Jhanas Solved? Part IV

In part III, the second jhāna was described as an ecstatic experience of quelled thoughts with a movement of the mind into oneness.

In this part, the third and fourth jhānas will be discussed and analyzed within the context of the jhānas as a whole. From this discussion, I will argue that the jhānas are facets of one meditative process rather than a sequence of distinct stages and the purpose of the jhānas is a succesive activity of relinquishment.

In the Maha-Saccaka Sutta, the Buddha describes the third jhāna:

With the fading of rapture I remained equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sensed pleasure with the body. I entered & remained in the third jhana.

In the third jhāna, the “rapture” experienced in the second jhāna fades and in its place is a frame of mind that is “equanimous, mindful (sato) & alert (sampajano)” with pleasure still remaining.

The Buddha goes on to describe the fourth jhāna:

But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain . . . I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.

Here in the final fourth jhāna, pleasure (sukha) is now abandoned and we are left with mindfulness and equanimity (upekkha-sati) as in the third jhāna but now purified (parisuddhim) in relation to the third.

Having expounded the stock passages of the third and fourth jhāna it is essential at this point to look at these specific jhānas alongside the first two jhānas within the context of the Maha-Saccaka Sutta. In the sutta the Buddha is talking to a Jain ascetic about the severe acetic strivings he performed that left him almost dead from starvation without being any closer to enlightenment.

The Buddha relates in this sutta that the turning point came in his quest for awakening when he recalled having a blissful experience as a boy relaxing under a Rose Apple tree. This remembrance sparked the insight that the relentless striving and pushing of the body and mind to the extreme was not the way, but rather an opposite type activity was required; an activity characterized by relinquishment, pleasure and relaxation.

And this is the essence of the jhanas: an activity that allows for relinquishment to take place in a successive manner.

The first jhāna begins with the relinquishment of external disturbances or “seclusion” which leads to a blissful feeling. The second jhāna continues with the relinquishment of internal disturbances in terms of thoughts and evaluations resulting in an ultimate absorption in ecstasy. The third jhāna continues with the relinquishment or “fading” of this ecstasy or “rapture” with only pleasure remaining. And even this pleasure relinquished or “abandon[ed]” in the final fourth jhāna.

From this perspective, we can now see more clearly that the jhānas are a single successive process of letting go rather than independent, compartmentalized stages which scholastic numbering provides the illusion for.

Also from this perspective we can a better idea of what the third and fourth jhānas consist of which is simply the relinquishment of the qualities gained by the first two jhāna with the exception of the new development of mindfulness (sati) and equanimity (upekkha) which will be explored later.

In conclusion, the Buddha is telling the Jain ascetic in Maha-Saccaka Sutta that the path to enlightenment is not by controlling and dominating the body to one’s will, but it is rather the relinquishment of all striving that respects the body and welcomes blameless inner pleasure.

But what exactly was it that after the Buddha reached the fourth jhāna that led him to enlightenment? Well, that is in the next post.

Jhanas Solved? Part III

In part II, I discussed the first jhāna and the argued that it was unlikely that the Buddha as a young boy experienced the first jhāna as described in the stock passage in the Pali Canon. While it is quite possible that the young Gautama did experience a happy state by withdrawing from the frivolities around him, it is dubious he did so by meditating cross-legged and entering some absorbed state as the text implicitly conveys.

Moving on to explicating the second jhāna, we fortunately find more textual information to draw upon.

In the Maha-Saccaka Sutta, the Buddha describes the second jhāna:

With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhāna: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance.

Of interest in this passage is the continuation of pleasure and rapture from the first jhāna but with the explicit absence of “thought & evaluation” and the new key element of “unification of awareness” (cetaso ekodi-bhavam).

But what is this “unification of awareness”? Looking at the Pali derivation of ekodi-bhavam, the word ekodi is composed of eka, meaning one or single, and udi, meaning arising or movement. Thus ekodi can be understood as movement to oneness or singleness. With the accusative of bhava, bhavam, which means “being” and the genitive singular ceta or mind, we can understand the phrase cetaso ekodi-bhavam as a mind of moving into a state of oneness.

Given this new understanding, we can tentatively describe the second jhāna as a meditative experience of bliss characterized by a lack of thought and a unification of the mind into a state oneness.

While this description appears to be fairly detailed, it is still, however, rather abstract and begs some further questions as what exactly is this “rapture & pleasure” and what does this “movement of mind into oneness” really describing?

One way to help remove this ambiguity is to examine the testimony of those who have avowedly experienced such states. Being unable, of course, to be able to verify such private, personal experiences, we should take them with a degree of skepticism but not to the point of refusing to lend the descriptions any credence when there is a strong semblance between the descriptions and the key Pali passages.

In Ajahn Brahmavamso’s book, aptly titled The Jhānas, we are provided a detailed description of what the experience of jhāna is like:

When the breath disappears and delight fills the mind, the nimitta usually appears. Nimitta, in the context used here, refers to the beautiful "lights" that appear in the mind. . . .

ENTERING JHANA

When the nimitta is radiant and stable, then its energy builds up moment by moment. . . . If one can maintain the one-pointedness here by keeping one's focus on the very center of the nimitta, the power will reach a critical level. One will feel as if the knower is being drawn into the nimitta, that one is falling into the most glorious bliss. Alternatively, one may feel that the nimitta approaches until it envelops the knower, swallowing one up in cosmic ecstasy. One is entering Jhana. . . .

NO THOUGHT, NO DECISION-MAKING, NO PERCEPTION OF TIME

From the moment of entering a Jhana, one will have no control. One will be unable to give orders as one normally does.

Of interest in these snippets is the mentioning of “falling into” and “envelop[ing] the knower” which seems quite similar to the translation I offered of cetaso ekodi-bhavam as moving into a state of oneness.

Another similarity is the mentioning "NO THOUGHT" and "NO DESCISION-MAKING" which is clearly similar to the “stilling of directed thoughts” as described in the stock passage of the second jhāna.

While we have these two concrete similarities with the stock passage, we encounter the quite obvious difference of the nimitta or “lights” as mentioned by Brahmavamso. As indicated in the section of his book quoted above, the nimitta is described as acting as a gateway or launching point into jhāna.

If this passage is to be interpreted as being congruent with the early Pali passages, it is important to find corresponding Pali passages that also mention this light or nimitta as acting as a threshold for entering jhāna.

In the Upakkilesa Sutta the sutta begins with Anuruddha expressing difficulty in obtaining jhāna (translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi):

‘Venerable sir, as we abide here diligent, ardent, and resolute, we perceive both light and a vision of forms. Soon afterwards the light and the vision of forms disappear, but we have not discovered the cause for that.’

Note Anuruddha here experiences light (obhāsa) and vision of forms (dassanam ruanam) which is quite similar to the qualities of the nimitta that Ajahn Brahmavamso describes as "beautiful 'lights'."

But is this a nimmita? In the next passage the Buddha confirms that these lights are indeed a nimmita when he replies to Anuruddha by saying, “Nimittam pativvijjhitabbam”, which can literally be translated as Bhikkhu Bodhi notes, “You should penetrate that sign.” While this has often been translated as “understanding” that sign, if we take the more literal interpretation of “penetrating” the sign then it appears we have another similarity with Ajahn Brahmvamaso’s description of “being drawn into the nimitta” or “envelop[ing] the knower” and also the element in the stock passage cetaso ekodi-bhavam that I translate as moving into a state of oneness.

These similarities are suggestive that Ajahn Brahmvamaso could be accurately describing the state of jhāna as expounded in the Pali texts. If this is indeed the case, it behooves us to examine his descriptions of the other elements of jhāna.

Of course, one of the most important elements of jhāna is this “rapture & pleasure” which Ajahn Brahmavamso describes as a feeling of “cosmic ecstasy” or “great bliss.” If this is indeed the case, then this “rapture & pleasure” appears to be of a stronger nature than the “rapture & pleasure” in the first jhāna, which from my discussion in part II, is more of a gentle, relaxing nature.

From this discussion, it can be summarized that the second jhāna is a meditative experience of ecstasy where thoughts come to a conclusion and the mind is absorbed into a light.

Having elucidated the second jhāna, what about the third and fourth jhānas?

That is for part IV.

Jhanas Solved? Part II

In part I, I ventured my thesis that the jhānas have been traditionally misunderstood as discreet meditative processes rather than one meditative process with multiple stages. I also presented the idea that there is in actual fact just three jhānas or three aspects of one process rather than four distinct jhānas as traditionally regarded.

My main argument for this interpretation is located in the Maha-Saccaka Sutta which has been identified by scholars as containing some very ancient biographical passages of the Buddha.

In the sutta, the Buddha describes his difficulty in obtaining enlightenment to a Jain ascetic. The Buddha tells the Jain that after realizing the futility of his ascetic practices of starving his body, he recalls a time as a young child:

'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.

In this passage the Buddha relates his experience of a young boy obtaining the first jhāna. The key to this passage is the description of the young-boy-Buddha experiencing such a pleasurable state by being “quite secluded from sensuality.” Instead of finding pleasure by engaging in the many distractions and activities that would have interested a boy of that age, the young Buddha-to-be finds pleasure by being secluded from them.

It is important to note that this passage does not convey at all the notion that the young Buddha-to-be entered into a type of concentrated mental absorption that shut out the world. On the contrary, the passage conveys a feeling of effortless relaxation and relinquishment that does not hint of the idea of losing all contact of the world.

While it may sound like the first jhāna is not a super special state that even a young boy could experience, traditionally the first jhāna has been seen as something only a practiced meditation virtuoso can obtain and appears to have some support from the suttas for it (Upakkilesa Sutta).

If the traditional interpretation is correct, then how can we explain the fact that the young Buddha experienced such a meditative state without obviously any meditative experience?

This conundrum indicates that there is something possibly wrong with the text or least the interpretation of it. Examining more closely the passage of the Buddha experiencing the first jhāna as a young boy, we find some things that do raise some doubts as to the entire passage’s authenticity.

The first thing to notice about the passage is the inclusion of the stock description, “I entered & remained in the first jhāna: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation.” It seems somewhat surprising that the Buddha would clearly recall experiencing “directed thought and evaluation” during such a pleasurable state as indicated in the stock description of the first jhāna. Usually with highly charged pleasurable experiences one only remembers the pleasurable aspects of it and not other things like “directed thought and evaluation” which seems rather periphery and just too technical.

Another thing that is a little suspicious about the boy Buddha-to-be obtaining the first jhāna, is that it almost presupposes that he was sitting cross-legged in a firm meditative posture as is mentioned in many passages connected with the stock jhāna formulas. But this seems a little farfetched as he is just a young boy who most likely never formally meditated before in his life and had no motivation to do so. The young boy Buddha most likely sat under the rose apple tree not to meditate as a yogi but to rest and relax from the activities around him.

What also suggests to me that the stock first jhāna passage was not originally a part of the passage in question is a subtle shift in meaning when this stock passage is removed:

I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I [experienced] pleasure born from seclusion. 'Could that be the path to Awakening?'

Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?'

By dropping the stock formula and substituting “rapture & pleasure” with pleasure (which agrees better with later sentence of being “afraid of pleasure”) a different emphasis occurs. Instead of emphasizing the attainment of a meditative state, the emphasis shifts to a recollection of the types of qualities perceived to be necessary to reach enlightenment. This I contend is what prompted the Buddha to engage in a practice that would cultivate such qualities of gentle relaxation and mental withdrawal. And that practice was, of course, meditation or jhāna.

The Buddha thus went ahead and began to cultivate those states that offered an experience of joy which turned out to be the first jhāna.

It is likely that the pleasurable feeling in the first jhāna was something quite similar to the relaxing, blissful feeling of disengaging the senses the Buddha as a young boy experienced, but arrived at through the formalized skill of meditation.

If this is the case, then the element of “directed thought & evaluation” in the stock jhāna passage is possibly describing the skill of a meditator who is gauging the level of absorption and the level of activity of the mind.

And all this “evaluation” is used to know and direct the mind to the great bliss of what is now known as the second jhāna which will be the subject of part III.

Jhanas Solved? Part I

The Pali word jhāna is often encountered in the suttas within the context of the four jhānas or mental techniques the Buddha used as a vehicle for awakening.

The word jhāna has been frequently translated in English as “absorption” which connotes a technical mental technique that is extremely focused.

The word jhāna is based on the Sanskrit word dhyana that contains the root dhi meaning to “reflect, conceive and ponder over”. Surprisingly, this definition appears closer to the English word “meditation” than the traditional idea of "absorption".

Interestingly, there are instances in the the Pali Canon that support the idea of jhāna as a general form of meditation. There are multiple passages in the canon where the Buddha says, “jhayatha bhikkhave” (here), which translates much more intelligibly as “monks, meditate” instead of “monks, attain absorption.”

Even so, the overwhelming occurrence of the word jhāna in the suttas is used in a more technical sense of a specific form of meditation. The almost exclusivity of jhāna in the technical sense is somewhat of an illusion. Due to a small set of stock passages related to the four jhānas being repeated throughout the Pali Canon, the reader is left with the impression that jhāna has primarily a technical meaning that is often associated with absorption.

Not surprisingly, the Buddhist tradition has focused a lot of attention on the technical meaning of jhāna: its characteristics, how it is attained, the benefit and so on.

Historically, the attainment of jhānas has become increasingly difficult to obtain as time has passed since the Buddha’s death. Today, most of the Theravada orthodoxy proclaims that the attainment of the first jhāna, let alone other higher jhānas, can only be gained with difficulty by experienced meditators.

Whatever is the truth of the difficulty of obtaining jhānas, the Buddhist tradition, for the most part, has universally agreed that the jhānas are a series of discreet mental processes that progress in order from a lower jhāna to a higher one.

This assumption seems a very reasonable one given the fact that the jhānas are number from one to four and are always described in the same order. However, as I will try to show, this numbering may have been simply a helpful memorization device rather than a means of communicating four quite distinct processes.

I will argue in the following posts by examining key suttas of the Pali Canon and contemporary descriptions of personal experiences of jhāna that what is labeled as the four jhānas is actually a description of one meditative process that has four different stages.

Dog Duty Ascetic and Rebirth -- Part II

In part I, I looked at the Kukkuravatika Sutta, or the Dog Duty Ascetic sutta, to see if it did the support the argument that the Buddha believed in literal rebirth.

By examining the context of the sutta, I pointed out that the Buddha was most likely using skillful means to communicate with the two ascetics by telling them that if they continued to mimic animal behavior they would be born as that animal and not as a god.

His use of skillful means is further illustrated in the later part of the sutta when he gives a short discourse on the four types of kammas after being begged by one of the tearful ascetics who has just come to the realization of the utter uselessness of their animal acts.

The Buddha first elaborates dark kamma which is then followed by bright kamma:

Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic) verbal process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic) mental process not (bound up) with affliction. By doing so, he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens, unafflicting contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels unafflicting feelings entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of Refulgent Glory.

The Buddha explains that the result of bright kamma is the arising (upapajjati) in an unafflictive “world” (loka) where one experiences, “unafflicting feelings entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of Refulgent Glory.” This is Vedic language. The phrase about arising in a “world” is a Vedic term, which besides denoting a metaphorical space, also has a psychological meaning. In the final sentence of the passage, the Buddha invokes the Vedic folk god Subhakinha.

What is interesting is that the Buddha does not say that one will become that god through such actions, but only that one can experience such feelings worthy of that god.

The Buddha here is essentially telling the ascetics how to obtain their original goal of companionship with god but in a different way. The Buddha is saying that one who is able to experience the same state that a god would experience is to effectively be that god; to enter the state of being of that god is to be it.

By the Buddha giving a psychological dimension to a metaphysical belief system, the Buddha opens up a new perspective and hope for the distraught men. The one ascetic is weeping because he is convinced by the Buddha that he has wasted enormous time in his beastly practices. By offering them a way they can taste their original goal by experiencing it in this life, he turns their despair into happiness by pointing them on a more productive path.

Conclusion

The further elucidation of this sutta should help convince those that claim this sutta clearly shows the Buddha’s belief in rebirth is not the only interpretation. Like in many of the suttas in the Pali Canon, the Buddha uses skillful means to communicate with the various different peoples he meets. This is just one more interesting example of this trend where the Buddha takes on his interlocutor’s language and view point in order to lead them to a different understanding of the world.

Dog Duty Ascetic and Rebirth -- Part I

Many who argue that the Buddha believed in literal rebirth often refer to the interesting Kukkuravatika Sutta, or the Dog Duty Ascetic sutta, to support their claim.

Even a casual glance of the sutta does appear to lend support to their position that the Buddha not only taught but believed in rebirth. The sutta in question relates the Buddha in conversation with two rather bizarre characters, one of which acts like a bull and the other a dog. The two men ask the Buddha what is the result of acting like such animals and the Buddha reluctantly tells them they will both either enter the “animal womb” or niraya (hell).

If we take the sutta at face value it appears to be straight forward with no real room to interpret it in another fashion. However, before making too hasty a conclusion let us try to better understand the context of the sutta by examining these two characters and at least attempt to understand the motivation behind their actions which may bring some insight as to why the Buddha responded as he did.

Doing some research into the ancient Indian texts that were known during the Buddha’s time presents us with evidence that such behavior was indeed present and even sanctioned by the influential and widespread Vedic religious thought. One particular example can be found in the Jaiminiya Brahmana 2.113 and the Taittiriya-Brahmana 2.7.6 which describes such actions as behaving as a bull and even committing incest with one’s own mother as part of the Gosava rite or “vow of the bull.” The Taittiriya-Brahmana explains that such a rite should be consummated if one wants to obtain svarajya or the power of sovereignty or independent dominion (Narayan Jha, 46). It appears that there was belief that by imitating a bull or some other animal one could somehow gain and transfer its power from the animal realm to the human one. This type of primitive belief is very reminiscent of shamanistic beliefs systems shared in many small scale societies.

Why specifically the bull was one of the animals chosen to imitate is not altogether clear, but it is interesting to note that in the Vedas the bull is seen as self-ruling and powerful and often associated with one of the most powerful of the ruling gods: Brahma (Kr Singh, 245).

Another possible reason for such behavior is these ascetics are belaboring under the commonly held ascetic view of the time that by engaging in severe hardships one would later experience pleasant existences due to the equalizing force in the universe. The basic idea of suffering now so as to experience happiness later permeated much of ascetic thought during the Buddha’s time (Gombrich, 37).

In the sutta, the two ascetics never announce their motivation directly, but the Buddha does when he explains to them the result of their practices:

Here, Seniya, someone develops the ox duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox mind fully and unstintingly, he develops the ox behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of oxen. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious like I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case.

The Buddha replies in the exact same fashion for the dog ascetic, and we are left to believe that the two characters acted in such a manner in order to arise in a heavenly world as a god or some other higher being.

Maybe the ox performer believed he would become a powerful god like Brahma and the dog ascetic as Sarama -- a high level heavenly dog of Vedic mythology.

Regardless of the exact reasons, both men seem to believe that if they keep with their present course of action they will achieve a better existence as framed within the folds of Vedic belief system.

Now of crucial interest is how the Buddha responds to the question as to what is their final path (abhisamparāya). The Buddha replies that they will either appear in the company or in the companionship (sahavyatā) with the animal imitated or a downward-path (niraya). The fact that the Buddha uses the word companionship, or sahavyatā, is important.

In the Upanishads the ultimate soteriological goal is the union or companionship with Brahma. By the Buddha mentioning companionship with dogs or oxen seems to me to almost poking fun.

The important thing to understand is that the Buddha is using Vedic language to communicate in terms the ascetics are familiar and immersed in. By the Buddha telling the two men that at best they will end up in an oxen or doggy world, he is not just teasing them but pointing out the damage of such beliefs within the fold of the Buddha’s idea of kamma.

By indicating they will end up with animals if they act animals; he is telling them that the results of actions are commensurate with the action itself; by acting like a dog, you becomes a dog and not a god. I also think the Buddha is effectively denying the ascetic belief that by suffering now bliss will be followed later. He is instead saying the opposite is true: by inflicting hardships now will only lead to hardships later.

Understandably the two ascetics are incredibly distraught with the Buddha’s answer and the ox ascetic bursts into tears. In between his weeping, he asks the Buddha a better way to act so he can abandon his ox laden ways.

The Buddha’s answer is very interesting and is the subject of Part II.

References

Gombrich, Richard F. 1996. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. London, Althlone Press.

Kr Singh, Nagendra. 1997. Vedic Mythology. New Delhi, A.P.H Publishing Corporation.

Narayan Jha, Dwijendra. 2002. The Myth of the Holy Cow. New Delhi, Verso.

Tull, Herman W. 1989. The Vedic Origins of Karma. Albany, State University of New York Press.

Tathāgata Substituted for Self -- Part III

In part 2 , I provided convincing evidence that the Tathāgata pericope (the Tathāgata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death) originally had the word “self” instead of the word Tathāgata which the suttas currently contain.

At the end of the essay I raised the important questions of why the systemizers changed it the pericope in the first place and why they chose to replace the word “self” explicitly with Tathāgata.

While any such answers may indeed be speculation, I do believe there are motifs in some of the suttas which hint at a reasonable explanation.

In the Bhikkhu Sutta, the Buddha declares, “Monk, whatever one stays obsessed with, that's what one is measured by.” The Buddha goes on in the sutta to elaborate the meaning of this statement by saying:

If one doesn't stay obsessed with form, monk, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified.

If one doesn't stay obsessed with feeling...

If one doesn't stay obsessed with perception...

If one doesn't stay obsessed with fabrications...

If one doesn't stay obsessed with consciousness, that's not what one is measured by.

Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified.

In this very profound sutta the Buddha declares that we can only measure or classify “what one is” when we obsess over the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, fabrications and consciousness) or elements of our experience and provide it with a conceptual identify we label as “me”.

Conversely, when we do not obsess or crave over the five aggregates of experience, we no longer participate in the creation of a notion of a being and thus there is no longer anything to measure or classify against.

This for the Buddha is what it means to become enlightened and make an end of suffering. It is important to understand that the Buddha is referring to going beyond the classification of a notion of me and not a particular attribute attributed to an enlightened being.

However, this has traditionally been interpreted in such a sense, contributing to one important piece of doctrinal misunderstanding that helps explain why “self” was changed to Tathāgata.

Another sutta which relates the same notion of the illusion of being is in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta where the wanderer Vacchagotta asks a series of metaphysical questions that the Buddha refuses to answer. In exasperation, Vacchagotta asks the Buddha whether he has, “any position at all?"

The Buddha answers by saying, "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Vacchagotta persists by asking, “But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"

The Buddha replies that any notion of reappearing, appearing, appearing and not reappearing and so on do not apply. At this point Vacchagotta exclaims he is “confused” and has “no clarity.” The Buddha councils him and tells him it is not surprising he is confused given that such an understanding is “subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.”

The Buddha then questions Vacchagotta on what happens to a fire that runs out of fuel:

And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?

...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'

If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?

...yes...

And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?

That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound).

Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

The Buddha repeats the last passage for the rest of aggregates (feeling, perceptions, fabrications and consciousness) the sutta ends with Vacchagotta becoming a convert.

The key part of the sutta is the fire simile where the sustenance of a fire is metaphorically associated with the five aggregates. The fire is dependent on grass and timber just like the notion of a being, being dependent on the five aggregates. When the fire goes out due to lack of sustenance, like the notion of being going out due to the experience of the aggregates being abandoned, it is no longer meaningful to ask where the fire has gone in the way as it is to ask where the notion of being has gone.

This is expressing in essence what the first sutta did but in a different manner. Both indicate that something can only persist dependent on the input of something else; and this something else can be relinquished. But most importantly the main point is the same: there is no classification or measurement of something that can no longer be experienced.

And this is the key because when there is no fire or no obsession over being, there is no longer the experience of suffering.

Unfortunately, this particular sutta has been understood too literally to indicate two things: there is no rebirth for an enlightened being as there is no substrate left for it to occur and the status of an enlightened being after death is unknown. To interpret the text in this fashion is to ascribe the Buddha with a position which goes clearly against what the Buddha said earlier as having “no position.” The point is that whether there is rebirth, no rebirth, known or unknown status is not the question for such questions do not apply. As such questions no longer make sense, there is no position that can be taken even if one wanted to. This is the reason the Buddha stated he has no position.

The crux of the traditional misunderstanding centers on seeing the notion of being as an actual existing entity rather than a psychological projection. Understanding the text from a psychological perspective is clearly indicated by the Buddha who describes an enlightened being earlier in the sutta as one who has relinquished the psychological process of, "all I-making & mine making."

To be fair, to read the text from an ontological perspective is not helped by the fact that the Buddha meets Vacchagota half way when he persists in trying to explicitly get an answer to a question of the ontological status of a being after death. Through his skillful means, the Buddha takes on Vacchagota's ontological thinking and goes ahead and posits a thing, in this case a fire, in order to make the point that such questions of continuation do not make sense.

Having examined two suttas we now have two fairly clear motifs of the traditional misunderstanding derived from them: the indescribability of an enlightened being and the unknown status of an enlightened being after death.

Keeping these two motifs in mind, we can now gain a glimpse as to why “self” was substituted with Tathāgata.

The systemizers were most likely puzzled when they discovered in the suttas the Buddha refusing to directly answer whether the self exists or does not exist after death. At this point in history, the idea of karma and rebirth was firmly established and they saw no reason why the Buddha did not reply by saying the self in a way does exist after death by the means of rebirth.

For the compilers, the Buddha’s refusal to answer whether the self exists after death only made sense for enlightened beings and not for beings in general that the “self” in the pericope seemed to indicate. In their minds, when the Buddha refused to declare the status of the self after death, the Buddha must have understood this question as referring to enlightened beings as this is the only reason they could see for the Buddha’s silence. As enlightened beings were seen as being “unfathomable” and beyond any notions after death, it made sense for the Buddha to remain silent for the question could not be answered.

Thinking that they were clarifying the true meaning, they thus changed the pericope to refer to the Tathāgata instead of the self.