Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

Dear Lennart and Ven. Yuttadhammo,

Thanks very much for your suggestions and a copy of Ven Nyanananda's commentary which was very helpful. Is there a book reference for this commentary (in addition to the web address you gave), if I want to quote it?


While I now understand how Ven. Nyanananda (and others) have interpreted the passage, I wonder if it is simpler to interpret it with a slightly different twist, within the context of the Nālaskutta where the Buddha is explicating "the supreme state of sagehood" ( moneyyaṃ uttamaṃ padaṃ). Here he talks about various virtues including the virtue of equanimity - he is not opposed and not attached to living creatures (704), he has given up what is to be done and what is not to be done (715), he is neither inactive in mind, nor thinks too much (717), - in short he has gone beyond the dualities whereby we organize and create the world. I therefore propose to interpret diguṇa as an adjective (not an adverb) modifying pāraṃ, meaning "the far shore of two qualities" and would translate


“High and low are the paths proclaimed by the recluse, (but) they do not go to
a far shore of two kinds, nor is that (far shore) thought of as having (even)
one quality.”
 

In other words the arhat has transcended all dualities and even the notion of "oneness" (which of course presupposes twoness).

The Mahāvastu has a version of this verse which I think suggests this translation more cogently than the Pāli.


na pāraṃ dviguṇāyati nāpi caivaṃ
guṇāyati /
uccāvacā pratipadā śrāmaṇyena prakāśitā // (3.389)

“The
other shore does not appear as a quality of two, nor does it appear as a
quality at all in any way, (though) the path is proclaimed as high and low by
those practicing religious austerity.”


This verse may well be earlier than the Pāli. For one thing, it has only one metrical irregularity (syllable 5-7 of the first pāda), while the Pāli version has several (see Norman, Group of Discourses, 298).  And it's meaning seems to be clearer - i. e. I don't think it can be interpreted in the way the Pāli verse is. The verbs dvigunāyati and guṇāyati.are denominatives. The latter verb means "to become or appear as a merit, or quality" (MW). dviguṇāyati would mean "to become or appear as a quality of two, to appear twofold or double."

In this translation, the verse would also echo the refrain from the Uragasutta, "the bhikkhu... leaves this shore and the far shore as a snake leaves its old worn-out skin" (so bhikkhu jahāti orapāraṃ, urago jiṇṇamivattacaṃ purāṇaṃ.) and other parts of the Sn as well (e.g. 842, 849, 919, 949, 954, 1098, 1099, 1113,etc.)


What do you think of this as a possible interpretation?

Best wishes, Bryan



________________________________
  From: Lennart Lopin <novalis78@...>
To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 9:59:04 AM
Subject: Re: [palistudy] 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]




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