[Buddha-l] Non-arising

[Dan Lusthaus]

Dear Bernhard,

> 1. kṣānti:
> "kṣānti is associated with the Earth". Yes, I remember many suttas and
> sutras, where the earth is named as an example for patience and
> equanamity. But I can see nothing that assists Lamotte's 'certainty'
> (except perhaps 'The state of saintly abstraction').

Perhaps I was not as clear as I might have been. The Earth associations take 
two primary avenues:

(1) patience, forbearance, bearing, what is patiently borne [not to be 
confused with born], etc.

(2) firm, solid, basis, secure, safe, strong, mighty, powerful, etc.

It was the second, in the sense of being or feeling assured, being 
established on a firm foundation, that I take to be the sense in which 
Lamotte is using "certainty." This is no longer about "patience, 
forbearing," etc., but something else. If you have a better word that 
summarizes the connotations of the second Earth aspect, use that instead.

The PTS Dict. has, under Anīka (page  33), the following: "...Sn 623 (bala˚ 
strong in arms, with strong array i. e. of khanti, which precedes; cp. SnA 
467)." You may wish to check those references.

> in the Nibbana Sutta, Ud 8.1 (PTS:
> Ud 80), (transl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html :
> "There is that dimension 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, unevolving, without support (mental
> object).This, just this, is the end of stress."

My favorite version of this is the Bāhiya Sutta (Udana I.10) -- one of the 
most stunning tragi-comic suttas in the Pali canon.

It ends with a spontaneous verse offered by the Buddha:

Where water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing:
    There the stars do not shine,
        the sun is not visible,
        the moon does not appear,
        darkness is not found.
    And when a sage,
        a brahmin through sagacity,
        has known [this] for himself,
    then from form & formless,
        from bliss & pain,
            he is freed.

Yattha āpoca paṭhavī tejo vāyo na gādhati.
Na tattha sukkā jotanti ādicco nappakāsati,
Na tattha candimā bhāti tamo tattha na vijjati.

Yadā ca attanā vedī muni monena brāhmaṇo,
Atha rūpā arūpā ca sukhadukkhā pamuccatī"ti.

Note the inclusion of "darkness is not found." Important.

Earlier, Buddha instructed Bāhiya with the following (considered the 
essentialized, condensed version of Buddha's teaching -- cf. Māluṅkyaputta 
Sutta in Anguttara Nikaya ii. 248; PTS English, Gradual Sayings, II, p. 
253f, and Samyutta N. iv. 72 -- this is the same Māluṅkyaputta who learns 
the avyakata questions re: the arrow in M 63, PTS: M i 426, the 
Cūla-Māluṅkyovāda sutta):

"diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ 
bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissatī"ti. Evaṃ hi te bāhiya, 
sikkhitabbaṃ.

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, 
there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In 
reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only 
the cognized. That is how you should train yourself."

[but notice how, in the Pali, Buddha is actually quoting himself, by the 
placement of the iti]

That this has affinities with the Yogacara notion of vijñapti-mātra (cf. 
viññāte viññātamattaṃ, etc.) is not the only reason I like this particular 
formula. This formula is immediately followed by another (with its own iti):

Yato kho te bāhiya, diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ 
bhavissati, mute mutamattaṃ bhavissati. Viññāte viññātamattaṃ bhavissati, 
tato tvaṃ bāhiya na tena. Yato tvaṃ bāhiya na tena, tato tvaṃ bāhiya na 
tattha. Yato tvaṃ bāhiya na tattha, tato tvaṃ bāhiya nevidha , na huraṃ, na 
ubhayamantare. Esevanto dukkhassā"ti,

There are some translations online, as well as in print, but none does this 
somewhat cryptic passage justice.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the identical formula addressed to 
Māluṅkyaputta (Connected Discourses, II, p. 1175-76) is:

"Here, Māluṅkyaputta, regarding things, seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by 
you: in the seen there will be merely the seen; in the heard there will be 
merely the heard; in the sensed there will be merely the sensed; in the 
cognized there will be merely the cognized.
"When, Māluṅkyaputta, regarding things, seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by 
you, in the seen there will be merely the seen, in the heard there will be 
merely the heard, in the sensed there will be merely the sensed, in the 
cognized there will be merely the cognized, then, Māluṅkyaputta, you will 
not be 'by that.' When, Māluṅkyaputta, you are not 'by that,' then you will 
no be 'therein.' When, Māluṅkyaputta, you are not 'therein,' then you will 
be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of 
suffering."

Online English versions of Bahiya Sutta:

(Ireland)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html
(Thanissaro)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

of the Māluṅkyaputta
(Thanissaro)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.than.html
(Walsh)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.095.wlsh.html

(Maybe Lance would like to weigh in with a parsing of this very interesting 
passage.)

Note that while the Māluṅkyaputtasutta in S. merges the two formulas without 
assigning them separate iti-s, the Udana version clearly does so. So the 
question remains, does this splicing result in a coherent product? I don't 
think so. Arguments (or evidence) from authority merely gainsay authority, 
not coherence.

> 4.
>> There is nothing coherent in a doctrinal system grounded on causal
>> analysis that suddenly argues, without coherent argument, that
>> nothing arises or ceases.
> As far as my own meditation experience is concerned, I can confirm the
> existence of states of consciousness, where there is no more perception
> of time,

The question is: Are these "states" *caused* by meditation? If so, then to 
talk about them as non-causal is both misleading and dishonest, since they 
have a cause. If they are not caused by meditation, then "when, where," etc. 
do you have such experiences? Were you "timeless" before or after 3 p.m.? 4 
p.m.? How many years ago?

Description is judged by accuracy, not necessarily coherence, since an 
inaccurate description can still appear coherent (e.g., mistaking soldiers 
on horseback for centaurs--which might seem coherent as long as one lacks 
rudimentary knowledge of the biological sciences).

Dan