Intrusive Interpolations In the Potthapada Sutta -- Part I

The Potthapada Sutta from the Digha Nikaya is an interesting one. The sutta contains two conversations between the Buddha and the wanderer Potthapada on two separate occasions. The first conversation begins with Potthapada asking the Buddha on what is the “ultimate cessation of perception” followed by further questioning by Potthapada on various speculative questions on the nature of the soul, whether it exists after death and so on. The Buddha declines to answer these last series of questions positing that he does so because it is not conducive towards enlightenment. The first conversation ends with the Buddha leaving and Potthapada’s admitting that he doesn’t fully understand why the Buddha declined to the answer the speculative questions asked of him.

A couple of days later, Potthapada seeks out the Buddha and asks him to clarify why the Buddha did not answer the speculative questions previously asked. The Buddha goes on to repeat that such questions he declares as uncertain because they are not conducive towards enlightenment.

The Buddha goes on to say that there are ascetics who proclaim that, "After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from disease” and when questioned on this statement, none of them could offer a means to achieve this end and none of them could say they experienced what they proclaimed. In a famous simile the Buddha says:

Potthapada, it's as if a man were to say, 'I'm in love with the most beautiful woman in this country,' and other people were to say to him, 'Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with whom you are in love: do you know if she's of the warrior caste, the priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?' and, when asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'Well then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she's tall, short, or of medium height? Whether she's dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you know what village or town or city she's from?' When asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you've never known or seen the woman you're in love with?' When asked this, he would say, 'Yes.'

The Buddha provides another simile and continues by saying, “Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self (atta-patilabha): the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self.”

What is interesting about this passage is that the self is listed as possessing three different categories or types. This list oriented analytical style appears to be a scholastic elaboration performed by the systemizers hinting at the passage possibly being inauthentic.

Another interesting feature of this passage is the usage of the Pali compound word atta-patilabha which is translated, in this passage at least, as “acquisition of a self.” In the Pali English Dictionary the verb, paṭilabhati is defined as to obtain, receive and is derived from the verb root labh- (to get) with the prefix pati- (on to, at). From this, we get a sense of the word atta-patilabha as an acquired or obtained self.

I think the Buddha specifically used such a term to indicate that our notion of self is not intrinsic to man (remember the Buddha’s anatta or not-self) but something that is necessarily constructed or “acquired” through convention, beliefs and so on. The Buddha’s emphasis by using the word atta-paṭilabha seems to center here on human psychology instead of ontology as the list of three different kinds of selves seems to suggest.

If we take this list of different acquired selves and broach the question of how one may acquire such selves we soon run into difficulties. For example, how can one who already has a gross self (as defined by the Buddha in the next couple of sentences as the four great elements or the body) acquire another gross self if he or she already has one? Of course, one can say you can "acquire" a gross self by being reborn, but why use the word paṭilabha (acquired) in the first place? Why not just say there are three types of selves (gross, mind-made and formless) and leave it at that?

Following this rather problematic passage, the Buddha continues on to say:

I teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of the gross acquisition of a self, such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now.

It appears fairly clear that the Buddha is saying that one can get rid of the “gross acquisition of a self” by “abandoning . . . defiling mental qualities.” At first glance it seems reasonable. But when you reread the statement it almost sounds like with the abandonment of defiling mental qualities the body itself become abandoned which seems to suggest it disappears or immediately breaks down.

If instead we substitute the “gross” acquisition of a self with just the “acquired self”, which I indicated is a purely mental construct, then this passage makes a lot more sense. As our sense of who and what we are is based on our mental apparatus, it seems logical that when we can abandon the “mental qualities” emanating from this mental apparatus the whole notion of a self is necessarily abandoned as well.

In part II, I will continue my analysis of the sutta and show that one of most famous similes in the Pali canon has been obscured further suggesting that this sutta has suffered from interpolations.