🟧 “…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

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

🟧 “…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

:reading:


I hadn’t planned on doing a session this short, but I was caught off guard by these two consecutive passages a few days ago and thought them worthy of at least week. The two words in question here are neyyattha (in need of interpretation) and nītattha (explicit), and it does not seem as though they appear anywhere else in the suttas, save a single mention in the obscurity of the Netti, deep in the KN.

What do we make of these? Is there some vindication here for those who have often insisted upon a lack of clarity at times in certain discourses? What is a case of a discourse in need of interpretation? Does this mean there is a time and a place for extra detail to bring out the meaning?


Let’s discuss. :smile:



:reading:


Aṅguttara Nikāya
Bālavagga (Chapter on Fools) AN 2.24-25
Translated by Ven. Bodhi


  • 24
    “Bhikkhus, these two misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation. These two misrepresent the Tathāgata.”

    25
    “Bhikkhus, these two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata.”

📚
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by mikenz66 »

This session could take a long time, given that:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: The question of which discourses of the Buddha are of explicit meaning (nītattha) and which require interpretation (neyyattha) became one of the most intensely debated issues in Buddhist hermeneutics. Starting with the early Indian Buddhist schools, the debate continued in such later Mahāyāna sūtras as the Akṣayamatinirdeśa and the Saṃdhinirmocana. The controversy continued even beyond India, in Sri Lanka, China, and Tibet. The Pāli commentaries decide this issue on the basis of the Abhidhamma distinction between ultimate realities and conventional realities.

Mp: “Those suttas that speak of one person (puggala), two persons, etc., require interpretation, for their meaning has to be interpreted in the light of the fact that in the ultimate sense a person does not exist (paramatthato pana puggalo nāma natthi). One who misconceives the suttas that speak about a person, holding that the person exists in the ultimate sense, explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as one whose meaning is explicit. A sutta whose meaning is explicit is one that explains impermanence, suffering, and non-self; for in this case the meaning is simply impermanence, suffering, and non-self. One who says, ‘This discourse requires interpretation,’ and interprets it in such a way as to affirm that ‘there is the permanent, there is the pleasurable, there is a self,’ explains a sutta of explicit meaning as one requiring interpretation.” The first criticism here is probably directed against the Puggalavādins, who held the person to be ultimately existent. The latter might have been directed against an early form of the tathāgatagarbha theory, which (in the Mahāyāna Parinirvāṇa Sūtra) affirmed a permanent, blissful, pure self.
The various English translations by Vens Bodhi, Sujato, Thanissaro, etc don't disagree with each other. The difficulty, as Ven Bodhi says, seems to be in deciding which discourses are which.

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

Hi, Mike. Thanks for the interesting information.
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by mjaviem »

In some suttas we see a teaching stated in brief that is explained in detail by the Buddha or by some disciple who understands the meaning. These brief statements IMO are but one example of teachings in need iof nterpretation. I think the ability to understand brief statements is present in those who have a sense of Dhamma and sense of meaning.
...
So it’s because he does know the meaning of this & that statement—’This is the meaning of that statement; that is the meaning of this’—that he is said to be one with a sense of meaning. This is one with a sense of Dhamma & a sense of meaning.
...

https://suttacentral.net/an7.68/en/than ... light=true
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings SDC,
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:11 am What do we make of these?
I'll comment on the Dhammapada verses because unlike Netti, I regard them as Buddhavacana worthy of study.
“Bhikkhus, these two misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation. These two misrepresent the Tathāgata.”

“Bhikkhus, these two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata. Which two? One who explains a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation as a discourse whose meaning requires interpretation, and one who explains a discourse whose meaning is explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two do not misrepresent the Tathāgata.”
First and foremost, this is about misrepresentation. People should not misrepresent the Tathāgata, because unlike the Tathāgata, that is not cool.

Now, as for the distinction, I reflect upon it in keeping with this sutta...
AN 5.2 wrote:"Monks, there are these five strengths for one in training. Which five? Strength of conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength of discernment.

"And what is strength of conviction? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, has conviction, is convinced of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' This, monks, is called the strength of conviction. "
Per the sutta, the Buddha is "unexcelled" as a Teacher.

Thus, however the Sutta was taught by him, that is how it should be known, since his exposition is unsurpassed.

Further, this practice, in and of itself, prevents misrepresentation, which as you'll recall, was the primary concern of these Dhammapada verses. Other suttas bearing similar messages, such as the Ani Sutta and (the four great references of) the Mahasatipatthana Sutta give me conviction that this is the proper approach.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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."
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by Bundokji »

SDC wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:11 am I hadn’t planned on doing a session this short, but I was caught off guard by these two consecutive passages a few days ago and thought them worthy of at least week. The two words in question here are neyyattha (in need of interpretation) and nītattha (explicit), and it does not seem as though they appear anywhere else in the suttas, save a single mention in the obscurity of the Netti, deep in the KN.

What do we make of these? Is there some vindication here for those who have often insisted upon a lack of clarity at times in certain discourses? What is a case of a discourse in need of interpretation? Does this mean there is a time and a place for extra detail to bring out the meaning?
The question of what is nītattha (explicit) or neyyattha (in need of interpretation) brought to mind the four ways of answering questions as taught by the Buddha:
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
The sequence probably indicate what would begin as straightforward or explicit, and ending with would be in need for interpretation. Two instances come to mind:

1- MN 38 where sati the fisherman misinterpreted the Buddha:
"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
The Buddha's objection to Sati is that he never explicitly/categorically said that consciousness runs and wanders on, then stating what he said in many different ways.

The other instance is SN 44.10 where Vacchagotta sought categorical answer. The Buddha's answer to Vacchagotta was silence, akin to setting aside the question. Then, the Buddha went on to explain his silence through the mindset of Vacchagotta and how would he understand the words of the blessed one.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:18 am Greetings SDC,
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:11 am What do we make of these?
I'll comment on the Dhammapada verses because unlike Netti, I regard them as Buddhavacana worthy of study.
Hi Paul, the passages for this week are from the AN, but I agree the Netti is certainly a curious character.
retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:18 am
Now, as for the distinction, I reflect upon it in keeping with this sutta...
AN 5.2 wrote:"Monks, there are these five strengths for one in training. Which five? Strength of conviction, strength of conscience, strength of concern, strength of persistence, & strength of discernment.

"And what is strength of conviction? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, has conviction, is convinced of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' This, monks, is called the strength of conviction. "
Per the sutta, the Buddha is "unexcelled" as a Teacher.

Thus, however the Sutta was taught by him, that is how it should be known, since his exposition is unsurpassed.
Are you saying that an individual with right view doesn’t need the interpretation? What about in the case of the ordinary person?
“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: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

Bundokji wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:15 pm
SDC wrote: Sun Apr 03, 2022 1:11 am I hadn’t planned on doing a session this short, but I was caught off guard by these two consecutive passages a few days ago and thought them worthy of at least week. The two words in question here are neyyattha (in need of interpretation) and nītattha (explicit), and it does not seem as though they appear anywhere else in the suttas, save a single mention in the obscurity of the Netti, deep in the KN.

What do we make of these? Is there some vindication here for those who have often insisted upon a lack of clarity at times in certain discourses? What is a case of a discourse in need of interpretation? Does this mean there is a time and a place for extra detail to bring out the meaning?
The question of what is nītattha (explicit) or neyyattha (in need of interpretation) brought to mind the four ways of answering questions as taught by the Buddha:
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
The sequence probably indicate what would begin as straightforward or explicit, and ending with would be in need for interpretation. Two instances come to mind:

1- MN 38 where sati the fisherman misinterpreted the Buddha:
"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."
The Buddha's objection to Sati is that he never explicitly/categorically said that consciousness runs and wanders on, then stating what he said in many different ways.

The other instance is SN 44.10 where Vacchagotta sought categorical answer. The Buddha's answer to Vacchagotta was silence, akin to setting aside the question. Then, the Buddha went on to explain his silence through the mindset of Vacchagotta and how would he understand the words of the blessed one.
Good stuff here, B! Yes, I was actually reading AN 4.42 when searching for a sutta yesterday for your thread about sotapatti. It is definitely a great companion for AN 2.24-25.
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SDC wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:41 pm Hi Paul, the passages for this week are from the AN
Right you are. It was the "twin verse" nature of the Sutta that led to the wrong association.
SDC wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:41 pmAre you saying that an individual with right view doesn’t need the interpretation? What about in the case of the ordinary person?
There were both individuals with right view and "ordinary people" in the Buddha's day. If an alternative exposition required, it would have been said, and it would have been remembered.

But to entertain your question, often one discourse can shed light upon another, but that's not due to a deficiency in the teaching... it's only reflective of the way that the individual's Right View evolves as the pieces come together.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by Ceisiwr »

This opens up an old debate. For Ābhidhammikas, the suttas don't always answer what is neyyattha. The Abhidhamma/Abhidharma and commentaries do. For Suttavādins/Sautrāntika, what is neyyattha is explained in other suttas/sutras.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:10 pm This opens up an old debate. For Ābhidhammikas, the suttas don't always answer what is neyyattha. The Abhidhamma/Abhidharma and commentaries do. For Suttavādins/Sautrāntika, what is neyyattha is explained in other suttas/sutras.
There is no debate over whether or not this is an accurate characterization of the debate. :D

Well said Ceisiwr.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 9:04 pm Greetings,
SDC wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:41 pm Hi Paul, the passages for this week are from the AN
Right you are. It was the "twin verse" nature of the Sutta that led to the wrong association.
SDC wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 1:41 pmAre you saying that an individual with right view doesn’t need the interpretation? What about in the case of the ordinary person?
There were both individuals with right view and "ordinary people" in the Buddha's day. If an alternative exposition required, it would have been said, and it would have been remembered.

But to entertain your question, often one discourse can shed light upon another, but that's not due to a deficiency in the teaching... it's only reflective of the way that the individual's Right View evolves as the pieces come together.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Hi Paul, bearing in mind the likelihood that certain discourses were presented to those with varying degrees of wisdom, wouldn’t it make sense that a certain discourse said at one time may not have required interpretation, but at a later date the listener would be in need of one? Obviously this does not imply any such deficiency, but since discourses did get passed on in their original form, one given to anagami would, in all likelihood, require interpretation if uttered to an ordinary person attempting to make any use of it, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps that is what this is suggesting?
“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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
SDC wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 1:42 am Obviously this does not imply any such deficiency, but since discourses did get passed on in their original form, one given to anagami would, in all likelihood, require interpretation if uttered to an ordinary person attempting to make any use of it, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps that is what this is suggesting?
It's certainly not wrong. Right View with Asavas and Right View without Asavas are radically different in terms of their exposition and goals. For example, the Buddha spoke about people being reborn and different destinations all the time to puthujjanas and Ananda. However when he was speaking to ariya, it wasn't discussed other than in a "you've suffered through many births, so let's get the job done" sort of way. Sariputta was even rebuked by the Buddha for giving instructions which would lead a dying ariya to high rebirth.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"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
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍“…whose meaning requires interpretation”, AN 2.24-25 (In session until 4/10/22)

Post by SDC »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 1:59 am Greetings,
SDC wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 1:42 am Obviously this does not imply any such deficiency, but since discourses did get passed on in their original form, one given to anagami would, in all likelihood, require interpretation if uttered to an ordinary person attempting to make any use of it, wouldn’t you agree? Perhaps that is what this is suggesting?
It's certainly not wrong. Right View with Asavas and Right View without Asavas are radically different in terms of their exposition and goals. For example, the Buddha spoke about people being reborn and different destinations all the time to puthujjanas and Ananda. However when he was speaking to ariya, it wasn't discussed other than in a "you've suffered through many births, so let's get the job done" sort of way. Sariputta was even rebuked by the Buddha for giving instructions which would lead a dying ariya to high rebirth.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Very true.

I'm wondering now does it have to do with whoever is presenting or evaluating a discourse already uttered previously - whether the next day after the Buddha or now, 2500 years later. In that, if the listener were to ask for clarification - bearing in mind the four ways to respond to questions from AN 4.42 - that it is the responsibility of the presenter to accurately convey to the listener whether or not the meaning is explicit or, through the offer of an interpretation, there is the implication that, yes, this specific discourse did indeed require clarification.

Now the money question for all: AN 2.24-25, which is about discourses being either explicit or in need of interpretation, is it itself explicit or in need of interpretation? :popcorn:
“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
Locked