Snp 4.13: Maha-viyuha Sutta — The Great Array

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

User avatar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska

Snp 4.13: Maha-viyuha Sutta — The Great Array

Postby jcsuperstar » Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:23 pm

Snp 4.13 PTS: Sn 895-914
Maha-viyuha Sutta: The Great Array
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"Those who, dwelling on views,
dispute, saying, 'Only this is true':
do they all incur blame,
or also earn praise there?"

"[The praise:] It's such a little thing,
not at all appeasing.[1]
I speak of two fruits of dispute;
and seeing this, you shouldn't dispute —
seeing the state
where there's no dispute
as secure.
One who knows
doesn't get involved
in whatever are
One who is uninvolved:
when he's forming no preference
for what's seen, for what's heard,
why would he get

Those for whom precepts
are ultimate
say that purity's
a matter of self-restraint.
Undertaking a practice,
they devote themselves to it:
'Let's train just in this,
and then there would be purity.'
Those who say they are skilled
are [thus] led on to becoming.
But if one of them falls
from his precepts or practice,
he trembles,
having failed in his actions.
He hopes for, longs for, purity,
like a lost caravan leader
far from home.

But one who's abandoned
precepts & practices[2]
— all —
things that are blamable, blameless,[3]
not hoping for 'pure or impure,'[4]
would live in compassion & peace,
without taking up peace,[5]

on taboos, austerities,
or what's seen, heard, or sensed,
they speak of purity
through wandering further on
through becoming & not-,
their craving not gone
for becoming & not-.[6]
For one who aspires has longings
& trembling with regard to preconceptions.
But one who here
has no passing away & arising:
Why would he tremble?
For what would he long?"

"The teaching some say is 'supreme,'
is the very one others call 'lowly.'
Which statement is true
when all of these claim to be skilled?"

"They say their own teaching is perfect
while the doctrine of others is lowly.
Thus quarreling, they dispute,
each saying his agreed-on opinion
is true.
If something, because of an opponent's say-so,
were lowly,
then none among teachings would be
for many say
that another's teaching's inferior
when firmly asserting their own.
If their worship of their teaching were true,
in line with the way they praise their own path,
then all doctrines
would be true —
for purity's theirs, according to each.

The brahman has nothing
led by another,
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines.
Thus he has gone
beyond disputes,
for he doesn't regard as best
the knowledge of a teaching,
any other mental state.[7]

'I know. I see. That's just how it is!' —
Some believe purity's in terms of view.
But even if a person has seen,
what good does it do him?
Having slipped past,
they speak of purity
in connection with something
or somebody else.
A person, in seeing,
sees name & form.
Having seen, he'll know
only these things.
No matter if he's seen little, a lot,
the skilled don't say purity's
in connection with that.

A person entrenched in his teachings,
honoring a preconceived view,
isn't easy to discipline.
Whatever he depends on
he describes it as lovely,
says that it's purity,
that there he saw truth.

The brahman, evaluating,
isn't involved with conjurings,
doesn't follow views,
isn't tied even to knowledge.[8]
And on knowing
whatever's conventional, commonplace,
he remains equanimous:
'That's what others hold onto.'

Having released the knots
that tie him down,
the sage here in the world
doesn't follow a faction
when disputes have arisen.
At peace among those not at peace,
he's equanimous, doesn't hold on:
'That's what others hold onto.'

Giving up old fermentations,
not forming new,
neither pursuing desire,
nor entrenched in his teachings,
he's totally released
from viewpoints,

He doesn't adhere to the world,
is without self-rebuke;
is enemy-free[9]
with regard to all things
seen, heard, or sensed.

His burden laid down,
the sage totally released

is improper / is free from conjuring
hasn't stopped / isn't impassioned
isn't worth wanting / doesn't

the Blessed One said.

1.Or: Not enough to appease (the defilements, says Nd.I).
2.Nd.I: Abandoning precepts & practices in the sense of no longer believing that purity is measured in terms of them, the view discussed in the preceding verse.
3.Nd.I: "Blamable, blameless" = black and white kamma (see AN 4.232, 234, 237-238, quoted in The Wings to Awakening, section I/B).
4.Nd.I: Having abandoned impure mental qualities, and having fully attained the goal, the arahant has no need to hope for anything at all.
5."In compassion & peace, without taking up peace" — a pun on the word, santimanuggahaya.
6.The word bhavabhavesu — through/for becoming & not- becoming — here is a lamp, i.e., a single word functioning in two phrases.
7."The knowledge of a teaching, any other mental state" — a pun on the word, dhammamaññam.
8.According to Nd.I, this compound — ñana-bandhu — should be translated as "tied by means of knowledge," in that the arahant doesn't use the knowledge that comes with the mastery of concentration, the five mundane forms of psychic power (abhiñña), or any wrong knowledge to create the bonds of craving or views. However, the compound may also refer to the fact that the arahant isn't tied even to the knowledge that forms part of the path to arahantship (see MN 117).
9.See note 7 under Sn 4.4.
10."Is improper / is free from conjuring, hasn't stopped / isn't impassioned, isn't worth wanting / doesn't desire" — a series of puns — na kappiyo, nuparato, na patthiyo — each with a strongly positive and a strongly negative meaning, probably meant for their shock value. For a similar set of puns, see Dhp 97.
See also: AN 10.93; AN 10.96.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Majjhima Patipada
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2010 8:04 pm

Re: Snp 4.13: Maha-viyuha Sutta — The Great Array

Postby Majjhima Patipada » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:46 am

Like the Tittha Sutta ( ... .than.html), the Maha-viyuha Sutta appears to underscore the futility of all views, or at least relative views. If there are multiple competing truths, each proclaiming to be the only truth, they will contradict and negate one another. Relative to this view, that is false. Relative to that view, this is false. No view in competition with others escapes being deemed as false. Thus, all views are false relative to others. A person who calls another inferior is not exempt from inferiority him/herself.

By holding onto views, one becomes attached. Even aversion is a view, including aversion to all views, which is alluded to in the Dighanaka Sutta ( ... .than.html). The former is possessive; the latter dismissive. One affirms and the other negates. Both create disharmony by setting right against wrong, occupying the student/practitioner's thoughts with stark dichotomies that tend to lead to combating, denigrating, and condemning all opposing views. Although the Buddha spoke of "right view", right view involves seeing reality as it is, rather than setting a fabricated reality against other distorted versions of the same reality, to which people cling desperately. The egoistic practice of cherishing one's views with passion and possessiveness is shown to deteriorate into sectarianism, through which views are pitted against each other, with one's own views taken as supreme.

In my reading of the Maha-viyuha Sutta, truth is truth, the Dhamma is the Dhamma, not a view to be had or fought over.

User avatar
El Gallo
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:48 pm

Re: Snp 4.13: Maha-viyuha Sutta — The Great Array

Postby El Gallo » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:53 pm

I think if I'm focused on being equanimous, then I miss the point. But I also don't think the point is for me to actually achieve this goal.

I think the real view is the mindful view. If that makes sense. :juggling:

User avatar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska

Re: Snp 4.13: Maha-viyuha Sutta — The Great Array

Postby jcsuperstar » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:00 am

Majjhima Patipada wrote:
In my reading of the Maha-viyuha Sutta, truth is truth, the Dhamma is the Dhamma, not a view to be had or fought over.

agreed, the Buddha's dhamma is a path big enough for us all to walk upon so there's no reason to hold on to it as ours and hopefully we are too busy walking the path to look down upon those who are not on it with us.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

Return to “Study Group”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine