Addition or Deletion?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 17155
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Addition or Deletion?

Post by Ceisiwr »

IN MN 106 there is an interesting disparity between it and it's parallel, which occurs at the end of the sutta. MN 106 has the following
“It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! The Buddha has explained to us how to cross over the flood by relying on one support or the other. But sir, what is noble liberation?”

“Ananda, it’s when a mendicant reflects like this: ‘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, perceptions of the imperturbable, perceptions of the dimension of nothingness, perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; that is identity as far as identity extends. This is the deathless, namely the liberation of the mind through not grasping.

So, Ānanda, I have taught the ways of practice suitable for attaining the imperturbable, the dimension of nothingness, and the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. I have taught how to cross the flood by relying on one support or the other, and I have taught noble liberation."
https://suttacentral.net/mn106/en/sujat ... ript=latin

Whilst the parallel sutras has this
19. It was then that Venerable Ānanda saluted the Bhagavān with his palms together and said, “The Bhagavān has described the pure way to the imperturbable. He has described the pure way to the abode of nothingness. He has described the pure way to no perceptions. He has described the nirvāṇa without remainder. Bhagavān, what is the noble liberation?”

20. The Bhagavān told him, “Ānanda, the well-versed noble disciple performs this contemplation: ‘Whether it’s desires in the present life, desires in the afterlife, forms in the present life, forms in the afterlife, perceptions of desire in the present life, perceptions of desire in the afterlife, perceptions of form in the present life, perceptions of form in the afterlife, perceptions of the imperturbable, perceptions of the abode of nothingness, or perceptions of no perception, all those perceptions are impermanent things. They are painful and ceasing.’ This is said to be self-existence. If a self exists, this is birth, old age, illness, and death.

21. “Ānanda, suppose he has this teaching, ‘Everything ends and ceases without remainder and never again exists. It then has no birth and no old age, illness, or death.’ The nobles thus contemplate. If he has that, it’s surely the teaching of liberation. Whether it’s nirvāṇa with or without remainder, it’s called immortality.

22. “Thus contemplating and thus seeing, he’ll surely attain mental liberation from the contaminants of desire and the mental liberation from the contaminants of existence and contaminants of ignorance. After being liberated, he readily knows that he is liberated: ‘Birth has been ended, the religious practice has been established, and the task has been accomplished.’ He is no longer subject to existence and knows it as it really is.
https://canon.dharmapearls.net/01_agama ... A_075.html

Do you think this

“Ānanda, suppose he has this teaching, ‘Everything ends and ceases without remainder and never again exists. It then has no birth and no old age, illness, or death.’ The nobles thus contemplate. If he has that, it’s surely the teaching of liberation. Whether it’s nirvāṇa with or without remainder, it’s called immortality."

is something possible added or forgotten in the texts? Does it accord with what other texts say in your opinion? I think possibly the teaching being conveyed here is the same as SN 22.55
“He understands as it really is: ‘Form will be exterminated’ … ‘Feeling will be exterminated’ … ‘Perception will be exterminated’ … ‘Volitional formations will be exterminated’ … ‘Consciousness will be exterminated"

“With the extermination of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, that bhikkhu, resolving thus: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me,’ can cut off the lower fetters.”

“Resolving thus, venerable sir, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters. But how should one know, how should one see, for the immediate destruction of the taints to occur?”

“Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’ But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened over an unfrightening matter. For this is not frightening to the noble disciple: ‘It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, and it will not be for me.’
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/bod ... ight=false
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that, when it’s not tamed, is so very harmful as the mind. A wild mind is very harmful.”

Adantavagga
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 17155
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Thinking about it, it could simply be about the knowledge that at death for the Arahant all ceases without remainder.

“Ānanda, suppose he has this teaching, ‘Everything ends and ceases without remainder and never again exists. It then has no birth and no old age, illness, or death.’ The nobles thus contemplate. If he has that, it’s surely the teaching of liberation. Whether it’s nirvāṇa with or without remainder, it’s called immortality."
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that, when it’s not tamed, is so very harmful as the mind. A wild mind is very harmful.”

Adantavagga
ToVincent
Posts: 1760
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by ToVincent »

Inexistant parallels for the extracts quoted!

Patton is the Sujato of the Agamas — a perfect personal interpretation mess.

I wonder where Patton found the "This is said to be self-existence".
Sakkāya-diṭṭhi = 身見 or 有身見 or 薩迦耶見

"This is said to be self-existence. If a self exists, this is birth, old age, illness, and death."

This is the pericope:
世尊告 曰:「阿難!多聞聖弟子作如是觀,若現世欲 及後世欲,若現世色及後世色,若現世欲想、 後世欲想,若現世色想、後世色想及不動想、 無所有處想、無想想,彼一切想是無常法、是 苦、是滅,是謂自己有。若自己有者,是生、是老、 是病、是死。

------

The extract in MN 106 is the typical corrupted added stuff to send ambiguity in the Teaching.
And Patton is the typical corrupted "buddhist", that sends even more ambiguity in his translation of MA 75, by adding his own personal share, making it like there is some kind of parallel — (moreover with a "self-existence", instead of existing-body".
:rolleye:

The "principles" (anta) of sakkayaditthi are pretty well explained in:
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn22.103
with it's perfect parallel.
This is the "sat" part.

The extract quoted in MA 106 above, is typically the corrupted way to add more to the All, and put in it things like "perceptions of the dimension of nothingness, perceptions of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception" , which are not of the realm of the "I".
"I’ll reject this All and describe another All. They’d have no grounds for that"
‘ahametaṁ sabbaṁ paccakkhāya aññaṁ sabbaṁ paññāpessāmī’ti, tassa
vācāvatthukamevassa;

They’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated.
puṭṭho ca na sampāyeyya, uttariñca vighātaṁ āpajjeyya.

Why is that?
Taṁ kissa hetu?

Because they’re out of the realm of the "I am”.
Yathā taṁ, bhikkhave, avisayasmin”ti.
SN 35.23
Note that Sujato totally occult the asmi part, in his translation. No wonder!


-------

Why then bother with the "added" rest?

It seems like you love those dubious suttas that bring doubtfulness.
Lately the MN 38 extract on "the womb" shebang with no parallel, and now an extended sakkāya-diṭṭhi.
What else?
.
.
In this world, there are people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).
asahi
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by asahi »

Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 8:05 pm
all those perceptions are impermanent things. They are painful and ceasing.’ This is said to be self-existence. If a self exists, this is birth, old age, illness, and death.

21. “Ānanda, suppose he has this teaching, ‘Everything ends and ceases without remainder and never again exists. It then has no birth and no old age, illness, or death.’ The nobles thus contemplate. If he has that, it’s surely the teaching of liberation. Whether it’s nirvāṇa with or without remainder, it’s called immortality.

https://canon.dharmapearls.net/01_agama ... A_075.html
Unfortunatenaly , it seems Cd translation appear unsatisfactory .



All these perceptions are not permanent dharma , suffering , ceasing and that which is of identity . If there is an identity (of self) there is birth old age sickness and death .

Ananda , if one is able to end all these dharma without remainer without further becoming , then there will be no more birth old age sickness and death . This is the liberation dharma contemplated by the noble disciple . This nirvana without remainder , is called the amrita .

:anjali:
Peace is more precious than triumph
cdpatton
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by cdpatton »

I wonder where Patton found the "This is said to be self-existence".
Sakkāya-diṭṭhi = 身見 or 有身見 or 薩迦耶見
The term in the passage is unique in the Madhyama Agama: 自己有. It doesn't occur anywhere else. It may be a translation of sakkāya without the ditthi, but I wonder why it wouldn't be rendered 有自己 if that were the case. 有 becomes the main noun being modified by 自己 in the actual passage. So, I translated it somewhat literally, being unsure of the original Indic.
Unfortunatenaly , it seems Cd translation appear unsatisfactory .
What exactly does "identity (of self)" mean? Amrta could definitely be left transliterated, but I take it to be equivalent to Greek ambrosia, used by Buddhists to mean freedom from rebirth in an ironic way.

Language is like that in sutras. There's the literal surface meaning, and then there's the ironic or esoteric meaning, which sometimes has been lost because of a lack of commentaries. As a translator, I prefer to keep those nuances in the translation, otherwise the literary quality is lost, but it does mean there are passages that are headscratchers or require a little more work on the part of the reader. Being hypercritical while reading isn't conducive to understanding.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Pulsar »

cdpatton wrote
The term in the passage is unique in the Madhyama Agama: 自己有. It doesn't occur anywhere else.
Thanks, for taking the trouble. I would not bother with MN 106. A sutta that refers to Arupas has to be a later fabrication. The fact that it is found in Madhyama agama? Abhidhamma crept into late sutta fabrications of Madhyama agama and Majjima Nikaya. Just consider MN 111, a perfect fake, feeding lies into Buddha's mouth.
Not a single sutta in Samyukta agama refers to Arupa samapatthis. Pali compilers tampered with these translations, and introduced Arupa samapathis in some cases where they did not exist in the Samyukta agama.
Check out the Samyuttas on Sariputta and Moggallana, and compare these with agama parallels.
Did not VBB in his introduction to Samyutta nikaya say Majjima nikaya and Digha Nikaya were written for non-buddhists??? or something like that. Who were these non-buddhists? people who had previously meditated according to Arupa samapatthis, i.e. Jains and other brahmins, who converted to Buddhism?
When it comes to right meditation I trust only the Samyukta agama. Take for instance MN 10. To understand Satipatthana correctly one has to go to SN 47.42. The clear connection to right meditation and arrest of Dependent origination, is visible here.
Regards :candle:
cdpatton
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by cdpatton »

Pulsar wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:42 am A sutta that refers to Arupas has to be a later fabrication.
I'm always amazed at how *certain* people feel about these things. I'm sure it's reassuring to feel certain, but the jury is still out IMO regarding many of these debates. We haven't even got initial translations completed of the Chinese Agamas or early Abhidharma texts. Once that's done, parallel studies can be more comprehensive since they'll be opened up to more people than a few who can read Buddhist Chinese. I personally think some of these issues are honestly intractable because of the lack of any real history of early Buddhism beyond the later sutra collections. The reality to me is that even the Pali Nikayas are of similar age *in general* as the Chinese Agamas, i.e., ca. 0-600 AD. There's old material from earlier periods, of course, but figuring out exactly which bits are the oldest from the bits that are not-as-old will be quite a feat.
Pulsar wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 1:42 am Not a single sutta in Samyukta agama refers to Arupa samapatthis. Pali compilers tampered with these translations, and introduced Arupa samapathis in some cases where they did not exist in the Samyukta agama.
SA 807 did have a variant sutra that mentions the four arupa samapatthis. The translator's note reads:

> [0220b07] 如四禪,如是四無色定,亦如是說。
> "Like the four dhyanas, thus the four formless samapatthis are likewise."

Meaning that there was a sutra after SA 807 that substituted the formless samapatthis for the four dhyanas that the translator didn't translate (because it was otherwise identical).

I'm not finding any other occurrences of them beyond that, though I would stop short of saying they aren't in there somewhere. I haven't personally read the entire Samyukta Agama yet.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6789
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Coëmgenu »

cdpatton wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:03 amMeaning that there was a sutra after SA 807 that substituted the formless samapatthis for the four dhyanas that the translator didn't translate (because it was otherwise identical).

I'm not finding any other occurrences of them beyond that, though I would stop short of saying they aren't in there somewhere. I haven't personally read the entire Samyukta Agama yet.
I have shown that user numerous times when the arūpya samāpattis appear in the SĀ texts, yet they still constantly spread these false claims and untruths that supposedly SĀ doesn't have them. Sometimes they even provide doctored "translations" to "prove" that they are absent.

:alien:
I heard it from a friend who heard it from a guy just before last call at the Publican House: Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard abode at Osmow's. Seeing a patron heading to the bathroom, Thomas quickly moved to relieve the man of his selfishly undonated plate. Caught, he spoke:

"'It's yours' is an extreme. 'It's mine' is another.
The Bodhi-Wizard splits the shawarma down the middle.
A sandwich arisen of causes and conditions
is a nonexistent sandwich.
A nonexistent sandwich is a designatory convenience.
This is the riddling way."


The man was awestruck.
cdpatton
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:11 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by cdpatton »

Coëmgenu wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 11:06 am Sometimes they even provide doctored "translations" to "prove" that they are absent.
One wonders what the purpose of such stuff really is, other than to exhibit a personality disorder or two in a little academic corner of the universe where very few people pay any attention. Then there are the so-called translators who just denounce anything anyone shares publicly and reposts them with synonyms, nonsense terminology, and bad punctuation. :shrug:
asahi
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by asahi »

cdpatton wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 10:01 pm ......
If you check out

SA 有身
MA 自己有/自身

All refers to sakkāya
Peace is more precious than triumph
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6789
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Coëmgenu »

It's an issue of "to what extent can the translation be construed to match Venerable Bodhi" versus treating the Chinese as an independent text. CD Patton has identified the term as a hapax legomenon. Thus, even if it clearly has a referent, it will always be ambiguous to some extent.
I heard it from a friend who heard it from a guy just before last call at the Publican House: Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard abode at Osmow's. Seeing a patron heading to the bathroom, Thomas quickly moved to relieve the man of his selfishly undonated plate. Caught, he spoke:

"'It's yours' is an extreme. 'It's mine' is another.
The Bodhi-Wizard splits the shawarma down the middle.
A sandwich arisen of causes and conditions
is a nonexistent sandwich.
A nonexistent sandwich is a designatory convenience.
This is the riddling way."


The man was awestruck.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Pulsar »

There is not a single sutta in the Samyukta agama that makes a reference to Arupa Samapatthis, as I recalled.
In response cdpatton noted
"Except for SA 807 I'm not finding any other occurrences of them beyond that though I would stop short of saying they aren't in there somewhere. I haven't personally read the entire Samyukta Agama yet"
Thanks, you found a single sutta? but does it fit the bill? I looked into SA 807, using Sutra Central website. I did not find the variant you mention.
You noted
SA 807 did have a variant sutra that mentions the four arupa samapatthis. The translator's note reads:

> [0220b07] 如四禪,如是四無色定,亦如是說。
> "Like the four dhyanas, thus the four formless samapatthis are likewise."
It is however a translator's note only, right? a variant? that got it wrong?
  • Or did the translator mean formless samadhi, which the four buddhist jhanas are, but are not of the Brahmaniacal variety, that prevailed in India before Siddharta woke up?
  • SA 807 is the parallel to SN 54.11 At Icchanangala found in Anapanasamyutta.
Readers of the forum can check out the Pali parallel to SA 807 in the Pali canon. It is spotless, faithful to Chinese original. Nowhere does Buddha mention Arupa samapatthis, breath and breath alone, brings you all the way to Nibbana.
There is no Brahmaniacal intrusion into this sutta.
V. Sujato makes a brief synopsis of the sutta
The Buddha goes on a three month retreat, and later says that during that time he mostly practiced breath meditation.
The most significant thing the sutta says in VBB translation.
"If anyone, bhikkhus speaking rightly could say of anything: It is a noble dwelling, a divine dwelling, the Tathagata's dwelling, it is of concentration by mindfulness of breathing that one could rightly say this"
SN 54.11 the parallel to SA 807 which cdpatton introduced as the one exception to the rule under discussion, does not say Arupa samapatthis are a Tathagata's dwelling.
I have no doubt in this regard.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6789
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Fake news. You've been shown multiple times in multiple different threads where several other āgamasūtras feature them, such as SĀ 814.
I heard it from a friend who heard it from a guy just before last call at the Publican House: Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard abode at Osmow's. Seeing a patron heading to the bathroom, Thomas quickly moved to relieve the man of his selfishly undonated plate. Caught, he spoke:

"'It's yours' is an extreme. 'It's mine' is another.
The Bodhi-Wizard splits the shawarma down the middle.
A sandwich arisen of causes and conditions
is a nonexistent sandwich.
A nonexistent sandwich is a designatory convenience.
This is the riddling way."


The man was awestruck.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Pulsar »

Coemgenu brought up
SA 814
calling my translation of it Fake News. Let us compare, to be sure what is fake and what is not? Bring us your translation of SA 814 please. And while you are at it, can you fetch my translation too, which you object to. it is been a while.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6789
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Addition or Deletion?

Post by Coëmgenu »

The relevant section is here. You've already been shown it. I didn't object to a translation of it here. I did elsewhere, misremembering that you did not translate it, but instead made false claims about its contents. Instead, later in that thread, you give us a DeepL auto-translation that severely mangles the text.
I heard it from a friend who heard it from a guy just before last call at the Publican House: Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard abode at Osmow's. Seeing a patron heading to the bathroom, Thomas quickly moved to relieve the man of his selfishly undonated plate. Caught, he spoke:

"'It's yours' is an extreme. 'It's mine' is another.
The Bodhi-Wizard splits the shawarma down the middle.
A sandwich arisen of causes and conditions
is a nonexistent sandwich.
A nonexistent sandwich is a designatory convenience.
This is the riddling way."


The man was awestruck.
Post Reply