What does the 'death' in this Sutta mean?

footiam

SN 1.9
PTS: S i 4
CDB i 93
Maanakaamo Sutta: Vain Conceits
translated from the Pali by
Maurice O'Connell Walshe
© 2007–2012
The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition.

...the deva spoke this verse...:
Who has not tamed all vain conceits,[1] Who lacks in wisdom, uncontrolled, Heedless, in the woods may dwell alone, Yet will not escape the realm of death.

[The Blessed One replied:]
Who, concentrated, leaves conceits behind, His heart and mind[2] set fair, and wholly freed, Heedful dwelling in the woods alone, Shall indeed escape the realm of death.[3]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.009.wlsh.html

BhanteLucky

Death, regular death.
And then, of course, rebirth into another damn life.
and on and on again and again.

The escape is the Deathless... Nibanna/Nirvana.

BhikkhuJayasara

yes as James said.. "realm of death" is the endless becoming in samsara... and the deathless(because there is no further birth.. no further death) is Nibanna

Citta

Ajahn Buddhadasa renders that as the realm of death which is the constant repetition of behaviours and mental conditions that lead to suffering.,,,samsara.
The opposite of the realm of constant freshness and newness of life from moment to moment..

Jason

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected. The first is in the general sense of physical death, i.e., "with the break-up of the body." The second is in the psychological sense of the arising and ceasing of our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' which itself is a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara) that's propelled by the mind's proclivity to clinging to the aggregates as 'me' and 'mine.' And I see them as connected in the sense that the latter is what drives the cycle of birth and death, psychological as well as cosmologically.

While some interpret this sutta differently, I see MN 140 as illustrating these two aspects in tandem, with the psychological or moment-to-moment aspects of becoming (the arising and ceasing of self-identity view) being placed within the broader, cosmological framework:

"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."

And the way I see it, one who has practiced well, liberated their mind, and freed themselves of conceit (mana) is also freed from the cycle of death, psychological as well as cosmologically.

Citta

Excellent.

DairyLama

Citta said:

Ajahn Buddhadasa renders that as the realm of death which is the constant repetition of behaviours and mental conditions that lead to suffering.,,,samsara.

But I don't think that interpretation of "death" is supported by the suttas. And metaphorically death represents an ending, not the continuation of a habitual pattern.

DairyLama

Jason said:

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected. The first is in the general sense of physical death, i.e., "with the break-up of the body." The second is in the psychological sense of the arising and ceasing of our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' which itself is a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara) that's propelled by the mind's proclivity to clinging to the aggregates as 'me' and 'mine.'

But in the suttas death is invariably defined in the first way, ie literally. Obvious examples are the description of death as a nidana in dependent origination, and the description of death as an aspect of dukkha.

Citta

The suttas were written 500 years after The Buddhas death, in an era unimaginably different to ours, within a culture utterly different to ours using prexisting imagery and concepts inhereted from an even more ancient age.
In each generation those who have delved deep are needed to make them fresh and alive for their age...Ajahn Buddhadasa is one such. And he knew more about the Suttas than most of us.

Jason

PedanticPorpoise said:

Jason said:

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected. The first is in the general sense of physical death, i.e., "with the break-up of the body." The second is in the psychological sense of the arising and ceasing of our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' which itself is a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (ahankara-mamankara) that's propelled by the mind's proclivity to clinging to the aggregates as 'me' and 'mine.'

But in the suttas death is invariably defined in the first way, ie literally. Obvious examples are the description of death as a nidana in dependent origination, and the description of death as an aspect of dukkha.

Yes, I'm well aware of your position. We've already discussed our disagreements about this issue here, so I'll just leave it at that.

Jeffrey

I think it is the suffering when 'being' of the 12 nidanas, that which we have craved, ends due to conditions causing it ceasing. We suffer because we have craved that. So death is the death of the body and lifespan, but also the cigarettes are gone or something trivial that makes us suffer.

footiam

Jason said:

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected.

And the way I see it, one who has practiced well, liberated their mind, and freed themselves of conceit (mana) is also freed from the cycle of death, psychological as well as cosmologically.

I wonder how many meanings can a Sutta have?

DairyLama

Citta said:

The suttas were written 500 years after The Buddhas death, in an era unimaginably different to ours, within a culture utterly different to ours using prexisting imagery and concepts inhereted from an even more ancient age.

Which means that trying to interpret the suttas through the lens of western materialism is bound to be problematic.

DairyLama

footiam said:

Jason said:

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected.

And the way I see it, one who has practiced well, liberated their mind, and freed themselves of conceit (mana) is also freed from the cycle of death, psychological as well as cosmologically.

I wonder how many meanings can a Sutta have?


I think the challenge is working out what the intended meaning was. Which might be very different to the meaning we would like to assume or impose.

Citta

PedanticPorpoise said:

The suttas were written 500 years after The Buddhas death, in an era unimaginably different to ours, within a culture utterly different to ours using prexisting imagery and concepts inhereted from an even more ancient age.

Which means that trying to interpret the suttas through the lens of western materialism is bound to be problematic.


Probably...but them interpreting the Suttas through any lens other than that of the element of the Sangha which has a degree of realisation is bound to be problematic.

DairyLama

Citta said:

PedanticPorpoise said:

The suttas were written 500 years after The Buddhas death, in an era unimaginably different to ours, within a culture utterly different to ours using prexisting imagery and concepts inhereted from an even more ancient age.

Which means that trying to interpret the suttas through the lens of western materialism is bound to be problematic.

Probably...but them interpreting the Suttas through any lens other than that of the element of the Sangha which has a degree of realisation is bound to be problematic.

But there are many Sanghas across the Buddhist world, and they interpret things differently, according to personal experience and cultural background. And some people assume that contemporary interpretations are automatically more authentic, not realising that they are also a product of place and time.

Citta

The important thing is that the interpretation is consistent with the practice of that Sangha...its all provisional anyway.

footiam

PedanticPorpoise said:

footiam said:

Jason said:

In my opinion, it has at least two meanings, both of which are connected.

And the way I see it, one who has practiced well, liberated their mind, and freed themselves of conceit (mana) is also freed from the cycle of death, psychological as well as cosmologically.

I wonder how many meanings can a Sutta have?

I think the challenge is working out what the intended meaning was. Which might be very different to the meaning we would like to assume or impose.



It is indeed a challenge; so, the intended meaning better be good!

Deepankar

The death of and the undeath remains.

footiam

JamestheGiant said:

Death, regular death.
And then, of course, rebirth into another damn life.
and on and on again and again.

The escape is the Deathless... Nibanna/Nirvana.

It is not another damn life. It would be a damn life if you are born in the animal realm or elsewhere!

footiam

Jayantha said:

yes as James said.. "realm of death" is the endless becoming in samsara... and the deathless(because there is no further birth.. no further death) is Nibanna

While I can understand that there is no further birth in deathlessness, I can't understand why there is no further death. After Buddha got enlightened under the Pipal tree, he did at least pass away once in Kusinagara. Could deathlessness have a broader meaning than that?

pegembara

After the Buddha woke up,"he" called himself the Tathagata, not Gotama. The Tathagata is one who has gone to (or arrived) at Suchness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tathāgata

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

'Open are the doors to the
Deathless
to those with ears.
Let them show their conviction.
Perceiving trouble, O Brahma,
I did not tell people
the refined,
sublime Dhamma.'


Ariyapariyesana Sutta MN26

People do not die
http://www.sanbo-zen.org/artikel-2_e.html

We are born but don't want to die. If we really don't want to die, we should realize the deathless (amatadhamma), as the Buddha taught. Do you know what amatadhamma means?

It is the deathless - though you die, if you have wisdom it is as if you don't die.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_Even_One_Word_Is_Enough.htm

It is therefore purely a case of recognizing it, directly realizing it, or in other words, waking up to what is already there.

Enlightened-mind, our Buddha-nature, is innate to every sentient being. It is utterly beyond temporal characteristics and the flow of time. It has no spatial dimension or location. It simply is; immutable and unchanging, unborn, deathless. Nevertheless, not knowing this primordial Awareness,4 sentient beings wander endlessly in the Samsaric cycle of space and time, taking birth and dying repeatedly.
http://www.dharmafellowship.org/library/essays/path-of-mahamudra.htm

Jeffrey

The triple gem is deathles. For any who don't know they are Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. For those into Tibetan Buddhism the Guru or spiritual teacher is a gimish of those three:

Lamala chapsu chey o
Sanjayla chapsu chey o
Chola chapsu chey o
Genduna chapsu chey o

(I'm not sure on the translation of letters to english)..

oceancaldera207

Really being serious here;
Definitely no simple answer to the question. The deathless state implied is meant to be heavily contemplated.. it is not something that anyone should be hasty about. Very beautiful verse by the way.

DairyLama

pegembara said:

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

Nobody can be literally free from birth and death, unless we are talking about final liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth and death, ie Pari-nibbana.
But it would make sense to talk about being psychologically free from birth and death.

David

footiam said:

SN 1.9
PTS: S i 4
CDB i 93
Maanakaamo Sutta: Vain Conceits
translated from the Pali by
Maurice O'Connell Walshe
© 2007–2012
The Pali title of this sutta is based on the PTS (Feer) edition.

...the deva spoke this verse...:
Who has not tamed all vain conceits,[1] Who lacks in wisdom, uncontrolled, Heedless, in the woods may dwell alone, Yet will not escape the realm of death.

[The Blessed One replied:]
Who, concentrated, leaves conceits behind, His heart and mind[2] set fair, and wholly freed, Heedful dwelling in the woods alone, Shall indeed escape the realm of death.[3]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn01/sn01.009.wlsh.html

The realm of death seems to indicate separation so I think it pertains to the ego surviving until death of the physical body. If ego is shed before time of death then that which dies is free from death (which usually indicates change rather than annilhilation) so the cycle ceases.

Bodhisattvas live by the code that no one gets left behind.

David

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

Nobody can be literally free from birth and death, unless we are talking about final liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth and death, ie Pari-nibbana.
But it would make sense to talk about being psychologically free from birth and death.

You mean the worry of it?

pegembara

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

Nobody can be literally free from birth and death, unless we are talking about final liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth and death, ie Pari-nibbana.
But it would make sense to talk about being psychologically free from birth and death.

If death is not happening to "us", "we" are actually free from death(both physically and psychologically). It is the body that dies but you don't have to agree with me.

"Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain to our self."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.101.than.html

Jeffrey

The diamond sutra says that a stream enterer is not a stream enterer because they realize that there is no body, death, lifespan, or birtch. IIRC !!!

karmablues

For ease of reference, the Sutta says:

...the deva spoke this verse...:
Who has not tamed all vain conceits,
Who lacks in wisdom, uncontrolled,
Heedless, in the woods may dwell alone,
Yet will not escape the realm of death.

[The Blessed One replied:]
Who, concentrated, leaves conceits behind,
His heart and mind set fair, and wholly freed,
Heedful dwelling in the woods alone,
Shall indeed escape the realm of death

From a literal interpretation, I think this Sutta is referring to cosmological death. This is because although it is said that his heart and mind is "wholly freed" (past tense), the result is said to be that he "shall indeed escape the realm of death". Note the use of future tense, "shall indeed escape". If reference to the realm of death here was meant to include the cycle of birth/death in the moment-to-moment, psychological sense, then the past tense (ie. "has indeed escaped the realm of death") or perhaps the present tense (ie. "escapes the realm of death") would be used. The use of the future tense ("shall indeed escape"), however, indicates reference to cycle of birth/death in a cosmological sense.

But I believe in theory, one who shall escape the realm of death in the cosmological sense is someone who has also already escaped the cycle of birth/death in the moment-to-moment, psychological sense. This is shown in the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta as Jason explained above. Also from a slightly different perspective, Ajahn Chah once said:

The "One Who Knows" clearly knows that all conditioned phenomena are unsubstantial [empty]. So this "One Who Knows" does not become happy or sad, for [he] does not follow changing conditions. To become glad, is to be born; to become dejected, is to die. Having died, we are born again; having been born, we die again. This birth and death from one moment to the next is the endless spinning wheel of samsara.

DairyLama

ourself said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

Nobody can be literally free from birth and death, unless we are talking about final liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth and death, ie Pari-nibbana.
But it would make sense to talk about being psychologically free from birth and death.

You mean the worry of it?

Yes, the mental suffering associated with the physical suffering of ageing, disease and death. Like in the Arrow Sutta.
Some people talk about the death of the self, like a psychological death, though the suttas don't seem to support that view. In the suttas birth, ageing and death are always described as physical processes, not mental events.

DairyLama

pegembara said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

Such a "person" is no longer identified with the body-mind and thus literally free from birth and death.

Nobody can be literally free from birth and death, unless we are talking about final liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth and death, ie Pari-nibbana.
But it would make sense to talk about being psychologically free from birth and death.

If death is not happening to "us", "we" are actually free from death(both physically and psychologically). It is the body that dies but you don't have to agree with me.

But clearly the body does die, and there is still the experience of death. "Deathless" seems to imply a state where there is no more death, so.......

pegembara

Does this verse by an arahant sounds that there is no more death?

One gone to the far shore
without clinging
without effluent
his task completed,
welcomes the ending of life,
as if freed from a place of execution.
Having attained the supreme Rightness,
unconcerned with all the world,
as if released from a burning house,
he doesn't sorrow at death.

Whatever's compounded,
wherever a state of becoming's obtained,
all that has no one in charge:
so says the Great Seer.
Whoever discerns this,
as taught by the Awakened One,
would no more grasp hold of any state of becoming
than he would a hot iron ball.
I have no 'I was,'
no 'I will be.'
Fabrications will simply go out of existence.
What's to lament there in that?
For one who sees, as it actually is,
the pure arising of phenomena,
the pure seriality of fabrications,
there's no fear.
When seeing the world with discernment
as on a par with grass & twigs,
finding no 'mine-ness,'
thinking, 'There's nothing of mine,'
he feels no sorrow.
Dissatisfied with this carcass,
I'm unconcerned with becoming.
This body will break up
and there will not be another.
Do as you like with this carcass.
From that I will feel
neither hatred nor love.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.16.01.than.html

DairyLama

pegembara said:

Does this verse by an arahant sounds that there is no more death?

This body will break up
and there will not be another.

It seems to be describing the traditional view of Pari-nibbana as release from samsara, the cycle of birth and death?

pegembara

The arahant has attained the "Deathless" state and yet speaks of "death".

When seeing the world with discernment
as on a par with grass & twigs,
finding no 'mine-ness,'
thinking, 'There's nothing of mine,'
he feels no sorrow.
Dissatisfied with this carcass,
I'm unconcerned with becoming.

The difference between nibbana with residue and without is the presence or absence of this residue ("carcass") which belongs to nature, not self.