Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings acinteyyo,
acinteyyo wrote:nāma-rūpa <-> viññāna <-> nāma-rūpa -> āyatana -> phassa -> vedanā -> tanhā -> upādāna -> bhava -> jāti -> jarā-marana
Sure, but you know what viññāna (and thus anything dependending upon viññāna) is dependent upon don't you?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by ground »

Ñāṇa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 10#p126410
Ñāṇa wrote:.... MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:
  • One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world.
where is this quote of MN 140 from? I got stuck with "existence or non-existence" and I cannot find a translation where it is phrased like that.
The Pāli of the first sentence is: so neva taṃ abhisaṅkharoti na abhisañcetayati bhavāya vā vibhavāya vā.

bhava: existence
vibhava: non-existence
vā: or

The translation is mine. Compare the sense of the above with Ud 3.10 Loka Sutta:
...

Some translators translate bhava as "becoming," which highlights the point that existence is a process without any fixed entity. There is nothing wrong with translating it as such, but I prefer to translate the term as "existence." As the 10th link of conditioned arising (paṭiccasamuppāda) bhava is clearly defined in a number of suttas as the three realms: sensual existence, form existence, and formless existence (kāmabhava, rūpabhava, arūpabhava).
...
All the best,

Geoff
Thank you, Geoff

B. Thanissaro has it that way:
One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world).
And B. Bodhi's reads:
He does not form any condition or generate any volition tending toward either being or non-being. Since he does not form any condition or generate any volition tending toward either being or non-being, he does not cling to anything in this world.
Considering these three alternatives I personally prefer B. Bodhi's translation since in my conditioned perception it more clearly conveys the meaning: first there is clinging to self ("I" and "mine") and then there is clinging to appearances (which are nothing other than the aggregates)
The phrasing using "existence or non-existence" lends itself to be mis-understood ontologically (reificationist, objectivying) with regard to some alleged "outer world".

Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TMingyur,
TMingyur wrote:Considering these three alternatives I personally prefer B. Bodhi's translation since in my conditioned perception it more clearly conveys the meaning: first there is clinging to self ("I" and "mine") and then there is clinging to appearances (which are nothing other than the aggregates)
The phrasing using "existence or non-existence" lends itself to be mis-understood ontologically (reificationist, objectivying) with regard to some alleged "outer world".
Bhikkhu Bodhi certainly wouldn't accept "existence" as a suitable translation of something that ought not be generated, because he generates volitions with regards to existence and non-existence here...
BB in ACMA wrote:The outer world is quite real and possesses objective existence.

Source: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 909#p75757" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by ground »

Hi retro

that is interesting but it does not alter my preference for his phrasing.

Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TMinguyr,

No worries... it just helps to know the underlying reasons, beliefs, views etc. underlying someone's translations.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation notes to SN 12.15 give further indication of his views regarding existence.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by ground »

Hi Retro

and this is really an interesting point: How words which are actually meaningless symbols as such in the first place generate individual preferences and "individual" meanings.

But to somehow "side with" or "advocate" B. Bodhi in the context you provided: There is a sutta in SN (cannot remember which it is) where the Buddha says that he does not reject (or debate with) "the wise of the world" when they are speaking of (this or that) as "existing".
But of course this again has been a translation of B. Bodhi.

However I would not consider the worldly view to be conducive in the context of the path.

Kind regards
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

TMingyur wrote:Considering these three alternatives I personally prefer B. Bodhi's translation since in my conditioned perception it more clearly conveys the meaning: first there is clinging to self ("I" and "mine") and then there is clinging to appearances (which are nothing other than the aggregates)
The phrasing using "existence or non-existence" lends itself to be mis-understood ontologically (reificationist, objectivying) with regard to some alleged "outer world".
Ven. Bodhi is following Ven. Ñāṇamoli's use of "being" in the translated edition of the Middle Length Discourses. In his subsequent translation of the Connected Discourses of the Buddha Ven. Bodhi translates bhava as "existence."

The point that I was trying to make in the last post was that deluded cognitions always conceive in terms of existence or non-existence, and that this is part of the problem which creates and re-creates a "world" and a "self." It's due to craving existence and grasping that consciousness is established and comes to growth. Of course, craving non-existence isn't acceptable either. Both of these mistaken compulsions are entwined within thickets of views which reify a self and objectify a world. In short, we are held captive by our infatuation with the very things that captivate us.

As MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta explains, an arahant doesn't form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence:
  • One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world.
It's in this way that there is no clinging with regard to anything in the world. Ud 3.10 Loka Sutta:
  • Whatever ascetics or brāhmaṇas say that emancipation from existence is by means of existence, all of them are not liberated from existence, I say.

    And whatever ascetics or brāhmaṇas say that escape from existence is by means of non-existence, all of them have not escaped from existence, I say.
Conceiving in ontological terms is ineffective and only reinforces underlying tendencies.

All the best,

Geoff
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by ground »

Ñāṇa wrote:The point that I was trying to make in the last post was that deluded cognitions always conceive in terms of existence or non-existence, ...
Geoff

I appreciate your being versed in scriptures and the helpful hints you provide but I choose to not subscribe to that tenet.

Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TMingyur,

Perhaps you might like to explore those thoughts in this new topic...

An interesting definition of nama-rupa, what do you think?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8074" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

TMingyur wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:The point that I was trying to make in the last post was that deluded cognitions always conceive in terms of existence or non-existence, ...
I appreciate your being versed in scriptures and the helpful hints you provide but I choose to not subscribe to that tenet.
Are you suggesting that deluded cognitions conceive things in terms other than existence or non-existence?

All the best,

Geoff
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by ground »

Ñāṇa wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:The point that I was trying to make in the last post was that deluded cognitions always conceive in terms of existence or non-existence, ...
I appreciate your being versed in scriptures and the helpful hints you provide but I choose to not subscribe to that tenet.
Are you suggesting that deluded cognitions conceive things in terms other than existence or non-existence?

All the best,

Geoff
I am suggesting to stay with the terms "clinging", "craving", "attachment", "grasping" because asserting "deluded cognitions always conceive in terms of existence or non-existence" directs thought to "existence or non-existence" even if there has not been this thought of "existence or non-existence" in the first place.

Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings TMingyur,

How could someone "cling", "crave", "be attached", "grasp" to that which they did not believe existed, or had the potential to exist?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

Dan74 wrote:Thanks!

So an arahant is beyond cause and effect? :shrug: This is getting weirder than Mahayana! :spy:

...

But maybe it is not useful to speculate about arahants...?
Yes, if the difference between the conventional and ultimate ways of seeing the 'arhanth' (as well as conditioned vs unconditioned) and possibly internal vs external world descriptions of the arahanth is confusing, it is best to stick to conventional, conditioned, external world (and perhaps internal world as well) descriptions, such as 'the arahath has given up craving'.

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

Gentleman, I give you, the Arahath!:

Conventional: that monk the arahath
Ultimate: the khandas,devoid of upadana

Conditioned: the khandas, devoid of upadana
Uncondioned: khandas going to complete cessation at the point of attainment (but 'old kamma khandas start up again), (perhaps also including seeing beyond the khandas ie Ven NNs 'light in the dark cinema, obscuring the picture'), and at the point of death.

External world: the body and mind of the arahath with six sense organs, behaving/talking not based on greed/aversion/delusion
Internal world: mindfulness, happiness, peace, equanimity, wisdom in abundance.

Ontological: body and mind of the arahath exists
Experiential: conventional and ultimate (see above), non-experiences of the unconditioned

The above isn't a perfect or complete description, but this should cut through some of the confusion arising from discussions based on mixed categories hopefully.

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?

Post by Nyana »

rowyourboat wrote:Conventional: that monk the arahath
Ultimate: the khandas,devoid of upadana
This is the type of analysis which has no basis in the canon, and which leads to your problematic version of "The Unconditioned." The classical Mahāvihāra two truth hermeneutic is deeply flawed -- resulting in either an eternalistic or nihilistic view. We see numerous variations on these extremes playing out all over this forum and amongst many Theravāda teachers as well. The aggregate scheme is mere designation (paññattimatta). The aggregates are not to be taken as "the ultimately existent given." With the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion the mind is measureless (appamāṇacetasa). There is no criterion or measurement (pamāṇa) which can be used as a reference point to define a measureless cognition.

All the best,

Geoff
Post Reply