MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:29 am

Dear DW forum

MN 72 appears to say "na upapajjati" does not apply to the Arahant:
That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all conceivings, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.

Tasmā tathāgato sabbamaññitānaṃ sabbamathitānaṃ sabbaahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayānaṃ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anupādā vimuttoti vadāmī”ti.

“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?”

“Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī”ti?

“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

“Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

“Well then, are they not reborn?”

“Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti?

“‘They’re not reborndoesn’t apply, Vaccha.”

Na upapajjatiti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.

https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato
MN 120 appears to say: "na upapajjati" does apply to the Arahant:
They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements.

So āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.

And, mendicants, that mendicant is not reborn anywhere.

Ayaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu na katthaci upapajjatī ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn120/en/sujato
How is a contradiction avoided here?

Thanks :shrug:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4506
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:44 am

Well spotted!

It might just be a difference relating to the context for each sutta. MN 120 talks about rebirth in specific settings, and the Buddha is concerned to say that the arahant does not take rebirth in any of those; the difference being indicated by katthaci (anywhere/somewhere). But MN 72 is about Vacchagotta struggling with either/or propositions about reality, and the Buddha is more concerned to set these aside as unfruitful than to answer them.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:56 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:44 am
But MN 72 is about Vacchagotta struggling...
Well, in MN 72, the Buddha does not remain silent, like in SN 44.10.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4506
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by Sam Vara » Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:14 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:56 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:44 am
But MN 72 is about Vacchagotta struggling...
Well, in MN 72, the Buddha does not remain silent, like in SN 44.10.
True. Maybe he had different approaches at different times. Vacchagotta's ontological conceptualising seems to have been a recurrent problem.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:02 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:14 am
Maybe he had different approaches at different times. Vacchagotta's self conceptualising seems to have been a recurrent problem.
Possibly but I can't find the terms "na upapajjati" or "na katthaci upapajjatī" attributed to the Buddha anywhere else in the suttas (apart from "na katthaci upapajjatī" in MN 120). "Na upapajjati" is spoken by Brahma in MN 49 & SN 6.4 and by Rohitassa, the son of a deva, in AN 4.45 & SN 2.26, where it forms part of a "wrong view".
‘This is permanent, this is everlasting, this is eternal, this is whole, this is imperishable. For this is where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn. And there’s no other escape beyond this.’

‘idaṃ niccaṃ, idaṃ dhuvaṃ, idaṃ sassataṃ, idaṃ kevalaṃ, idaṃ acavanadhammaṃ, idañhi na jāyati na jīyati na mīyati na cavati na upapajjati, ito ca panaññaṃ uttari nissaraṇaṃ natthī’ti.

https://suttacentral.net/mn49/en/sujato
“Sir, is it possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling to a place where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn?”

“Yattha nu kho, bhante, na jāyati na jīyati na mīyati na cavati na upapajjati, sakkā nu kho so, bhante, gamanena lokassa anto ñātuṃ vā daṭṭhuṃ vā pāpuṇituṃ vā”ti?

“I say it’s not possible to know or see or reach the end of the world by traveling to a place where there’s no being born, growing old, dying, passing away, or being reborn.”

“Yattha kho, āvuso, na jāyati na jīyati na mīyati na cavati na upapajjati, nāhaṃ taṃ gamanena lokassa antaṃ ñāteyyaṃ daṭṭheyyaṃ patteyyanti vadāmī”ti.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.45/en/sujato
In SN 12.10, the unawakened Buddha-To-Be used the term "upapajjati" but when he discovered Dependent Origination, he did not use "na upapajjati" to describe "cessation".
“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought:

“Pubbeva me, bhikkhave, sambodhā anabhisambuddhassa bodhisattasseva sato etadahosi:

‘Alas, this world has fallen into trouble. It’s born, grows old, dies, passes away, and is reborn,

‘kicchaṃ vatāyaṃ loko āpanno jāyati ca jīyati ca mīyati ca cavati ca upapajjati ca.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.10/en/sujato

auto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by auto » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:30 pm

https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato
“But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire burning in front of you: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?” “It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”

“In the same way, Vaccha, any form by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of form. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.

Any feeling …

perception …

choices …

consciousness by which a Realized One might be described has been cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, exterminated, and unable to arise in the future. A Realized One is freed from reckoning in terms of consciousness. They’re deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. ‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.”
craving makes ordinary persons with their layers, khandas. If you remove craving there is no more that kind of person who could be described by khandas. Ordinary person doesn't exist anymore like fire doesn't exist when there is no fuel.

Instead there is Awake person. With The Self.

https://suttacentral.net/mn120/en/sujato
Furthermore, take a mendicant who has faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom. They think: ‘If only I might realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life, and live having realized it with my own insight due to the ending of defilements.’ They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements. And, mendicants, that mendicant is not reborn anywhere.”
Here, Awake person will desire to become rightly self realized, i assume before he was discernment released by going higher and higher by the method described in that Sutta.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:41 pm

auto wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:30 pm
MN 120 wrote: They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements. And, mendicants, that mendicant is not reborn anywhere.”

So āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.
Here, Awake person will desire to become rightly self realized, i assume before he was discernment released by going higher and higher by the method described in that Sutta.
The sutta appears to say final enlightenment has been attained.

auto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by auto » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:41 pm
auto wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:30 pm
MN 120 wrote: They realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this very life. And they live having realized it with their own insight due to the ending of defilements. And, mendicants, that mendicant is not reborn anywhere.”

So āsavānaṃ khayā anāsavaṃ cetovimuttiṃ paññāvimuttiṃ diṭṭheva dhamme sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā upasampajja viharati.
Here, Awake person will desire to become rightly self realized, i assume before he was discernment released by going higher and higher by the method described in that Sutta.
The sutta appears to say final enlightenment has been attained.
You removed the sentence on what i based my comment.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:06 pm

auto wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pm
You removed the sentence on what i based my comment.
Sure. Your comment appears possibly valid if based on the first sentence. Thank you for your answer.
Sam Vara wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:14 am
Maybe he had different approaches at different times.
Having an 'Ananda head hitting the pillow' insight, I think MN 120 is possibly the questionable sutta because (per SN 12.10; AN 4.45; MN 49, etc) upapajjati appears to occur in relation to 'jāyati, jīyati, mīyati ca cavati'. Since an Arahant would be free from 'jāyati', it seems the resultant 'na upapajjati' would not apply. Anyway, just guessing.

auto
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by auto » Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:06 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:06 pm
auto wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 1:01 pm
You removed the sentence on what i based my comment.
Sure. Your comment appears possibly valid if based on the first sentence. Thank you for your answer.
The self awakened One set of layers(defiled) are obliterated in this life, and no next life regards to these khandhas. While the discernment released ones khandas become existent and these khadhas are impermanet, subject to cease.

The self awakened one is whos defilements are ceased, the person who existed due these defilements is gone like fire won't exist when there is no fuel.

santa100
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by santa100 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:37 pm

DooDoot wrote:How is a contradiction avoided here?
Sam Vara wrote:Vacchagotta's ontological conceptualising seems to have been a recurrent problem.
Yep, it's because of Vacchagotta. Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy.'s explanation:
MA: "does not reappear" applies in the sense that he does not undergo a new existence. But if Vacchagotta were to hear this, he would misapprehend it as annihilationism, thus the Buddha denies that it applies in the sense that annihilation is not a tenable position.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:00 pm

santa100 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:37 pm
Yep, it's because of Vacchagotta. Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy.'s explanation:
MA: "does not reappear" applies in the sense that he does not undergo a new existence. But if Vacchagotta were to hear this, he would misapprehend it as annihilationism, thus the Buddha denies that it applies in the sense that annihilation is not a tenable position.
I previously read BB's MN footnote. While the view of MA is the simple conclusion i 1st had, I will not agree. I think the posts I have made so far here require consideration and are a better attempt at scholarship than by MA and BB. As I showed by some basic research (although I cannot guarantee I have used the search functions of Sutta Central, Access To Insight and Google perfectly), it appears MN 120 is the only place in the suttas were the Buddha uses the phrase: "na upapajjati" for Nibbana. The Buddha uses "upapajjati" often when referring to "re-birth" or "re-appearance" in teachings about mundane kamma but appears to never use the term "na upapajjati" when referring to "cessation" ("nirodha") or Nibbana. SN 12.10 appears to establish this distinction; where the unawakened Buddha-To-Be reflected upon "upapajjati" but concluded with the enlightened insight of "jati nirodha". At this time, for now, I suggest both Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy and the Comy itself are incorrect.

santa100
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by santa100 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:17 am

DooDoot wrote:I think the posts I have made so far here require consideration and are a better attempt at scholarship than by MA and BB.

...At this time, for now, I suggest both Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy and the Comy itself are incorrect.
But your observation above did not prove that Comy's explanation are incorrect for it's based on a flawed assumption that if something appears in the suttas once, that would automatically means it's wrong. Not to mention you yourself said you have not exhaustively searched every single sutta on SuttaCentral. Anyway, the related info. has been provided and I'd put aside all that wonderful "scholarship" and try to attain the state described in MN 120 to know for sure:
MN 120 wrote:Again, a bhikkhu possesses faith, virtue, learning, generosity, and wisdom. He thinks: ‘Oh, that by realising for myself with direct knowledge, I might here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realising for himself with direct knowledge, he here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu does not reappear anywhere at all

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3169
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by DooDoot » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:43 am

santa100 wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:17 am
But your observation above did not prove that Comy's explanation are incorrect for it's based on a flawed assumption that if something appears in the suttas once, that would automatically means it's wrong.
My posts were obviously not read. "Na upapajjati" is included within wrong views held by Brahmas, Devas and the unenlightened Bodhisatta.

santa100
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: MN 72 vs MN 120: na upapajjati ??

Post by santa100 » Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:56 am

DooDoot wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:43 am
My posts were obviously not read. "Na upapajjati" is included within wrong views held by Brahmas, Devas and the unenlightened Bodhisatta.
That's irrelevant to the Buddha's response to Vacchagotta. We're not the Buddha nor we've ever had to explained the Dhamma to a man like Vacchagotta. So I wouldn't quickly jump to any conclusion if I were you.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests