An Examen of a (Forthcoming) Doctoral Dissertation (3)

Page 22—Velez de Cea—The Significance of Atta as Island and Refuge.

Now, since the passage we are examining is to be found in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, which narrates the Buddha’s last days, an atmanic interpreter might argue that, before dying, the Buddha meant to reveal the esoteric meaning of the anattā doctrine , i.e. — according to this interpretation — he would not have been questioning the ultimate reality of an attā but the mistake that would consist in confusing this attā with the physical and mental aggregates that make up the individual.

• [Editorial Note]: Manoeuvre № 6: this last manoeuvre is almost too trite for words—such an “interpreter” (e.g., “the Spanish Jesuit father Joaquin Pérez-Remón”, for instance, already referred to on the previous page) is well aware of earlier advents, by the sammāsambuddha, of this illuminative “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” gnostic wisdom (i.e., intuitive/ metempirical wisdom as contrasted to dianoetic/ empirical knowledge) and, especially so, when regarding the appositional correspondence of attadīpā and attasaraṇā with dhammadīpā and dhammasaraṇā, such as to readily instigate a word-match search of the entire Pāli Canon for each instance of “attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā...&c.”; instances such as in the Cakkavatti­Sīhanāda Sutta (DN 26; PTS: D iii 58), where it features twice and, of course, in the incipit Attadīpa Sutta (SN 22.43; PTS: S iii 42), for another instance—and the weasel-word “might”, in the [quote] “an atmanic interpreter *might* argue that” [emphasis added] introductory lead-in, is a dead giveaway as to how this is an academic argument, set-up here on page № 22, a mere five paragraphs after that grudging admittance (viz.: “let us admit, for argument’s sake, that the atmanic translation is, at least, philologically acceptable”), on page № 21, in response to what such an “interpreter” actually *did* argue.

Furthermore, to classify such a well-aware researcher as Señor Joaquin Pérez-Remón ably demonstrates himself to be, in that 412-page 1980 book of his already cited on page № 18, as an “interpreter”—unless Señor Abraham Velez de Cea self-classifies, publicly, as being an interpreter himself—in lieu of directly addressing the multiple instances of the actual Pāli words cogently presented in that book, as factual evidence, makes the academic nature of this argument even more apparent.

Moreover, and given the earlier advents of this well-known pericope, to baldly state that [quote] “the passage we are examining is to be found in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta” [endquote] as if it were the only instance, in that introductory lead-in, is to set-up a fake academic argument to boot (viz.: so as to make everything clear before his disappearance and prevent any misunderstanding about the ultimate meaning of the anattā doctrine), i.e., according to this interpretation, “he would not have been questioning the ultimate reality of an attā”, and to propose that “an atmanic interpreter *might* argue” [emphasis added] like that makes no sense whatsoever as it is already well-known that the sammāsambuddha did not need to question “ultimate reality” issues.

In the Aggivacchagotta Sutta (MN 72; PTS: M i 483), for instance, after answering in the negative to the ten now-legendary “ultimate reality” questions from “vacchagotto paribbājaka”—viz.: “does Bhavam Gotama hold the “diṭṭhi” (i.e., view/ belief/ theory / speculation/ opinion/ dogma/ etcetera) that the world is eternal...the world is not eternal...the world is finite...the world is infinite...body & life are the same thing...body & life are different things...tathāgata exists after death...tathāgata does not exist after death...tathāgata both exists & does not exist after death...tathāgata neither exists nor not exists after death”—and then declaring such to be a “diṭṭhi” thicket, a “diṭṭhi” wilderness, “diṭṭhi” contortions, “diṭṭhi” writhings”, and a “diṭṭhi” yoke, he reveals that “diṭṭhigata” (i.e., “being of a (wrong) view, belief, theory, &c.” ~ PTS-PED) is removed, dispelled, taken away or off [“apanīta”] a tathāgata [viz.: “diṭṭhigatanti apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa”].
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/mn72].

In the light of this revelation, note well how the last four “ultimate reality” questions, regarding the after-death status of a tathāgata (as an arahant is known in the earliest texts), equally pertain to the after-death status of both dhamma/ brahma and attan/ atta because of their dhammabhūto/ brahmabhūto correspondence with that edifying self-referential “who sees me [“maṃ”] sees dhamma; who sees dhamma sees me [“maṃ” = first person singular accusative pronoun]” come-see-for-yourself invitation.

In summary, then, Señor Abraham Velez de Cea is further proposing that, according to what “an atmanic interpreter *might* argue” [emphasis added], the sammāsambuddha would have been questioning “the mistake” of confusing this (totally unworldly) attā with that (completely worldly) attā of the individual (i.e., the panc’upādāna-kkhandhā personage, the psychosomatic self)—which, of course, is to immediately prompt the query, given the earlier advents of the well-known pericope, as to why he would even be “questioning” some-such “mistake” only now and not then (and, for that matter, as to how any of the then-alive persons could be making such a “mistake”, anyway, as this ‘anattāvādan’ diṭṭhi/ dṛṣti is demonstrably a latter-day addition per favour the unawakened/ unenlightened Abhidhamma & Commentary pundits in a much-later post-parinibbāna era which gradually gained ascendancy long after the last arahant escaped death’s clutches)—but then he goes off on another tack, over the next eight paragraphs, ne’er to return to this “questioning” he is proposing here.

Quite frankly, and given it is from a [quote] “(forthcoming) doctoral dissertation” [endquote] this is altogether a most odd paragraph.

Firstly, however, this interpretation may easily be countered by recalling that the injunction under consideration is also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon, and there is no reason to assume that it appears for the first time in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta.

• [Editorial Note]: Of course “this interpretation may easily be countered”—setting-up an obviously flawed academic argument (which has the effect, intended or not, of depicting “an atmanic interpreter” as a dilettante totally ignorant of those “many other texts”) ensures from the get-go that it indeed “may easily be countered”—and yet, even further to that doctoral chicanery, this flawed-and-faked argument’s preset defects are, quite predictably, going to now be similarly “countered”, one-by-one, over the next seven paragraphs as well.

Secondly, it would not seem to be at all consistent to believe that the Buddha, just before his disappearance, decided to enjoin his ...

Page 23—Velez de Cea—The Significance of Atta as Island and Refuge.

his disciples to hold the attā as their island and refuge in a literal, rather than an idiomatic or figured sense,...

• [Editorial Note]: As Señor Abraham Velez de Cea had perforce to acknowledge, in the immediately prior paragraph in order to easily counter what “an atmanic interpreter *might* argue”, that [quote] “the injunction under consideration is also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote], then this follow-up presentation of such an obvious non-sequitur is quite inexcusable—(inasmuch by having done so he self-exposes his “just before his disappearance” argument as the baseless fakery it had been from the get-go)—and it is especially inexcusable as he presents it as a (supposedly) cogent argument for how the Pāli word ‘atta’ (in the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope) is, for that very reason alone, “an idiomatic or figured sense” of the word.

...when he had previously spent forty-five years tirelessly repeating that nothing is to be regarded as ‘I am’ or as ‘this is my attā’.

• [Editorial Note]: Not so; what the sammāsambuddha had spent the previous forty-five years doing, tirelessly or otherwise, was consistently repeating that nothing *worldly* is to be regarded as “etaṃ mama, eso ahaṃ asmi, eso me attā” (i.e., ‘this is mine; this I am; this is my self’) because, as he also consistently repeated, everything worldly is impermanent, subject to change, and asunder-apart-away from ākāsa.

Thirdly the esoteric interpretation is untenable in the light of what the Buddha says just before: ‘I have preached the truth without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine; for in respect of the truths, Ānanda, the Tathāgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher who keeps things back’.

• [Editorial Note]: As the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote]—as Señor Abraham Velez de Cea had perforce to acknowledge a mere two paragraphs prior to this one—this too is an inexcusable non-sequitur.

If the Buddha has just been saying that he has been preaching the Dhamma without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric teaching, it would be absurd for him to reveal, shortly afterwards, a secret meaning of the anattā doctrine.

• [Editorial Note]: As the sammāsambuddha was not revealing any such “secret meaning” in the “Mahāparinibbāna Sutta”—even Señor Abraham Velez de Cea himself had perforce to acknowledge, just three paragraphs prior to this one, that the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote]—this is, yet again, an inexcusable non-sequitur.

If the Buddha had wanted to teach that there was such a thing as a real attā he would have said so clearly in the course of his long life, without waiting for his dying day to reveal a supposedly true esoteric, occult meaning of his often repeated teaching of non-attā.

• [Editorial Note]: This is another example of the crude power that little word “if...” has, when used injudiciously, as the sammāsambuddha made it abundantly clear as to why he did not “teach that there was such a thing as a real attā” (or that there was no such thing, either, for that matter)—indeed, there are the reasons given in the already mentioned Ānanda/ Atthatta Sutta (SN 44.10; PTS S iv 400) to reflect upon, for just one instance, in this respect—which means that this “If the Buddha had wanted to teach that...” type of argument is, as all such arguments are, not worth even typing-out let alone publishing.

For an example of this worthlessness the simple obverse of the above—as in, “If the Buddha had wanted to teach that there was *no* such a thing as a real attā he would have said so clearly in the course of his long life”, for instance—is as equally a facile argument because nowhere in the buddhavacana is a denial of attā to be found.

Fourthly, the context (in D II 100) does not justify the inference that the Buddha is advising his disciples to turn to an unchanging, eternal attā as an island and a refuge.

• [Editorial Note]: As Señor Abraham Velez de Cea had perforce to acknowledge, just four paragraphs prior to this one, that the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] then to focus solely on the context peculiar to the “Mahāparinibbāna Sutta”—the announced and imminent anupādisesa parinibbāna of the sammāsambuddha—immediately renders whatever follows irrelevant to comprehending whether that well-known pericope refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

Rather, the context makes it clear that what the Buddha is saying is that no one needs to be appointed to succeed him at the head of the Order, as a refuge for others, after his death.

• [Editorial Note]: As the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] are not about his approaching death then any speculation about what this particular context might or might not make clear is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

In fact, in the context we see that the Buddha is very ill.

• [Editorial Note]: Yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] are not about him being very ill, then this “In fact...” sentence is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

Ānanda says that he feels purposeless (madhurakajāto) and unable to make sense of things (me na pakkhāyanti dhammā) because of the Lord’s sickness, but he derives some comfort from the thought that the Master would not attain final Nibbāna until he had made some statement about who would be his successor and lead the Order of monks after his death.

• [Editorial Note]: Yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] do not have the context of the “Mahāparinibbāna Sutta” then whatever it is “Ānanda says ...”, in this particular context only, is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

It is at this point that the Buddha says to him that he has preached the Dhamma without making any distinction between open and occult teachings and that he does not think it necessary to say anything further about the Community of monks, i.e., that

Page 24—Velez de Cea—The Significance of Atta as Island and Refuge.

he does not think it necessary to appoint anyone to succeed him as the leader of the Community.

• [Editorial Note]: Yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] do not have the context of “he does not think it necessary to appoint anyone...” then it is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

He then adds that he will soon die, that he is old and frail and that he can only overcome physical suffering by dwelling in certain meditative states.

• [Editorial Note]: Yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] do not have the context of “He then adds that he will soon die...” then it is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

It is at this point that the Buddha exhorts Ānanda and all his disciples to live ‘as those who have the self as island, as those who have the self as refuge, as those who have no other refuge; as those who have Dhamma as island, as those who have Dhamma as refuge, as those who have no other refuge’.

• [Editorial Note]: Yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] do not have the context of “It is at this point...” (i.e., the context of “He then adds that he will soon die”) then it is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

Since the Buddha has already taught everything that is necessary to make oneself free from suffering,...

• [Editorial Note]: Including, of course, that well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as ...&c.” pericope.

... what the disciples have to do is simply to protect themselves from unwholesome mental states, ...

• [Editorial Note]: yet, as the contexts of where this well-known pericope is [quote] “also found in many other texts of the Pali Canon” [endquote] do not have the context of [quote] “Since the Buddha has already taught everything... ” [endquote] then no matter whatsoever it is [quote] “what the disciples have to do...” [endquote] in this context is irrelevant to comprehending whether “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta in all contexts.

...i.e., to be their own island and refuge and to have the Dhamma as an island and refuge, which means practising the Dhamma.

• [Editorial Note]: Having by now cancelled-out eight of these totally irrelevant [quote] “Fourthly, the context (in D II 100)...&c.” [endquote] paragraph-fillers then all what remains is this bare assertion that what they have to do is [quote] “be their own island and refuge...” [endquote] without a single cogent reason ever being advanced for the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope to be referring to a worldly atta as per that bare assertion (i.e., “be their own island and refuge...” as claimed).

Furthermore, as Señor Abraham Velez de Cea only has one paragraph remaining (immediately below), in which to provide even that single cogent reason, it is rapidly becoming apparent that none at all will be forthcoming.

In the past, as stated elsewhere in the Pali discourses the disciples could turn to the Buddha as their island and refuge.

• [Editorial Note]: Indeed so; and in that sutta referenced by footnote № 22—on the PTS Page 315 in the Khettūpama Sutta (SN 42.7; PTS: S iv 314)—the sammāsambuddha not only directly refers to himself [“maṃ”] as an island & refuge [“maṃdīpā” & “maṃsaraṇā”], for his male and female mendicant renunciates [“mayhaṃ bhikkhu-bhikkhuniyo”] to dwell with/ abide with [“viharanti”], but as a haven & stronghold [“maṃleṇā” & “maṃtāṇā”] for them as well (viz.: “ete hi maṃdīpā maṃleṇā maṃtāṇā maṃsaraṇā viharanti”].
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/sn42.7].

Given that he similarly refers to himself in such a direct fashion (the Pāli ‘maṃ’ is an accusative case first-person singular pronoun) as dhamma itself, in those edifying “who sees me [“maṃ”] sees dhamma; who sees dhamma sees me [“maṃ”]...&c.” words of open invitation, then it is an oddity, almost to the point of weirdity, that Señor Abraham Velez de Cea can, on the one hand, acknowledge that “the disciples could turn to the Buddha as their island and refuge”—albeit without acknowledging the patently obvious reason why they would do so when (according to him) they already would have had themselves “as their island and refuge” all the while dhamma/ brahma, itself, had still been embodied (i.e., for 50-odd years)—yet, on the other hand, insist that they themselves can indeed “be their island and refuge” after that embodiment came to its inevitable end (i.e., via the physical demise of the embodying organism) as if the total absence of any equivalence whatsoever, on their part, with that (now-disembodied) dhamma/ brahma is beside the point.

But once the Buddha is gone, they themselves and the Dhamma must be their own island and refuge,...

• [Editorial Note]: To merely assert that they themselves [quote] “must be their own island and refuge” [endquote] is to not provide a cogent reason that the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope is referring to a worldly atta.

...i.e., they must concentrate on practising the Dhamma...

• [Editorial Note]: To be “practising the Dhamma” (i.e., ‘dhamma’, as in its “the teaching” connotation) is not to be dwelling with dhamma (i.e., ‘dhamma’ in its primary denotational meaning) as “their island and refuge” because dhamma, in this primary denotational meaning, is an acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature—known as ‘Truth’ in English—which a sammāsambuddha is the much venerated embodiment of.

...and not place their expectations in any successor of the Buddha as head of the Community and future preacher of the Dhamma that has already been taught.

• [Editorial Note]: It is those [quote] “preacher of the Dhamma that has already been taught” [endquote] words which are a dead giveaway that, for Señor Abraham Velez de Cea, the word ‘dhamma’ refers to its “the teaching” connotation (i.e., to the words *about* dhamma, be they spoken or printed words, and not to dhamma *itself*). Which means, of course, that no cogent reason for insisting it is a worldly atta, in the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope, was ever going to be forthcoming all this while.

And, on this (quite worldly) note, so endeth the last of the half-a-dozen manoeuvres Señor Abraham Velez de Cea maladroitly pressed into service so as to negotiate his way around his grudging “philologically acceptable” admittance of the syntactic appositional correspondence Señor Joaquin Pérez-Remón so cogently demonstrated on page 20 of his 412-page 1980 book.

That is to say, they must practise the Four Foundations of Mindfulness,...

• [Editorial Note]: This is the 3rd instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told, and, despite being inserted into here as if it were part of the words spoken by the sammāsambuddha, in the “Mahāparinibbāna Sutta”, this latter-day title could not possibly have been what actually passed his lips.

This is an apposite place to re-present what Dr. Rhys Davids quoted from page xxvi of Dr. Oldenberg’s Introduction to his edition of the text of the Mahi-vagga. 

Viz.:

• [Dr. Hermann Oldenberg]: “This is the story as it has come down to us. What we have here before us is not history, but pure invention; and, moreover, an invention of no very recent date...”.

...thereby eliminating all unwholesome mental states: ‘And how does a monk live as an island unto himself ... with no other refuge? Here, Ānanda, a monk abides contemplating the body as body earnestly, clearly aware, mindful and have put away all hankering and fretting for the world and likewise with regard to feelings, mind and mind-objects. That, Ānanda, is how a monk lives as an island unto himself ... with no other refuge’.

• [Editorial Note]: What is of immediate significance is how the translator (Mr. Maurice Walshe) has not only ignored that ‘dhamma’ aspect, of the well-known ‘atta & dhamma’ pericope, but expunged it totally out of print-existence, on Page 245 of his 1987 Wisdom Publications book “The Long Discourses of The Buddha”, via elisions (the three little dots above), thus leaving only the reflexive personage (i.e., “himself”) for the reflexive personage (i.e., “himself”) to abide with/ dwell with, as an island in the realm of māra, with no other refuge than “himself” (i.e., the reflexive personage) yet all the while be [quote] “contemplating the body as body earnestly, clearly aware, mindful...&c.” [endquote] in that dominion of death as if this were indeed what the sammāsambuddha spent 50-odd years prescribing. 

And the reason why Mr. Maurice Walshe expunged ‘dhamma’ totally out of print-existence is given in the opening sentences of his ‘Introduction’ to his “Long Discourses” translation whereby he explains upfront how he has omitted *the more wearisome* of the very numerous repetitions in the original Pāli text. Viz.:

• [Mr. Maurice Walshe]: “This translation is a ‘substantive’ translation because it is complete as to substance. Nothing has been omitted *except the more wearisome* of the very numerous repetitions which are such a striking feature of the original”. [emphasis added]. ~ (the very first sentences of the ‘Introduction’ in “The Long Discourses of The Buddha”, by Maurice Walshe; 1987 Wisdom Publications, Boston).

’Tis quite revealing how ‘dhamma’ itself—known as ‘Truth’ in English—falls into the category of “wearisome” in his purview! 

Also, what is of equally immediate significance is how Mr. Maurice Walshe has fashionably represented the all-important Pāli word ‘sati’ which features both in the above text, albeit therein as the nominative singular of the adjectival ‘satimant’ [viz.: “kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā...&c.”], and in that introjected title, by means of the tendentious word [quote] “mindful” [endquote] which came into vogue in the late 19th century—a western-acculturated and everyday-usage type of word typically denoting: “conscious or aware of something” (Oxford English Dictionary); “keeping aware; heedful” (‌Collins English Dictionary); “attentive; heedful; synonym: careful” (American Heritage Dictionary); “attentive; aware” (Webster’s College Dictionary), for instance, and thereby misleadingly signifying that some manner of introspective contemplation of [quote] “body, feelings, mind and mind-objects” [endquote] is being prescribed—in lieu of its denominational ‘to remember, to recall, recollect’ meaning (i.e., Pāli sati = Sanskrit smṛti = Vedic √smṛ) inasmuch its oh-so-vital rememorative role is entirely over-looked, disregarded and consigned to a similar ignoration as that to which the ‘dhamma’ aspect of this pericope has been relegated.

More on this oh-so-vital rememorative role further below.

This confirms that to live ‘as an island unto oneself, being one’s own refuge, with Dhamma as an island, with Dhamma as one’s refuge’

Page 25—Velez de Cea—The Significance of Atta as Island and Refuge.

does not presuppose a Dhamma/attā identity as an unchanging and eternal entity,...

• [Editorial Note]: Not so; as none of those sixty-seven quoted *English* words by Mr. Maurice Walshe—which sixty-seven word-count does not include the ‘dhamma’ aspect words as they are expunged totally out of print-existence—ensure comprehension of whether the well-known “dwell with...&c” pericope refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta, in all contexts, there is no way that “This confirms...” anything of the sort.

...but refers simply, in the context of an impermanent and dependently originated process, to the need to protect oneself from unwholesome states (taking oneself as island and refuge) by practising the Four Foundations of Mindfulness...

• [Editorial Note]: This is the 4th instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told.

...(taking the Dhamma as island and refuge).

• [Editorial Note]: Just for starters: instead of that well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope being but “an injunction” which refers “simply” to [quote] “the need to protect oneself from unwholesome states (taking oneself as island and refuge) by practising the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (taking the Dhamma as island and refuge)” [endquote] the very text itself shows it to be referring to dwelling/ abiding—viz.: “viharati [“vi+harati”]: to stay, abide, dwell, sojourn (in a certain place)” and “viharaṇa [from “viharati”]: abiding, dwelling”. [square bracketed inserts added]. ~ (PTS-PED)—such as in sojourning “in a certain place” (i.e., in this case: the ‘isle of nothingness’, the ‘isle of immortality’... &c. already quoted earlier) and *not* to those peculiar “taking oneself as...” and “taking the Dhamma as...” glosses in which, quite self-evidently, “taking” bears no relationship with that ‘dwelling’/ ‘abiding’ word “vihāra” in the well-known pericope.

None whatsoever.

Second, that “Four Foundations of...&c.” title—which gained its popularity from latter-day developments of buddhistic thought{*}—is derived from the portmanteau word “satipaṭṭhāna” [“sati” + “paṭṭhāna”] wherein ‘paṭṭhāna’ (i.e., “setting forth, putting forward” ~ (PTS-PED) conveys the sense of ‘establishment’ (viz.: “establishment: the act of establishing” ~ (Collins Dictionary) and not “foundation” (viz.: “foundation: that on which something is founded; basis; ‌the base on which something stands” ~ (Collins Dictionary).

{*}the Pāli word ‘paṭṭhāna’, which is not to be found in the earlier texts, first appears in the title of the 7th book of the Abhidhamma, also called Mahāpakaraṇa, and features in some detail in the Patisambhidamagga.

In 1929, towards the end of her ‘Introduction’ to the “Book Of The Kindred Sayings Vol. V.”, Ms. Caroline Rhys Davids briefly wrote about that development amongst those particular buddhistic schools—those which dogmatically hold their version of the penultimate 7th-stage ‘sammā-sati’ to be the central plank of buddhistic practice (thereby transmogrifying the “Noble Eight-Fold Path”, which culminates in its 8th-stage ‘sammā-samadhi’, into an ‘Ignoble Seven-Fold Alleyway’)—as follows. Viz.:

• [Caroline Rhys Davids]: “I close in raising a point about the subject of Book III which is of etymological interest. The curious and tedious form of early introspection known as the Satipaṭṭhānas is treated with immense respect in the Piṭakas. [...]. I am, however, only pausing over it to call attention to the scholastic change in the definition of the compound name. Sati is the broken-down Prakrit and Pali form of the old Smṛti—‘the Tradition’, *literally the remembering*. Sakya had to break away from this and create a new Smṛti of its own. Sati, with it, *came to mean introspection* [...]. Now the verb for the introspective act is always upaṭṭhāpeti, *to make present, to call up*, and occurs in the Piṭakas in this connexion. Sati-upatthāna is thus the act of introspection. Nevertheless the Commentaries agree in treating the word, never as satyupatṭhāna, as is the reading in Buddhist Sanskrit texts, but always as sati plus “patṭhāna” a word which has no independent existence, save in that very late appendix to the Abhidhamma Piṭaka: the seventh Book, and for which, in this connexion or in that, a laboured and unhappy definition has had to be sought. We see this, for instance, in the late Ledi Sayadaw’s definition of paṭṭhāna as cause or paccaya-par-excellence (pp. 21-53, J.P.T.S., 1915-16; see p. 26). The book Paṭisambhidā-magga reads upaṭṭhāna (ii, 232), but Buddhaghosa (Dīgha and Majjhima Com.), though citing this, recognises only paṭṭhāna”. [emphases added]. ~ (from pp. xiv-xv; “Book Of The Kindred Sayings”, Vol. V.; published 1980, Oxford University Press).

So, this non-canonic latter-day scholiastic/ exegetic/ glossarial/ commentarial/ tralatitiou title would more usefully read, for instance, “The Fourfold Presentification of Rememoration” or, for example, “The Tetradic Presentiation of Rememoration” or, for another instance, “The Presentifical Rememorative Quaternity” or, for another example, “The Quadrivalent Rememorative Presentiality”, rather than the suggestive “Four *Foundations*...” (which implies, pillar-like, a ‘columnar support quartet’, of body-mind and its feelings-thoughts, as the (quite worldly) basis of all purpotedly buddhistic practice) “...of *Mindfulness*” (i.e., ‘introspection’ a.k.a. self-examination, self-analysis and/or introvertive psychologising, philosophising, moralising and etcetera) which, being an Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection, is quite evidentially *not* the way the sammāsambuddha instructed his sakya to “dwell with atta & dhamma as your...&c.”.

At this juncture it is pertinent to recall how there have been no arahants—of the ilk described and delineated in the buddhavacana that is—for 2,000+years.

Third, and as already mentioned earlier, it is the rememoration (i.e., sati/ smṛti/ smṛ) of that which is gnostically intuited (i.e., suti/ śruti) solely by the then-living embodiment of dhamma/ brahma—whose sacred/ gnostic utterances were therefore faithfully preserved memoriter (i.e., by rote), duly certified as being “Thus have I heard” (“evaṃ me sutaṃ”), in sacrosanct scriptures known in Pāli as ‘suttanta’ and in Sanskrit as ‘sūtrānta’—which would not only ensure comprehension of whether the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope refers to a worldly atta or an unworldly atta, in all contexts, but would thereby enable having both of them rendered in their denotational meaning (e.g., utilising the English word ‘Truth’, for “dhamma”, that portion would read: “dwell with Truth as your island & refuge with no other”).

So, bearing that in mind, the relevant text from the “Mahāparinibbāna Sutta”, which Señor Abraham Velez de Cea corrupted with his introjection of that latter-day title, is as follows. Viz.:

• “[...] bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Vedanāsu ...pe... citte ...pe... dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ”.
[source: http://suttacentral.net/pi/dn16].

Which translates thusly (with some of the above elisions fleshed-out):

• ‘[...] a mendicant renunciate [“bhikkhu”] dwells looking at the body [“kāyānupassī”] as (just) body [“kāye”], fervid [“ātāpī”], reconditely comprehensive [“sampajāna”], and rememorative [“satimā”], having removed [“vineyya”] worldly [“loke”] avarice and discontent [“abhijjhādomanassaṃ”]. The mendicant renunciate dwells looking at hedonic-tones [“vedanāsu”] as (just) hedonic-tone ...ditto. The mendicant renunciate dwells looking at the mind [“citte”] as (just) mind ...ditto. The mendicant renunciate dwells looking at mind-phenomena as (just) mentality [“dhammesu dhammānupassī”], fervid [“ātāpī”], reconditely comprehensive [“sampajāna”], and rememorative [“satimā”], having removed [“vineyya”] worldly [“loke”] avarice and discontent [“abhijjhādomanassaṃ”]”.

First, a brief technical note regarding the four [quote] “as (just)...” [endquote] interspersions in this rendering: the English word “as” is derived, of course, from the (grammatical) locative case and the parenthesised “(just)”—as in, ‘no more than (that)’; ‘merely (that)’; ‘only (that)’; ‘nothing else than (that)’—might best be explicated via how the Pāli Text Society’s Pāli-English Dictionary depicts the above “dhammesu dhammānupassī”, for instance, as ranging in the category “mentality”, under the “anupassanā-formula”, and conveying the sense “realising the mentality of mental objects or ideas”. Viz.:

• dhamma: [...] B. 1. “mentality” as the constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of phenomena. [...] a presentation, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a psycho-physical phenomenon, or sensation (reaction of sense-organ to sense stimulus) [...]. As 6th sense-object “dhamma” is the counterpart of “mano”: manasā dhammaṃ viññāya: “apperceiving presentations with the mind” [...]. Ranged in the same category under the anupassanā-formula (q.v.) “dhammesu dhamm-ānupassin”: realising the mentality of mental objects or ideas, e.g. D II.95, 100, 299; A I.39, 296; II.256; III.450; IV.301. ~ (PTS-PED).

Thus, all phenomena of the mind, as in, ‘mind-phenomena’, are *just* that—the mentality of “mental-objects or ideas” (i.e., ‘mind-phenomena’, a.k.a. “mental-objects or ideas”, are just ‘mentality’)—and nothing more than that. By recalling how the five components of personage are not-self/ not the self (i.e., “panc’kkhandha anattā”), as is especially obvious vis-à-vis an awakened/ enlightened being for whom the five components constituting personage are unfuelled (i.e., the “panc’anupādāna-kkhandhā”), then the raison d’être for “looking at the body” as just that (i.e., ‘body’), and nothing more than that (i.e., just a ‘body’), will be demonstrably evident (and the same, of course, applies to ‘hedonic-tone’, ‘mind’, ‘mentalities’ and etcetera).

In effect this succinct yet nonetheless complete tuition, in this particular section of the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, is no different to the ‘abridged instruction’ [viz.: “saṅkhittena dhammaṁ”] the sammāsambuddha gave to “āyasmā māluṅkyaputto”, in the Māluṅkyaputta Sutta (SN 35.95; PTS: SN iv 72), regarding any and all phenomena which is seen [“diṭṭha”], heard [“suta”] sensed [“muta”] or thought [“viññāta”]—inasmuch they were all to be treated as *just* many and various sights, sounds, tastes, touches, smells, or mentalities, and nothing more than that—by providing the example of how each and every such percipience of whatever has not (1) previously been perceived, is not (2) currently perceptible, nor (3) could be expected to be perceivable, would not, therefore, be capable there and then of eliciting desire and/or lust and/or love [“chando vā rāgo vā pemaṁ vā”] in relation to such obviously non-existent sensibilia and mentalities.

The identical tuition is presented in the Bahia Sutta (Ud 1.10; PTS: Ud 6)—albeit without that descriptive example—and this “seen, heard, sensed, thought” [“diṭṭha, suta, muta, viññāta”] theme features in many places elsewhere as well. In the Kalaka Sutta (AN 4.24; PTS: A ii 24), for a most illustrative instance of this, the sammāsambuddha speaks of how, for him [“tathāgata”], no sensory or mental phenomena whatsoever which is seen, heard, sensed or thought has any standing or being [viz.: “na upaṭṭhāsi”] inasmuch with any and all percipience of whatsoever there is to be perceived, both mental and sensorial, he does not deem [viz.: “na maññati”] such as either perceived or unperceived—nor even to be perceived—and, hence, neither thereamong is any worldly perceiver (‘intoxicated with life’) thereof deemed, either.

Or, in other words, neither thereamong is any (egoic) perceiver thereof deemed.

It will surely be noticed that this transcendent form of percipience (a.k.a. Pāli ‘upekkhā’, Sanskrit ‘upēkṣa’, from upa-, ‘towards’ (opp. apa-, ‘away’) or ‘together with’ + īkṣ, ‘overlooking’, ‘looking over’; hence ‘transcending’) is quite the opposite of an (ego-enhancing) introspective form of percipience (i.e., heroically being ‘mindful’, ‘heedful’, ‘non-judgemental’ and etcetera, ad infinitum)—such as is propagated and promoted by those particular buddhistic schools which dogmatically hold their latter-day version of the penultimate 7th-stage ‘sammā-sati’ state, of the 8-stage octonary patrician way, to nevertheless be the central plank of buddhistic practice—which egoic enhancement serves to anchor that worldly perceiver (‘intoxicated with life’), whom the sammāsambuddha speaks of in the above Kalaka Sutta as having no standing or being [viz.: “na upaṭṭhāsi”], even more firmly in their egocentric world than before.

*

Thus, when the further above translation is situated back into its conjunction with the well-known pericope, which is itself then immediately re-presented, in the original text, as a lead-in query for its subsequent exposition, as is typical for many a sutta, it reads as follows-on below—i.e., following-on after the Pāli original (in which this further above section is highlighted for convenience)—when much simplified. Viz.:

• “Tasmātihānanda, attadīpā viharatha attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā. Kathañcānanda, bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo, dhammadīpo dhammasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo? Idhānanda, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Vedanāsu ...pe... citte ...pe... dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ”. [emphasis added]

• ‘Therefore, Ānanda, dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other. And how, Ānanda, does a mendicant renunciate dwell with atta & dhamma as their island & refuge with no other? Having removed worldly attraction and aversion they dwell looking at the body as (just) body—and hedonic-tones as (just) hedonic-tone, the mind as (just) mind and mental-phenomena as (just) mentality—fervid, reconditely comprehensive and rememorative’.

Now, that very last word there is the key to extrasensorial success, inasmuch this rememorative making-present of the metempirical wisdom itself—(i.e., presentificly, as “in such a manner as to make present” (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary), as in presentiate, “to make or render present in place or time; to cause to be perceived or realised as present” (Oxford English Dictionary)—revivified intuitively, via that purifying fervidity with luminous vibrancy, per favour gnostical comprehension in the (now-transcendent) memorative faculty, of atta & dhamma as the “isle of nothingness, the isle with nothing beyond, the isle free of worldly possession, the isle of immortality” already quoted earlier, is to experientially (not intellectually) be disengaged, detached and dissociated from worldly entanglements, worldly affairs and worldly experiences, period, culminating in a total withdrawal from sentiency-field experiencing itself, into (introversive) self-absorption and/or (mystical) trance-states and thereby, ultimately, from life itself so as to thus be at the farthest extremity of existence/ darkness, beyond the region of palingenesia, in the light everlasting; as per the next, and last, portion of text (wherein the Pāli ‘tamatagge⁽*⁾’ is the crucial clue to overall comprehension and, thus, to this further other-worldly success). Viz.:

• “Evaṃ kho, ānanda, bhikkhu attadīpo viharati attasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo, dhammadīpo dhammasaraṇo anaññasaraṇo. Ye hi keci, ānanda, etarahi vā mama vā accayena attadīpā viharissanti attasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, dhammadīpā dhammasaraṇā anaññasaraṇā, tamatagge me te, ānanda, bhikkhū bhavissanti ye keci sikkhākāmā”

• “That, Ānanda, is how a mendicant renunciate dwells with atta & dhamma as their island & refuge with no other. For whoever, Ānanda, either now or after I am gone, dwells with atta & dhamma as their island & refuge with no other, amongst those mendicant renunciates of mine who are most anxious for training, Ānanda, are those who shall be at the farthest extremity of darkness/ existence, beyond the region of palingenesia, in ‘the light everlasting’ (i.e., in nibbāṇa)”.

⁽*⁾tama-t-agge: “Buddhaghosa says tamatagge is tamagge, the ‘t’ in the middle being euphonic {=‘altered for ease of pronunciation; pleasing to the ear’}, and renders it ‘the most pre-eminent, the very chief’. Prof. Rhys Davids, in his translation of this Sutta, has adopted the explanation of the commentator, and translates “the very topmost height”. Tamas here means ‘darkness’, i.e. mental darkness, one of the five avijjâs in the Sâṅkhya philosophy; tama-t-agge must therefore mean ‘at the extremity of the darkness, beyond the region of darkness’, i.e. in ‘the light’, in Nirvâna, cf. bhavagge: ‘at the end of existence, in Nirvâna’. [...]. We find in Sanskrit tamaḥ pâre, answering to tama-t-agge: “Sa hi devaḥ paraṃ jyotis tamaḥ pare”, (Kumâra Sambhava, ii. 58). “For that deity is the supreme luminary existing at the extremity of darkness (beyond the region of tamas), i.e. in the region of light”. [Curly-bracketed insert added]. ~ (Rev. Dr. Richard Morris; 1st reading 5th December, 1884; from page 32 ‘Transactions of the Philological Society’ for 1885-7; Publ. Trübner & Co., London).

(Just for the record, the Rev. Dr. Richard Morris, M.A., LLD., 1833-1894, a prolific writer for the Early English Text Society, was one of the more meticulous translators of Pāli into English—his career-long familiarity with early English development unto modern English prompted him to take a special interest in the similarity of Pāli as standing midway between ancient Sanskrit and modern Hindi (as well as branching out into various Prakrit dialects)—which he increasingly devoted himself to during the last decade of his life).

(End Editorial Note).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{... cont’d from before}

Part II. The Meaning Of The ‘Attadīpā Viharatha Attasaraṇa’ Injunction In The Light Of Other Texts, And Similes.

There are other passages in the Pali texts where the Buddha similarly stresses the relationship between the practice of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness...

• [Editorial Note]: This is the 5th instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told.

...and the fact of living with oneself or the Dhamma as an island and refuge.

• [Editorial Note]: There is no such “the fact of living with oneself...&c.” about it and, as Senor Abraham Velez de Cea has not advanced even one single cogent reason to substantiate such an assertion, it becomes evermore patently obvious that it is because there is no such cogent reason (else why all these spurious reasons) anywhere to be found.

As the remainder of this “Part II” is, essentially, an ongoing variation of what has already been thoroughly explicated throughout all the above—and which “Part II” contains 11 more instances of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial “Four Foundations of Mindfulness” confection (out of 26 such occurrences all told in this 17-page essay)—there is no point in re-explicating what is, in effect, more of the same over the next four pages.

(Pages 25, 26, 27, and 28 elided).

Page 29—Velez de Cea—The Significance of Attā as Island and Refuge.

Part III. What Does It Mean, ‘To Make Oneself One’s Refuge’?

When the Buddha, a few moments before dying, says that he dwells ‘having made myself my refuge’ (katam me saraṇam attano), he is not suggesting that he has somehow made for himself a refuge to shelter an immutable, eternal attā,...

• [Editorial Note]: This is a blatant fudging of the issue as the context unambiguously evidences the sammāsambuddha is referring to a personal post-mortem refuge (more on this in his Page 29 Footnote № 30 further below).

Furthermore, the gross errors in this half-sentence alone are indicative of a sloppy reading of texts and, thus, a poor understanding of what the ‘refuge’ [“saraṇam”] in the daily-devotional “I go to buddha-dhamma-sangha for refuge” really is.

For an instance of this sloppy reading of the above texts: (1.) it was not [quote] “a few moments before dying” [endquote] but several months prior to his anupādisesa parinibbāna; indeed, in the following paragraph—in the very next paragraph—Señor Abraham Velez de Cea himself writes [quote] “Then he announces that he will take his final Nibbāna *within three months*, and *only then does he speak the verses* where this phrase appears”. [emphases added].

For another sloppy-reading instance: (2.) the sammāsambuddha does not say he [quote] “dwells ‘having made ...&c.’” [endquote] but instead says (according to the footnote № 30 cited), that he is ripe in years and, with his life-span determined, he is going from his interlocutor to his own refuge which he established; indeed, in the paragraph following the next one, Señor Abraham Velez de Cea provides the verse [quote] “Ripe am I in years. My life-span’s determined. *Now I go* from you, having made myself my refuge” [emphasis added] wherein the words “Now I go...&c.” cannot possibly be construed as being, for example, ‘Now I dwell...&c.’ (unless the construer be barking mad, of course).

For an instance of a poor understanding, of what the daily-devotional triple-refuge is: (3.) if it were indeed [quote] “a few moments before dying” [endquote] that the sammāsambuddha [quote] “says that he dwells ‘having made myself my refuge’” [endquote] then it would mean that he was not, and had not been, awakened/ enlightened because the practise of the well-known “dwell with atta & dhamma as your island & refuge with no other” pericope is the means whereby such awakenment/ enlightenment occurs—the notorious “raft to the other shore” in other words—which is to be abandoned upon deliverance.

Thus it is not only sloppy but is incoherent as well.

...but he is simply saying that by practising previously the Four Foundations of Mindfulness...

• [Editorial Note]: This, the 17th instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told, is but a repeat of the error in instance № 2 inasmuch it was by the practice of dhyāyati/ jhāyati (under a particular tree on a particular date at a particular hour) or, in other words, it was by that sublime 8th-stage of the ariya aṭṭhangika magga known as ‘sammā-samadhi’ that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan effectuated the cessation of dukkha (i.e., he ceased being asunder-away-apart from ākāsa) by becoming egoless, experientially, as a nonpareil and thus uniquely memorable event at a specific ‘timeless-moment’ of irreversible ego-death, or egoic dissolution.

...he has definitely put an end to suffering. He has followed the Path that leads to the extinction of suffering (by practising the Four Foundations of Mindfulness,...

• [Editorial Note]: And this, the 18th instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told, being nothing but a baseless repetition of what was already asserted in the immediately prior sentence, conveys an increasingly evident impression of a propagandising nature of these constant reiterations.

...i.e., by having made himself and the Dhamma his island and refuge) and thus attained Nibbāna, that is, the total extinction of unwholesome mental states.

• [Editorial Note]: It is arrant nonsense to assert that the unenlightened/ unawakened Mr. Siddhattho Gotama “made himself” (i.e., an egoic ‘himself’; an egocentric self) his island and refuge and thereby attained nibbāna (an egoless state).

(The case for ‘barking mad’ becomes more likely with each reiteration of the Abhidhamma & Commentarial “Four Foundations of Mindfulness” confection).

This statement of the Buddha must not be isolated from its context. Just before, he has been urging his disciples to practise those things which he had discovered for himself (abhiññā) and proclaimed: the Four Foundations of Mindfulness,...

• [Editorial Note]: This is the 19th instance of 26 such occurrences of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial confection all told.

...the Five Spiritual Faculties, the Seven Factors of Enlightenment, the Noble Eightfold Path, etc. Then he announces that he will take his final Nibbāna within three months, and only then does he speak the verses where this phrase appears:

‘Ripe am I in years. My life-span’s determined.
Now I go from you, having made myself my refuge.
Monks, be untiring, mindful, disciplined,
Guarding your minds with well-collected thought.
He who, tireless, keeps to law and discipline,
Leaving birth behind will put an end to woe’.

As can be seen the phrase ‘having made myself my refuge’ (literally, ‘having made a refuge for myself—katam me saraṇam attano)...

• [Editorial Note]: That “having made a refuge for myself” paraphrase of Mr. Maurice Walshe’s [quote] “having made myself my refuge” [endquote] translation of the Pāli text cannot be what the phrase [quote] “literally” [unquote] means as there are two self-referential words (first-person singular) contained therein; namely: the word “me”, the enclitic form of ahaṃ (i.e., the first person singular “I” pronoun), in “katamme” [i.e., ‘katam’ + ‘me’]; and the word “attano”, the ‘my own’ form—in this context—of the first-person singular “my” pronoun, in “saraṇamattano” [i.e., ‘saraṇam’ + ‘attano’].

As Mr. Maurice Walshe stayed true to there being two self-referential words in the original text then all the aspirant dissertator achieved with their smart-aleck paraphrasing was to publicly display their ignorance of the Pāli words, which constitute this all-important sentence by the then-living sammāsambuddha, which he himself made central to his dissertation and thus render his already-unsupportable arguments all the more discreditable.

(More on this phrase in his Page 29 Footnote № 30 immediately below).

...is preceded and followed by references to what needs to be done to attain liberation, and the successful conclusion is clearly stated in the last two verses. {vide: “Monks, be untiring, mindful, disciplined; Guarding your minds with well-collected thought...&c”}. He who practises the Dhamma makes himself free from Samsāra and attains the refuge of Nibbāna. [curly-bracketed insert added].

• [Editorial Note]: Given how his “what needs to be done” solution for all the ills of humankind is yet again a retrograde hash-over of his (adopted) 7th-stage penultimate non-buddhistic practice of everyday mindfulness—(and thereby transmogrifying the “Noble Eight-Fold Path”, which culminates in its transformative 8th-stage ‘sammā-samadhi’, into an ‘Ignoble Seven-Fold Laneway unto Lacunae’, or, mayhap more aptly, into a ‘Misbegotten Seven-Fold Bridle Path to Bastardy’ (i.e., a ‘Baseborn Seven-Fold Bored Walk to Bar Sinister; an ‘Abortive Seven-Fold Side Walk to Illegitimacy; a ‘Mongrelised Seven-Fold Walkaway to Illicitness)—there is no point in re-explicating what is, in effect, more of the same regarding his latest rehash.

__________
Footnotes for Page 29:
[30]D II 119.20. Trans. Walshe, op. cit., p.253.{*}
[31]D II 120-1; trans. Walshe, op. cit., pp.253-4.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

{*}The full sentence—“pahāya vo gamissāmi katamme saraṇamattano”—is arguably one of the most significant sentences, in this respect, in the entire Pāli Canon as it unambiguously refers to a personal post-mortem refuge [“saraṇam-attano” = ‘my own refuge’]—which the embodied speaker of that very sentence had already established [“katam-me” = ‘I established’] around fifty years previously, under a nowadays famous tree, but was inspired by ‘Brahmā Sahampati’ to delay departure thenceforth—for that very embodiment to go to [“gamissāmi” = ‘I am going [to]...’, just as ‘gacchāmi’ = “I go to...”] upon departing from the interlocutor [“payāya vo” = ‘leaving you’/ ‘departing from you’] when the already-announced physical expiration of the embodying organism occurs some months thereafter.

Hence: “pahāya vo gamissāmi katamme saraṇamattano” = “leaving you I am going to my own refuge [which] I established”.

*

Again, as the remainder of this “Part III” is, essentially, an ongoing variation of what has already been thoroughly explicated throughout all the above—and which “Part III” contains 4 more instances of this Abhidhamma & Commentarial “Four Foundations of Mindfulness” confection (out of 26 such occurrences all told in this 17-page essay)—there is no point in re-explicating what is, in effect, more of the same over these last two-and-a-half pages.

(Pages 31, 32 and 33 elided).

Full Disclosure.

The author of this examen—the writer typing these editorial notes—has insider information on matters pertaining to religio-spiritual enlightenment/ mystico-metempirical awakenment as, day in and day out for eleven years (1981-1992), he lived that/was that acausal, atemporal, aspatial, aphenomenal alterity of an ‘utterly other’ nature which the sammāsambuddha rediscovered, whilst resolutely sitting under an assattha/ pippal tree (‘Ficus religiosa’) some two and a half millennia ago, and spoke so eloquently about for nigh-on fifty years.

Ain’t life grand!