Then Four become Three

[Ceisiwr]

Well, the absorption corresponding to the base of nothingness is literally concerning "nothing," no? Something vs nothing is a fine contrasting. Greed, rage, etc., are "something" and the sage is "nothing" in comparison.

How is it negated "twice" if it's "something?" I don't follow that.

It is, and it's associated with the following mantra

"I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine."

It's certainly negating the self (from the mistaken position of a self) and very likely negating anything worth having, it seems to me. I said it's repetitive because you would have Nothingness negating "things" followed by the signless negating "things". The other interpretation is that Nothingness negates things to own, whilst the signless negates sense experience altogether.

[Coëmgenu]

Well, "something," a maker of a limit, and maker of a sign, in addition to limits and signs, are all "things." The signless is described as negating signs, not "things." The nothingness is described as negating something, not "things." The limitless is likewise.

Certainly, if the point of the sutta were not to explain how these three cetovimuttis are the same, then he could have simply said "things" are negated, instead of saying that signs, limits, and things are negated.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, "something," a maker of a limit, and maker of a sign, in addition to limits and signs, are all "things." The signless is described as negating signs, not "things." The nothingness is described as negating something, not "things." The limitless is likewise.

Yes, but what is that something being negated? There is an agama which supports your view

"Uddaka Rāmaputta had this view and taught like this, “Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception.”

The Discourse on Uddaka [Rāmaputta] - MĀ 114

Here Nothingness is being equated with non-perception. That does imply that existing things are being negated. However, elsewhere in the suttas Nothingness is said to be the highest perception attainment.

Certainly, if the point of the sutta were not to explain how these three cetovimuttis are the same, then he could have simply said "things" are negated, instead of saying that signs, limits, and things are negated.

If a sign is negated, the sense object too is negated no?

[Coëmgenu]

Well, "something," a maker of a limit, and maker of a sign, in addition to limits and signs, are all "things." The signless is described as negating signs, not "things." The nothingness is described as negating something, not "things." The limitless is likewise.

Yes, but what is that something being negated?

The three poisons are what is negated. They are described as "limits," "signs," and "things/something/anything" in the Chinese parallel we looked at. "Makers of..." in the Pali. Also, your definition for kiñcana had something largely identical to how the Chinese is translated:

only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the frequent context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get rid of, if he wants to attain to a higher moral condition.

The dictionary definition then gives an example to substantiate what it means by "only in negative sentences."

Khīṇasaṃsāro na c’atthi kiñcanaṃ
he has destroyed saṃsāra and there is no obstruction (for him)

This rendering uses the sense of "obstruction" (palibujjhana). If we used "anything," we'd get...

Khīṇasaṃsāro na c’atthi kiñcanaṃ
he has destroyed saṃsāra and there isn't anything (for him)

The negated copula ("na c’atthi") makes this a "negative sentence" unless I'm quite wrong. The Chinese does not have a negative sentence, but it does contrast "something" with "nothing" (無所有). "Something worth having" contrasted with "nothing at all" is not the strongest comparison. A strong comparison would be "something worth having" versus "something not worth having." That last point proves little through, other than gauging the rhetorical force of the comparison. Rhetorical force is not an adequate metric for judging semantics on its own.

If a sign is negated, the sense object too is negated no?

I'd say so, with it specifically in mind that dharmas are sense objects too.

[Ceisiwr]

The three poisons are what is negated. They are described as "limits," "signs," and "things/something/anything" in the Chinese parallel we looked at. "Makers of..." in the Pali. Also, your definition for kiñcana had something largely identical to how the Chinese is translated:

Yes I'm aware. I'm not adverse to Nothingness meaning literally no-thing-ness, but I can also see it meaning "significant thing" rather than just "no-thing".

The negated copula ("na c’atthi") makes this a "negative sentence" unless I'm quite wrong. The Chinese does not have a negative sentence, but it does contrast "something" with "nothing" (無所有). "Something worth having" contrasted with "nothing at all" is not the strongest comparison. A strong comparison would be "something worth having" versus "something not worth having." That last point proves little through, other than gauging the rhetorical force of the comparison. Rhetorical force is not an adequate metric for judging semantics on its own.

Consider this sutta

Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, and perceptions of the imperturbable; all are perceptions. Where they cease without anything left over, that is peaceful, that is sublime, namely the dimension of nothingness.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the first way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.

Furthermore, a noble disciple has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This is empty of a self or what belongs to a self.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the second way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.

Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘I don’t belong to anyone anywhere! And nothing belongs to me anywhere!’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the third way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.

https://suttacentral.net/mn106/en/sujat ... ript=latin

The 3 entries into Nothingness are by way of reflecting on

• Dukkha of perception (and so Nothingness here is the negation of perception, and so "things")

• Emptiness of self

• Non-ownership

The 1st would support your view. I would say the other two support the view that it relates to the negation of things to own. Does that make sense?

I'd say so, with it specifically in mind that dharmas are sense objects too.

So we would have then

Greed etc are makers of limits. Removal of greed removes limits.

Greed etc is an "existing thing". Removal of greed removes "existing things"

Greed etc is a maker of signs. Removal of greed removes signs, which negates "existing things"

[Coëmgenu]

Well, we can say that signs are "those which signify existing things" and that existing things are "the existents themselves." Possibly, we could say that.

How is a limit not a "thing" here? I associated limitation with obstruction, one of the meanings given for kiñcana, specifically the palibujjhana sense given in the Pali dictionary. I think that the reason why it seems to be saying the same thing over and over again is because the entire enterprise of the sutta is to explain how the cetovimuttis differ in phrasing but are identical in meaning.

[Ceisiwr]

Well, we can say that signs are "those which signify existing things" and that existing things are "the existents themselves." Possibly, we could say that.

How is a limit not a "thing" here? I associated limitation with obstruction, one of the meanings given for kiñcana, specifically the palibujjhana sense given in the Pali dictionary. I think that the reason why it seems to be saying the same thing over and over again is because the entire enterprise of the sutta is to explain how the cetovimuttis differ in phrasing but are identical in meaning.

I take the limits of the 1st to be the limits of friends, lovers and enemies. The opposite being the brahmavihārās. I think I also possibly understand the sutta slightly differently to you. The are different in meaning and phrasing by way of meditation/reflection, and so are different routes to nibbāna in that respect. They are similar in phrasing and meaning since to be empty of greed etc and atta notions is to also be empty of the other 3. No more lovers/enemies, no more "existing things" or "something worth having" and no more concrete sights, smells, thoughts etc.

[Coëmgenu]

Well, we can say that signs are "those which signify existing things" and that existing things are "the existents themselves." Possibly, we could say that.

How is a limit not a "thing" here? I associated limitation with obstruction, one of the meanings given for kiñcana, specifically the palibujjhana sense given in the Pali dictionary. I think that the reason why it seems to be saying the same thing over and over again is because the entire enterprise of the sutta is to explain how the cetovimuttis differ in phrasing but are identical in meaning.

I take the limits of the 1st to be the limits of friends, lovers and enemies.

I took the limits to be obstructions, in the sense of "blockages," in your ability to extend metta unobstructed to one of the metaphorical "directions," be that the "direction" of the eastern parents, the southern teachers, the western spouse, etc.

Looking at the Pali, there is no sense of "obstruction" at all. Very interesting. It's more that "limit" means "limited extent" than "the area in which there is no more X" or "a something that limits your ability to spread something in a direction." I suppose it's good that I don't have a practice based on this reading, because that's not the most correct way to read what the limitless cetovimutti means. The sutta explains that "limitless" is when "they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world." I suppose that's a little bit similar to my reading about a limited person being limited in the "directions" they can spread metta, but it's also quite different.

[Ceisiwr]

Looking at the Pali, there is no sense of "obstruction" at all. Very interesting. It's more that "limit" means "limited extent" than "the area in which there is no more X" or "a something that limits your ability to spread something in a direction." I suppose it's good that I don't have a practice based on this reading, because that's not the most correct way to read what the limitless cetovimutti means. The sutta explains that "limitless" is when "they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world." I suppose that's a little bit similar to my reading about a limited person being limited in the "directions" they can spread metta, but it's also quite different.

Well by having lovers and enemies you place limits on where metta etc can be spread? Thinking about it isn't this actually a distinction without a difference?

[Coëmgenu]

Basically. Greed, rage, and delusion might metaphorically prevent you from extending metta to a "direction," the "northern direction" for instance, whether or not by that we mean "friends and colleagues" or "beings to the north of my current physical position." It could be "lovers and enemies" as much as anyone else. The point is that greed, rage, delusion, "limits" the spread of the metta. I took "limit" to refer to "a something that limits." The Chinese character for this is a vessel, a vase (量), and refers to the maximum amount that can be measured to fit in it. The measuring vase itself is "the limit." That's not really supported by the Pali. That might be something conditioning why I think they are "one in meaning" and am okay with the sutta seeming to say that same thing in different ways.

[Ceisiwr]

Basically. Greed, rage, and delusion might metaphorically prevent you from extending metta to a "direction," the "northern direction" for instance, whether or not by that we mean "friends and colleagues" or "beings to the north of my current physical position." It could be "lovers and enemies" as much as anyone else. The point is that greed, rage, delusion, "limits" the spread of the metta. I took "limit" to refer to "a something that limits." The Chinese character for this is a vessel, a vase (量), and refers to the maximum amount that can be measured to fit in it.

I agree with that. Greed is what gets you to lovers etc. The lover is the limit imposed by greed.

[atipattoh]

Hi

Sorry, i didn't know you quoted me.
I can only provide minor variation on 第一 and 所有, the rest just my style of rephrasing.

Only Greed is linked to limit, not Rage and Delusion. So, limitless can not be the foremost compare to the others.
若無諍者第一 | 無量
第一 --> 無諍者 , thus it can means superior or foremost. Although 無諍者第一 in other cases are not repeated, 第一 apply to all. There is no mention of 2 or 3, it mostly means superior; but foremost should also be ok. Only that some reader might expect the order of placing due to the word foremost.

(The elder) answers 答言：
「尊者！謂貪有 量，若無諍者第一，無量; 謂貪者是有相，恚、 癡者是有相，無諍者是無相。
Venerable! (It is) said that, (because of) Greed, there is limit; such is the superiority of unafflicted one, (in this case, is) limitless.

(It is) said that one with Greed, there is sign, one with Rage and Delusion, there is sign. The unafflicted one is signless.

貪者是所有， 恚、癡者是所有，無諍者是無所有。
(That) one with Greed, there is notion of being something, one with Rage and Delusion, there is notion of being something. One that is unafflicted does not has the notion of being something.

復次，無諍者空，於貪空，於恚、癡空，常住不變易空， 非我、非我所
Furthermore, one that is unafflicted is empty, empty of Greed, empty of Rage and Delusion, empty of the eternal and unchanging; not me, not mine.

所有 difficult to translate, so i choose to expand.

~~ metta ~~~

[atipattoh]

Another way of rendering 所有 would be a bit bold, you can look into it if applicable:- "All".

貪者是所有， 恚、癡者是所有，無諍者是無所有。
(That) one with Greed, there is the-All, one with Rage and Delusion, there is the-All. One that is unafflicted, there is no-All.

~~ metta ~~~

[Coëmgenu]

You don't think that the sense of "the all" is too modern?

[atipattoh]

You don't think that the sense of "the all" is too modern?

Modern: 磬其所有 qìng qí suǒ yǒu
意思是比喻把所有的東西全部拿出來
It means to take out all the things

Old:《宋史·寇準傳》1343 (the earliest I can trace from internet so far) 寇準 is from 961-1023 and this is what he said:

“陛下不聞乎？博者輸錢欲盡，乃磬所有出之，謂之孤注。”

磬 traces back to much older writing of 罄 which means empty; so, 磬所有 would mean empty all.

Consciousness and it’s respective objects, the All , apart from there, no-All.

Do you have the origin word for 所有 in Sanskrit for this sutra?

~~ metta ~~~