[Lipitorseffec]

Dear forum

The reading of this sutta has not always been straightforward to me.

When the Buddha refers to the origination of the world, is this being equated to Dependent Origination?

When the Buddha refers to the cessation of the world, is this being equated to Dependent Cessation?

Whilst I have read the Loka Sutta, where the Buddha used the term "the world" as a synonym for suffering, in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, is the Buddha doing the same?

Or in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, is the Buddha simply stating views about the origination and cessation of "the world" (in a broader sense) is unimportant and that understanding how the origination and cessation of suffering occurs is what is essential?

Regards

Element

Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"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.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....015.than.html

[Pdarasenko]

Hi Element,
My take on this is that it applies fully within the framework of this very experience, in this body, here and now. Sometimes the Buddha refers to this as "the all." It is everything that we have to work with; anything we don't have to work with is not relevant to the path.
All of these polarities (self/other, past/future, existence/nonexistence, here/there) all are part of the geometry and orientation deriving from ignorance. Until we fully penetrated ignorance, we might not even see how deeply these polarities go, how much a part of our basic assumptions they are.
They are all fabrications.

[xyupi]

All of these polarities (self/other, past/future, existence/nonexistence, here/there) all are part of the geometry and orientation deriving from ignorance.

Thanks Jechbi

However, the impression that has given rise to my inquiry is the Buddha seems to not affirm the substantialness of either [perceptions of] existence or nonexistence. Yet he also seems to be saying existence & nonexistence do not necessarily arise from wrong view. He says:
"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" In other words, to me (above) the Buddha seems to say right view sees both the existence & non-existence of things (akin to seeing impermanence or arising/passing, which is enlightened view). Yet later the Buddha mentions Dependent Origination, the arising of which is obviously based in ignorance.

As I said in my original post, the reading of this sutta has not always been straightforward to me. It could be the translation or language used but it seems like there a two different themes in it rather than one.

Regards

[FelicitaJ]

In other words, to me (above) the Buddha seems to say right view sees both the existence & non-existence of things (akin to seeing impermanence or arising/passing, which is enlightened view).

Hi Element,
It seems to me that Buddha is saying that such views don't even occur to a liberated being.

[WaydayTew]

Thanks Jechbi & SriV

OK, that could be it. The Buddha is simply saying in right view, the views of existence & non-existence do not occur, that is:

'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one

'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one

so you are saying when 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'existence' (albeit however temporary)

similary, when 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'non-existence' (albeit however temporary)



looking at the Pali, the terms are natthitā and atthitā, which may possibly refer to certain philosophical doctines commonly held during the Buddha's time

so i was probably reading too much into it. although there is arising (samudhaya), this is not "existence" (atthitā). although there is cessation (nirodha), this is not "non-existence" (natthitā). such a subtle distinction is made in the sutta below:

regards



I have heard that on one occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now, at that time this evil supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: "As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes & does not exist after death."

.............................

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is dukkha. That which is dukkha has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

Yamaka Sutta

[halfstreet]

Hi Element,

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. Seems to me that "world" is meant in the Sutta as worldly things, mundaneness, worldliness.

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. When Right View is developed one is not caught neither at selfhood nor not selfhood of things. One is not caught in either entanglements, in either struggle. Its at peace with things. No need to investigate more its dhamma.

Also Soto schools are about this development through Zazen when there is investigation; "Shi-Kan-Ta-Za" is the Za-Zen of the enlightened. Negemisho is the way of knowing dhammas as exposed by the Buddha in the given Sutta:

But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. This is Silent Learning; the way of Soto tradition. It is not about not discussing but about a quite mind not entangled with this or that; with such and such; with self and not self.

IMO seems that the sutta is about this.

[naturaherbal]

Thanks, Element.

so you are saying when 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'existence' (albeit however temporary)

similary, when 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'non-existence' (albeit however temporary)

Yes, I think that's correct. These statements from the others also resonate:

It seems to me that Buddha is saying that such views don't even occur to a liberated being.

Seems to me that "world" is meant in the Sutta as worldly things, mundaneness, worldliness. ... When Right View is developed one is not caught neither at selfhood nor not selfhood of things.

It's interesting though to consider the possibility that other shades of meaning might also be found in the text, such as references to certain philosophical doctrines, as you suggest. But for me, the text is most relevant with regard to how it pertains to this field of experience.

[Rffkwfct]

so you are saying when 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'existence' (albeit however temporary)

similary, when 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one, this does not necessarily give rise to the view of 'non-existence' (albeit however temporary)

That's how I read it element. They don't negate or limit each other - neither occurs plain & simple.

looking at the Pali, the terms are natthitā and atthitā, which may possibly refer to certain philosophical doctines commonly held during the Buddha's time Very much so. Even nowadays we can see how much steam this topic generates. People get stuck into the 'something must exist / doesn't exist / spaghetti monster' ontology. Like a car trapped in mud revving into forward then reverse and going nowhere fast.

so i was probably reading too much into it Always really worth chewing this stuff over though.

[Erunsenef]

Thanks everyone

So the polarity of atthitā and natthitā is actually or similar to "I am alive/I exist" and "I will die/I will cease to exist". The "I" is still there, to exist or to be anihilated.

Or in the Mahayana sense, "when one sees the origination of the world with right view", one does not see "wholes" or "entities" but simply the arising/manifesting of causes & conditions (and similarily, the cessation/collapsing of causes and conditions).

It appears the terms natthitā and atthitā are what needed to be clarified here.

OK. "I" am happy now.