither renounced nor grasped. In getting rid feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness are neither renounced nor grasped.

35. “In renouncing what is neither turned out nor drawn towards? In renouncing matter is neither turned out nor drawn towards. In renouncing feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness are neither turned out nor drawn towards.

36. “In getting rid what is neither scattered nor made a thick smoke? In getting rid matter is neither scattered nor made a thick smoke. In getting rid feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness are neither scattered nor made a thick smoke.

37. “Monks, the thus scattered released mind is worshipped by gods together with Indra, Brahma, Pajapati from a distance.”

38. “We worship you thoroughbred of men! The most noble of men! Since we do not know where your mind is established.”
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:54 am

http://www.palikanon.com/namen/ku/khajjaniiya_s.htm

Khajjanīya Sutta

The well-taught Ariyan disciple, remembering his past lives, realises how, in the past, he has been a prey to the body, feelings, perception, activities and consciousness; how he is still their prey, and will be so in the future, too, if he be enamoured of them. Thus realising, he conceives disgust for the body, etc., is repelled by them, and obtains release from them. He thereby attains freedom and becomes aware that he is free. S.iii.86-91; this sutta is wrongly titled Sīha in the Samyutta text; see KS.iii.72, n.3.

The sutta was also preached by Mahinda in the Nandana grove on the fifth day of his visit to Ceylon (Mhv.xv.195).

In the Vibhanga Commentary (VibhA.32) the sutta is referred to as the Khajja-nīyapariyāya.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:00 am

Khajjanīya Sutta The Discourse on the Devoured
[Understanding the aggregates leads to liberation]
Translation and commentary by Piya Tan

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 9-piya.pdf

Sutta summary

The Khajjanīya Sutta is a good example of a “practice sutta,” that is, one that serves as a reflection for spiritual insight. The sutta has a systematic framework and natural flow of ideas, and is basically a set of variations on the theme of the five aggregates. The sutta opens with the Buddha stating that all that one can know of ourselves (eg through retrocognition) are the five aggregates or one of them [§§3-4].

In the second section [§§5-9], the aggregates are defined. The Sutta explains why each aggregate is so called,

    and it is revealing that these explanations are phrased in terms of functions rather then fixed essences. This treatment of the aggregates as dynamic functions rather than substantial entities already pulls the ground away from the urge to grasp upon them as containing a permanent essence that can be considered the ultimate ground of being. (Bodhi, S:B 841)

In other words, the definitions are not exactly technical etymologies but what one might regard as meditative definitions that help to understand the nature of the aggregates better for the sake of insight into true reality.

The following third section (“Devoured by the aggregates”) [§§10-15] gives the sutta its title, and is obviously the key section or what makes this sutta stands out amongst the rest. The key verb here is khajjati (he is eaten by), which is the passive present (3rd person singular) form of khādati (he eats).2 This underlies the ongoing action of the aggregates: they eat us away without our knowing, bringing on suffering or laying the bases for constant and growing pain.

The basis of spiritual practice for overcoming suffering is that of “disowning the aggregates,” that is, to reflect on their impermanent nature, which brings on suffering, and as such is without an enduring entity. Or, more simply, to not use the pronouns, “I,” “me,” and “mine,” that is, to not own the suffering, to just let go of it. This forms the fourth section [§§16-20].

The fifth section deals with the famous totality formula, which reminds us that all possible forms of aggregates should be disowned: “This is not mine; this I am not; this is not my self.” The fruit of this constant and correct practice is that one finds the path to awakening. One becomes a learner (sekha), that is, one truly begins to directly imbibe the force of insight giving an increasingly clearer and more liberating vision of true reality.

Even if one were to “stop” here, awakening is guaranteed by way of stream-winning, that is, one clears away one’s sufferings within seven lives at most.3 If one refines one’s practice to the point of being able to totally see through the aggregates, so that one is revulsed by them, that is, one is no more deluded by them by live happily, seeing true reality, then one has become an arhat. The import of this sixth section is that the arhat is an adept (asekha), he has learnt all that needs learning.

The sutta closes with a devotional stanza attributed to three well known Vedic high gods, who appear in the Sandha Sutta (A 11.10), where it is appears thrice and clearly fits the context better than here.4 The mention of these Vedic gods is for the benefit of those who in the Buddha’s time believe in them, but showing them to be still unliberated and less knowing than an arhat.

---
1 Khajjanīya, “to be eaten, connected with being eaten,” future passive participle of khādati (he eats). PTS ed titles it wrongly as “Sīha” (S 3:86); the uddāna has khajjani (a mnemonic). See S:W 3:72 n3.
2 It is possible to render khajjati as “being devoured (by),” but the proper Pali for this is khajjamāna.
3 On stream-winning, see Entering the Stream = SD 3.3.
4 A 11.10/5:324-326.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:13 am

Some comments from Bhikkhu Bohdi (BB) and the commentary (Spk).

"... those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them"

BB: Spk says that this does not refer to recollection by direct knowledge (i.e. by retrocognition of the past) but to the recollection of one's past abodes by way of insight. Spk seems to understand the purport of the Buddha's statement to be that they deliberately recollect the past in terms of the aggregates. I take the point differently, i.e. that though these ascetics imagine they are recalling the past experience of a permanent self, they are only recollecting the five aggregates. This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the next paragraph, which reduces first-person memories (evamrupo ahosim) to experiences framed solely in terms of aggregates (rupam yeva) it can also draw support from the parallel paragraph opening SN 22.47
[which we discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=6019
"Monks, those recluses and brahmans who regard the self in various ways, do so in terms of the five groups of clinging, or some of them. Which five?"]

Spk entitles the passage "the emptiness section" (sunnatapabba).
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:44 am

Spk: Even though emptiness has been discussed, there discussion is not yet definitive because the characteristic of emptiness (sunnatalakkhana) has not been discussed. Ther present passage is introduced to show the characteristic of emptiness. Spk-pt: Since form, etc, are neither a self nor the belongings of a self, but are insubstantial and ownerless, they are empty of that (self). Their nature is emptiness, their characteristic if "being deformed" etc.

[The following discussion of the aggregates involves word-play on the Pali terms:]

"And why, bhikkhus, do hyou call it form? 'It is deformed', bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. ..."

BB: I have tried, though clumsily, to capture the subtle word play of the Pali, which capitializes on the apparent correspondence between the verb ruppati and the noun rupa. Entymologically, the two are not related. Ruppati is a passive verb from the root rup, "to break, injure, spoil".

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? 'It feels', bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling..."

Spk: It is feeling itself that feels, not another---a being or a person.

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? "It perceives', bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception..."

"And why bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? "They construct the conditioned', bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations..."

BB: Unfortunately, English is a poor medium for capturing the interconnections of this senence in the Pali, with the object (sankhatam), the verb (abhisankaronti), and the subject (sankhara) all derived from the same stem. To replicate the Pali we might have rendered it "They construct the constructed, therefore they are called volitional constructions", though this would bear certain connotations quite alien to the original.

BB: This passage shows the active role of cetana, volition, in constructing experienced reality. Not only does volition influence the objective content of the experience, but it also shapes the psychophysical organism within which it has arisen and, via its role as kamma, shapes the future configuration of the five aggregates to be produced by kamma. In this connection, see SN 35.146 on the six sense bases as "old kamma".
35.145 here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.145.wlsh.html

"And why, bhikkhus, do you call it conciousness? 'It cognizes', bhikkhus, therefore it is called conciousness..."

BB: The eight flavours [mentioned in the paragraph] are also in SN 47.8 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html. The explanation of vinnana here is very similar to that of sanna, the difference being the type of sense object they cognize. Spk explains that the difference in object highlights a difference in their cognitive functions: "Perception is analysed by way of the eye door [colours] because it is evident in grasping the appearance and shape of the object; conciousness is analysed by way of the tongue door [tastes] because it can grasp particular distinctions in an object even when there is no appearance and shape." [There is more technical discussion that is worth reading if you have BB's translation.]
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:49 am

"Therein, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple reflects thus: 'I am now being devoured by form'."

Spk: The first two sections---the emptiness section and the section on the characteristic of emtiness---have discussed the characteristic of nonself. Now he will discuss the characteristic of suffering. Therein, form does not devour one as a dog does a piece of meat, by tearing one apart, but rather in the way a soiled garment might cause discomfort, as when one says, "This shirt is devouring me." The lines following the reflection incorporate the conclusion of SN22:9-22:11.

These are here: http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2S ... ggo-e.html
Numbered 21. 1. 1. 9, 10, 11
...
“Monks matter was impermanent in the past, so too it will be impermanent in the future and there is nothing to doubt about its impermanence at present. Monks, the learned noble disciple who sees it thus, is indifferent to matter in the past, does not rejoice future matter and falls to the method of turning , fading and ceasing present matter.
...
“Monks matter was unpleasant in the past, so too it will be unpleasant in the future and there is nothing to doubt its unpleasantness at present. Monks, the learned noble disciple who sees it thus, is indifferent to matter in the past, does not rejoice future matter and falls to the method of turning, fading and ceasing present matter.
...
“Monks matter lacked self in the past, so too it will be lacking self in the future and there is nothing to doubt its lack of a self at present. Monks, the learned noble disciple who sees it thus, is indifferent to matter in the past, does not rejoice future matter and falls to the method of turning, fading and ceasing present matter.
...
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 7:40 am

"What do you think, Bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent? ... Is what is impermanent suffering... ? ... Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'? ..."

Spk: This passage is stated to show the characteristic of impermanence, and to do so by bringing the three characteristics together.

"Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form ... should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'.
"This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle"


BB: The present passage describes the sekha, who is still in the process of dismantling the round.

"Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instucted noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form... Experiences revulsion, he becomes dispassionate, through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there is the knowledge 'It's liberated'. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth...'

"This is called, Bhikkhus, noble disciple who neither builds up nor dismantles, but who abides having dismantled; who neither abandons nor clings, but who abides having abandoned; who neither scatters nor amasses, but who abides having scattered; who neither extinguishes nor kindles, but who abides having extinguished."


Spk: This shows the arahant, who abides having dismantled the round.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby cooran » Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:00 am

Thanks for all your valuable work in this and other threads Mike.
I was going to type out Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation and notes but felt exhausted just reading them. :reading:
Finding this thread particularly helpful.

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7619
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 8:11 am

Thanks Chris, This is a very interesting Sutta, so I am quite enjoying typing out bits BB's translation and commentarry. Ven Piya Tan's comments and translation that I referred to above is also well worth reading.

It's interesting how the bits I posted most recently describe a process that the trainee goes though, and that the arahant has finished that process.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: SN 22.79: Khajjaniya Sutta — Chewed Up

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:21 am

"When, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is thus liberated in mind, the devas together with Indra, Brahma, and Pajapati pay homage to him form afar:
"'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man!
Homage to you, O highest among men!
We ourselves do not directly know
Dependent on what you meditate
'"


BB: Spk states that at the end of this discourse five hundred bhikkhus were established in arahantship.

Piya Tan: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 9-piya.pdf
This stanza is found in Sandha S (A 11.10), where it is appears thrice and clearly fits the context better than here (A 11.10/5:324-326 [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.010.than.html]). The mention of these Vedic gods is for the benefit of those who in the Buddha’s time believe in them, but showing them to be still unliberated and less knowing than an arhat.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10398
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand


Return to Study Group

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest