June 9, 2019 at 4:52 am #23564y notParticipant
Four methods of acquiring new personality, to wit, (1) in which our own volition works, not another’s, (2) in which another’s volition works, not ours, (3) in which both our own and another’s volition work, (4) in which the volition of neither works. (Rhys Davids).
Four kinds of reincarnation. There is a reincarnation where only one’s own intention is effective, not that of others.There is a reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not one’s own. There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective. There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective. (Sujato)
Cattāro attabhāvapaṭilābhā. Atthāvuso, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanāyevakamati, no parasañcetanā. Atthāvuso, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe parasañcetanāyevakamati, no attasañcetanā.Atthāvuso, attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe attasañcetanā cevakamati parasañcetanā ca..Atthāvuso attabhāvapaṭilābho, yasmiṃ attabhāvapaṭilābhe neva attasañcetanākamati, no parasañcetanā.
Keyword attabhāvapaṭilābhā. We know the Buddha said: ‘Intention is kamma’. But going by this sutta, the question arises: whose intention? Ours, another’s, both at once or neither’s ? Also, it is not clear to me what exactly is meant by ‘volition’ and ‘intention’. Is it saying one’s bhava-to-be is determined (beforehand) by oneself, another, both together, neither…or that one’s personality, character , one’s life is shaped by oneself, another, both together,neither, during the course of that life, i.e. after it has already come into being ? Or both? Or neither?
Metta to all
June 9, 2019 at 9:11 am #23565
1. First, “reincarnation” is a bad translation for “attabhāvapaṭilābha”.
– Reincarnation implies an “everlasting entity” taking different forms in different births.
As we discussed in the post, “Anattā in Anattalakkahana Sutta – No Soul or an Ātma”, “atta” has a mundane meaning and a transcendental (lokuttara) meaning.
2. In the mundane sense, “attabhāva” can imply a certain birth or existence, say as a human, a deva, or an animal. Even when a human is reborn he can be said to have “another attabhava”.
– However, as we saw in that post, in reality there is “attā” like a “soul” being reborn (this is again why reincarnation is a bad translation).
3. Therefore, one needs to be careful in determining in what sense the term “attabhāva” is used in a particular instance.
– In the sutta that y not referred to (“Saṅgīti Sutta (DN 33)“), Ven. Sariputta just listed those four types of “attabhāva”, likely to be in the lokuttara sense; he did not elaborate on the four categories. I don’t have time to look into that right now. May be others can comment on that.
– English translation at the same website: “The Recital (DN 33)“.
4. The Buddha provided explanations for both mundane and lokuttara versions in the “Poṭṭhapāda Sutta (DN 9)“.
– English translation there: “To Poṭṭhapada (DN 9)“. I have not read that, so I am not sure how good the translation is.
June 11, 2019 at 7:08 am #23577
y not has written to me and saying that he was unable to post the following comment here. I am sorry about that and do not know why that is. If anyone else is having problems posting, please let me know: [email protected].
Here is the comment by y not:
95. Things that can’t be done (4) Catutthaabhabbaṭṭhānasutta: “Things That Can’t Be Done (4th) AN 6.95)”
A person accomplished in view can’t fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, or that they’re made by another, or that they’re made by both. Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both.
Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view ‘has clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes.’ These are the six things that can’t be done.”
Chayimāni, bhikkhave, abhabbaṭṭhānāni. Katamāni cha? Abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṃkataṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo paraṃkataṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṃkatañca paraṃkatañca sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṃkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ. Taṃ kissa hetu? Tathā hissa, bhikkhave, diṭṭhisampannassa puggalassa hetu ca sudiṭṭho hetusamuppannā ca dhammā. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cha abhabbaṭṭhānānī”ti.
The wording here is different from DN 33, AND this sutta is talking about Satopannas (Ditthisampanno). If he has ‘clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes’ who else created the causes but he (‘he’ in the conventional sense) for as such the ‘he’ who created those causes in the past was other than the one who now ‘sees the phenomena that arise from those causes’, and in another way, the same one. In the sense that, we know that this life is a result of a past kamma, but, other than through abhinna powers, we know nothing of the cause, we cannot recollect it. All we do know is that effects arise from causes.
Perhaps this sutta may provide someone a hint or two in clarifying DN 33 ??
So, keeping to the sutta and applying it also to DN 33:
For a new existence, intention (DN 33) and for the experiencing of pleasure and pain (AN 6.95)
Did I create the cause? -No
Did someone else create the cause? -No
Did both I and someone else create the cause? -No
Did no one create the cause (by pure chance)? – No
Am I somewhere?
June 11, 2019 at 8:48 am #23579
Thanks for posting this sutta, y not.
It is an important short sutta that actually explains what sakkāya ditthi is.
The following is my translation of the sutta. The Pali version is “Catutthaabhabbaṭṭhāna Sutta (AN 6.95)“.
“A Sotapanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view (diṭṭhisampanno puggalo) is unable (abhabbo) to fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself (sayaṃkataṃ), or that they’re made by another (paraṃkataṃ), or that they’re made by both (sayaṃkatañca paraṃkatañca). Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both (asayaṃkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṃ).
Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view has clearly seen that phenomena arise due to causes and conditions (according to Paticca Samuppāda). Those are the six things that a Sotapanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view will not fall back to”.
This is exactly what we have been discussing in the most recent posts and the one I will be posting in a few days about Sakkāya Ditthi:
1. There is no “attā” or a “soul” or an “ātma” doing those things.
2. Those kamma vipāka (pleasure or pain ) materialize due to two things:
– Causes were created in the past based on the “gati” of the lifestream AT THAT TIME.
– And those vipāka materialized when suitable CONDITIONS were present (at a later time).
– That process is described by Paticca Samuppāda.
3. This is why understanding “gati” is so important. One may have had “bad gati” in the past and those can bring “bad vipāka” now EVEN IF one has “good gati” now.
This is why even the Buddha had to bear bad kamma vipāka. Even though he had “no gati left”, he had to endure the results of past kamma done when he had “bad gati”.
If one can clearly understand this, one has removed or at least getting close to removing sakkāya ditthi.
Recent relevant posts:
Anattā in Anattalakkahana Sutta – No Soul or an Ātma
Idappaccayatā Paticca Samuppāda and “uppatti Paticca Samuppada” in that section.
This will become even more clear (hopefully) with the upcoming post on sakkāya ditthi.
June 11, 2019 at 10:40 am #23580y notParticipant
Yes, thanks Lal,
-that was the idea that I had: no same one (‘atta’) that created the causes and also now experiences the effect. Yet,in another sense, it is the same ‘stream’, so: not I, nor another, nor both together, nor neither.
To illustrate: there is at least one instance in the suttas (one that I had come across) where a deva resolves to attain a human birth so as to be able to hear and live the Dhamma. Applied here: the same stream, yet it was ‘not I, nor another, nor both together, nor neither.’
Thanks in advance for the upcoming post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.