Samyutta Nikaya – The Connected Discourse of the Buddha
II. The Book of Causation (Nidanavagga)
12. Nidanasamyutta (Page-609)
68 (8) Kosambi
On one occasion the Venerable Musila, the Venerable Savittha, the Venerable Narada, and the Venerable Ananda were living Kosambi in Ghosita’s Park.[1]
Then the Venerable Savittha said to the Venerable Musila: “Friend Musila, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it,[2] does the Venerable Musila have personal knowledge thus: ‘With birth condition, aging-and-death [comes to be]’?”
“Friend Savittha, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death [comes to be].’”
“Friend Musila, apart from faith ... apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, does the Venerable Musila have personal knowledge thus: ‘With existence as condition, birth’?... ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations’?”
“Friend Savittha, apart from faith ... apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations.’”
“Friend Musila, apart from faith ... apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, does the Venerable Musila have personal knowledge: ‘With the cessation of birth comes cessation of aging-and-death’?... ‘With the cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations’?”
“Friend Savittha, apart from faith ... apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘With the cessation of birth comes cessation of aging-and-death.’... ‘With the cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formation.’”
“Friend Musila, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, does the Venerable Musila have personal knowledge thus: ‘Nibbana is the cessation of existence’?”[3]
“Friend Savittha, apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it, I know this, I see this: ‘Nibbana is the cessation of existence.’”
“Then the Venerable Musila is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed.”
When this was said, the Venerable Musila kept silent.[4]
Then the Venerable Narada said to the Venerable Savittha: “Friend Savittha, it would be good if I were asked that series of questions. Ask me that series of questions and I will answer you.”[5]
“Then let the Venerable Narada get to answer that series of questions. I will ask the Venerable Narada that series of questions, and let him answer me.”
(Here the Venerable Savittha asks the Venerable Narada the same series of
questions as were addressed to the Venerable Musila, and he answers in exactly
the same way.)
“Then the Venerable Narada is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed.”
“Friend, though I have clearly seen as it really is with correct wisdom, ‘Nibbana is the cessation of existence,’ I am not an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed. [6] Suppose, friend, there was a well along a desert road, but it had neither a rope nor a bucket. Then a man would come along, oppressed and afflicted by the heat, tired, parched, and thirsty. He would look down into the well and the knowledge would occur to him, ‘There is water,’ but he would not be able to make bodily contact with it. [7] So too, friend, though I have clearly seen as it really is with correct wisdom, ‘Nibbana is the cessation of existence,’ I am not an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed.” [8]
When this was said, the Venerable Ananda asked the Venerable Savittha: “When he speaks in such a way, friend Savittha, what would you say about the Venerable Narada?”
“When he speaks in such a way, friend Ananda, I would not say anything about
the Venerable Narada except what is good and favourable.” [9]
[The end of SN 12.68.
Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi]
[Franz: In the Samyutta Nikaya, it is interesting to see that the Kosambi Sutta SN 12.68 is followed closely by the Susima Sutta (SN 12.70). The contents of these two sutras are intimately connected. The same is true in the Chinese translations, the Agama. Please also read the Kalama Sutta with this sutta.]
To read another translation
by Thanissaro
Bhikkhu, go to:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-068.html
[1] Spk does not identify these elders. Savittha appears at AN 1118-19, Narada at AN III 57-62.
[2] These five grounds for the acceptance of a thesis recur at 35:153 and are examined critically by the Buddha at MN II 170,26-171,25; see too MN II 218,15-21. Here they are being contrasted with personal knowledge (paccattameva ndna). For a detailed discussion, see Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, pp. 182-88, 274-76.
Spk: One person accepts something through faith (saddha) by placing
faith in another and accepting what he says as true. Another accepts something
through personal preference (ruci) when he approves of some thesis by
reflecting on it and then takes it to be true. One accepts a by oral
tradition (anussava) when one thinks: "This has come down from ancient
times by oral tradition, so it must be true." For another, as he thinks, a
certain thesis appears valid, and he concludes, "So it is": he
accepts it by reasoned reflection (akaraparivitakka). (Jayatilleke
discusses akara as meaning "reason" at p. 274.) In the fifth
case, as one reflects, a view arises by pondering some hypothesis; this is acceptance
of a view after pondering it (ditthinijjhanakkhanti).
[3] Bhavanirodho nibbanam. Spk: Nibbana is the cessation of the five aggregates.
[4] Spk: The elder Musila was an arahant, but without saying whether or not it was so he just kept silent.
[5] Spk: Why did he speak up? It is said that he reflected thus: "This proposition—'Nibbana is the cessation of existence'—can be understood even by trainees. But this elder (Savittha) places that one (Musila) on the plane of the arahant. I will make him understand this matter correctly.”
[6] Spk: Clearly seen ... with correct wisdom: clearly seen with path wisdom together with insight. I am not an arahant: he indicates this because he stands on the path of nonreturning. But his knowledge that "Nibbana is the cessation of existence" is a type of reviewing knowledge (paccavekhananana) apart from the nineteen (regular) types of reviewing knowledge (see Vism 676; Ppn 22:19-21)
[7] Na ca kayena phusitva vihareyya, lit. "but he would not dwell having contacted it with the body." Spk glosses: He would not be able to draw out the water."
[8] Spk: The seeing of water in the well represents the seeing of Nibbana by the nonreturner. The man afflicted by heat represents the nonreturner; the water bucket, the path of arahantship. As the man oppressed by heat sees water in the well, the nonreturner knows by reviewing knowledge, "There exists a breakthrough to the path of arahantship” (reading with Se arahattaphalabhisamaya). But as the man lacking the bucket cannot draw out the water and touch it with the body, so the nonreturner, lacking the path of arahantship, cannot sit down and become absorbed in the attainment of the fruit of arahantship, which has Nibbana as its object.
It would be a misunderstanding of Narada's reply to take it as a rejoinder to Musila's tacit claim that he is an arahant (the interpretation adopted by Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, pp. 128-29). The point is not that Musila was unjustified in consenting to that title, but that Savittha drew an incorrect inference, for he held the wrong belief that the defining mark of an arahant is the understanding of dependent origination and the nature of Nibbana. This understanding, rather, is common property of the trainee and the arahant. What distinguishes the arahant from the trainee is not his insight into dependent origination (and other principles of the Dhamma) but the fact that he has used this insight to eradicate all defilements and has thereby gained access to a unique meditative state (called in the commentaries arahattaphalasamapatti, the fruition attainment of arahantship) in which he can dwell "touching the deathless element with his body." At 48:53, too, the expression kayena phusitva viharati highlights the essential difference between the sekha and the asekha; see V, n. 238. For parallel texts on the difference between the stream-enterer and the arahant, see 22:109-110 (stated in terms of the five aggregates) and 48:2-5, 26-27, 32-33 (in terms of the faculties).
[9] In all three eds. the question begins with evamvadi tvam and the reply with evamvadaham. However, since it was Narada who just spoke, it seems we should read the question portion as evamvadim tvam and resolve evamvadaham in the reply into evamvadim aham. Neither Spk nor Spk-pt offers any help here, but a note in Be of the text suggests this amendation. The Ee reading of a parallel passage at 55:23 (V 374,24-27) has the reading I prefer, though there Be and Se have the same reading as here. At MN II 214,14 foil. we find evamvadaham in a context where it would have to be resolved as an accusative plural, eva.mvad.ino (niganthe} aham, which further supports my proposal regarding the present passage.