Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

Dear Bhante, Bryan,

Ven. Nyanananda has a great passage on that verse in his Nibbana Sermon No.
18 - you might be familiar with it. He also talks about the commentarial
interpretation of the verse:

As we mentioned before, if one is keen on getting a solution
> to the problems relating to Nibbāna, the discourses we are now
> taking up for discussion might reveal the deeper dimensions of
> that problem. We had to wind up our last sermon while drawing
> out the implications of the last line in the Paramaṭṭhakasutta of
> the Sutta Nipāta: pāraṃgato na pacceti tādi. We drew the
> inference that the steadfast one, the arahant, who is such-like,
> once gone to the farther shore, does not come back.
> We find, however, quite a different idea expressed in a verse
> of the Nālakasutta in the Sutta Nipāta. The verse, which was
> the subject of much controversy among the ancients, runs as
> follows:
> *Uccāvāca hi paṭipadā,
> samaṇena pakāsitā,
> na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti,
> na idaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ.*
>
> "High and low are the paths,
> Made known by the recluse,
> They go not twice to the farther shore,
> Nor yet is it to be reckoned a going once."
> The last two lines seem to contradict each other. There is no
> going twice to the farther shore, but still it is not to be conceived
> as a going once.
> Now, as for the first two lines, the high and low paths refer to
> the modes of practice adopted, according to the grades of understanding in
> different character types. For instances, the highest
> grade of persons attains Nibbāna by an easy path, being quickwitted, sukhā
> paṭipadā khippābhiññā, whereas the lowest grade
> attains it by a difficult path, being relatively dull-witted, dukkhā
> paṭipadā dandhābhiññā.
>


> *The problem lies in the last two lines. The commentary tries
> to tackle it by interpreting the reference to not going twice to
> the farther shore, na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, as an assertion that
> there is no possibility of attaining Nibbāna by the same path
> twice, ekamaggena dvikkhattuṃ nibbānaṃ na yanti*.
>
> The implication is that the supramundane path of a stream-winner,
> a once-returner or a non-returner arises only once. Why it is not
> to be conceived as a going once is explained as an acceptance
> of the norm that requires not less than four supramundane paths
> to attain arahant-hood.
>


> However, a deeper analysis of the verse in question would
> reveal the fact that it effectively brings up an apparent contradiction. *The
> commentary sidetracks* by resolving it into two
> different problems. The two lines simply reflect two aspects of the same
> problem.
>


> They go not twice to the farther shore, and this not going
> twice, na idaṃ, is however not to be thought of as a `going
> once' either. The commentary sidetracks by taking idaṃ, `this', to mean
> the farther shore, pāraṃ, whereas it comprehends the
> whole idea of not going twice. Only then is the paradox complete.
> In other words, this verse concerns the such-like one, the
> arahant, and not the stream-winner, the once-returner or the
> non-returner. Here we have an echo of the idea already expressed as the
> grand finale of the Paramaṭṭhakasutta: pāraṃ-
> gato na pacceti tādi, the such-like one, "gone to the farther
> shore, comes not back".
>


> It is the last line, however, that remains a puzzle. Why is
> this `not going twice,' not to be thought of as a `going once'?
> There must be something deep behind this riddle.
> Now, for instance, when one says `I won't go there twice',
> it means that he will go only once. When one says `I won't tell
> twice', it follows that he will tell only once. But here we are
> told that the arahant goes not twice, and yet it is not a going
> once.
> The idea behind this riddle is that the influx-free arahant,
> the such-like-one, gone to the farther shore, which is supramundane, does
> not come back to the mundane. Nevertheless, he
> apparently comes back to the world and is seen to experience
> likes and dislikes, pleasures and pains, through the objects of
> the five senses. From the point of view of the worldling, the
> arahant has come back to the world. This is the crux of the
> problem.
> Why is it not to be conceived of as a going once? Because
> the arahant has the ability to detach himself from the world
> from time to time and re-attain to that arahattaphalasamādhi.
> It is true that he too experiences the objects of the five external
> senses, but now and then he brings his mind to dwell in that *
> arahattaphalasamādhi*, which is like standing on the farther shore.
> Here, then, we have an extremely subtle problem. When the
> arahant comes back to the world and is seen experiencing the
> objects of the five senses, one might of course conclude that he
> is actually `in the world'. This problematic situation, namely the
> question how the influx-free arahant, gone to the farther shore,
> comes back and takes in objects through the senses, the Buddha
> resolves with the help of a simple simile, drawn from nature.
> For instance, we read in the Jarāsutta of the Sutta Nipāta the
> following scintillating lines.
> Udabindu yathā pi pokkhare,
> padume vāri yathā na lippati,
> evaṃ muni nopalippati,
> yadidaṃ diṭṭhasutammutesu vā.
> "Like a drop of water on a lotus leaf,
> Or water that taints not the lotus petal,
> So the sage unattached remains,
> In regard to what is seen, heard and sensed


sorry for the formatting:
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana18.htm




**
>
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> The first sentence is confusing because of ārodheyya - I think it is a
> mistake; should be "ārādheyya", as per the Thai edition.
>
> I would translate it as follows:
>
> "Thus, even though one has become fulfilled in deportment and duties of
> a bhikkhu, having not been satisfied by just so much, should further
> cultivate their practice."
>
> As for the "diguṇaṃ", "ekaguṇaṃ" part, first of all, this is mentioned
> in the Kv as proof that the arahant is not liable to fall away from the
> state of arahantship:
>
> 265. parihāyati arahā arahattāti? āmantā. nanu vuttaṃ bhagavatā —
>
> “uccāvacā hi paṭipadā, samaṇena pakāsitā.
>
> na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutan”ti .
>
> attheva suttantoti? āmantā. tena hi na vattabbaṃ — “parihāyati arahā
> arahattā”ti.
>
> The Thai translation of the Sn commentary translates the passage as,
> "[sages] do not go to nibbāna twice; this nibbana should not be
> contacted only once." It then goes on to translate the commentary much
> as you have it, except for the last phrase which it gives as "the
> non-attainment of arahantship by just one path".
>
> I think it is a bit of a riddle, that is meant to be solved as the
> commentary solves it - that nibbāna is only to be obtained once
> according to its specific nature of cutting off specific defilements,
> but in general, nibbāna is to be experienced at each of the paths and
> fruitions.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Yuttadhammo
>
>
> On 06/12/2012 01:36 PM, petra kieffer-Pülz wrote:
> >
> > Dear Bryan,
> >
> > The first sentence should be translated slightly different, I think.
> >
> > > “(This) is the construction of the verse 'uccāvaca'. (A monk) even
> > though he is successful in the practice of going about for alms in
> > that way, if he does not meet with pleasure by just this much (i.e. by
> > bhikkhaacaarasampatti), might obstruct his progress."
> > >
> > Best,
> > Petra
> >
> > Am 12.06.2012 um 04:29 schrieb Bryan Levman:
> >
> > >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >
> > > I am trying to understand verse 714 of this sutta which reads
> > >
> > > uccāvacā hi paṭipadā, samaṇena pakāsitā.
> > > na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ.
> > >
> > > Norman translates
> > >
> > > “For high and low are
> > > the paths proclaimed by the ascetic. They do not go to the far shore
> > twice;
> > > this is not experienced once.”
> > >
> > > Buddhaghosa seems to explain the verse in terms of the four modes of
> > progress (PED s.v. paṭipadā: "painful practice resulting in
> > > knowledge slowly acquired & quickly acquired, pleasant
> > > practice resulting in the same way"), presumably meaning that one
> > does not go to the far shore twice, because at each stage of the path
> > (which Norman idenitifes with sotāpanna, sakidāgāmin, anāgamin and
> > arahat) one has a unique nibbāna experience.
> > >
> > > Buddhaghoṣa's commentary and my attempt to translate follow. It is
> > not that clear, so if anyone has any suggestions for improving the
> > translation, I would be grateful,
> > >
> > > Metta, Bryan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > For the essence of religious practice is the teaching. And this is
> > the meaning of uccāvacā…pe…mutaṃ: this mode of progress on the path,
> > because of
> > >
> > > its division into the highest and the low, has been declared by the
> > recluse as
> > > high and low (uccāvacā buddhasamaṇena pakāsitā). For pleasant
> > practice, and
> > > the quick (acquisition of ) supernormal power is high; painful
> > practice, and the slow (acquisition of) supernormal power is
> > > low. The second two are high by one consideration, low by another
> > > (consideration); or just the first is high and the other three are
> > low. With
> > > this exertion, with this high or low mode of progress, they do not
> > go to the
> > > far shore of two kinds (na pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti, or alt.
> > > “they do not go to the far shore twice”). The reading “twice”
> > (duguṇaṃ) has the meaning “They do not go
> > > to nibbāna twice by a single path.” Why
> > > is that? The afflictions which were abandoned by means of this path,
> > they do
> > > not have to abandon again; by this, he is explaining the absence of
> > phenomena
> > > which have waned. This is not thought of as one quality (or alt.
> > “this is not
> > > experienced once”) (nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ mutaṃ). This far shore is not
> > worth attaining
> > > only once. Why? Because of the absence of the abandoning of all the
> > afflictions
> > > by means of the one path; therefore he explains the non-existence of
> > the state
> > > of an arahant by means of just the one path.”[1]
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > [1] PJ
> > > 2, 497-98: uccāvacāti imissā gāthāya
> > > sambandho — evaṃ bhikkhācāravattasampanno hutvāpi tāvatakeneva tuṭṭhiṃ
> > > anāpajjitvā paṭipadaṃ ārodheyya. paṭipattisārañhi sāsanaṃ. sā cāyaṃ
> > uccāvacā … pe … mutanti. tassattho — sā
> > > cāyaṃ maggapaṭipadā uttamanihīnabhedato uccāvacā buddhasamaṇena
> > pakāsitā.
> > > sukhāpaṭipadā hi khippābhiññā uccā, dukkhāpaṭipadā dandhābhiññā
> > avacā. itarā
> > > dve ekenaṅgena uccā, ekena avacā. paṭhamā eva vā uccā, itarā tissopi
> > avacā.
> > > tāya cetāya uccāya avacāya vā paṭipadāya na
> > > pāraṃ diguṇaṃ yanti. “duguṇan”ti vā pāṭho, ekamaggena dvikkhattuṃ
> > nibbānaṃ
> > > na yantīti attho. kasmā? yena maggena ye kilesā pahīnā, tesaṃ puna
> > > appahātabbato. etena parihānadhammābhāvaṃ dīpeti. nayidaṃ ekaguṇaṃ
> > mutanti tañca idaṃ pāraṃ ekakkhattuṃyeva
> > > phusanārahampi na hoti. kasmā? ekena maggena
> > sabbakilesappahānābhāvato. etena
> > > ekamaggeneva arahattābhāvaṃ dīpeti.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > [1] Norman, Group of Discourses, 88.
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]