SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by daverupa »

mikenz66 wrote:In many Suttas it is said
... he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ntbb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So, does that mean that he knows that he will not be born again in the future (one possible interpretation), or that a "continuous birth process" has ended in the present (another possible interpretation)?
It means that since one sees that sabbe dhamma anatta, therefore no self is discerned for whom there is birth and death, while for a putthujjana birth (their own) and death (their own) appear to be quite obvious. The problem is that seeing birth and death in this way is to have attavada as an unspoken and even unconscious premise - which is ultimately avijja.
"The fundamental upàdàna or ‘holding’ is attavàda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in ‘self’. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his ‘self’ at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a ‘self’, at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or ‘being’. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks ‘my self exists’ so he also thinks ‘my self was born’ and ‘my self will die’. The puthujjana sees a ‘self’ to whom the words birth and death apply. In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimàna (not to speak of attavàda—see Mama), and does not even think ‘I am’. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think ‘I am’ he also does not think ‘I was born’ or ‘I shall die’. In other words, he sees no ‘self’ or even ‘I’ for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jàti-nirodha and jaràmaraõanirodha."

(See, in Kosala Saüy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of:

—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?
—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors… wealthy divines… wealthy householders…, for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers…, for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.)
~Nanavira, A Note On Paticcasamuppàda, §10

edit: sabbe {sankhara-->dhamma} anatta :embarassed:
Last edited by daverupa on Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
  • "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
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

Thanks Dave.

That's either a better way of expressing my "plausible option one", or perhaps it is slightly different from what I was imagining it, so it's "plausible option three". Does it seem different from Ven Nanananda's interpretation to you, which I was characterising as "plausible option two"?

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by daverupa »

mikenz66 wrote:Does it seem different from Ven Nanananda's interpretation to you...?
It seems they differ in phrasing: Nanananda says "...a certain assurance about the future" and "...no more birth after", while Nanavira is at pains to use atemporal/'now' discourse when discussing paticcasamuppada. As to whether they differ in meaning, I expect an easy way to tell would be to discover whether Nanananda adhered to the traditional interpretation with which Nanavira disagreed.
  • "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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

Actually, just to wheel back a bit... I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume from this tract of text that when ven. Nanananda says "birth" / "jati"... that he is talking about the so called "literal rebirth" that is of such interest to worldlings.
Now the realization of the extinction of influxes, on the
other hand, gives a certain assurance about the future. It is by
this extinction of influxes that one wins to the certitude that
there is no more birth after this. Khīṇā jāti, extinct is birth!
Certitude about something comes only with realization. In fact,
the term sacchikiriya implies a seeing with one's own eyes, as
the word for eye, akśi, is implicit in it.
Nothing in that says to me that this is what he is necessarily talking about, though it doesn't exclude it either.

To me, here, Nanananda is talking primary about jati as identification/existence-as-a-being (which is why there is confirmed certitude about the declaration), and any secondary meaning pertaining to the absence of "literal rebirth" which is implied by worldlings, is neither here-nor-there to the arahant, because they have no identification with any of the aggregates etc. to which such "literal rebirth" might apply. As Daverupa said above, "The problem is that seeing birth and death in this way is to have attavada as an unspoken and even unconscious premise - which is ultimately avijja."... which is obviously not an issue to the arahant.

Anyway, not to deviate of topic... but I just wanted to put the brakes on that particular train of thought, lest it dilute Sam Vega's interesting line of inquiry.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Actually, just to wheel back a bit... I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume from this tract of text that when ven. Nanananda says "birth" / "jati"... that he is talking about the so called "literal rebirth" that is of such interest to worldlings.
Actually, I think it's rather clear from the rest of the Nibbana Sermons. He talks about the Arahant marking time until his body dies, and so on.
Nibbana Sermon 18 wrote:The popular interpretation of the term anupādisesā Nib-
bānadhātu leaves room for some absolutist conceptions of an
asaṅkhata dhātu, unprepared element, as the destiny of the ara-
hant. After his parinibbāna, he is supposed to enter this partic-
ular Nibbānadhātu. But here, in this discourse, it is explained
in just one sentence: Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni
anabhinanditāni sītibhavissanti, "in the case of him" (that is the
arahant) ", O! monks, all what is felt, not having been delighted
in, will cool off here itself."

This cooling off happens just before death, without ignit-
ing another spark of life. When Māra comes to grab and seize,
the arahant lets go. The pain of death with which Māra teases
his hapless victim and lures him into another existence, be-
comes ineffective in the case of the arahant. As he has already
gone through the supramundane experience of deathlessness, in
the arahattaphalasamādhi, death loses its sting when at last it
comes. The influx-free deliverance of the mind and the influx-
free deliverance through wisdom enable him to cool down all
feelings in a way that baffles Māra.

So the arahant lets go of his body, experiencing ambrosial
deathlessness. As in the case of Venerable Dabba Mallaputta,
he would sometimes cremate his own body without leaving
any ashes.[636] Outwardly it might appear as an act of self-
immolation, which indeed is painful. But this is not so. Using
his jhānic powers, he simply employs the internal fire element
to cremate the body he has already discarded.

[636] Ud 92, Paṭhamadabbasutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In any case, my point is that he's talking about confidence a about something in the future, not the "all has to be seen in the present moment..." line that Ven Nanavira seems to take.

Which is very much to the point of what some of these lines mean. Does "I know dukkha..." mean "I know about dukkha because I used to suffer", or "I am still experiencing dukkha."?

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by daverupa »

Sam Vega wrote:The "Knowing/seeing" issue gets more interesting the more I think about it. Are there any Pali scholars who could elaborate on the terms used in the Sutta ("Knowing" and "Seeing")?
You can get some of that in this thread.
  • "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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:In any case, my point is that he's talking about confidence a about something in the future, not the "all has to be seen in the present moment..." line that Ven Nanavira seems to take.
I cannot accept your conclusion here, as it is a false distinction being drawn.

The very reason the arahant knows that jati is ended is because they personally know paticcasamuppada and have personally eradicated avijja. So it is seen here-and-now. It is seen here-and-now that there is the remainderless cessation of avijja, and thus, the arahant therefore knows that jati has ended. The confidence lies in understanding the steadfastness and universality of paticcasamuppada... thus, the house-builder is destroyed.
mikenz66 wrote:Which is very much to the point of what some of these lines mean. Does "I know dukkha..." mean "I know about dukkha because I used to suffer", or "I am still experiencing dukkha."?
He knows the Truth of Dukkha, and because He knows the Truth of Dukkha, He does not suffer.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:In any case, my point is that he's talking about confidence a about something in the future, not the "all has to be seen in the present moment..." line that Ven Nanavira seems to take.
I cannot accept your conclusion here, as it is a false distinction being drawn.
Sure. Opinions about that point obviously differ. As one would expect... :reading:

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Sure. Opinions about that point obviously differ. As one would expect... :reading:
Do you actually disagree then with the paragraph that followed the sentence you quoted, or did you stop there and disengage, holding the remainder of my post at arm's length with platitudes, preferring not to investigate and understand the basis for the disagreement?

Differences in opinion need not necessarily give rise to suffering.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Sure. Opinions about that point obviously differ. As one would expect... :reading:
Do you actually disagree then with the paragraph that followed the sentence you quoted,...
Yes. Knowing something doesn't have to mean that what is known has completely played itself out.
I (and a number of others) have disagreed with that interpretation for a long time, and I don't see us coming to an agreement any time soon.

But this is all meta-discussion. Perhaps we could return to some of the issues of the Acela Sutta.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

"[If one thinks] 'The one who actsis the same as the one who experiences [the result]', [then one asserts] weith reference to one existing from the beginning: 'Suffering is created by oneself'. When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism."

BB gives some technical discussion of exactly how to translate this...

Spk: If at the beginning (one thinks), "The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences (the result)," in such a case the belief afterwards follows, "Suffering is created by oneself." And here, what is meant by suffering is the suffering of the round (vattadukkha). Asserting this, from the beginning one declares eternalism, one grasps hold of eternalism. Why? Because that view of his amounts to this. Eternalism comes upon one who conceives teh agent and the experiencer to be one and the same.

Spk-pt: Prior to the belief that suffering is created by oneself there are the distortions of perception and of mind (sannacittavipallasa) in the notion, "The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences (the result)," and then a wrong adherence to these distortions develops, namely, the belief "Suffering is created by oneself" (a distortion of views, ditthivipallasa).

On the three levels of distortion with their four modes, see AN II 52.
AN 4.49 Vipallasa Sutta: Distortions of the Mind
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sensing no change in the changing,
Sensing pleasure in suffering,
Assuming "self" where there's no self,
Sensing the un-lovely as lovely -

Gone astray with wrong views,
beings Mis-perceive with distorted minds.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

"[If one thinks] 'The one who acts is one, the one who experiences [the result] is another,' [then one asserts] with reference to one stricken by feeling: 'Suffering is created by another.' When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism."

[More comments from BB on the language and how the Commentary interprets it...]

Spk: If at the beginning (one thinks) "The one who acts is one, the one who experiences (the result) is another," ins such a case afterwards there comes the belief, "Suffering is created by another," held by one stricken by --- that is, pierced by --- the feeling associated with the annihilationist view that arises thus: 'The agent is annihilated right here, and someone else ('another') experiences (the results) of his deeds. Asserting thus, from the beginning one declares annihilationism, one grasps hold of annihilationism. Why? Because the view one holds amounts to this. Annihilationism comes upon him.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
"[If one thinks] 'The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences [the result]', [then one asserts] with reference to one existing from the beginning: 'Suffering is created by oneself'. When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism."....

"[If one thinks] 'The one who acts is one, the one who experiences [the result] is another,' [then one asserts] with reference to one stricken by feeling: 'Suffering is created by another.' When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism."
I wonder... is it implicit in self-view, that there is some framing with respect to that self in terms of what happens to it in the past, present and future? In other words, from the root/basic self-view comes (some flavour of) eternalism or annihilationism, and that one of the 62 eternalist/annihilationist views outlined in the Brahmajala are necessary consequences of the root view of self?

That would seem to be what the "this amounts to" terminology bolded above is pointing to.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

Indeed, in all cases I can recall it's not really the past or future that are the problem.
See, for example, MN 131 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nana.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; where conceiving about a self in the past, future, or present, is the problem. Perhaps the current Sutta benefits from comparison with that one.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 12.17 Acela Sutta: To the Clothless Ascetic

Post by mikenz66 »

"Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle. 'With ignorance as condition, volitional formations...'"

Spk: The Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle without veering to either of these extremens --- eternalism or annihilationism --- having abandoned them without reservation. He teaches while being established in the middle way. What is that Dhamma? By the formula of dependent origination, the effect is shown to occur through the cause and to cease with the cessation of the cause, but no agent or experiencer (karaka, vedaka) is described.
Locked