SN 22.21

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Post Reply
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

SN 22.21

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:14 am

Dear Pali gurus
Zom wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:14 pm
Cessation is its meaning.

SN 22.21:

Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

Katamesānaṃ kho, bhante, dhammānaṃ nirodho ‘nirodho’ti vuccatī”ti?

“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘cessation, cessation (nirodha).’ Through the cessation of what things is cessation spoken of?”

Rūpaṃ kho, ānanda, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ.

“Form, Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation.
Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of.

“It is through the cessation of these things, Ananda, that cessation is spoken of.”

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn22.21 (Bodhi)
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.21/en/sujato
I have the following doubts about the above translation. My questions are:

1. The term "dhammaṃ" is found in "khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ". How/where is the term "dhammaṃ" translated in the translations above?

2. The translation above is:"Form is". I am inclined to speculate the translation should be: "Form that is". It seems this would still be an adjective. Are there any reasons why the translation: "Form that is" is grammatically wrong?

3. Surely the term "virāga" must refer to something mental. For example, when the physical color of a physical cloth physically fades in the physical sun, surely the term "virāga" cannot be used in this physical context. Must not the term "virāga" always refer to something mental?

4. Similarly (while not problematic in the translation), I think the terms saṅkhataṃ & paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ should refer to something mental.

Thank you if you can assist

:smile:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 22.21

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:48 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:14 am
2. The translation above is:"Form is". I am inclined to speculate the translation should be: "Form that is". It seems this would still be an adjective. Are there any reasons why the translation: "Form that is" is grammatically wrong?
I think I found the answer to the above question, which is to the affirmative:
Mendicant, it’s when an educated noble disciple truly understands form, which is liable to originate, as form which is liable to originate.

Idha, bhikkhu, sutavā ariyasāvako samudayadhammaṃ rūpaṃ ‘samudayadhammaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti;

They truly understand form, which is liable to vanish, as form which is liable to vanish.

vayadhammaṃ rūpaṃ ‘vayadhammaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti;

They truly understand form, which is liable to originate and vanish, as form which is liable to originate and vanish

samudayavayadhammaṃ rūpaṃ ‘samudayavayadhammaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.126/en/sujato

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 22.21

Post by DooDoot » Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:46 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:14 am
SN 22.21:

Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

Katamesānaṃ kho, bhante, dhammānaṃ nirodho ‘nirodho’ti vuccatī”ti?

“Venerable sir, it is said, ‘cessation, cessation (nirodha).’ Through the cessation of what things is cessation spoken of?”

Rūpaṃ kho, ānanda, aniccaṃ saṅkhataṃ paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ khayadhammaṃ vayadhammaṃ virāgadhammaṃ nirodhadhammaṃ.

Reflecting on the above, I might translate as follows:

Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him:

Venerable sir, it is said, ‘cessation, cessation (nirodha).’ Through the cessation of what things is cessation spoken of?

Impermanent form that is mentally constructed (into 'self' by ignorance, craving, attachment & becoming) via dependent origination; is a thing that is ended, a thing that vanishes, a thing dispassioned and a thing extinguished.... This is nirodha spoken of.

Therefore, nirodha is not the cessation of the element of form (rupa dhatu) but the cessation of dependent origination (paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ) and its mental constructing (saṅkhataṃ); i.e., the cessation of clinging ignorantly to form.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: SN 22.21

Post by Dinsdale » Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:11 am

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:46 am
Therefore, nirodha is not the cessation of the element of form (rupa dhatu) but the cessation of dependent origination (paṭic­ca­samup­pannaṃ) and its mental constructing (saṅkhataṃ); i.e., the cessation of clinging ignorantly to form.
I suspect that SN22.21 is referring to cessation of the clinging aggregates, bearing in mind the distinction in the Khandha Sutta:

"At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 22.21

Post by DooDoot » Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:09 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:11 am
...bearing in mind the distinction in the Khandha Sutta
Yes, I agree (which is why i started this topic). However the common translations appear to not emphasise the "clinging" but seem to emphasis the mere aggregate. The translations say:

* Form is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation.

instead of saying:

* Form that is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen [taken as 'self'] is subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation.

:mrgreen:

Dinsdale
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: SN 22.21

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:40 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:09 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jul 04, 2018 8:11 am
...bearing in mind the distinction in the Khandha Sutta
Yes, I agree (which is why i started this topic). However the common translations appear to not emphasise the "clinging" but seem to emphasis the mere aggregate. The translations say:

* Form is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation.

instead of saying:

* Form that is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen [taken as 'self'] is subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation.

:mrgreen:
It might help to broaden the context. I noticed that the following sutta, SN22.22, speaks in terms of the five clinging aggregates:

"And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the burden."

https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sn22.22
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: SN 22.21

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:09 am

The other possibility is that the OP passage was intended to be taken at face value, and that it describes the complete and final cessation of the aggregates, which presumably would correspond to the death of the Arahant. No future births, no future aggregates.

"Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3247
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 22.21

Post by DooDoot » Sat Jul 07, 2018 11:53 am

Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:09 am
The other possibility is that the OP passage was intended to be taken at face value, and that it describes the complete and final cessation of the aggregates, which presumably would correspond to the death of the Arahant. No future births, no future aggregates.
Its not face value. The value face is as I suggested, namely, dependent origination (, i.e., khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) in relation to the aggregates is what "ceases".
Dinsdale wrote:
Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:09 am
"Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Personally, I preferred SN 22.22 (rather than continue the same unsubstantiated assertion posted countless times that birth, aging, & death are "material" or "physical"). If doubts remain, SN 22.79 explains "sankhata" in SN 22.21:
Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati. Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call them formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned formations as formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations.
:anjali:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests