48 See I, n. 376.
49 Spk explains anumīyati as if it were equivalent to Skt anumṛyate, “to die along with”: “When the underlying tendency is dying, the form to which it tends dies along with it (anumarati!); for when the object is breaking up, the mental factors that take it as object cannot persist.” This of course is ludicrous, for anumīyati is doubtlessly from anu + mā; CPD defines the verb as meaning “to be measured after,” which I follow here. This statement then sheds light on the famous passage at 44:1 (IV 376-77 = MN I 487-88) declaring that the Tathāgata, freed from reckoning in terms of form, etc. (rūpasaṅkhāvimutto), is immeasurable (appameyyo) like the great ocean.
50 Uppāda, vaya, ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ. At AN I 152,6-10 these are called the three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned (tīṇi saṅkhatassa saṅkhatalakkhaṇāni). The commentaries identify them with the three sub-moments in the momentary life span of a dhamma: arising (uppāda), persistence or presence (ṭhiti), and dissolution (bhaṅga). (For more on this, see CMA 4:6.) Spk explains ṭhitassa aññathatta as the aging (or decay) of the persisting living entity (dharamānassa jīvamānassa jarā), namely, of the life faculty. The commentator mentions the opinion held by some teachers that it is not possible to posit a moment of decay in the case of the mental phenomena (feeling, etc.) [Spk-pṭ: because of the extreme brevity of the moment, decay being quickly overtaken by dissolution], but he rejects this view on the basis of the sutta itself. Spk-pṭ proposes a logical argument for the sub-moment of presence: “Just as a stage of dissolution distinct from the stage of arising is admitted, for otherwise it would follow that an entity dissolves in the very act of arising, so we must admit, as distinct from the stage of dissolution, a stage when an entity ‘confronts its own dissolution’ (bhaṅgābhimukhāvatthā); for something cannot break up unless it has confronted its own dissolution.”
51 Dhammānudhammapaṭipanna. Spk: Navannaṃ lokuttaradhammānaṃ anulomadhammaṃ pubbabhāgapaṭipadaṃ paṭipannassa ; “when he is practising the preliminary portion of the practice that is in conformity with the ninefold supramundane Dhamma (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbāna).” Cp. II, n. 34.
52 Rūpe nibbidābahulaṃ vihareyya. Nibbidā, “revulsion,” is usually taken to refer to an advanced level of insight, which follows knowledge and vision of things as they really are (see 12:23 and II, n. 69). Spk explains “fully understands” by way of the three kinds of full understanding (see n. 42), and “is freed” (parimuccati) as meaning “freed through the full understanding of abandonment arisen at the moment of the path.” Alternatively, we might take the former as the arahant’s full knowledge of the first noble truth, the latter as the liberation from future rebirth ensured by the eradication of the taints.
53 These words are identical with the Buddha’s famous injunction to Ānanda in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (at DN II 100,20-22), also below at 47:9, 13, 14 (V 154,5-6, 163,10-11, 164,28-29). In explaining the expression attadīpa, “with self as island,” Spk says: “What is meant by ‘self’? The mundane and supramundane Dhamma (ko pan’ ettha attā nāma? lokiyalokuttaro dhammo). Therefore he says next, ‘with the Dhamma as an island,’ etc.” This comment overlooks the obvious point that the Buddha is inculcating self-reliance.
54 The Se reading seems best: yoni yeva upaparikkhitabbā. Be omits yeva and Ee treats yoni as a masculine noun. Spk glosses yoni with kāraṇa, “cause,” and refers to MN III 142,23-24: yoni h’ esā Bhūmija phalassa adhigamāya; “For this, Bhūmija, is the basis for the achievement of the fruit.” See too 35:239 (IV 175,27-28) and AN II 76,24-25. Spkpṭ offers an etymology: yavati etasmā phalaṃ pasavatī ti yoni. At 22:95 we repeatedly find the phrase yoniso upaparikkhati, “carefully investigates,” and it is quite possible that here too yoniso was the original reading. A Burmese v.l. cited by Ee actually has yoniso va.
55 Na paritassati. See n. 33 above and II, n. 137.
56 Tadaṅganibbuto ti vuccati. Though nibbuto is the past participle generally used to describe one who has attained Nibbāna, the prefix tadaṅga- qualifies that sense, suggesting he has not actually attained Nibbāna but has only approximated its attainment. One might have rendered this expression “one who has attained Nibbāna in that respect,” i.e., only in respect of a particular freedom. Spk: He is “quenched in that respect” because of the quenching of the defilements with respect to (or: through the factor of) insight. In this sutta it is just insight (vipassanā va) that is discussed.
57 Dukkhasamudayagāminī samanupassanā. Identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) is so called because the five aggregates of clinging, which constitute personal identity (sakkāya), are also the most basic manifestation of suffering (dukkha), as declared in the first noble truth: saṅkhittena pañc’ upādānakkhandhā dukkhā (see 56:11). According to Spk, samanupassanā is here equivalent to views (diṭṭhi), while in the following passage on the cessation of suffering it denotes the knowledge of the four paths along with insight.
58 Spk: Seeing with correct wisdom (sammappaññāya) is the wisdom of the path together with insight. The mind becomes dispassionate (virajjati) at the moment of the path, and is liberated (vimuccati) at the moment of the fruit.
59 Spk: It is steady (ṭhitaṃ) because there is no further work to be done; and content (santussitaṃ) because what was to be attained has been attained.It is noteworthy that the passage makes an unexpected transition from impersonal neuter nominatives (describing the bhikkhu’s mind, cittaṃ) to verbs that imply a personal subject (na paritassati, parinibbāyati, pajānāti).
60 The two expressions, “views concerning the past” (pubbāntānudiṭṭhiyo) and “views concerning the future” (aparāntānudiṭṭhiyo), clearly allude to the Brahmajāla Sutta (DN No. 1), which describes the famous sixty-two speculative views, eighteen about the past and forty-four about the future. Spk confirms this, and explains that at this point the first path has been shown [Spk-pṭ: by showing the complete abandonment of views]. The following passage shows the three higher paths and fruits; or, alternatively, the former passage shows the abandoning of views by way of mere insight, the sequel the four paths along with insight.For “obstinate grasping,” Se thāmasā parāmāso seems superior to Be thāmaso parāmāso and Ee thāmaso parāmaso; that is the reading at MN I 130,34, 257,4, etc. Spk glosses “obstinate grasping” as the obstinacy of views (diṭṭhithāmaso ) and the grasping of views (diṭṭhiparāmāso), apparently construing thāmasā, an instrumental used adverbially, as if it were an independent noun.
61 I read with Be and Se: asmī ti c’ assa avigataṃ hoti. Ee, and many mss, read adhigataṃ for avigataṃ. That the latter reading must be correct is proved by AN III 292,16-17, where the affirmative occurs, asmī ti kho me vigataṃ. This same argument applies to the reading at 22:89 below (III 128,34 foll.), despite the prevalence of adhigataṃ there.Spk explains “this way of regarding things” as regarding with views (diṭṭhisamanupassanā), and “the notion ‘I am’” as the “triple proliferation” (papañcattaya) of craving, conceit, and views. The two differ in that “regarding” is a conceptually formulated view, the notion “I am” a subtler manifestation of ignorance expressive of desire and conceit; see the important discussion at 22:89. The view of self is eliminated by the path of stream-entry; the notion “I am” is fully eradicated only by the path of arahantship.
62 I take this terse sentence to be describing the rebirth process contingent upon the persistence of the delusion of personal selfhood. Elsewhere “descent” (avakkanti)—of consciousness, or of name-and-form—indicates the commencement of a new existence (as at 12:39, 58, 59). Spk: When there is this group of defilements, there is the production of the five faculties conditioned by defilements and kamma.
63 I interpret this whole passage as a demonstration of how the new kammically active phase of existence commences through the renewal of conceiving in terms of the notion “I am” and speculative views of selfhood. Spk identifies “mind” (mano) with the kamma-mind (kammamano) a
nd “mental phenomena” (dhammā) with its objects, or the former as the bhavaṅga and adverting consciousness. Ignorance-contact (avijjāsamphassa) is the contact associated with ignorance (avijjāsampayuttaphassa).Ignorance is the most fundamental condition underlying this process, and when this is activated by feeling it gives rise to the notion “I am” (a manifestation of craving and conceit). The idea “I am this” arises subsequently, when the vacuous “I” is given a content by being identified with one or another of the five aggregates. Finally, full eternalist and annihilationist views originate when the imagined self is held either to survive death or to undergo destruction at death. This passage thus presents us with an alternative version of dependent origination, where the “way of regarding things” and the notion “I am” belong to the causally active side of the past existence; the five faculties to the resultant side of the present existence; and the recurrence of the notion “I am” to the causal side of the present existence. This will in turn generate renewed existence in the future.
64 The word khandha, aggregate, is glossed in the commentaries with rāsi, “group.” Each aggregate includes all instances of the particular phenomenological type that share its defining characteristic. The eleven categories into which each aggregate is classified are analysed at Vibh 1-12.
65 This sutta is quoted and discussed at Vism 477-78 (Ppn 14:214-15), in relation to the difference between the aggregates and the aggregates subject to clinging. The key terms distinguishing the pañc’ upādānakkhandhā from the pañcakkhandhā are sāsava upādāniya, “with taints and subject to clinging.” The pañc’ upādānakkhandhā are included within the pañcakkhandhā, for all members of the former set must also be members of the latter set. However, the fact that a distinction is drawn between them implies that there are khandha which are anāsava anupādāniya, “untainted and not subject to clinging.” On first consideration it would seem that the “bare aggregates” are those of the arahant, who has eliminated the āsava and upādāna. However, in the Abhidhamma all rūpa is classified as sāsava and upādāniya, and so too the resultant (vipāka) and functional (kiriya) mental aggregates of the arahant (see Dhs §§1103, 1219). The only aggregates classed as anāsava and anupādāniya are the four mental aggregates occurring on the cognitive occasions of the four supramundane paths and fruits (see Dhs §§1104, 1220). The reason for this is that sāsava and upādāniya do not mean “accompanied by taints and by clinging,” but “capable of being taken as the objects of the taints and of clinging,” and the arahant’s mundane aggregates can be taken as objects of the taints and clinging by others (see As 347). For a detailed study of this problem, see Bodhi, “Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates.”Spk: Among the five aggregates the form aggregate is of the sense sphere, the other four aggregates are of the four planes (sense sphere, form sphere, formless sphere, supramundane). With taints (sāsava) means: what becomes a condition for the taints by way of object; so too that can be clung to (upādāniya) means what becomes a condition for clinging [Spk-pṭ: by being made its object]. Among the aggregates subject to clinging, stated by way of the practice of insight, the form aggregate is sense sphere, the others pertain to the three planes (i.e., excluding only the supramundane).
66 This is the threefold conceit: superiority, equality, and inferiority.
67 This passage applies the formula for the Four Noble Truths to each of the five aggregates, in accordance with the Buddha’s statement, “the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering” (56:11). See 12:13 and II, n. 27.
68 Spk: The mutual destruction of delight (nandi) and lust (rāga) is stated to show that in denotation there is actually no difference between them. Or, alternatively, one abandons delight by experiencing revulsion, (which occurs) through the contemplation of revulsion (nibbidānupassanā); one abandons lust by becoming dispassionate, (which occurs) through the contemplation of dispassion (virāgānupassanā). To this extent, having set up insight [Spk-pṭ: with the phrase, “with the destruction of delight comes the destruction of lust,” which consummates the function of insight], by the phrase “with the destruction of lust comes the destruction of delight” he shows the path; and by the phrase “with the destruction of delight and lust the mind is liberated” the fruit is shown.
69 I read upayo with Be and Se, as against Ee upāyo. Here it seems the noun is being used as a virtual present participle. Spk: Engaged: one who has approached (upagato) the five aggregates by way of craving, conceit, and views.
70 I translate in accordance with Se. Be and Ee have omitted the clauses on vedanā and saññā, apparently an old scribal error. I also read nandūpasecana, with Be and Se, as against Ee nandupasevana. Though Spk does not offer a gloss, the Be-Se reading can claim support from the underlying metaphor of vegetation, which is made explicit in the simile in the next sutta. In the simile nandirāga is compared to the water element, and it is thus appropriate that it be “sprinkled.”The passage is quoted at DN III 228,6-13 in explanation of the “four stations of consciousness” (catasso viññaṇaṭṭhitiyo ); see too Nidd II 1. We find here still another indication of how consciousness grows and evolves in dependence on the other four aggregates. This sutta and the next should be compared with 12:38-40, 12:64, and 22:3. As to why consciousness is not “engaged” with itself, see above n. 19, which makes essentially the same point.
71 Spk: The basis is cut off (vocchijjatārammaṇaṃ): the basis (or object) is cut off through the lack of any ability to precipitate rebirth. Spk-pṭ: The basis (or object), which is the condition for rebirth by way of the sign of kamma, etc., is “cut off” by way of (the cutting off of) the kamma that generates rebirth.Spk-pṭ thus takes ārammaṇa here in the sense dominant in the Abhidhamma, i.e., as the object of rebirth-consciousness (see CMA 3:17). However, I understand the word in the older sense of “basis,” elsewhere glossed simply as paccaya; see II, n. 112. Spk’s explanation need not entail the interpretation proposed by Spk-pṭ.
72 Be, Se: Anabhisaṅkhacca vimuttaṃ (Ee: anabhisaṅkhārañca vimuttaṃ). The “nongenerative consciousness” is the consciousness that does not generate volitional formations (saṅkhāra). Spk says it is “liberated” because it does not generate rebirth.
73 The five kinds of “seeds” (bīja) are actually five means of propagation. Spk gives examples of the five kinds drawn from Vin IV 35.
74 For a poetic version of the vegetation simile, see 5:9; for an elaboration of the comparison of consciousness to a seed, see AN I 223-24.
75 Spk: The Blessed One uttered this inspired utterance because he was aroused by powerful joy while reviewing the emancipating nature (niyyānikabhāva) of the Teaching. The five lower fetters (pañc’ orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni) are: identity view, doubt, distorted grasp of rules and vows, sensual lust, and ill will.The formula for resolution recommended by the Buddha occurs in the suttas in two versions, one used by the annihilationists, the other the Buddha’s adaptation of this; as the two versions differ only with respect to two verb forms, they are sometimes confounded in the various recensions. From the commentarial glosses, it appears that the confusion had already set in before the age of the commentaries. Readings also differ among several editions of the same text. Generally I prefer the readings in Se, though in relation to the present sutta Se follows the lemma and gloss of Spk, which has adopted the first phrase in its annihilationist variant (though not interpreted as such). This corruption was probably already present in the text available to the commentators.
The annihilationist version—explicitly identified as ucchedadiṭṭhi at 22:81 and classed among the wrong views at 22:152 and 24:4—reads: no c’ assaṃ no ca me siyā, na bhavissāmi na me bhavissati. At AN V 63,28-64,2 the Buddha describes this creed as the highest of outside speculative views (etadaggaṃ bāhirakānaṃ diṭṭhigatānaṃ), the reason being that one who accepts such a view will not be attracted to existence nor averse to the cessation of existence. It is problematic how the optative clause in the annihilationist version should be
interpreted; perhaps it can be read as an assertion that personal existence, along with its experienced world, is utterly fortuitous (“I might not have been and it might not have been mine”). The clause in the future tense clearly asserts that personal existence and its world will terminate at death.
The Buddha transformed this formula into a theme for contemplation consonant with his own teaching by replacing the first person verbs with their third person counterparts: No c’ assa no ca me siyā, na bhavissati na me bhavissati. The change of person shifts the stress from the view of self implicit in the annihilationist version (“I will be annihilated”) to an impersonal perspective that harmonizes with the anattā doctrine. In the present sutta, resolving (adhimuccamāno ) on the formula is said to culminate in the destruction of the five lower fetters, that is, in the stage of nonreturning (anāgāmitā). Elsewhere the formula includes a rider, yad atthi yaṃ bhūtaṃ taṃ pajahāmi, “what exists, what has come to be, that I am abandoning.” Contemplation of this is said to lead to equanimity. At MN II 264,29-265,20 practice guided by the full formula, with the rider, culminates in rebirth in the base of neither-perception-nor-nonperception (if the meditator clings to the equanimity) or in Nibbāna (if there is no clinging to the equanimity). At AN IV 70-74, resolution guided by the formula, again with the rider, leads to one of the five levels of nonreturning or to arahantship. At Ud 78,2-3 the shorter formula is applied to mindfulness of the body; one who dwells thus gradually crosses attachment, i.e., wins arahantship.
The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Page 115