RE: Migasālā (AN 6.44 and AN 10.75)

From: venbodhi@...
Message: 4436
Date: 2015-10-17

Dear Robert,
 
On the surface the second passage you cite from AN 10.75 seems to contradict the constant insistence of the suttas that samādhi and paññā depend on sīla and arise on the foundation of sīla. Take for example the sequence that occurs in several nipātas of the Aṅguttara Nikāya, starting with the Fives, in which it is said that one who is deficient in virtue lacks the supporting condition for the higher stages of the path. The simplest form of this sequence is at AN 5.24. I will cite only the English translation:

"(1) For an immoral person, for one deficient in virtuous behavior, (2) right concentration lacks its proximate cause. When there is no right concentration, for one deficient in right concentration, (3) the knowledge and vision of things as they really are lacks its proximate cause. When there is no knowledge and vision of things as they really are, for one deficient in the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, (4) disenchantment and dispassion lack their proximate cause. When there is no disenchantment and dispassion, for one deficient in disenchantment and dispassion, (5) the knowledge and vision of liberation lacks its proximate cause. Suppose there is a tree deficient in branches and foliage. Then its shoots do not grow to fullness; also its bark, softwood, and heartwood do not grow to fullness. So too, for an immoral person, one deficient in virtuous behavior, right concentration lacks its proximate cause. When there is no right concentration … the knowledge and vision of liberation lacks its proximate cause….”

Note that here the commentary, Manorathapūraṇī, identifies “knowledge and vision of things as they really are” (yathābhūta­ñāṇa­dassana) with tender insight (taruṇavipassanā); “disenchantment” (nibbidā), with strong insight (balavavipassanā); and “dispassion” (virāga), with the noble path.

So the above statement appears to contradict the passage you cite:
ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti. tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti yatthassa taṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhati. tassa savanenapi kataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti, diṭṭhiyāpi paṭividdhaṃ hoti, sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ labhati. so kāyassa bhedāparaṃ maraṇā visesāya pareti, no hānāya; visesagāmīyeva hoti, no hānagāmī.

The only way that I can reconcile the two is by supposing either:
(1) that the person under discussion had been dussīla in the past but had subsequently changed his behavior, had adopted the precepts, and had fulfilled the other requirements mentioned (learning, penetration by view, etc.); or
(2) that this person is presently of immoral behavior but (as the Sayadaw said) has the potential to fulfill the rest of the training.

On either interpretation, the person being criticized by the Buddha is the one who seizes upon the other’s immoral behavior (whether past or present) and on that basis forms a disparaging judgment about that person. Since the Buddha can see the hidden potentials of people, he alone is entitled to make definitive judgments about a person's spiritual status.
 
You quote and translate a passage from the commentary:
dhammasoto nibbahatīti sūraṃ hutvā pavattamānaṃ vipassanāñāṇaṃ nibbahati, ariyabhūmiṃ pāpeti.
”Being a hero, the flow of vipassana insight carries him along or stretches him out, and makes him reach the plane of the Noble Ones."

I don’t think sūraṃ hutvā has anything to do with a hero. The phrase is describing vipassanāñāṇaṃ, and so sūraṃ hutvā must be relevant to “insight knowledge.” I cannot find a meaning of sūra that fits the context, though perhaps ‘strong’ would work. But I wonder whether sūraṃ might be an ancient textual error for pūraṃ = full. This word, pūraṃ, would fit well with both ñāṇaṃ and the image of a stream to which the knowledge is being compared. Confusions between ‘p’ and ‘s’ are not uncommon in the texts, and such an error may have occurred here. The word pavattamānaṃ also describes vipassanāñāṇaṃ. Thus I would render: “Having become strong (or ‘full’), the knowledge of insight, flowing on, carries him along and makes him reach the plane of the noble ones.”
 
Finally, what is the meaning of the sentence: “imassa hi puggalassa paññā sīlaṃ paridhovati, so paññāparidhotena visesaṃ pāpuṇāti”? How can this worldly knowledge (lokiyapaññā) cleanse his sīlaṃ?
“For this person, wisdom cleanses behavior; he reaches excellence through purified wisdom.”

It is not hard to understand how mundane knowledge cleanses behavior. A person of immoral behavior who gains insight into impermanence and suffering may be motivated to abandon his transgressions and adopt a code of moral behavior. An example would be Aṅgulimāla. The ṭīkā to the Aṅguttara Nikāya gives the example of the minister Santati, who was fond of liquor and women. The Buddha saw that he had the potential for arahantship, spoke a verse to him, and on the spot he attained arahantship. The story is related here:
http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/sa/santati.htm

I hope these answers, which are partly speculative, help to shed some light on the passage under discussion.

With best wishes,


Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
Chuang Yen Monastery
2020 Route 301
Carmel NY 10512
U.S.A.

To help feed the hungry and educate poor children around the world, check out:
http://www.buddhistglobalrelief.org/main.html

For lectures and teachings:
http://www.bodhimonastery.net/bm/
http://www.noblepath.org/audio.html
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/venbodhi

Public photo albums:
http://picasaweb.google.com/venbodhi
 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [palistudy] Migasālā_(AN_6.44_and_AN_10.75)
From: "florent.robert@... [palistudy]" <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, October 16, 2015 1:32 pm
To: <palistudy@yahoogroups.com>

 
Dear All,

I have a question regarding the two Migasālā suttas which can be found at AN 6.44 and AN 10.75. Both suttas refer to the same story of Migasālā who questions Venerable Ananda regarding the reason why both her father Purāṇa and her uncle Isidatta attained to the state of Once Returner when they died, although the former was a celibate (brahmacārī) and the latter not (abrahmacārī). Besides the fact that it is strange that Purāṇa is considered as a celibate since he has a daughter, namely Migasālā, I am a bit puzzled by the following passages in AN 10.75 and how to interpret them.

First the Buddha refers to a person who is immoral (ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti ) and who is not learned in the teachings (bāhusaccenapi akataṃ hoti ), has not penetrated them (diṭṭhiyāpi appaṭividdhaṃ hoti ) and how this person will go to degradation after death (paraṃ maraṇā hānāya pareti).

Here’s the full passage:

idhānanda, ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti. tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, yatthassa taṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhati. tassa savanenapi akataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi akataṃ hoti, diṭṭhiyāpi appaṭividdhaṃ hoti, sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ na labhati. so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā hānāya pareti, no visesāya; hānagāmīyeva hoti, no visesagāmī.

Then the Buddha refers to the same kind of immoral person (ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti) but who this time is learned in the teachings (bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti), has penetrated them (diṭṭhiyāpi paṭividdhaṃ hoti) and how this person will head for excellence (so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā visesāya pareti).
Here’s the passage:

ekacco puggalo dussīlo hoti. tañca cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti yatthassa taṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhati. tassa savanenapi kataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti, diṭṭhiyāpi paṭividdhaṃ hoti, sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ labhati. so kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā visesāya pareti, no hānāya; visesagāmīyeva hoti, no hānagāmī.

What I don’t really understand in the second case is how it is possible for that person to be still immoral if he has penetrated the teachings and if he attains temporary liberation (sāmāyikampi vimuttiṃ labhati). I asked a Sayadaw about this passage and he told me that the terms savanenapi kataṃ hoti, bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hoti,… should be considered more as potentialities. He has the potential to penetrate the Dhamma, and this only the Buddha can knows (tadantaraṃ ko jāneyya, aññatra tathāgatena) and therefore he exhorts us not to judge other people (tasmātihānanda, mā puggalesu pamāṇikā ahuvattha, mā puggalesu pamāṇaṃ gaṇhittha).

I started to look at the commentaries and here’s how ‘he understands as it really is’ (yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti) is glossed:

yathābhūtaṃ pajānātīti “sotāpattiphalaṃ patvā pañcavidhaṃ dussīlyaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjhatī”ti uggahaparipucchāvasena jānāti.
             
It seems to indicate that he knows through learning and questioning that the fivefold immorality ceases without remainder when the fruit of Sotāpatti is attained. Can we therefore say that although he is immoral, he knows indirectly (without having realized it) that his immorality will cease when he attains the fruit of Sotāpatti?

bāhusaccenapi kataṃ hotīti vīriyena kattabbayuttakaṃ antamaso dubbalavipassanāmattakampi kataṃ hoti.

diṭṭhiyāpi suppaṭividdhaṃ hotīti antamaso lokiyapaññāyapi paccayapaṭivedho kato hoti. imassa hi puggalassa paññā sīlaṃ paridhovati, so paññāparidhotena visesaṃ pāpuṇāti.

sāmayikampi vimuttiṃ na labhatīti kālānukālaṃ dhammassavanaṃ nissāya pītipāmojjaṃ na labhati.

So he has gained some weak vipassana through effort, he has penetrated [the teachings] by worldly knowledge and he obtained some joy and gladness by listening to the Dhamma for a while.

And later the Buddha says that this latter person (the immoral one who has some understanding) is better than the former (ayaṃ, ānanda, puggalo amunā purimena puggalena abhikkantataro ca paṇītataro ca), the reason being that the Dhamma stream carries him along (taṃ kissa hetu? imaṃ hānanda, puggalaṃ dhammasoto nibbahati).

But then the commentary says: dhammasoto nibbahatīti sūraṃ hutvā pavattamānaṃ vipassanāñāṇaṃ nibbahati, ariyabhūmiṃ pāpeti, being a hero, the flow of vipassana insight carries him along or stretches him out, and makes him reach the plane of the Noble Ones.

This seems to imply that although he is immoral, he is carried along by vipassana insight. Isn’t this in contradiction with what is said before? Doesn’t that in a way mean that he is already a Sotapanna?
Finally, what is the meaning of the sentence: “imassa hi puggalassa paññā sīlaṃ paridhovati, so paññāparidhotena visesaṃ pāpuṇāti”? How can this worldly knowledge (lokiyapaññā) cleanse his sīlaṃ?

Sorry for all these questions, but any advice on how to correctly interpret this Sutta would be welcome.

Florent
Next in thread: 4439
Previous message: 4435
Next message: 4437

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts