Re: Sutta Nipāta 714

I don't really get the problem Ven. Nyanananda has with the commentary's
explanation; I find his explanation even less comprehensible.  it seems
simply a matter of understanding the difference between the root /i and
the root /mun (or muñc if we follow the Thai edition's "na yidaṃ
ekaguṇamuttaṃ").  One goes only once, i.e. does not repeat the same
ariya-magga twice, and yet one experiences nibbana at least four times
(one for each ariya-magga/phala), or one is freed in four stages, as per
the Thai edition.

Reading "muttaṃ" does seem to fit the commentary's explanation better.

On 06/13/2012 09:28 AM, Bryan Levman wrote:
>
> 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@... <mailto:novalis78%40gmail.com>>
> To: palistudy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:palistudy%40yahoogroups.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]
>
>


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