Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.
Post Reply
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1844
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:27 am

Dear DW forum

MN 140, the poignant story about Pukkusati unknowingly meeting the Lord Buddha, is certainly an inspiring, lofty, deep, supramundane & often favourite sutta. But is it fake, i.e., a later addition? :shrug: MN 140 includes the following Pali sentence, including the words 'paraṃ maraṇā':
‘kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sītībhavissantī’ti pajānāti.

One discerns that 'With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being relished, will grow cold right here.' (Thanissaro)

They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here.’ (Sujato)

MN 140 https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato
Compare with SN 12.51:
Kāyassa bhedā uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā idheva sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sītībhavissanti, sarīrāni avasissantīti pajānāti.

They understand: ‘When my body breaks up and my life has come to an end, everything that’s felt, since I no longer take pleasure in it, will become cool right here. Only bodily remains will be left.’ (Sujato)

SN 12.51 https://suttacentral.net/sn12.51/en/sujato
Compare with Iti 44:
Tassa idheva, bhikkhave, sabbavedayitāni anabhinanditāni sīti bhavissanti

For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbāna-element with no residue left.

https://suttacentral.net/iti44/en/ireland
Now the issue I have with MN 140 is the words "paraṃ maraṇā", which neither Bhikkhus Thanissaro, Bodhi or Sujato appear to have translated. I note how Bhikkhu Sujato's translations of MN 140 and SN 12.51 are identical yet the Pali in these two suttas is not identical, given SN 12.51 does not include the words "paraṃ maraṇā".

I have mentioned before how many suttas say arahants or a Tathagata do not experience "death" ("marana"). Also & importantly, the term "paraṃ maraṇā" appears to be found in suttas about kamma & the rebirth of non-arahants. Rebirth occurs with "paraṃ maraṇā" as a preceding cause.

While I think the translation of "termination of life" for "jīvitapariyādānā" is OK, how can Nibbana occur "paraṃ maraṇā" as described in MN 140? :shrug:

Any opinions? :candle:

pulga
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by pulga » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:36 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:27 am



While I think the translation of "termination of life" for "jīvitapariyādānā" is OK, how can Nibbana occur "paraṃ maraṇā" as described in MN 140? :shrug:

Any opinions?
It's a variant reading that seems to have been preferred by the Burmese, at least it's in the Chattha Sangayana edition of the text. It's missing from the PTS edition. Venerable Ñanavira touches upon the point you referred to in his A Note on Paṭiccasamuppāda:
The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.

User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2021
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by Zom » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:46 pm

On what grounds do you consider a sutta to be a not-fake? 8-)

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by cappuccino » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:46 pm

have faith

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 1844
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:50 am

pulga wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:36 pm
It's a variant reading that seems to have been preferred by the Burmese, at least it's in the Chattha Sangayana edition of the text. It's missing from the PTS edition. Venerable Ñanavira touches upon the point you referred to in his A Note on Paṭiccasamuppāda:
This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha... how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of.
OK. Thanks. It appears Venerable Ñanavira would have agreed there is an issue here. One possible explanation (to overcome the fake impression) is the Buddha was speaking to a person (Pukkusati) that did not know the Buddhist teachings; thus the Buddha spoke in the conventional everyday language of his Indian society (although, in reality, the words paraṃ maraṇā used were unnecessary given the words uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā were sufficient).
Zom wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:46 pm
On what grounds do you consider a sutta to be a not-fake? 8-)
Possibly try following the topic discussion first. If a sutta says attachment brings liberation or Nirvana is True Self or murdering with hatred leads to heaven then obviously the sutta is fake. Similarly, a sutta saying a arahant is subject to "death" appears fake to students that study with care & have vipassana in meditation. Pulga had no problem with the straightforwardness of the topic & inquiry.

Regards

Dinsdale
Posts: 5598
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:24 am

Zom wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:46 pm
On what grounds do you consider a sutta to be a not-fake? 8-)
Agreeing with what it says? :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!

auto
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by auto » Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:25 am

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato

end of sutta
“The Realized Ones do not ordain those whose bowl and robes are incomplete.”

And then Venerable Pukkusāti approved and agreed with what the Buddha said. He got up from his seat, bowed, and respectfully circled the Buddha, keeping him on his right, before leaving.

But while he was wandering in search of a bowl and robes, a stray cow took his life. Then several mendicants went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him: “Sir, the son of a good family named Pukkusāti, who was advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away. Where has he been reborn in his next life?” “Mendicants, Pukkusāti was astute. He practiced in line with the teachings, and did not trouble me about the teachings. With the ending of the five lower fetters, he’s been reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.
So if you become arhant on earth world you won't return from it but stay there? makes sense to me. Nice
(if you are familiar with Xian's)

pulga
Posts: 1309
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by pulga » Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:02 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:50 am
It appears Venerable Ñanavira would have agreed there is an issue here. One possible explanation (to overcome the fake impression) is the Buddha was speaking to a person (Pukkusati) that did not know the Buddhist teachings; thus the Buddha spoke in the conventional everyday language of his Indian society (although, in reality, the words paraṃ maraṇā used were unnecessary given the words uddhaṃ jīvitapariyādānā were sufficient).
"Kāyassa bhedā paraṃ maraṇā" appears repeatedly throughout the Suttas, but as far as I know it is invariably associated with rebirth. Because it is such a common expression, I think "paraṃ maraṇā" was inadvertently added to the Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta in its chanting and thus preserved in some manuscripts.

James Tan
Posts: 535
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Is MN 140 a fake sutta?

Post by James Tan » Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:59 pm

kāyassa bhedā param maraṇā: 從身壞死後

([kāyassa身(陽單屬格)] body

[bhedā破壞(陽單從格)] break up

[param maraṇā從死後(adv.)]) after death
:reading:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests