"Rain soddens what's covered..."

[rowboat]

From there:

"[3] And furthermore, just as the ocean does not tolerate a dead body — any dead body in the ocean getting quickly washed to the shore and thrown up on dry land — in the same way, if an individual is unprincipled, evil, unclean & suspect in his undertakings, hidden in his actions — not a contemplative though claiming to be one, not leading the holy life though claiming to do so, inwardly rotten, oozing with desire, filthy by nature — the community has no affiliation with him.

The underlined portion seems like a description of a confined, rained-on sort of place, while the ocean, when rained on, isn't affected at all, and is exposed & open, and expels impurities...

That's right. The soddened in this context is the unfortunate bhikkhu who was turned out from the Sangha. His crimes are what should have been uncovered. The Buddha gave him a great deal of time to step forward in that Uposatha gathering, which is a time when bhikkhus are expected to reveal their transgressions to the Sangha.

[Kumara]

I directed the issue to [email protected] and Bryan Levman gave this reply:

I wonder if this is an allusion to Sn 18 and 19, where Dhaniya brags about his well-thatched hut which will protect him against the rain god, while the Buddha says "My hut is uncovered, my fire is quenched, so rain sky-deva, if you wish (Norman, 3).

18.

“pakkodano duddhakhīrohamasmi, (iti dhaniyo gopo)
anutīre mahiyā samānavāso.
channā kuṭi āhito gini, atha ce patthayasī pavassa deva”.

19.

“akkodhano vigatakhilohamasmi (iti bhagavā)
anutīre mahiyekarattivāso.
vivaṭā kuṭi nibbuto gini, atha ce patthayasī pavassa deva”.

Note the similarity of language with channā used by the householder in a positive sense, while the Buddha basically inverts it to vivaṭā, also used in Th 448

In a similar passage in Th 1, where the monk's kuṭikā is also well-covered, the commentary equates the hut with the atta-bhāvo which contains the monkey mind.

attabhāvo hi kaṭṭhādīni paṭicca labbhamānā gehanāmikā kuṭikā viya aṭṭhiādisaññite pathavīdhātuādike phassādike ca paṭicca labbhamāno “kuṭikā”ti vutto, cittamakkaṭassa nivāsabhāvato ca. (Th-1, 29).

[Kumara]

I was also thinking that the metaphor may be deliberately opposite is say the case is opposite when it comes to the mind and kilesa.

[Dhammanando]

I directed the issue to [email protected] and Bryan Levman gave this reply:

I wonder if this is an allusion to Sn 18 and 19, where Dhaniya brags about his well-thatched hut which will protect him against the rain god, while the Buddha says "My hut is uncovered, my fire is quenched, so rain sky-deva, if you wish (Norman, 3).

Good find.

[Mr Man]

I noticed Ben's signature and thought of this thread

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.

Sutta Nipata 3.725

[dubxion]

When I first read the first stanza of this passage (“rain soddens...”), it really resonated with me. I think of it in terms of trying to shield something that’s not really there, and the covering is what causes all the problems. So, suffering comes from trying to protect (cover) a self that isn’t there, resulting in a thrashing by samsara on the covering. Inwardly for me, this relates directly to trying to live with an open heart instead of trying to protect it in relationships. Think along the lines of shielding yourself from hurt in a relationship- avoiding a “broken heart”. There’s some passage I read from Suzuki Roshi, something about ducking as you pass through the rain between buildings, but you still get wet.

[samsarictravelling]

Rain soddens what's covered & doesn't sodden what's exposed. So open up what's covered up, so that it won't get soddened by the rain.

Sodden — adj — saturated, especially with water; soaked through

Can somebody explain to me the meaning of this quote? How can rain not saturate that which is covered/protected?

I don't know if anyone answered your question yet with what I am going to say (I am only looking at your question):

If something gets wet, if you cover it up, it doesn't dry (or dry very well)? If you keep it uncovered, the sun will dry it up.

I won't say anything more than that, though there is an interpretation of that, probably...

[chownah]

Here it is!

[SDC]

I cannot recall where I heard this interpretation, but it seemed interesting. Here is my attempt at a summary:

The most significant thing that is covered, protected and taken TO BE there, under its covers, is SELF. But there cannot be knowledge of what SELF actually is - all there can be is what it is assumed to be: all the things that represent it. It is that very assumption that we take up (upadana), since we will always fall short of directly knowing SELF. The act of covering is more tangible, i.e. the cover is a deliberate act of acknowledgement of and protection over that which we cannot directly know. In the end, it is the cover over the idea which become soaked, by virtue that it has been placed around uncertainty - that which is not fully understood. The uncertainty itself - I think we can admit to a degree - doesn't exactly field anything. As it is, the SELF cannot support anything. Because as sure as we are that it is there, a finger cannot really be put on it, it is always the assumption that stands as its representation and upon that is where everything stands.

If there can be discernment of the whole thing as an assumption, not only is the cover no longer needed, but that which was being covered could not have possibly been there to be covered in the first place - the only thing any of it ever was were the various assumptions that stood for SELF, never actually the self. It was always just the covers that stood for it, never anything but that. It is this body which "covers" the SELF and the assumption of body as self, self as body, etc. cover the body, and the whole thing feeds itself into infinity because there is never a case where one steps aside from dependency on the other. Only when the assumption falters can there be even a glimpse of what it would mean to not be bound to this cycle and not be contacted by the swings and sways of the world.

[aflatun]

I cannot recall where I heard this interpretation, but it seemed interesting. Here is my attempt at a summary:

The most significant thing that is covered, protected and taken TO BE there, under its covers, is SELF. But there cannot be knowledge of what SELF actually is - all there can be is what it is assumed to be: all the things that represent it. It is that very assumption that we take up (upadana), since we will always fall short of directly knowing SELF. The act of covering is more tangible, i.e. the cover is a deliberate act of acknowledgement of and protection over that which we cannot directly know. In the end, it is the cover over the idea which become soaked, by virtue that it has been placed around uncertainty - that which is not fully understood. The uncertainty itself - I think we can admit to a degree - doesn't exactly field anything. As it is, the SELF cannot support anything. Because as sure as we are that it is there, a finger cannot really be put on it, it is always the assumption that stands as its representation and upon that is where everything stands.

If there can be discernment of the whole thing as an assumption, not only is the cover no longer needed, but that which was being covered could not have possibly been there to be covered in the first place - the only thing any of it ever was were the various assumptions that stood for SELF, never actually the self. It was always just the covers that stood for it, never anything but that. It is this body which "covers" the SELF and the assumption of body as self, self as body, etc. cover the body, and the whole thing feeds itself into infinity because there is never a case where one steps aside from dependency on the other. Only when the assumption falters can there be even a glimpse of what it would mean to not be bound to this cycle and not be contacted by the swings and sways of the world.