SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by Anicca »

phil wrote:By the way, if your user name is anicca, why doesn't it keep changing?
Oh, it changes - Anicca to anicca to annica to Annica to annicca to ... everything goes round and round in this circle game! :tongue:
mikenz66 wrote:Looks like Anicca is currently at the top of the class...
Please, help me down! Heights scare me.
I'm taking a seat at the back of the room.

metta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

OK class, pay attention! :reading:

Some comments from the Commentary suggesting that the Venerable was panicked into giving an incorrect response:

"When this was said, the Venerable Anuradha said to those wanderers ... he describes them apart from these four cases: ... "

Spk: It is said that he thought: "These are hostile enemies of the Teaching. The Teacher would not describe (the Tathagata) as they say. He must have described him in some other way."
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by Anicca »

I came across this regarding the mind, Nibbana and the Tathagata (he later mentions SN 22.85 The Yamaka Sutta as well as our Anuradha Sutta) ...

from: Straight from the Heart: Thirteen Talks on the Practice of Meditation by Venerable Acariya Maha Boowa Ñanasampanno - The Conventional Mind, The Mind Released
It's not something that can be expressed like conventional things in general, because it's not a conventional reality. It lies solely within the range of those who are non-conventional, who know their own non-conventionality. For this reason, it can't be described.
Those pesky hindrances - got my mouth watering for that "indescribably delicious" Mounds bar ... oops back to topic ...
mikenz66 wrote:OK class, pay attention! :reading:
Some comments from the Commentary suggesting that the Venerable was panicked into giving an incorrect response:
"When this was said, the Venerable Anuradha said to those wanderers ... he describes them apart from these four cases: ... "
Spk: It is said that he thought: "These are hostile enemies of the Teaching. The Teacher would not describe (the Tathagata) as they say. He must have described him in some other way."
Doesn't a lapse of mindfulness just heap more unskillful behavior on the Venerable Anuradha? It certainly does not excuse him, does it?

As one who does not know their own non-conventionality - I would not attempt to describe the Tathagata (or Nibbana - or the mind) other than to quote word for word the Tathagata's own description of the indescribable. Panicked or not - it seems the Venerable Anuradha attempted the "undoable".

Do the commentaries say that the Venerable Anuradha reached any certain stage of awakening? Didn't the Buddha warn against teaching when, well, paraphrasing Ajahn Boowa, "one does not know their own non-conventionality"?

metta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh011-p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anatta and Nibbana -Egolessness and Deliverance
by
Nyanaponika Thera

Section 6.


The two main-types of a positive-metaphysical interpretation of Nibbana can be easily included in a considerable number of false views mentioned, classified and rejected by the Buddha. A selection of applicable classifications will be presented in what follows. This material, additional to the fundamental remarks in the preceding section, will furnish an abundance of documentation for the fact that not a single eternalistic conception of self and Nibbana, of any conceivable form, is reconcilable with the teachings of the Buddha as found in their oldest available presentation in the Pali Canon.

(a) In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN 22:86) we read: “Do you think, Anuradha, that the Perfect One (tathagata) is apart from corporeality (aññatra rupa) … apart from consciousness?” [10] — “Certainly not, O Lord.” — “Do you think that the Perfect One is someone without corporeality (arupi) … someone without consciousness?” [11] — “Certainly not, O Lord.” — “Since the Perfect One, Anuradha, cannot, truly and really, be found by you even during lifetime, is it befitting to declare: ’He who is the Perfect One, the highest being … that Perfect One can be made known outside of these four possibilities: The Perfect One exists after death … does not exist … exists in some way and in another way not … can neither be said to exist nor not to exist’?” — “Certainly not, O Lord.”

This text applies to both main-types of view which assume a self beyond the aggregates. It should be mentioned here that the commentary paraphrases the words “the Perfect One” (tathagata) by “living being” (satta). That is probably meant to show that the statements in the text are valid not only for the conventional term “the Perfect One” but also for any other terms designating an individuality.

...

[10] I.e., outside the aggregates taken singly.
[11] I.e., outside the aggregates as a whole.
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by Anicca »

Hi Mike!
mikenz66 wrote:http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh011-p.html
It should be mentioned here that the commentary paraphrases the words “the Perfect One” (tathagata) by “living being” (satta). That is probably meant to show that the statements in the text are valid not only for the conventional term “the Perfect One” but also for any other terms designating an individuality.
Does readng this change your previous statement?
mikenz66 wrote:Certainly one can argue that the "self" of a worldling is an illusion but I think that the arahant's unfathomability is more than that ...
If "things" such as Nibbana, Tathagata and self (not that there is any "thing" - "thing" used merely as a conventional placeholder) is indescribable or unfathomable in conventional terms - can the depth of that "unfathomableness" be described as more or less?

:thinking:

metta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Anicca,

Good point, but there are a lot of statements about the unfathomability of the Tatagata and how Mara cannot find him as in the above quote:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ad#p106306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps it depends on the meaning one puts to the various terms...

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

"Good, good, Anuradha! Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering."

BB: This oft-quoted dictum can be interpreted at two levels. At the more superficial level the Buddha can be read as saying that he does no make any declaration about such metaphysical questions as an afterlife but teaches only a practical path for reaching the end of suffering. This interpretation, however, does not connect the dictum with the Buddha's previous statement that the Tathagata is not apprehended in this very life. To make this connection we have to bring in the second interpretation, according to which "Tathagata" is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are "suffering" [dukkha] because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathagata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away. The context in which the dictum occurs at
MN 22 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. ..."
also supports this interpretation.
Anicca
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by Anicca »

mikenz66 wrote:"Tathagata" is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are "suffering" [dukkha] because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathagata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away.
And at a personal level, "self" is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are "suffering" [dukkha] because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the "self" lives, and just these that are reborn with the "self" passing away. (Emphasis placed on that which differentiates "us", the unawakened, from the Tathagata.)

True?

metta
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 22.86 Anuradha Sutta

Post by mikenz66 »

Anicca wrote:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:"Tathagata" is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are "suffering" [dukkha] because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathagata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away.
And at a personal level, "self" is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are "suffering" [dukkha] because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the "self" lives, and just these that are reborn with the "self" passing away. (Emphasis placed on that which differentiates "us", the unawakened, from the Tathagata.)

True?
I think so, this gets at a fundamental difference between us and an Arahant.

:anjali:
Mike
Locked