RESPONDENT: (...). I was just trying to make a point to everyone else that that doesn’t mean I neatly fit into the category of dogmatic spirituality that Richard’s schematic points to. [...] I now agree that my beliefs about my vipassana practice do not stand up to hard scrutiny in terms of being pragmatic or non-dogmatic.

RICHARD: Good ... and do you simultaneously see, albeit conversely, that my reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website – regarding how the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago lived that/ was that which “Richard’s schematic points to”, night and day, for eleven years (1981-1992) – do indeed “stand up to hard scrutiny in terms of being pragmatic or non-dogmatic”?

The reason why I am looking for a specific answer to this question is because the main purpose in responding to your evidentially ill-considered one-liner (at the top of this page) was to publicly draw attention to the quite non-pragmatic way in which more than just a few of those persons of a ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore Dharma’ persuasion, in general, and those of a ‘DhO/ KFD’ persuasion, in particular, have sought to dismiss that which I have an intimate acquaintance with – a lived understanding from which to speak; a ‘hands-on’ comprehension thereof spanning nigh-on 35 years (i.e., dating from before many of those pretermitting persons were even born); a pragmatic/ hardcore expertise all of my own, as it were, comprising of experiential knowledge from which to draw forth any requisite expertise-based authority in these matters – in a manner which belies the very basis, the raison d’être itself, of their much-trumpeted ‘Pragmatic/ Hardcore’ stance.

And in failing to recognise (let alone acknowledge) the quintessential eschewer of the traditional – there is simply no-one on this planet, either currently alive or long-ago dead, who has eschewed the traditional, the doctrinal, the dogmatic, more thoroughly, more profoundly, more radically, more completely, more totally, than the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago – they nakedly expose themselves, through that hypocritical pretermission of theirs, to be not all that different after all, in effect, to those traditionalists, those dogmatists, of whom they are so critically condemnatory.

RESPONDENT: Meaning, I can see there are beliefs and views in my decision to do it in the first place, in the actual act of doing it, in the results that I expect, and in the results that I achieve; furthermore, these results are actually related to “the absolute”, as it occurs in Buddhism ...

RICHARD: Yes ... although, in regards to no longer having your goal float nebulously in a vacuum, the secret to success lies in determining the nature of that absolute as it occurs in the buddhavacana – rather than “as it occurs in Buddhism” (the “Buddhism” you refer to would be more honestly termed ‘Buddhaghosa-ism’) – because Mr. Gotama the Sakyan experientially rediscovered ‘the ancient way’ (Pāli “purāṇaṃ maggaṃ”) to that absolute whilst seated under an assattha/ pippal tree (a.k.a. “Ficus religiosa”), around two and a half millennia ago, which he metaphorically likened, in the Nagara Sutta, to finding an ancient road leading to a fabulous lost city hidden deep in an antediluvian forest due to it having been immortalised by the Ṛishis of old as leading to the Vedic amṛta-loka (‘the realm of the immortals’).

Thus, as it is “the (alterity) absolute” of the Vedic period being referenced all throughout the buddhavacana, as distinct from “the (immanent) absolute” of the Vedantic period (the word Vedanta = lit. “end of the Veda”) which came into being after the Vedic period, then anyone actively promoting “non-duality” (Sanskrit ‘advaita’) – stemming as it does from the sublative ‘no-genesis’ Vedantic doctrine (i.e., ajātivāda) that Mr. Gauda the anchorite recovered, around one and a half millennia ago at Gowda Desha circa the 6th century CE, from the Māṇḍukya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya Upaniṣads and which Mr. Adi Sankara of Kaladi (nowadays called Kerala) subsequently consolidated a century or so later – as being the only model of awakening holding up in “the dharma world” without apology, qualification or exception, plus speaking in glowing terms about “ditching the split”, has quite obviously taken no notice whatsoever of what has been sitting there in plain view in the buddhavacana for over two millennia.

Viz.:

• [Daniel]: “In short, the non-duality models are the only models of awakening that hold up without apology, qualification or exception. The rest of the models have serious problems, though each may contain some amount of truth in it, however poorly conveyed. [...]. There is only one thing worse in my mind than students getting caught up in the dogma of the worst of the models, and that is realized teachers getting caught by them. [...] I dream of a day when such things never happen. The dharma world would be so much better off if teachers were honest about what realization is and ain’t, both with their students and also with themselves. Don’t think this sort of dishonesty doesn’t occur. I have seen some of my very best and most realized teachers fall into this trap and have also done so myself more times than I can count. Learn from those who have had to learn the hard way and are willing to admit this.
Ditching our “Stuff” vs. Ditching the Split
While these two models are stated implicitly above, I thought I would summarize them again to make sure that I have made this important point clear. There are models of awakening that involve getting rid of all of our “stuff”, i.e. our issues, flaws, quirks, pains, negative emotions, traumas, personalities, cultural baggage, childhood scars, relationship difficulties, insecurities, fears, strange notions, etc. Such models underlie most of the mainstream visions of spiritual attainment.
What is funny is that lots of people spend so much time working so hard to get rid of all their stuff but think that enlightenment, i.e. ditching the illusion of the dualistic split, is largely unattainable. I have exactly the opposite view, that ditching the split is very attainable but getting rid of all of our stuff is completely impossible. When I hear about those who wish to attain a type of Buddhahood that is defined by not having any stuff, I usually think to myself that the countless eons they usually claim are necessary to accomplish this are a gross underestimation. The real world is about stuff, and enlightenment is about the real world.
What is very nice about ditching the split, aside from the fact that it can be done, is that now we can be friends with our stuff naturally, even if it sucks ...”. ~ (pp. 322-323, “Mastering the Core Teachings of The Buddha Buddhaghosa”; Third Edition Copyright ©April, 2007, by Daniel M. Ingram).

RESPONDENT: ... “the absolute”, as it occurs in Buddhism (namely, in the ambiguous form of the “not this/ not that” that Andrew pointed out).

RICHARD: Hmm ... what you refer to there as “the ambiguous form of the ‘not this/ not that’” (i.e., “neti, neti”; lit. ‘not that, not that’), being sourced as it is in the third brahmana of the second chapter of that Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad already mentioned, further above, is quite unambiguous, really, as it refers to (the Vedantic) Atman-Brahman which, whilst metempirically existent and inherently blissful, is yet unknowable in the normal way of knowing due to having no qualities, characteristics, attributes, and etcetera, which are regularly recognisable (hence the “neti, neti”, or ‘via negativa’ approach).

It is important to comprehend the distinction between what could be called ‘Vedism’ (the 3-Veda period), where the ṚgVeda was predominant up until at least a millennia before Mr. Gotama the Sakyan seated himself unbudgingly under a certain tree, and what could be called ‘Vedantism’ – the period of Vedanta; lit. ‘end of the Veda’ as already observed – whereafter the Upaniṣads (wherein ‘Atman=Brahman’ features) became the dominant scriptures.

It is pertinent to note that nowhere in the Pāli Canon does that “Atman=Brahman” teaching feature despite the fact the sammāsambuddha has numerous dialogues with many brahmanā (i.e., ‘Brahmans’).

It is also noteworthy that nowhere in the Pāli Canon does he refer to the 4th Veda despite drawing attention to the 3-Veda practice (i.e., rituals, rites, sacraments, and etcetera).

Plus it is undisputable that the absolute of the Vedantic scriptures is an immanent absolute whereas the absolute of the buddhavacana is something else entirely: an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature.

I drew attention to this salient fact via the second footnote of my first email to you (Message № 20114).

Indeed, a major feature of the buddhavacana – as enunciated upfront and unequivocally throughout the second discourse in the first Khandhaka (chapter) of the Mahāvagga (division) in the Vinaya Piṭaka whereby the pañcavaggiya-bhikkhū (i.e., a group of five brahmana religieux) became arahants – is how the Pāli atta/ the Vedic ātma is not to be found in the phenomenal world (whereas the Vedantic ātman, being an advaita (i.e., non-dual) absolute, is the phenomenal world/ is everything).

NB: in this context the words atta/ attan and ātma/ ātman = the absolute; they do *not* refer to the egoic self (‘I’ as ego) or the personal/ reflexive self (oneself/ myself; himself / herself; yourself; themself/ themselves) except of course, in the latter case, where the personal/ reflexive usage references an avatar/ a buddha (i.e., an embodiment of brahma, an embodiment of dhamma).

Thus in this discourse, which was entitled the “Pañcavaggiya Suttaṃ” (SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66) when it was duplicated in the Sinhalese Saṃyutta Nikāya and “Anatta-Lakkhana Suttaṃ” in the Burmese version, where the sammāsambuddha reports/ describes/ explains how the five components of personage (i.e., the “panc’upādāna-kkhandhā”) are anattā – that is, they are not the self (as per, ‘an-’, a privative prefix, + attā, ‘the absolute’) – then what he is saying, in effect, is that (1) rūpaṃ is not the absolute ... and (2); vedanā is not the absolute ... and (3); saññā is not the absolute ... and (4); saṅkāra is not the absolute ... and (5); viññāṇaṃ is not the absolute.

This is so far removed from those “non-duality models” (wherein the panc’upādāna-kkhandhā, the five components of personage, are ātman, are ‘the absolute’) it must be asked just whom it might be who is “ditching the split”.

More to this salient point: in the Mūlaka/ Mula Sutta (AN 10.58; PTS: A v 106) the sammāsambuddha – upon having been specifically asked by some unidentified “bhikkhave” (i.e., mendicant renunciates of his own order) to expound on ten questions which “aññatitthiyā paribbājakā” (i.e., wandering religieux of another faith) might ask them – reveals the illuminative gnostic wisdom (i.e., intuitive/ metempirical wisdom as contrasted to dianoetic/ empirical knowledge) that nibbāna is the complete end (as in, “pariyosānā”) of “sabbe dhammā” [viz.: “nibbāna pariyosānā sabbe dhammā”].

In other words, the complete end of all things, both mental and material, means nothing exists for any such subjective-objective “split” to obtain.

And, by way of clarification as to what “all things” entails, in the Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23; PTS: SN iv 15) the sammāsambuddha details what he is referring to when he uses the Pāli word sabbaṃ (which is the neuter case of the adjective ‘sabba’). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary (a.k.a. PTS-PED) defines ‘sabbaṃ’ as “the (whole) world of sense-experience” and ‘sabba’ as “whole, entire; all, every” (‘sabbe’ is the nominative plural of ‘sabba’). Also, the Pāli ‘sabba’ is identical to the Sanskrit/ Vedic adjective ‘sarva’ which also means, according to the Monier Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary (a.k.a. MMW-SED), “whole, entire, all, every”.

Viz.:

• Sāvatthinidānaṃ. “Sabbaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Taṃ suṇātha. Kiñca, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ? Cakkhuñceva rūpā ca, sotañca saddā ca, ghānañca gandhā ca, jivhā ca rasā ca, kāyo ca phoṭṭhabbā ca, mano ca dhammā ca – idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ. Yo, bhikkhave, evaṃ vadeyya: ‘ahametaṃ sabbaṃ paccakkhāya aññaṃ sabbaṃ paññāpessāmī’ti, tassa vācāvatthukamevassa; puṭṭho ca na sampāyeyya, uttariñca vighātaṃ āpajjeyya. Taṃ kissa hetu? Yathā taṃ, bhikkhave, avisayasmin”ti.
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/sn35.23].

In the above “Sabba Sutta” the sammāsambuddha specifies that when he uses the term ‘sabbaṃ’ he is referring to the eye [cakkhu] and whatsoever it sees [rūpā]; the ear [sota] and all of its sounds [saddā]; the nose [ghāna] and everything it smells [gandhā]; the tongue [jivhā] and all of its tastes [rasā]; the body [kāyo] and its every aesthesis [phoṭṭhabbā]; plus the mind [mano] and all its mental phenomena [dhammā]; and he accentuates this specification of his by then stating: “This is to be called sabbaṃ” [Viz.: “idaṃ vuccati sabbaṃ”].

Furthermore, he emphasises the totally comprehensive and utterly inclusive material-mental nature of the term by then declaring that anyone, having rejected/ disavowed [paccakkhāya] this “sabbaṃ” as he depicts it, could not make known [paññāpessi] another one [aññaṃ sabbaṃ] as any such a one would be beyond scope, range or reach [avisaya].

Thus the term ‘sabbe’ (in that frequently flogged phrase “sabbe dhamme anattā” a.k.a. “sabbe dhammā anattā”), whilst denotational of absolutely everything whichsoever and everybody whomsoever, without exception, of each and every material or mental nature possible – taking place anywhere and everywhere wheresoever in the boundlessness of space and occurring anywhen and everywhen whensoever in the limitlessness of time plus happening anyhow and everyway howsoever in which anything and everything whatsoever can eventuate whencesoever at anyplace and everyplace whithersoever – specifically excludes that which, being beyond the scope, range or reach (of eyes, ears, mind, &c.), is ineffable/ indefinable ... namely: nibbāna.

Obviously, then, what the sammāsambuddha is conveying in the further above Mūlaka/ Mula Sutta is how the attainment of nibbāna is the complete end [pariyosānā] of absolutely all [sabbe] causal-temporal-spatial phenomena [dhammā].

Put differently: nibbāna is the complete end [pariyosānā] of all space, all time, and all matter (both as mass and as energy) both animate and inanimate [viz.: “sabbe dhammā”]. Hence the absolute of the buddhavacana being something else entirely (i.e., an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature).

Incidentally, if (note ‘if’) the phrase “sabbe dhammā” were to have been inclusive of nibbāna, and given that nibbāna is the complete end of ‘sabbe dhammā’, then it would mean that nibbāna would be the complete end of ... (wait for it) ... the complete end of nibbāna!

(As an aside: it would appear that whatever it takes to qualify for a “PhD.” in Pāli scholarship these days – to qualify as a Pāli scholar, a Pāli translator, that is – it does not include much in the way of critical thinking skills because the above absurdity is quite readily apparent).

Moreover, this revelation that nibbāna is the complete end of ‘sabbe dhammā’ has an earlier advent, by the sammāsambuddha, in the 3rd & 4th pada, of the last stanza in Dialogue 6 of the Pārāyanavagga, in the Suttanipāta, titled “Upasiva-manava-puccha” (Sn 5.6; PTS: Sn 1076).

Viz.:

• “Sabbesu dhammesu samohatesu,
Samūhatā vādapathāpi sabbe”ti.
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/snp5.7]

As “sabbesu dhammesu” = ‘sabbe dhammā’ – (and as “samohatesu”, repeated at the beginning of the second line as “samūhata” and, from alternate manuscripts, transcribed as “samuhatesu” elsewhere, being the past participle of ‘samūhanati’ (“to remove, to abolish” ~ PTS-PED), translates as ‘removed, abolished’) – then what the sammāsambuddha is advising there is how, with all phenomena abolished, removed, then all ways of speaking about nibbāna are also removed, abolished (vādapatha means: “way of speech”, i.e.: “signs of recognition, attribute, definition” ~ PTS-PED).

By being thus beyond the scope, range or reach (of eyes, ears, mind, &c.) nibbāna is ineffable/ indefinable.

And because the Pārāyanavagga is amongst the earliest recorded portions of the buddhavacana – if not the earliest – then it is demonstrably evident that any notion about ‘sabbe dhammā’ being inclusive of nibbāna can only be a much later addition (as in, a latter-day Abhidhamma & Commentarial artefact, for instance) to the Pāli Canon.

Besides which, as nowhere in the buddhavacana is it recorded that nibbāna is anattā (i.e. ‘not-self’, ‘not the self’), then the abject craftiness of such a convoluted way of thinking – setting out to conceive of a diṭṭhi/ dṛṣti about the ineffable/ indefinable nature of nibbāna in spite of the silence of the sammāsambuddha on the topic, via sneaking it into “sabbe dhammā” – should in itself trigger-off flashing red-light warnings to both the instigators and the perpetuators.

RESPONDENT: I would not have necessarily seen these things before, as I was so committed to being a true believer in this practice.

RICHARD: In which case, and again in regards to your goal no longer having to float nebulously in a vacuum, this is an apposite place to utilise those URLs, now further above, for confirmation that the nature of the absolute, as it occurs in the buddhavacana, is indeed commensurable with the Vedic amṛta-loka (‘the realm of the immortals’). According to what transpires on page eight, of that 1962 English translation of the first Khandhaka (chapter) of the Mahāvagga (division), the sammāsambuddha, shortly after his awakenment/ enlightenment and while staying at the foot of the “Goatherd’s Banyan Tree” for the nonce, is approached by the otherworldly “Brahmā Sahampati”, fresh from Brahma-Loka, who exhorts him to teach dhamma because those with “little dust in their eyes” will be receptive. Then the following exchange takes place (edited to its essentials, from pp 8-9, with its operative words highlighted).

[Brahmā Sahampati]:
“pāturahosi magadhesu pubbe,
dhammo asuddho samalehi cintito;
avāpuretaṃ *amatassa dvāraṃ*,
suṇantu dhammaṃ vimalenānubuddhaṃ”.
[Sammāsambuddha]:
“apārutā tesaṃ *amatassa dvārā*,
ye sotavante pamuñcantu saddhaṃ”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#5-brahmayacanakatha].

Thus, after observing how an impure dhamma, devised by stained minds, had made an appearance before in the region (Magadha), this Great Deva of Brahma-Loka (representing, in the buddhistic metaphysics, the creator god of the brahmanā) then urges the sammāsambuddha to: “open this door [dvāraṃ] to immortality [amatassa]; let them hear dhamma awakened to by the stainless one”; and then that ‘stainless one’ answers: “opened for those who hear are the doors [dvārā] of immortality [amatassa]”.

From this passage, and the overall context of the narrative itself, several pertinent factors emerge:

1. Previous expositions of dhamma, in the Magadha region, were impure [asuddho], unclean, tainted [samalehi] due to having been thought out, invented, devised [cintito] rather than being experiential, a living experience, as in having become dhamma [dhamma-bhūto] as per one of the many epithets ascribed to the sammāsambuddha.

2. The (masculine case) Brahmā is clearly inferior to the sammāsambuddha (as are all the buddhistic deities who, even though they may endure for many kappa (Sanskrit ‘kalpa’) in the unworldly/ unearthly and/or otherworldly/ heavenly realms, are also mortal) thus demonstrating that whatever else “brahma-bhūto” may refer to it cannot possibly mean Mr. Gotama the Sakyan has either *become* the (masculine case) Brahmā – as is claimed, under the head-word “dhamma”, in the Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary (re-presented, much further below, in the inline ‘dhammavicaya’ footnote) – or is *like* the (masculine case) Brahmā, as is bruited abroad by many a buddhistic translator, scholiast, scholar-practician and, thus, practitioners in general, as doing so reduces the qualities of that highly-prized/ greatly-revered immortal status of his to those qualities attributable to a mortal deity.

3. Attaining immortality is the crux of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment and the very purpose of the brahmacariya lifestyle (i.e., living an austere and celibate religious/ holy life) – else why, in this instance, the plea from Brahmā Sahampati to open the door to immortality and/or else why the assurance from the sammāsambuddha that the doors to immortality were open – and it is noteworthy that the accented Pāli nibbāna (Vedic/ Sanskrit nirvāṇa) does not feature in this narrative, and other early suttas of similar ilk, unlike the main focus which that now-ubiquitous word takes on in later suttas.

For instance, according to the Sahampatibrahmā Sutta (SN 48.57; PTS: SN v 232), and again whilst residing at the foot of that “Goatherds’ Banyan Tree” [ajapālanigrodhe] shortly after his attainment, the sammāsambuddha meditates upon how five particular controlling principals – namely (1) the faculty of faith [saddhindriya], (2) the faculty of vigour/ exertion [vīriyindriya], (3) the faculty of rememoration [satindriya], (4) the faculty of (introversive) self-absorption/ of mystical trance [samādhindriya] and (5) the faculty of intuitive/ otherworldly reasoning [paññindriya] – when taken-up seriously and cultivated [bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni], had immortality as their fordable footing [amatogadhaṃ], immortality as their principal aim [amataparāyaṇaṃ], and immortality as their ultimate ending [amatapariyosānaṃ].

Viz.:

• “ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā uruvelāyaṃ viharati najjā nerañjarāya tīre ajapālanigrodhe paṭhamābhisambuddho. Atha kho bhagavato rahogatassa paṭisallīnassa evaṃ cetaso parivitakko udapādi: “pañcindriyāni bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni amatogadhāni(1) honti amataparāyaṇāni(2) amatapariyosānāni(3). Katamāni pañca? Saddhindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(4) honti amataparāyaṇāni(5) amatapariyosānāni(6). Vīriyindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(7) honti amataparāyaṇāni(8) amatapariyosānāni(9). Satindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(10) honti amataparāyaṇāni(11) amatapariyosānāni(12). Samādhindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(13) honti amataparāyaṇāni(13) amatapariyosānāni(15). Paññindriyaṃ bhāvitaṃ bahulīkataṃ amatogadhāni(16) honti amataparāyaṇāni(17) amatapariyosānāni(18). Imāni pañcindriyāni bhāvitāni bahulīkatāni amatogadhāni(19) honti amataparāyaṇāni(20) amatapariyosānāni(21)”ti. [emphases and numbering added].
[source: http://suttacentral.net/sn48.57/pi].

I have numbered each incidence where the (compounded) word amata appears so as to emphasise how it can impressively embed itself, by its sheer dominance of topic (there are 21 instances in a 71-word paragraph), into the minds of the bhikkhu/ bhikkhuni chanting such a sutta, over and again, all dutifully learnt memoriter as prescribed in the Vinaya Piṭaka (with communal testing, each fortnight, for accuracy).

Furthermore, in the paragraph which follows the above paragraph, the (masculine case) Brahmā, in confirming his agreement with those meditations, repeats all those 21 incidences back to the sammāsambuddha and then, in the last and concluding paragraph (about half the size) yet another 3 times ... making a total of 45 instances in a very short sutta.

Presented below are a couple of regular, online translations of that opening paragraph wherein the first translator has whittled the 21 instances down to 6, and the second translator down to 4, both thereby soundly defeating the main function of the way in which the buddhavacana (i.e., “the words/ teachings of a buddha”) is structured ... to wit: as a memorable impressment into memory, via constant repetition, for those oh-so-essential rememoration-presentiation purposes – in these specialised contexts the Pāli “sati”/ Vedic “smṛ́ti” (often misleadingly translated with a ‘passive-witnessing’ meaning ascribed to ‘mindfulness’ such as “choiceless awareness”, “bare attention”, “lucid awareness”, and etcetera) has an exclusive relationship with the Pāli “suti”/ Vedic “śruti” (i.e., the sacred gnosis/ divine wisdom of immediate/ intuitive and/or unworldly/ otherworldly revelation as epitomised by the ancient Ṛishis of Vedic lore and legend) and nothing else – the fruitfulness of which is prominently demonstrated in the Pāli Canon by those numerous bhikkhū/ bhikkhunī of yore having thereby become arahants.

Viz.:

• [Mr. Jeffery Block:]: “On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Uruvelā on the bank of the river Nerañjarā at the foot of the Goatherd’s Banyan Tree just after he had become fully enlightened. Then, while the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, a reflection arose in his mind thus: ‘The five faculties, when developed and cultivated, have the Deathless as their ground, the Deathless as their destination, the Deathless as their final goal. What five? The faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom. These five faculties, when developed and cultivated, have the Deathless as their ground, the Deathless as their destination, the Deathless as their final goal’”. ~ (p.1699; The Great Book (Mahāvagga), V; “The Connected Discourses of the Buddha”; trans. by Bhikkhu Bhodhi; 2000, Wisdom Publications, Somerville MA).

• [Mr. Frank Woodward]: “Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying at Uruvela, on the bank of the river Neranjara, under the Goatherds’ Banyan, just after his attainment of perfect enlightenment. Now in the Exalted One, when he had retired to his solitary communing, there arose this mental reflection: There are five controlling faculties which, cultivated and made much, of, plunge into the Deathless, have their end and goal in the Deathless. What five? The controlling faculty of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and insight. These five, if cultivated and made much of, plunge into the Deathless, have their end and goal in the Deathless”. ~ (pp.207-8; The Great Chapter; “The Book of Kindred Sayings”, Vol V; trans. by F. L. Woodward; 1929, Pali Text Society).

This is an apposite juncture, then, to further explain that oh-so-essential rememoration-presentiation process. To rememorate, in the sense which the Pāli “sati/ satimā” conveys itself linguistically, in the Pāli sentences themselves and contextually in the buddhavacana as a whole, is to not only be memorative but is to be so with an instinctual, intuitive apprehension of the exclusive relationship the Pāli ‘sati’ (=Vedic ‘smṛti’) has with the Pāli ‘suti’ (=Vedic ‘śruti’) in its special-usage revelatory sense.

Viz.:

• suti (f.) cf. śruti *revelation* as opp. to smṛti *tradition*. [emphases added]. ~ (PTS-PED).

Thus the Pāli suti (=Vedic śruti) refers to revelation as opposed to the Pāli sati (=Vedic smṛti) which refers to tradition. That comparison can be seen here (bear in mind that the Vedic śruti = the Pāli suti whilst reading):

• śruti (f.): that which has been heard or communicated from the beginning; sacred eternal sounds or words as eternally heard by certain holy sages called Ṛishis, and so differing from smṛ́ti [= Pāli sati] or what is only remembered and handed down in writing by human authors [i.e., tradition]. [square-bracketed insertions added]. ~ (MMW-SED).

And this exclusive relationship also rates a special mention in that Monier Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary entry for smṛti (= Pāli sati) where, it may be profitably noted, the word ‘mindful’/ ‘mindfulness’ is quite conspicuous by its absence (the first edition of that dictionary was published in 1872; Mr. Thomas Rhys Davids first translated ‘sati’ as “mindfulness” in 1881).

Viz.:

• smṛ́ti (f.): remembrance, reminiscence, thinking of or upon (loc. or comp.), calling to mind, memory; the whole body of sacred tradition or what is remembered by human teachers, in contradistinction to śruti [= Pāli suti], or what is directly heard or revealed to the Ṛishis; in its widest acceptation this use of the term Smṛti includes the 6 Vedāṅgas, the Sūtras both śrauta, and gṛhya, the law-books of Manu &c.; the whole body of codes of law as handed down memoriter or by tradition (esp. the codes of Manu Yājñavalkya and the 16 succeeding inspired lawgivers, viz. [...]; all these lawgivers being held to be inspired and to have based their precepts on the Veda. [square-bracketed insertion added]. ~ (MWW-SED).

Thus the Pāli sati (=Vedic smṛti) refers, then, to not only “remembrance, reminiscence, thinking of or upon; calling to mind, memory” but to “the whole body of sacred tradition” (e.g., in the buddhistic context, to the entire Suttanta & Vinaya) as well. That is, the term “sati/ satimā” refers to “what is remembered by human teachers, in contradistinction to śruti [= Pāli suti]” which, in the buddhistic context, is in contradistinction to what is directly known or apprehended by the sammāsambuddha (i.e., a ‘Ṛishi’ par excellence, and then some, so to speak).

Put simply, the English word ‘mindful’/ ‘mindfulness’ cannot even begin to convey what the Pāli “sati/ satimā” refers to.

Furthermore, to be rememorative in the sense which the Pāli sati (= Vedic smṛti) conveys its meaning – a meaning conveyed both contextually and linguistically in the Pāli sentences themselves – is to be comprehensive, in a similarly visceral-intuitive manner, of the relationship the revelatory Pāli ‘suti’ (=Vedic śruti) has with the equally-special usage of the Pāli ‘suta’ (= Vedic ‘śruta’) as well.

Viz.:

• śruta (mfn.): heard, listened to, heard about or of, taught, mentioned, orally transmitted or communicated from age to age; śrutam (n.): that which has been heard (esp. from the beginning), knowledge as heard by holy men and transmitted from generation to generation, oral tradition or revelation, sacred knowledge; śrutavat: possessing (sacred) knowledge, learned, pious; śrutavid: knowing sacred revelation; śrutamaya (& śrutamayī): consisting of knowledge; śrutasád: abiding in what is heard (i.e. in transmitted knowledge or tradition). ~ (MMW-SED).

• suta (pp. of suṇāti): heard; in special sense ‘received through inspiration or revelation’; freq. in phrase ‘iti me sutaṃ’: thus have I heard, I have received this on (religious) authority; (nt.) sacred lore, inspired tradition, revelation; learning, religious knowledge; sutadhana: the treasure of revelation; sutadhara: remembering what has been heard (or taught in the Scriptures); sutamaya (& sutamayī): consisting in learning (or resting on sacred tradition), one of the 3 kinds of knowledge (paññā), viz. cintāmayā, sutamayā, bhāvanāmayā paññā; sutādhāra: holding (i.e. keeping in mind, preserving) the sacred learning. ~ (PTS-PED).

Hence, instead of mindlessly continuing to translate the Pāli ‘sati’ with a late-19th century-voguish, western-acculturated and everyday-usage word it is more explanatorily helpful to resurrect an antiquated term (that Shakespearean-Era “rememoration” was already ‘not in use’ in 1828, ‘obsolete’ by 1913 and ‘archaic’ come 2008 according to the various “Webster’s Dictionaries” available), unto which restored word that special-usage meaning of an instinctually-intuitive type of memoration – essentially, then, in this context a rememoration of the gnostic knowledge/ metempirical wisdom itself, revivified feelingly with luminous vibrancy, in the memorative faculty – can thus be readily ascribed and hypostatised.

*

Moving on to page 11 of that 1962 English translation (now much further above): after his exchange with Brahmā Sahampati the sammāsambuddha, having resolved to teach dhamma to the pañcavaggiya-bhikkhū (i.e., that group of five brahmana religieux already mentioned further above), sets out on tour for Isipatana, a deer-park near Benares, and along the way a religieux of the ājivika sect greets him in a complimentary manner, regarding his disposition and demeanour, and enquires as to his mentor or whose dhamma he professes. The last lines of his reply to this religieux, on page 12, are as follows (with the word ‘amata’ highlighted for easy reference).

“dhammacakkaṃ pavattetuṃ,
gacchāmi kāsinaṃ puraṃ;
andhībhūtasmiṃ lokasmiṃ,
āhañchaṃ amatadundubhin”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#6-pancavaggiyakatha].

Thus, after having declared there is no teacher [ācariyo] for him – as none like he is exists inasmuch he is unequalled [natthi te paṭipuggala] in the world of humans and gods [sadevakasmiṃ lokasmiṃ], that he alone is the consummately self-awakened one [sammāsambuddho], and how all-conquering [sabbābhibhū]  and all-knowing [sabbavidhūhamasmi] he is – he advises how he is going to [gacchāmi] the main city of the Kāsi County [kāsinaṃ puraṃ] to turn the dhamma-wheel (= the brahma-wheel; i.e., dhammacakkaṃ = brahmacakkaṃ) and beat the drum of immortality [amatadundubhin] in a world become blind [andhībhūtasmiṃ lokasmiṃ].

After arriving at the deer-park, and some discussion about an appropriate name, the following line is worth considering (again with the word ‘amata’ highlighted for easy reference).

• “Arahaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato sammāsambuddho, odahatha, bhikkhave,
sotaṃ, amatamadhigataṃ, ahamanusāsāmi, ahaṃ dhammaṃ desemi”.
[source: https://suttacentral.net/pi/pi-tv-kd1#5-brahmayacanakatha].

On page 13, of that 1962 English translation, Ms. Isaline Horner renders that line as follows.

• “A Truthfinder, monks, is a perfect one, a fully awakened one. Give
ear, monks, the deathless has been found; I instruct, I teach dhamma”.
[https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/13/mode/1up].

And on page 92 of the 1881 English translation Mr. Thomas Rhys Davids & Mr. Hermann Oldenberg render it thisaway:

• “Give ear, O Bhikkhus! The immortal (Amata) has been won (by me);
I will teach you, to you I will preach the doctrine”.
[https://archive.org/stream/vinayatexts01davi#page/92/mode/1up].

(This is repeated three more times before the sammāsambuddha begins his first discourse, the celebrated ‘wheel-turning’ discourse, which is venerated as being the advent of the buddhavacana, albeit known as ‘Buddhism’ for the last 150+ years, into the world of humans and gods). What is more than passing strange is how, since the 1880s or thereabouts, there is a noticeable tendency, on the part of translators/ scholars/ etcetera, to dilute or attenuate, rather than duly emphasise, just what certain words denote and/or connote, both etymologically and contextually (contextually, that is, in both a linguistical and consuetudinary manner) despite the vast array of antiquarian scriptural texts and oral tradition from sub-continental India which clearly delineate the age-old quest for immortality – as per the Sanskrit word amṛta and/or the Pāli word amata – as being the sole purpose of the brahmacariya modus vivendi (i.e., living an austere and celibate religious/ holy life), which strictly chaste way of life is scripturally incumbent upon any conscientious ordination as a bhikkhu/ bhikkhuni, as well as being the long-term aim of lay-persons, via an auspicious rebirth enabling committed ordination, per favour virtuous merit-accruing generosity in feeding or otherwise supporting and/or providing for those living that rigorous brahmacariya lifestyle (i.e., “dānamaya puññaṃ” where dāna = alms-giving and puñña = virtue, merit).

By and large the clearly defined/ readily describable goal of the buddhavacana – immortality in the current lifetime – has been obscured by an ineffable/ indefinable and faraway aspiration called nibbāna/ nirvāṇa. Hence “floating nebulously in a vacuum”. Hence, also, modern-day buddhistic aspirations being more of a therapeutic nature than salvational.

And it is more than but passing strange because, just as the English word immortal (‘im-’ + ‘mortal’) means not-mortal so too does the Pāli word amata (‘a-’ + ‘mata’) mean not-mortal. The Pāli “mata” refers to death, as does the Pāli “mara” and “maccu” for that matter, in the same way as the Latin “mort-” does (“mort”, the singular of “mors”, is what the English “mortal” is based upon) and as does the Greek “-brotos” as well (from which the English word ambrosia is derived, via “ambrotos”, the Greek word for immortal). The privative Pāli prefix ‘a-’ negates ‘mata’ just like the prefix ‘im-’ negates ‘mortal’ (thereby conveying not-mortal). Most translators, however, translating “mata” as “death” then negate it with the suffix “-less” (i.e., “deathless”) in the same way that the suffix “-less” of “timeless” means “no time” or “penniless” conveys “without money”. As the English word deathless is defined, for example, as “not subject to death; immortal” ~ (Webster’s College Dictionary) or as “not subject to termination or death; immortal” ~ (American Heritage Dictionary) or as, quite singularly, “immortal” ~ (Oxford English Dictionary), anyway, it is quite odd they would do so.

And particularly so, as amongst the many epithets ascribed to the sammāsambuddha, one in particular stands out: “amatassa dātā dhammassāmī”. Those first two words – amatassa dātā (“dispenser of immortality”) – are the crux of the epithet (the word which follows them, dhammassāmī, as in “master of dhamma”, is quite straightforward) as both the Pāli word amata and the Vedic/ Sanskrit word amṛta refer to precisely what the whole point of becoming mystically awakened/ spiritually enlightened really is.

Namely: to attain immortality [amata-patta], to dwell in the realm of the immortals [amata-pada], to rest in peace, forevermore, in the tranquillity of immortality [amataṃ-santiṃ], to enjoy the fruit of immortality [amata-phala], to be beating the drum of immortality [amata-dundubhi], to be bringing immortality [amatandada] to those with “little dust in their eyes” – having become the dispenser of immortality [amatassa dātā], having opened the doors to immortality [amata-dvārā], having revealed the way going or leading to immortality [amata-gāmin], along the path to immortality [amata-magga], for the benefit of all those seeking the medicine of immortality [amata-osadha] – so that whosoever is sprinkled with the ambrosia of immortality [amatena-abhisitta], who sees immortality [amata-dasa], who is tasting immortality [amata-rasā], is a drinker of immortality’s nectar [amatapo], is drenched by the rain of immortality [amata-vutthi; amṛta-varṣa], will be inclining to immortality [amata-pabbhāra], will be having immortality as their principal aim [amata-parāyaṇa] and, with immortality as their fordable footing [amata-gadha], will be diving into immortality [amata-ogadha], will be ending in immortality [amata-pariyosāna] and dwelling forevermore thereafter in the immortal state [amataṃ dhātuṃ] totally unaffected by death [anāmata].

And this, all of this and more, has been sitting there in plain view (albeit with ‘nibbāna’/ ‘nirvāṇa’ distracting attention away) for more than two millennia.

Speaking from personal experience: in September 1981 when the then-resident identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body became awakened/ enlightened ‘he’ was immediately aware – due to its marked absence – that ‘his’ ego/ ego-self (i.e., ‘the thinker’/ ‘the doer’) had most certainly died and ‘he’ would remark to those interested how ironic it was that ‘he’ only knew for sure now (now that it had vanished completely) how there had indeed been an operant ego all the while leading up to that moment. This absence of ego/ ego-self was so remarkably obvious ‘he’ would flesh-out ‘his’ description by pointing both forefingers directly to either temple so as to pinpoint its exact location via where an interior place immediately behind the mid-point of the eyebrows was intersected by that line-of-pointing. And, speaking even more experientially, a distinct vacancy, a clear emptiness, at that precise location was an on-going and compelling experience. So compelling, in fact, and so devoid of having ever even been existent this on-going reality was, then, that upon being asked, on occasion over the following years, as to what would happen at physical death ‘he’ would speak assuredly of being “already-dead” (meaning that only an end to embodiment could occur); of how there was “no such thing as death”; of how being immortal was what being awakened/ enlightened is (as “The Absolute”, as ‘he’ called it, that is); of how anything other than that was but a dream, an illusion, an appearance.

I drew attention to this salient feature in the first footnote of my first email to you (Message № 20114).

(Richard, List D Correspondence, List D, No. 48a, 30 July 2015)

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity