On Upādāna

Leave a Reply

Who is without parts, without actions, peaceful, blameless, unattached, the supreme bridge to Immortality, like a fire that has consumed all its fuel

Shvetashvara Upanishad VI 19

The Sanskrit/Pali word translated as fuel here is indhana, indhana is something capable of burning, like firewood, cow dung, this is exactly fuel, as the root ind means to kindle.

But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: ‘This fire in front of you that is quenched: in what direction did it go—east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?
It doesn’t apply, worthy Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more added, the fire is reckoned to have become quenched due to lack of food

MN 72

The Pali word translated as quenched here is nibbuto, that one who reached nibbana (Sanskrit Nirvana). The Sanskrit/Pali word used here and translated regularly as fuel here is not indhana at all, it is upādāna and (although it is commonly translated as such)

Upādāna is translated literally as taking up, what is the relation to fire and fuel then? When fire burns it takes up, consumes logs, grass, it depends on it as its sustenance, so that is why logs are upādāna for the fire, and in this simile when sustenance, the food. The soil and water for a plant are also upādāna, sustenance, food as the food is upādāna for a living being.
The corresponding verb is upādiyati, to take up, to acquire.
When upādāna ends, the fire gets quenched (nibbuto) In this simile it is a wordplay, based on indhana/upādāna, on the fire being the symbol for desire and passion in other Pali suttas and the fire being the symbol of Brahman in Vedas.

And the last word for today upādhi, it is something that is a result of upādiyati, an acquisition, something that was taken up, that is something that has been taken and becomes attached. That attachment limits the one which took up the attachment, upādhi. And it conditions the object, limits it. Like damp fuel, damp is here the upādhi for fuel, it limits it when attached, like fire itself is a general object which may give out smoke or not, but damp fuel give out smoke always. The upādhi does not change the fuel though, but limit and restricts it when being attached to it. Another illustration is that of a red flower which transfers its property of redness to a clear crystal due to their proximity. In this case the red flower is the upādhi of the crystal

So upādhi can be considered as something that disguise the reality, not every fuel gives smoke, that is the reality, but seeing the damp fuel gives smoke disguise fuel as smoky. The crystal is not red but we think it is red because of upādhi

Same with Brahman, upādhi disguise it as God, soul, world, but actually Brahman is like a fire that has consumed all its fuel, no more upādāna, no more upādhi, fire gets quenched (nibbuto), it is nibbana and the true reality shines.

The sun does not shine there

Leave a Reply

Where water and earth, fire and air have no footing – there no star does shine nor does the sun shed its light; there the moon glows not, yet no darkness is found. And when a sage, a brahmin, finds understanding through their own sagacity, then, from forms and formless, from pleasure and pain they are released.

Udana 1.10

The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings-not to speak of this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By His light all this is lighted

Katha Upanishad 2.2.15, Shvetashvara Upanishad VI. 14

On six sense organs

Leave a Reply

When we speak of the six senses, modern readers often assume a biological interpretation: the eye is the physical organ of sight, the ear the organ of hearing, and so on. In the philosophical traditions of ancient India, however, the senses were understood primarily as faculties involved in the arising of experience. The Upaniṣads and early Buddhist texts both examine the six senses in this broader sense, describing their functions and their role in perception and cognition. Viewed together, these teachings present complementary perspectives on the nature of the senses and the way experience is formed.

From Atman are born prana, mind and all the sense organs

Mu Up II i.3

When it does the function of living, It is called the prana, when It speaks, the organ of speech, when It sees, the eye, when It hears, the ear and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to its functions

Br Up I. iv. 7

Reverend, these five faculties have different domains and different ranges, and don’t experience each other’s domain and range. That is the faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. What do these five faculties, with their different domains and ranges, have recourse to? What experiences their domains and ranges? These five faculties, with their different domains and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their domains and ranges

MN 43

Mendicant, suppose a person had never seen a parrot tree before. They’d go up to someone who had seen a parrot tree and ask them, ‘My man, what’s a parrot tree like?
They’d say, ‘A parrot tree is blackish, like a charred stump.’ Now, at that time a parrot tree may well have been just as that person saw it. Not content with that answer, that person would go up to a series of other people and receive the following answers: A parrot tree is reddish, like a scrap of meat, a parrot tree has flaking bark and burst pods, like a lebbeck tree, a parrot tree has luxuriant, shady foliage, like a banyan.
Now, at each of those times a parrot tree may well have been just as those people saw them.

SN 35.245

Brahman/Atman fancies:

This is I, This is mine, and fetters himself by his own actions as a bird by its nest

Mai Up III. 2

Is the eye the fetter of sights, or are sights the fetter of the eye? Is the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind the fetter of ideas, or are ideas the fetter of the mind?
Reverend Kāmabhū, the eye is not the fetter of sights, nor are sights the fetter of the eye. The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them. The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the mind. The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them

SN 35.233

Mendicants, an unlearned ordinary person speaks of the ocean. But that’s not the ocean in the training of the Noble One. That’s just a large body of water, a large sea of water. For a person, the eye is an ocean, and its currents are made of sights. For a person, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind is an ocean, and its currents are made of ideas

SN 35.228

Grasping arises:

There are sounds … smells … tastes … touches … ideas known by the mind, which are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. These are called the things that fuel grasping. The desire and greed for them is the grasping

SN 35.123

Suppose there was a latex-producing tree—such as a peepal, a banyan, a wavy leaf fig, or a cluster fig—that’s a tender young sapling, if a man were to chop it here and there with a sharp axe, would latex come out? Yes, sir. Why is that? Because it still has latex.” “In the same way, take any monk or nun who, when it comes to sights known by the eye, still has greed, hate, and delusion, and has not given them up. When it comes to sounds … smells … tastes … touches … ideas known by the mind, they still have greed, hate, and delusion, and have not given them up.

SN 35.231

But actually:

And what is empty of self or what belongs to self? The eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are empty of self or what belongs to self

SN 35.85

And the path is:

Mendicants, develop immersion. For a mendicant with immersion, things become truly clear. And what becomes truly clear? It becomes truly clear that the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact are impermanent. And it also becomes truly clear that the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact is impermanent.

SN 35.160

Mendicants, I will teach you a practice that’s conducive to extinguishment. Listen… What do you think, mendicants? Is the eye permanent or impermanent?
Impermanent, sir
But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?
Suffering, sir
But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?
No, sir.
Are sights …eye consciousness … eye contact …The pleasant, painful, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact: is that permanent or impermanent
Impermanent, sir
But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?
Suffering, sir.
But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’
No, sir.
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact, they grow disillusioned with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact. Being disillusioned, desire fades away, when desire fades away they’re freed, they understand: ‘… there is nothing further for this place.
This is that practice that’s conducive to extinguishment

SN 35.150

Mendicants, give up what’s not yours. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness. And what isn’t yours? The eye isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness
Suppose a person was to carry off the grass, sticks, branches, and leaves in this Jeta’s Grove, or burn them, or do what they want with them. Would you think: ‘This person is carrying us off, burning us, or doing what they want with us’?”
No, sir.
Why is that? Because to us that’s neither self nor belonging to self.In the same way, the eye isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness, the ear … nose … tongue … body …mind isn’t yours: give it up. Giving it up will be for your welfare and happiness

Sn 35.138

Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha … and said to him: “Sir, how does one know and see so that substantialist view (sakkayadithi) is given up?
Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as suffering, substantialist view is given up

SN 35.166

Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha … and said to him: Sir, how does one know and see so that theory of self (attanudithi) is given up?
Mendicant, knowing and seeing the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact as not-self, theory of self is given up

SN 35.167

And the result is:

Someone who can prevail over those currents is said to have crossed over the ocean of the mind, with its waves and whirlpools, its saltwater crocodiles and monsters. Crossed over, gone to the far shore, the brahmin stands on solid ground
A knowledge master who’s crossed the ocean so hard to cross, with its saltwater crocodiles and monsters, its waves, whirlpools, and dangers; they’ve completed the spiritual journey, and gone to the end of the world, they’re called ‘one who has gone beyond’.”

SN 35.228

Sir, suppose someone were to describe the Buddhas of the past who have become fully quenched, cut off proliferation, cut off the course, finished off the cycle, and passed beyond all suffering. Does the eye exist by which they could be described? Does the ear … nose … tongue … body exist …does the mind exist by which they could be described?
The eye does not exist by which they could be described, the ear … nose … tongue … body does not exist …the mind does not exist by which they could be described

SN 35.83

World and time 2

Leave a Reply

And there is a realm outside the worlds which exists and does not exist at the same time because existence comes up with the time and the world. “Outside” of the worlds and time there are no time, no worlds and “existence” is not applicable there.

It is not eternal as being eternal means to exist forever and therefore to be under the power of time. The realm is not not-eternal as it is the only origin and the only reality, other realities being a product of the realm.

It is not limited as having limits mean a space exist, a length, a duration, a movement a time, a change, a measure.

Nothing from our worlds and other worlds is there:

Where water, earth,
fire, & wind
have no footing:
There the stars don’t shine,
the sun isn’t visible.
There the moon doesn’t appear.
There darkness is not found.
And when a sage,
a brahman through sagacity,
has realized [this] for himself,
then from form & formless,
from bliss & pain,
he is freed.

AN 4.50

World and time

Leave a Reply

The world is the same as the time, time cannot exist without the world and world cannot exist without time. Stopping of the world is stopping of the time. Time is born together with the worlds and worlds exist until time exist. There is no time outside worlds, there is only eternal, deathless, bornless, timeless. And the world is the same as the state of consciousness.

“Mendicants, the world (Loka) has been understood by a Realized One; and he is detached from the world. The origin of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has given up the origin of the world. The stopping of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has realized the stopping of the world. The practice leading to the stopping of the world has been understood by a Realized One; and he has developed the practice leading to the stopping of the world. (AN 4.23)

Loka (Pali): “world”, “being”, “cycles of birth, life and death”

Aeon from Greek αἰῶνες (aiōnes) is “life”, “being”,”generation”,”ages”, “period of time” and “timeless” and “eternal”.

Same in Hebrew עולם (ʿōlām) is “worlds”, “ages”, “universe”, “time”, “eternity”.

  1. Maimonides (1138-1204 CE): ʿŌlām represents eternity, emphasizing God’s timelessness.
  2. Nachmanides (1194-1270 CE): ʿŌlām signifies the unity of God, encompassing past, present, and future.
  3. Kabbalistic Thought: ʿŌlām is associated with the Sephirot (divine attributes) and the concealment of God’s essence.

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3 (KJV)

Further parallels:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aion_(deity)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeon_(Gnosticism)

MN 25 Nivāpasutta

Leave a Reply

The sutta is quite odd as with similes of deer herd it lead us to the conclusion that only cessation of perception and feeling (ninth jhana or ayatana) is the escape from Mara to Deathless (leads to Nibbana).

Four Jhanas and four ayatanas (arupa-jhanas) are listed and each description ends with “This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see”.

The last one, cessation of perception and feeling, has a different ending: “This is called a mendicant who has blinded Māra, put out his eyes without a trace, and gone where the Wicked One cannot see and to have crossed beyond attachment to the world” (translation by Bodhi, Sujato has a wrong translation of the ending)

About meaning of the term “Ekaggatā”

Leave a Reply

There are various translations of the word on the Internet: “tranquility”, “one-pointedness”, “unification”. Mostly the term is used in the definitions of jhanas so it is quite important to understand the meaning of it properly. If we search for all occurrences in suttas we find that only in two cases the word is used not in jhana’s definition context, exactly in Digha Nikaya:

Hearing that, the gods of the Thirty-Three agreed in unison
Idaṁ sutvā devā tāvatiṁsā ekaggā samāpajjiṁsu (DN 18, DN 19)

All other occurrences are in the jhana’s definitions:

Unification of mind with these seven factors as prerequisites is called noble right immersion with its vital conditions and also with its prerequisites.
yā kho, bhikkhave, imehi sattahaṅgehi cittassa ekaggatā parikkhatā—ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ariyo sammāsamādhi saupaniso itipi, saparikkhāro itipi (SN 45.28, MN 117)

“Unification of the mind is immersion.
cittassa ekaggatā ayaṁ samādhi (MN 44)

and their mind is immersed in samādhi.
samāhitaṁ cittaṁ ekaggaṁ (AN 4.12, SN 35.134, AN 3.130, MN 28, MN 19, AN 8.11, MN 4)

gain immersion, gain unification of mind
labhati samādhiṁ, labhati cittassa ekaggataṁ (SN 51.13, SN 48.11, SN 48.50, SN 48.9, SN 48.10)

With mind unified and serene
ekaggaṁ susamāhitaṁ (SN 8.4, AN 3.59, AN 3.58)

unification of mind
cittassa ekaggatan’”ti (MN 125)

Thus Digha Nikaya confirms by using of the word in a different context that the primary idea of the word is getting together, be united, unified and in application to mind to unite the mind

About the importance of balance

Leave a Reply

How a Buddhist gets any new information regarding the teaching? There are three basic groups of inputs: own experience stemming from own practice, information from textual sources (scriptures of Buddhism, other texts on Buddhism, Dhamma), information from authoritative people (Buddhist teachers, Sangha). Regardless how we first learnt of Dhamma the three sources sooner or later appear in everyday life of the person.

Finding a right balance between them is extremely important. I have seen so many extremities like accepting only the word of the Teacher and not practicing at all or accepting only the word of the Teacher, practicing but never reading any suttas. Or only practicing and drawing all conclusions from the practice only. Or any other combinations of one or two sources from the three.

Using only one or two sources creates various delusions, hamper or completely stops the progress on the Path to Enlightenment. A teacher may make mistakes. A textual source may be interpreted incorrectly. Own practice may be delusive by itself. Sometimes all three are used but not equally.

I believe it is important to make use all of them and use equally. Whatever your practice produce should be questioned and verified against texts (suttas) and words of Teachers. Whatever you hear from a Teacher should be questioned and verified against suttas and own practice. Whatever you read in a sutta should be questioned and verified against two other. Then we reach a truly balanced approach and build a strong foundation for moving down the Path.