[StevenS]

(I've mostly been reading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of this sutta, because the only other version I've seen online, which I believe was Bhikkhu Bodhi's, more or less reeked of eisegesis. If there's a better translation out there, please let me know.)

In this sutta, the Buddha is essentially saying that even if there is no "next world", Buddhist practice is still a good idea. That's nice. However, he also appears to be saying that not believing in a "next world" is wrong view. In fact, it seems almost impossible to interpret it in any other way, unless his talk of a "next world" is a metaphor, of course.

Not believing in this "next world" is, according to Thanissaro's interpretation, anti-Dhamma, and the Buddha basically says that you are bashing the arahants by not believing in it. Ouch.

From the sutta:

"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view. It has been suggested that the Buddha referred to beliefs of this kind as "right view with defilements" in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. In the Apannaka Sutta, however, the Buddha appears to be defining these superstitious beliefs as right view (without defilements). Confusing to say the least.

Now, keep in mind that I'm an amateur when it comes to sutta reading. It's possible that my interpretation is completely whack, which is why I'm really interested in hearing whether anyone here has a different interpretation of this aspect of the sutta. Is the Buddha really saying that not believing in a "next world" is wrong view? Is he even referring to a literal world, or does he mean something else? Could he simply be referring to nibbana?

What's your opinion?

Overall a really cool sutta, by the way. I dig the somewhat agnostic/open-minded tone of the Buddha. Quite different from the attitude of most hell-fearing, self-proclaimed Dhamma experts over at DW, for example.

[nanyaHgoc]

In this sutta, the Buddha is essentially saying that even if there is no "next world", Buddhist practice is still a good idea. That's nice. However, he also appears to be saying that not believing in a "next world" is wrong view. In fact, it seems almost impossible to interpret it in any other way, unless his talk of a "next world" is a metaphor, of course.

hi ST

the Pali is 'paraloka', which means 'other world' or 'other worlds'. even Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the correct translation of 'other' for 'para'. the other 'worlds' are the hungry ghost, animal, hell and heavenly worlds

In the Apannaka Sutta, however, the Buddha appears to be defining these superstitious beliefs as right view (without defilements).

you probably need to explain how you came to this conclusion. MN 60 states this right view sides with the "wholesome" rather than with Nibbana. in fact, MN 60 is addressed to 'householders' and, at the end of the sutta, none of listeners gain enlightenment.

if we read carefully, MN 60 states this right view is that of "existence"

this can be contrasted with SN 12.15, which states the view of existence is not right view. the right view described in MN 60 is the same as the defiled right view described in MN 117. thus I recommend to study MN 60, MN 117 and SN 12.15.

regards

Element


And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

MN 117 Even if we didn't speak of the other worlds and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.

MN 60 By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

SN 12.15

[etdgxcnc]

you probably need to explain how you came to this conclusion.

Somehow I missed this:

Even if we didn't speak of the other worlds and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. Thank you.

[michael247]

if we read carefully, MN 60 states this right view is that of "existence"

What does "existence", or a "doctrine of existence", refer to here?

this can be contrasted with SN 12.15, which states the view of existence is not right view. the right view described in MN 60 is the same as the defiled right view described in MN 117. thus I recommend to study MN 60, MN 117 and SN 12.15.

Now I'm confused!

[HakSpeame]

What does "existence", or a "doctrine of existence", refer to here?

hi ST

my interpretation is the doctrine of 'existence' is that of continued existence, based in the view "I will continue to exist"

this accords with the other aspects of the defiled right view, such as "there are spontaneously born beings"

however, in the undefiled (transcendent) right view, there are no "beings". there is anatta (not-self), emptiness (sunnata) and merely dependently arisen phenomena

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consc iousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Satta Sutta: A Being When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that?

Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

Paccaya Sutta: Requisite Conditions SN 12.15 describes the undefiled transcendent right view, namely: "When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one"

so MN 60 is a faith teaching, addressed to householders

where as SN 12.15 is a wisdom (discernment) teaching for those interested in enlightenment

MN 60 and SN 12.15 impart two different teachings

these two different kinds of teachings are listed in MN 117, which states: "of right view, there are two sorts"

MN 60 is the first sort of right view. SN 12.15 is the second sort of right view

kind regards

element


And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

MN 117

[mudozvonf]

If you look carefully at the structure of the sutta, the Buddha describes a "hieracrchy of doctrines", with his own liberative teachings as the last and best of all of them. The hypothetical "wise person" examines the views presented and concludes that out of all of them, the Buddha's doctrine of "cessation of becoming" is the wisest choice out of all of them.

However, he also appears to be saying that not believing in a "next world" is wrong view. I am sure that there are those who would have us think that, but the assertion that the Buddha is rejecting is "There is no...", rather than "I don't believe in...". The former is a speculative view, the latter is an objective statement.


As Element has pointed out, the fact that the Buddha is addressing Brahmin householders in this sutta is vitally relevant.

[BoarmomorurrY]

The hypothetical "wise person" examines the views presented and concludes that out of all of them, the Buddha's doctrine of "cessation of becoming" is the wisest choice out of all of them.

And "cessation of becoming" does not necessarily mean "cessation of literal rebirth" everywhere in the suttas, correct?

[911_993_911]

I am sure that there are those who would have us think that, but the assertion that the Buddha is rejecting is "There is no...", rather than "I don't believe in...". The former is a speculative view, the latter is an objective statement.

But the Buddha doesn't only reject assertions. He also makes an assertion himself, namely "there actually is a next world".

What does he mean by it?

[DoctorBretonDen]

And "cessation of becoming" does not necessarily mean "cessation of literal rebirth" everywhere in the suttas, correct?

It doesn't mean reincarnation/"re-birth" at all. It is a cessation of the processes which give rise to what Buddhadasa called "Me-and-Mine" (and thus give rise to suffering).

[JohnTruels]

But the Buddha doesn't only reject assertions. He also makes an assertion himself, namely "there actually is a next world".

What does he mean by it?

Element has already answered that in #2. The Buddha is referring to mental "realms", states of mind.

[tpJKhY8Z]

I have given up on "wrong views" that make for "right views". Just pondering along and trying to do a few right (oops) things to the best of my very annoying ability and reasonings.

[UriDepkeeks]

But the Buddha doesn't only reject assertions. He also makes an assertion himself, namely "there actually is a next world".

What does he mean by it?

the Pali is 'paraloka', which means 'other world'

knowledgeable translators (unlike Thanissaro), ranging from Buddhadasa to Bodhi, all use "other world"

so the other worlds are hell, hungry ghost, animal and heavenly worlds

Buddha was not concerned with a "next" world

Buddha was concerned with the results of karma, namely, "other" worlds

regards

[allmyflights]

I have given up on "wrong views" that make for "right views". Just pondering along and trying to do a few right (oops) things to the best of my very annoying ability and reasonings.

that's the way Murchovski

Buddhism is about trying to learn in a practical manner & realise to the best of our ability (rather than indoctrination/brainwashing our mind)

kind regards

element

[LottiFurmann]

Buddhism is about trying to learn in a practical manner & realise to the best of our ability (rather than indoctrination/brainwashing our mind)