The real meaning of AN10.58 enumeration #9

[cappuccino]

Frankly if someone was insisting on Aggregates merging with or into Nibbana i would consider them heretics.

it's more like remaining in the undying state

[rightviewftw]

Frankly if someone was insisting on Aggregates merging with or into Nibbana i would consider them heretics.

it's more like remaining in the undying state

yes that would be very heretical;

"He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana.[7] Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives things about Nibbana, he conceives things in Nibbana, he conceives things coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

[cappuccino]

yes that would be very heretical

from your perspective

[mikenz66]

Now if AN10.58 is taken to be referring to Aggregates they definitely do not plunge into the Deathless because the 8FNP leads to cessation of aggregates and by means of cessation the 3rd Noble Truth is realized and that which ceases does not plunge into anything. It is extremely unlikely imo that the commentators would be able to maintain orthodoxy having read "plunges into Deathless" and assumed the statement to refer to the Aggregates.

I thought it had been established that the verb in this case was not "plunge", so I'm now a little confused.

I still think, as I said above: viewtopic.php?p=481468#p481468 that you are over-reading Ven Thanissaro's (rather unique, as is common with his translations) translation. In the justification his gives in his note, his use of "footing", taken literally, would not apply well to the aggregates, as he is talking about a footing in terms of a step in the process of awakening.


Mike

[rightviewftw]

Now if AN10.58 is taken to be referring to Aggregates they definitely do not plunge into the Deathless because the 8FNP leads to cessation of aggregates and by means of cessation the 3rd Noble Truth is realized and that which ceases does not plunge into anything. It is extremely unlikely imo that the commentators would be able to maintain orthodoxy having read "plunges into Deathless" and assumed the statement to refer to the Aggregates.

I thought it had been established that the verb in this case was not "plunge", so I'm now a little confused.

I still think, as I said above: viewtopic.php?p=481468#p481468 that you are over-reading Ven Thanissaro's (rather unique, as is common with his translations) translation. In the justification his gives in his note, his use of "footing", taken literally, would not apply well to the aggregates, as he is talking about a footing in terms of a step in the process of awakening.


Mike

I do not think that Thanissaro's translation is very unique given that gadha as it appears in SN48.44 has been translated by Bodhi (at times), Sujato and Thanissaro as ground for footing, and they all translate gadha as it in appears in DN11 and an7.15 to be footing.

I have already addressed that his own personal interpretation presented in his note to AN10.58 finds little support given that he claims it to be associated with non-return and his own personal views on the Non-made are of relatively little interest here.

[rightviewftw]

yes that would be very heretical

from your perspective

provide Sutta reference for

Frankly if someone was insisting on Aggregates merging with or into Nibbana i would consider them heretics.

it's more like remaining in the undying state

until then;

"He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana.[7] Perceiving Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives things about Nibbana, he conceives things in Nibbana, he conceives things coming out of Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana as 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

Anyway if mod sees this please split the thread so this one does not get further cluttered by this off-topic claim of Aggregtes remaining in the Unmade

[mikenz66]

I have already addressed that his own personal interpretation presented in his note to AN10.58 finds little support given that he claims it to be associated with non-return and his own personal views on the Non-made are of relatively little interest here.

But the simile given in his note seems to be the main argument for his particular translation... Otherwise I have no idea what it means!

Perhaps you could explain what you think:

"'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.

is pointing to?


Mike

[rightviewftw]

I have already addressed that his own personal interpretation presented in his note to AN10.58 finds little support given that he claims it to be associated with non-return and his own personal views on the Non-made are of relatively little interest here.

But the simile given in his note seems to be the main argument for his particular translation... Otherwise I have no idea what it means!

Perhaps you could explain what you think:

"'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.

is pointing to?


Mike

I thought it was quite obvious that what i am saying is that the root of phenomena is desire and foremost supporting condition for their manifestation is Ignorance, so by removing the supporting condition, the phenomena are uprooted and do no manifest. If phenomena do not manifest there is only that which is ground, the unmade state. In this way ground is not brought into being nor is it conditioned but with cessation of suffering[the constructed] it is the primary happiness, unobstructed by any world, the beyond.

[mikenz66]

That (at least your first sentence) is essentially how I understand the other translations. I have no idea how to understand Ven Thanissaro's translation, other than via the simile that he gives in his footnote.

Perhaps we are simply understanding the English in these translations differently.


Mike

[rightviewftw]

That (at least your first sentence) is essentially how I understand the other translations. I have no idea how to understand Ven Thanissaro's translation, other than via the simile that he gives in his footnote.

Perhaps we are simply understanding the English in these translations differently.


Mike

Well the first sentence declares cessation of the constructed, the second sentence declares the beyond as unmade dimension which is if the constructed is not. The most sublime constructed state is the state of neither perception nor non-perception with the cessation of the the phenomena present in that state there is no remaining constructions and thus;

There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress.

It can be explained to be the ground because it is the most sublime and underlying reality to the beginningless cycle of constructs and an everpresent alternative [of escape].

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.[2]

[mikenz66]

OK, but can you explain in your own words what Ven Thanissaro's translation means? As I said, I cannot understand it, apart from in terms of the simile in his footnote, so I'm not sure why you find it a preferable translation to the the translations of other translators.


Mike

[rightviewftw]

OK, but can you explain in your own words what Ven Thanissaro's translation means? As I said, I cannot understand it, apart from in terms of the simile in his footnote, so I'm not sure why you find it a preferable translation to the the translations of other translators.


Mike

I thought i explained it but i will try differently. A being receives and processes information about himself and the external world, being of the world a being exists entirely in the world and both the world and the being are constructed and subject to change [evolving]. Thus a being is a construct which experiences the constructed. The constructed states occur in a system which facilitates the occurence of the constructed states, fascilitates existence of the world and experienced states. The constructed [dependently arisen by means of evolving] states that arise are to that extent states of the system. The system which fascilitates the manifestation of various states is in itself unchanging, being the same system all along the system is merely going from one state to another.

One can thus point out an unchanging constant of change.

In this way the system itself can be understood to be unchanging while the states of the system are changing, therefore one can say that the changing gains a footing in the unchanging. With the cessation of dependently arisen states of the system, the system is in the unmade state and the unmade state and the system are thus one and the same because Unmade state is not a state like the made state, it is the system itself without a state per se.

[mikenz66]

In this way the system itself can be understood to be unchanging while the states of the system are changing, therefore one can say that the changing gains a footing in the unchanging. ...

OK, thanks for explaining your model!


Mike

[rightviewftw]

In this way the system itself can be understood to be unchanging while the states of the system are changing, therefore one can say that the changing gains a footing in the unchanging. ...

OK, thanks for explaining your model!


Mike

You are welcome, friend

[pitakele]

fire and air find no footing.
tejo vāyo na gādhati;

However you did not actually address the DN11 and an7.15 in reference to the gadha therein afaik.

Previously, I wrote that the verb gādhati has the root gādh, meaning to stand fast etc. I did not dispute the translation of the verse above as it is correct - PTS Pali English Dictionary definition:

Gādhati [Gādhati] [v. der. fr. gādha2] to stand fast, to be on firm ground, to have a firm footing: āpo ca paṭhavī ca tejo vāyo na gādhati 'the four elements have no footing' D i.223=S i.15; —Dhamma-Vinaye gādhati 'to stand fast in the Doctrine & Discipline' S iii.59 sq. —  
https://goo.gl/dcwFtt

Two of these Sutta AN10.58 and SN 48:44 are being disputed in this exact thread and there is obviously no consensus among the translators on the term gadha therein and translated as plunging,

Both Vens Bodhi & Sujāto are in consensus, having translated the term ogadhā as 'culminate'. I am in agreement with them, except I prefer the literal translation, 'plunging into' - PTS Pali English Dictionary definition:

Ogadha (-- ˚) (adj.) [Sk. avagāḍha; P. form with shortened a, fr. ava + gāh, see gādha1 & gāhati] immersed, merging into, diving or plunging into. Only in two main phrases, viz. Amatogadha & Nibbānogadha diving into
https://goo.gl/hZJnf5

It is only Ven. Thānissaro who has translated this term as 'gain footing'. Thus, the question needs to be asked: is he translating the same Pali term ogadhā or has he translated a variant of it which is linked to the verbal root gādh, 'stand fast', perhaps found in the Thai script Pali canon? He is fluent in Thai.

as for Sn2.1 the term there is not gadha it is vighaya and it is not universally translated as plunging

Defintion of vigayha in PTS Pali English Dictionary:

Vigayha [Vigayha] see vigāhati...Vigāhati [Vigāhati] [vi+gāhati] to plunge into, to enter S i.180 (ger. vigāhiya); J v.381 (°gāhisuṃ, aor.); Mhvs 19, 29 (here as °gāhetvā). The ger. is also vigayha at Sn 2, 825; cp. Nd1 163 (=ogayha pavisitvā).
https://goo.gl/uaoo2f

According to the Commentary to AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions given here), "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) here means the five aggregates.

A difference: you are relying on commentary from AN 8.83 to try to understand AN 10.58, whereas I am using another sutta SN 48:44 to lend light to the meaning of AN 10.58.

To my understanding, the commentarial exposition of sabbe dhammā as five aggregates does not clarify the phrase amatogadhā sabbe dhammā. 'The five aggregates culminate (plunge into) in the Deathless' does not have any useful meaning, esp. as an answer/teaching for other sectarians. I was somewhat dismissive of commentarial explanations in my previous post. However, if this is the best commentarial explanation offered for this phrase, it would only confirm my cynicism.

Although this is a short sutta, it appears the commentary has not helped you understand it to your satisfaction (hence, your posting it as a topic).

While there is an overlap in meaning of Deathless and Nibbana when both are taken as destruction of craving, Nibbana with residue refers in particular to the state of an Arahant and deathless doesn't.
+++
I made a mistake saying both refer to the destruction of craving, what i meant was destruction of cankers.

But the destruction of craving and the destruction of cankers are realized simultaneously. Khīnāsava, 'cankers destroyed', is a designation for an Arahat, one who is free of all craving. The Anāgāmī is free of kāmāsava and the Arahat is free of kāmāsava, bhavāsava & āvijjāsava.

“The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless.

Agree

The easiest way to show that it is wrong to equate Deathless with "Nibbana with residue" is pointing out that Sariputta and Moggalanna attained Deathless prior to becoming Arahants

You've quoted above that the Deathless is the destruction of lust, hatred and delusion, yet you contradict this by saying that Vens Sāriputta & Moggallāna attained the Deathless prior to becoming Arahants?