🟧 Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
Locked
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

🟧 Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

:reading:

Paṭhamakosalasutta (Kosala) AN 10.29 AN v 59
Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi


  • Bhikkhus, as far as Kāsi and Kosala extend, as far as the realm of King Pasenadi of Kosala extends, there King Pasenadi of Kosala ranks as the foremost. But even for King Pasenadi there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (2) “Bhikkhus, as far as sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness, so far the thousandfold world system extends. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudīpas, a thousand Aparagoyānas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens ruled by the four great kings, a thousand Tāvatiṁsa heavens, a thousand Yāma heavens, a thousand Tusita heavens, a thousand heavens of devas who delight in creation, a thousand heavens of devas who control what is created by others, a thousand brahmā worlds. As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost. But even for Mahābrahmā there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (3) “There comes a time, bhikkhus, when this world dissolves. When the world is dissolving, beings for the most part migrate to the devas of streaming radiance. There they exist mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the skies, living in glory, and they remain thus for a very long time. When the world is dissolving, the devas of streaming radiance rank as the foremost. But even for these devas there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (4) “Bhikkhus, there are these ten kasiṇa bases. What ten? One person perceives the earth kasiṇa above, below, across, undivided, measureless. One person perceives the water kasiṇa … the fire kasiṇa … the air kasiṇa … the blue kasiṇa … the yellow kasiṇa … the red kasiṇa … the white kasiṇa … the space kasiṇa … the consciousness kasiṇa above, below, across, undivided, measureless. These are the ten kasiṇa bases. Of these ten kasiṇa bases, this is the foremost, namely, when one perceives the consciousness kasiṇa above, below, across, undivided, measureless. There are beings who are percipient in such a way. But even for beings who are percipient in such a way there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (5) “Bhikkhus, there are these eight bases of overcoming. What eight?

    I “One percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, limited, beautiful or ugly. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the first basis of overcoming.

    II “One percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, measureless, beautiful or ugly. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the second basis of overcoming.

    III “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, limited, beautiful or ugly. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the third basis of overcoming.

    IV “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, measureless, beautiful or ugly. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the fourth basis of overcoming.

    V “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, blue ones, blue in color, with a blue hue, with a blue tint. Just as the flax flower is blue, blue in color, with a blue hue, with a blue tint, or just as Bārāṇasī cloth, smoothened on both sides, might be blue, blue in color, with a blue hue, with a blue tint, so too, one not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, blue ones…. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the fifth basis of overcoming.

    VI “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, yellow ones, with a yellow hue, with a yellow tint. Just as the kaṇikāra flower is yellow, yellow in color, with a yellow hue, with a yellow tint, or just as Bārāṇasī cloth, smoothened on both sides, might be yellow, yellow in color, with a yellow hue, with a yellow tint, so too, one not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, yellow ones…. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the sixth basis of overcoming.

    VII “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, red ones, with a red hue, with a red tint. Just as the bandhujīvaka flower is red, red in color, with a red hue, with a red tint, or just as Bārāṇasī cloth, smoothened on both sides, might be red, red in color with a red hue, with a red tint, so too, one not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, red ones…. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the seventh basis of overcoming.

    VIII “One not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, white ones, white in color, with a white hue, with a white tint. Just as the morning star is white, white in color, with a white hue, with a white tint, or just as Bārāṇasī cloth, smoothened on both sides, might be white, white in color, with a white hue, with a white tint, so too, one not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, white ones…. Having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ This is the eighth basis of overcoming.

    “These are the eight bases of overcoming. Of these eight bases of overcoming, this is the foremost, namely, that one not percipient of forms internally sees forms externally, white ones, white in color with a white hue, with a white tint, and having overcome them, he is percipient thus: ‘I know, I see.’ There are beings who are percipient in such a way. But even for beings who are percipient in such a way there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (6) “Bhikkhus, there are these four modes of practice. What four? Practice that is painful with sluggish direct knowledge; practice that is painful with quick direct knowledge; practice that is pleasant with sluggish direct knowledge; and practice that is pleasant with quick direct knowledge. These are the four modes of practice. Of these four modes of practice, this is the foremost, namely, practice that is pleasant with quick direct knowledge. There are beings who practice in such a way. But even for beings who practice in such a way there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (7) “Bhikkhus, there are these four modes of perception. What four? One person perceives what is limited; another perceives what is exalted; another perceives what is measureless; and still another, perceiving ‘There is nothing,’ perceives the base of nothingness. These are the four modes of perception. Of these four modes of perception, this is the foremost, namely, when, perceiving ‘There is nothing,’ one perceives the base of nothingness. There are beings who perceive in such a way. But even for beings who perceive in such a way there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (9) “Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who proclaim supreme purification. Of those who proclaim supreme purification, this is the foremost, namely, by completely surmounting the base of nothingness, one enters and dwells in the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. They teach their Dhamma for the direct knowledge and realization of this. There are beings who assert thus. But even for those who assert thus, there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.

    (10) “Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life. Of those who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life, this is the foremost, namely, emancipation through non-clinging after one has seen as they really are the origin and passing away, the gratification, danger, and escape in regard to the six bases for contact.

    “Bhikkhus, though I assert and declare my teaching in such a way, some ascetics and brahmins untruthfully, baselessly, falsely, and wrongly misrepresent me, by saying: ‘The ascetic Gotama does not proclaim the full understanding of sensual pleasures, the full understanding of forms, or the full understanding of feelings.’ But, bhikkhus, I do proclaim the full understanding of sensual pleasures, the full understanding of forms, and the full understanding of feelings. In this very life, hungerless, quenched, and cooled, I proclaim final nibbāna through non-clinging.
    • End of AN 10.29
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

Thoughts?
  • § 3. Does this correspond with “world contraction”? The condition for human, animal or ghost plane is removed? Bhikkhu Bodhi offers a similar conjecture in his notes. He also mentions that this plane corresponds to the second jhāna.
  • § 5. The emphasis on color with regard to perception reminded me of this from SN 22.79:
    And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception.
  • § 8. According to the translator notes, this speculative view of the outsider is also found in SN 22.81 as ucchedadiṭṭhi (annihilationist view), yet here in AN 10.29 it is also identified as agga (foremost) among the outsider views. It is expected that such a view will lead to not being unrepelled by bhava (existence/being) and not repelled by its cessation. Certainly not Right View, but does it sound close enough to be called "foremost" of outsider views, i.e. foremost among what is not the Dhamma?

    Contrast with SN 22.55 (similar in AN 7.55):
    Sāvatthinidānaṁ. Tatra kho bhagavā udānaṁ udānesi: “‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’ti— evaṁ adhimuccamāno bhikkhu chindeyya orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.
    At Savatthi. There the Blessed One uttered this inspired utterance: “‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me’: resolving thus, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters.”
    BB note the key difference in the Pali: SN 22.55>nābhavissa, AN 10.29/SN 22.81>na bhavissāmi, “It” vs “I” respectively. Here in AN 10.29 (along with SN 22.81), the refection is from the point of view of "I", while SN 22.55 is towards "it". Does reflecting on things as "it" make all the difference?
  • § 10. Nibbana here is described as, “...emancipation through non-clinging after one has seen as they really are the origin and passing away, the gratification, danger, and escape in regard to the six bases for contact.” Note that for every scenario that precedes nibbana in this sutta - no matter how exalted - there is the caveat, "There is alteration, there is change", which appears to be the danger in all of them. See SN 35.71:
    That the eye is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in the eye.
    ...‘That the ear … the nose … the tongue … the body … the mind is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this is the danger in the mind.
    ...
    So long, bhikkhus, as I did not directly know as they really are the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these six internal sense bases, I did not claim to have awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world with its devas, Mara, and Brahma, in this generation with its ascetics and brahmins, its devas and humans.
Looking forward to this week’s discussion. :smile:
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by pulga »

SDC wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:17 am

Contrast with SN 22.55 (similar in AN 7.55):
Sāvatthinidānaṁ. Tatra kho bhagavā udānaṁ udānesi: “‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’ti— evaṁ adhimuccamāno bhikkhu chindeyya orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One uttered this inspired utterance: “‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me’: resolving thus, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters.”
"No cassaṁ" should read "no cassa". That's how Ven. Bodhi correctly translates it in the 3rd person singular. I believe it has to do with the structural necessity that everything must change. We only experience change against an unchanging background. That the notion of "mine" is brought up suggests that it is referring to sankhārā. Sankhārā that aren't manifestly impermanent, cf. the sotāpanna's perception of impermanence that escapes the puthujjana's.

Ven. Akiñcano has written an interesting essay on this recently Uppādavaya . Ven. Bodhesako covers it as well in the third chapter of his essay Change.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by DooDoot »

SDC wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:16 am (2) “Bhikkhus, as far as sun and moon revolve and light up the quarters with their brightness, so far the thousandfold world system extends. In that thousandfold world system there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Jambudīpas, a thousand Aparagoyānas, a thousand Uttarakurus, a thousand Pubbavidehas, and a thousand four great oceans; a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens ruled by the four great kings, a thousand Tāvatiṁsa heavens, a thousand Yāma heavens, a thousand Tusita heavens, a thousand heavens of devas who delight in creation, a thousand heavens of devas who control what is created by others, a thousand brahmā worlds. As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost. But even for Mahābrahmā there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.
The above says Mahābrahmā is the foremost in this set of things. I do not know what this is supposed to mean because, in MN 49, Mahābrahmā declares the above to be foremost but the Buddha replies there are gods foremost to this, namely, the gods of streaming radiance (ābhassarā), gods replete with glory (subhakiṇho), gods of abundant fruit (vehapphale) & the realm named after the Overlord (abhibhuṁ).
(3) “There comes a time, bhikkhus, when this world dissolves. When the world is dissolving, beings for the most part migrate to the devas of streaming radiance. There they exist mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the skies, living in glory, and they remain thus for a very long time. When the world is dissolving, the devas of streaming radiance rank as the foremost. But even for these devas there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.
The above stock phrase appears only also found in DN 24 & 27. It also appears included in DN 1 as a wrong view doctrine of partial eternalism :!: .

What is notable is the above includes "the devas of streaming radiance", which is beyond Mahābrahmā in the preceding paragraph. Is there a relationship between this & the preceding paragraph? :shrug:

The meaning of "this world" ("loke"; singular) is difficult for me to understand. What is the exact "world" being referred to here? Is it the worlds or a world described in the preceding paragraph? :shrug:
(4) “Bhikkhus, there are these ten kasiṇa bases.
It appears the ten kasiṇa bases are only found in this sutta and also MN 77.
(8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.
I recall there is at least one sutta that says the above speculative view leads to the sphere of nothingness.
(10) “Bhikkhus, there are some ascetics and brahmins who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life. Of those who proclaim supreme nibbāna in this very life, this is the foremost... In this very life, hungerless, quenched, and cooled, I proclaim final nibbāna through non-clinging.
The above appears to refer to Nibbana with residue.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

pulga wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 2:52 am
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:17 am

Contrast with SN 22.55 (similar in AN 7.55):
Sāvatthinidānaṁ. Tatra kho bhagavā udānaṁ udānesi: “‘no cassaṁ, no ca me siyā, nābhavissa, na me bhavissatī’ti— evaṁ adhimuccamāno bhikkhu chindeyya orambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One uttered this inspired utterance: “‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me’: resolving thus, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters.”
"No cassaṁ" should read "no cassa". That's how Ven. Bodhi correctly translates it in the 3rd person singular. I believe it has to do with the structural necessity that everything must change. We only experience change against an unchanging background. That the notion of "mine" is brought up suggests that it is referring to sankhārā. Sankhārā that aren't manifestly impermanent, cf. the sotāpanna's perception of impermanence that escapes the puthujjana's.

Ven. Akiñcano has written an interesting essay on this recently Uppādavaya . Ven. Bodhesako covers it as well in the third chapter of his essay Change.
Hi pulga, I saw that in the translator notes. I should mention something to the folks at SuttaCentral since their script does not show no cassa in SN 22.55.

Indeed, the perception of impermanence is only available as knowledge if it is developed through recollection; knowledge of the inevitability of change. It is dangerous even while no change is apparent; a powerful indicator that things are not mine to control. Seems as thought the reflection as “it” sets all things up “in front” allowing for them to be known in that same light.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:44 am The meaning of "this world" ("loke"; singular) is difficult for me to understand. What is the exact "world" being referred to here? Is it the worlds or a world described in the preceding paragraph? :shrug:
Good question. If I remember my Pali lessons, “this” could be referring to the world from the previous paragraph, i.e. the thousandfold world system, which I would imagine includes “the world” here and now??
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by JohnK »

For the first series of "foremosts," the critical insight is that "there is alteration; there is change." I felt like the sutta was setting me up to eventually hear what is not subject to alteration and change. Yet paragraph 10 (which it is all leading up to and is the point of contrast) does not explicitly say of "nibbana" or of "the foremost, namely, emancipation" -- there is no alteration; there is no change.
Wondering if there a substantive reason why that central element of the contrast was not made explicit, or is it just that the bhikkhus did not need to have it made explicit?
(Please let me know if I am going outside the bounds of what is expected in the study group, as I am not addressing one of the study questions.)
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

JohnK wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:42 pm (Please let me know if I am going outside the bounds of what is expected in the study group, as I am not addressing one of the study questions.)
Hi John, my questions are just to start the discussion. Any ideas relevant to the understanding the sutta are acceptable after that.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi JohnK,
This is a good point.
JohnK wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:42 pm For the first series of "foremosts," the critical insight is that "there is alteration; there is change." I felt like the sutta was setting me up to eventually hear what is not subject to alteration and change. Yet paragraph 10 (which it is all leading up to and is the point of contrast) does not explicitly say of "nibbana" or of "the foremost, namely, emancipation" -- there is no alteration; there is no change.
Perhaps that is implied in:
... after one has seen as they really are the origin and passing away, the gratification, danger, and escape in regard to the six bases for contact. ...
JohnK wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:42 pm Wondering if there a substantive reason why that central element of the contrast was not made explicit, or is it just that the bhikkhus did not need to have it made explicit?
Perhaps to make it explicit would be to trivialise and limit it. What is proclaimed is "emancipation through non-clinging ". That sounds like more than just "no alteration, no change...".

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by DooDoot »

SDC wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:11 pm Good question. If I remember my Pali lessons, “this” could be referring to the world from the previous paragraph, i.e. the thousandfold world system, which I would imagine includes “the world” here and now??
The problem with the above is the suttas (i.e. Pañcagatipeyyāla Vagga) also say most beings will be "reborn" in the lower realms (rather than as what AN 10.29 says, namely, born into streaming radiance).
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by SDC »

DooDoot wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:34 am
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 3:11 pm Good question. If I remember my Pali lessons, “this” could be referring to the world from the previous paragraph, i.e. the thousandfold world system, which I would imagine includes “the world” here and now??
The problem with the above is the suttas (i.e. Pañcagatipeyyāla Vagga) also say most beings will be "reborn" in the lower realms (rather than as what AN 10.29 says, namely, born into streaming radiance).
It seems AN 10.29 is implying those middle (or intermediate) planes aren’t available on account of the dissolution; subsequently, “beings for the most part” go to “streaming radiance”; suggesting the rest remain (or end up) elsewhere. Perhaps an “all-or-nothing” scenario until things expand again? Curious little description.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by JohnK »

mikenz66 wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 9:11 pm Hi JohnK,
This is a good point.
JohnK wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:42 pm For the first series of "foremosts," the critical insight is that "there is alteration; there is change." I felt like the sutta was setting me up to eventually hear what is not subject to alteration and change. Yet paragraph 10 (which it is all leading up to and is the point of contrast) does not explicitly say of "nibbana" or of "the foremost, namely, emancipation" -- there is no alteration; there is no change.
Perhaps that is implied in:
... after one has seen as they really are the origin and passing away, the gratification, danger, and escape in regard to the six bases for contact. ...
JohnK wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:42 pm Wondering if there a substantive reason why that central element of the contrast was not made explicit, or is it just that the bhikkhus did not need to have it made explicit?
Perhaps to make it explicit would be to trivialise and limit it. What is proclaimed is "emancipation through non-clinging ". That sounds like more than just "no alteration, no change...".

:heart:
Mike
Continuing to notice and wonder about this.
Some of the "foremosts" are beings and some appear to be perceptions/practices/views.
In any case, the statement of alteration and change is always about beings:
"...even for King Pasenadi there is alteration..."
"...even for Mahabrahma there is alteration..."
"...even for these devas there is alteration..."
"...even for beings who are percipient in such a way there is alteration..." [4,5,7]
"...even for beings who practice in such a way there is alteration..."
"...even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration..."
"...even for those who assert thus, there is alteration..."

Then in 10, although initially referring to "some ascetics and brahmins" (just as in earlier paragraphs), the pattern shifts and says nothing about alteration of beings -- in this case it would be beings who proclaim the foremost supreme nibbana of emancipation through non-clinging via seeing (in the details) the six bases for contact.
If the pattern had been followed, what could be said regarding alteration and change for "beings who proclaim thus" except that they too are subject to alteration -- not very dramatic. (Perhaps in paragraph 10, "beings" "does not apply.") Nevertheless, it seems that the build up in the sutta, which expounds on the pervasiveness of anicca, provides an opening to explicitly identify any dhamma (vs. being) which is not subject to alteration and change.
:anjali:
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
JohnK
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:06 pm
Location: Tetons, Wyoming, USA

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by JohnK »

Just to attempt a concise answer (based on the repetitions in AN 10.29) to the concise question in the title of this thread:
Q. Is there danger in what is foremost?
A. Yes -- in being enchanted by it (vs. "emancipation through non-clinging").
Those who grasp at perceptions & views wander the internet creating friction. [based on Sn4:9,v.847]
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is there danger in what is foremost? AN 10.29 (Week of April 25)

Post by DooDoot »

SDC wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:01 pm It seems AN 10.29 is implying those middle (or intermediate) planes aren’t available on account of the dissolution; subsequently, “beings for the most part” go to “streaming radiance”; suggesting the rest remain (or end up) elsewhere. Perhaps an “all-or-nothing” scenario until things expand again? Curious little description.
I agree. The impression those beings that go to streaming-radiance must be the following:
a thousand four great kings, a thousand heavens ruled by the four great kings, a thousand Tāvatiṁsa heavens, a thousand Yāma heavens, a thousand Tusita heavens, a thousand heavens of devas who delight in creation, a thousand heavens of devas who control what is created by others, a thousand brahmā worlds. As far, bhikkhus, as this thousandfold world system extends, Mahābrahmā there ranks as the foremost.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Locked