Kaccānagotta Sutta – Existence & Non-Existence in the Pali Suttas

Introduction
The impression is the unremarkable Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15) has assumed a
prominence in Buddhism due to the interpretations of Nāgārjuna. The Malaysian
scholar Piya Tan wrote 1:
In chapter 15 of the Mūlamadhyamaka Kārikā, Nāgārjuna (late 2nd century CE) alludes to the early
canon (here quoted in the Sanskrit with translation):

kātyāyanâvavāde c’āstī ti nāstī ti côbhyaṁ

pratisiddhaṁ bhagavatā bhāvâbhāva,vibhāvinā

In the Admonition to Kātyāyana, the Blessed One,

Free from existence and non-existence, refuted both “it is” and “it is not.”
(MK 15,7)

A K Warder points out that the use of the expression “middle way” is best exemplified in Nāgārjuna’s
Mūlamadhyamaka Kārikā, where dependent arising appears to represent the “middle way” par
excellence. In fact, the most frequently quoted and important canonical text for Nāgārjuna is
apparently the Nidāna Saṁyutta (book 12 of the Saṁyutta Nikāya), especially the
Kaccā(ya)na,gotta Sutta (S 12.15 quoted in the (Dvi,lakkhaṇa) Channa Sutta, S 22.90).

While using the terms ‘sabhava’ and at times ‘dependent origination’ differently than in
Theravada and using different words than in the Pali, a brief perusal of chapter 15 of
the Mūlamadhyamaka Kārikā2 finds excerpts which appear to be an accurate description
of the Kaccānagotta Sutta, as follows:
4. Without sełf-nature (svabhava) and other-nature, whence can there be an existent (bhavah)?
For, to be existent is established only when there is self-nature or other-nature.

5. When the existent (bhavasya) is not established, the non-existent (abbavo) is also not
established. It is, indeed, the change of the existent that people generally call the non-existent.

7. In the admonition to Katyayana, the two theories [implying] ‘exists' (asti) and 'does not exist' (nasti)
have been refuted by the Blessed One who is adept in existence (bhava) as well as in non-
existence (vibhava).

10. ‘Exists' (asti) implies grasping after eternalism (sasvata). "Does not exist" (nasti) implies the
philosophy of annihilation (uccheda). Therefore, a discerning person should not rely upon either
existence (astitva) or non-existence (nastitive).

11. “Whatever that exists in terms of self-nature (svabhavena), that is not non-existent'' implies
eternalism (sasvatam). "lt does not exist now, but existed before" implies annihilation (ucchedah).
Verses 4, 5, 7, 10 & 11

The purpose of this essay is to clarify the Kaccānagotta Sutta using other related
viewpoints in the Pali Suttas and to clarify the often unclear translations and unclear
interpretations of these Pali Suttas.

1 https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/6.13-Kaccanagotta-S-s12.15-piya.pdf
2 https://antilogicalism.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/mulamadhyamakakarika.pdf
Page 1 of 5
The Pali terms ‘atthita’ (‘existence’) and ‘natthita’ (‘non-existence’)
The terms ‘atthi’ (‘exists’) and ‘natthi’ (‘not-exists’) are found throughout the Pali Suttas,
such as in:
 SN 12.15, with the suffix ‘ta’, meaning ‘existence’ or ‘is-ness’ and ‘non-existence’ or
‘not-is-ness’.
 SN 12.48, which refutes the ‘cosmologies/world-views’ (‘lokāyataṁ’) of ‘sabbam atthi’
and ‘sabbam natthi’.
 SN 44.10, regarding two wrong views of ‘existing self’ & ‘non-existing self’ (atthattā
and natthattā).
 SN 12.17, in the statement: ‘suffering exists’ (atthi kho dukkhan’ti).
 Ud 8.1, about Nibbana: ‘there exists that sphere’ (atthi tadāyatanaṁ).
 MN 60, where ‘atthikavādo’ and ‘natthikavādo’ refer to moral doctrines of belief and
non-belief (nihilism).

SN 12.15, SN 12.48 and SN 44.10 (listed above) refute ‘atthi’ and ‘natthi’ of ‘the world’,
‘self’ and ‘the all’ because these are not real phenomena but instead are mere delusions.

SN 12.17, Ud 8.1 and MN 60 (listed above) do not refute the reality of suffering, Nibbana or
the moral laws of nature. These phenomena do actually ‘exist’. Therefore, the term ‘atthi’
(‘exists’) can be applied to them.

Contrary to Bhikkhu Bodhi’s footnote to his translation of the Puppha Sutta (SN 22.94)
referred to by Piya Tan3, there is actually no conflict in the uses of ‘atthi’ and ‘natthi’ in the
suttas listed above, due to the differing contexts. This appears where Nagarjuna has
distinguished himself from contemporary Theravada translators & commentators 4, who
appear to emphasize ‘atthita’ & ‘natthita’ are wrong views yet appear to impute ‘the
world’ is real or the world refers to the biological & social world of people.

The Pali term ‘loka’ (‘the world’)

In supramundane (lokuttara) dhamma, the word ‘loka’ refers to ‘mental states’. For example:
 MN 79: Well sir, at what point is a perfectly happy world (ekantasukho loko)
realized? It’s when, giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former happiness and
sadness, a mendicant enters and remains in the fourth absorption.
 AN 4.45: For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and intellect that I
describe the world, its origin, its cessation and the practice that leads to its cessation.
 SN 12.44, directly related to SN 12.15, describes both the world’s (lokassa) co-
origination (samudaya) and subsiding (attangama); both while sense contact is
occurring. Included in SN 12.44 is the co-origination (samudaya) of ‘birth’ (‘jati’), which,
per its definition in SN 12.12, matures as the mental production of the mental notions of

3 https://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/6.13-Kaccanagotta-S-s12.15-piya.pdf

Page 2 of 5
 “various beings of various categories/classes of beings”, which is “the world”. Of note:
the term ‘samudaya’, per its definition in SN 22.5, refers to delighting in (abhinandati),
affirming (abhivadati) and being bound to (ajjhosāya) the five aggregates. Thus
‘samudaya’ is distinguished from ‘uppajjati’, including in SN 12.44.
In short, since the twelve conditions of Dependent Origination are the Second Noble Truth
(AN 3.61), both AN 4.45 and SN 12.44 not only use the term ‘the world’ (‘loka’) as a
synonym for ‘suffering’ (‘dukkha’) but also literally say Dependent Origination is the
origination of both ‘the world’ (of ‘self-viewed beings’; SN 23.2) and ‘suffering’.

Pali terms ‘sassatavādā’ (‘eternalism’) & ‘ucchedavādā (‘annihilationism’)

The Pali terms ‘sassatavādā’ (‘eternalism’) and ‘ucchedavādā (‘annihilationism’), used in
SN 44.10, SN 12.17 and DN 1, provide a clear demonstration of the Buddha’s doctrine
and therefore directly explain how the similar worldly duality of ‘atthita’ (‘existence’) and
‘natthita’ (‘non-existence’) are to be understood as two examples of self-views that do
not accord with ‘anatta’.

In SN 44.10, the wanderer Vacchagotta asks the Buddha two questions: (i) does the
self exist (atthattā)? and (ii) does the self not exist (natthattā)? The Buddha refuses to
answer the questions and, in his explanation to Ananda, the Buddha explains why
Vacchagotta’s idea of ‘natthattā’ is ‘ucchedavādā (‘annihilationism’), namely, Vacchagotta
would have believed: “the self I formerly had now does not exist”. This is exactly how
Nagarjuna explained annihilationism, namely, "lt does not exist now, but existed before".
In short, in SN 44.10, both ‘eternalism’ & ‘annihilationism’ are ‘self-views’, which is why
they are wrong views that do not accord with ‘anatta’ (‘not-self’).

Similarly, in SN 12.17, the wrong view ‘suffering is created by oneself’ is deemed as

‘eternalism’ and the wrong view ‘suffering is caused by another’ is deemed as
‘annihilationism’. Again, here, both eternalism & annihilationism are ‘self-views’, which is
why they are wrong views that do not accord with ‘anatta’ (‘not-self’).

Similarly, in DN 1, the wrong view ‘the self & the world are eternal’ is deemed as
‘eternalism’. The wrong view deemed as ‘annihilationism’ is ‘this self (ayam attā) is
annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death...
That is how some assert the annihilation (ucchedam), destruction (vināsam) and non-
existence (vibhavam) of an existing being (sato sattassa)’’. Again, here, both eternalism
& annihilationism are ‘self-views’, which is why they are wrong views that do not accord
with ‘anatta’ (‘not-self’). As Nagarjuna explained: “the change of the existent that people
generally call the non-existent”.

The Kaccānagotta Sutta

Similar to AN 4.45 and SN 12.44, the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15) is about the ‘co-
generation/growth’ (‘samudaya’) and ‘ceasing’ (‘nirodha’) of the world (loka). Therefore,
when the Kaccānagotta Sutta uses the term ‘the world’, it is referring to Dependently
Originated mental phenomena or thought conception. As previously explained, the term
‘the world’ here is not referring to the planet Earth or to the biological social world of people.
Instead, the term ‘the world’, in its most complete sense, refers to the delusional world of
‘existent beings’ (‘satta’; per SN 23.2) or ‘selves’ (‘atta’) born of deluded self-views.

Page 3 of 5
It follows the following popular translations appear misleading because they appear to
emphasize ‘existence’ & ‘non-existence’ are ‘notions’ rather emphasize ‘the world’ is
also a notion:
 Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-
existence – Bhikkhu Sujato.
 This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of
existence and the notion of nonexistence - Bhikkhu Bodhi.
 By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity,
that of existence & non-existence – Bhikkhu Thanissaro.

The following translation of the Bhikkhu Suddhaso at least sounds more literal:
 Kaccāna, for the most part this world is based upon a duality – existence and non-
existence.

In summary, it appears this opening phrase of the Kaccānagotta Sutta means the
following:
 Kaccāna, for the most part [the notion of] the world is based upon a duality –
existence and non-existence.

It follows, the next phrase of the Kaccānagotta Sutta appears to mean:

 When you truly see the origin of [the notion of] the world with right understanding,
[the notion of] a non-existent world will not exist.

The above is so because both the wrong views and the non-genuine duality of existence
(atthita) & non-existence (natthita) are equally dependently originated from ignorance. In
other words, just as eternalism & annihilationism are both equally self-views thus not a
genuine duality, in the same way, when there is right understanding, there is no such
thing as an existent world and a non-existent world. All there is is the one single delusion
of ‘the world’ dependently originated from ignorance, craving, attachment, etc. It follows
when the origin of the world is seen with right understanding, all that is seen, per SN 12.44,
is the origin of (the delusion) of ‘the world’. The delusion of ‘the world’ includes both
the delusions of ‘existence’ & ‘non-existence’; thus there is no separate ‘non-existent
world’. As Nagarjuna said: “When the existent is not established, the non-existent
(abbavo) is also not established. It is, indeed, the change of the existent that people
generally call the non-existent.”

In short, the Buddha’s goal was the eradication of the dependently originated ‘self-view’
that is suffering. Whether this self-view arises as the delusion of ‘existence’, ‘non-existence’,
‘eternalism’ or ‘annihilationism’ had no particular relevance to the Buddha. All of these
self-views are equally delusional and they all originate, per SN 12.44, as “the world”.
Therefore, when the delusion of ‘the world’ is seen to arise, there is only ‘the world’.
There is no ‘non-existent world’. Both ‘existence’ (‘atthita’; ‘bhava’) and ‘non-existence’
(‘natthita’; ‘vibhava’) are the one delusional “world”; the same as both ‘bhavatanha’ &
‘vibhavatanha’ are equally ‘tanha’ and thus equally causes of suffering.

Page 4 of 5
Next, it follows, the next phrase of the Kaccānagotta Sutta appears to mean:
 When you truly see the cessation of the [notion of the] world with right
understanding, [the notion of] an existent world will not exist.
In short, here, when ignorance, craving, attachment, becoming & self-views of categories
beings (jati) cease, the ignorant notion of an existent world (loke atthita) also ceases. In
other words, there is really no world. ‘The world’ was only ever only a delusion.
Next, the Kaccānagotta Sutta refers to how (the notion of) the world is bound with grasping,
etc, and the one with Right View does not take a stand about “my self”; that when self-view
arises there is only suffering arising and when self-view ceases there is only suffering
ceasing. This section of the Kaccānagotta Sutta is straightforward & self-explanatory.
Next, the Kaccānagotta Sutta introduces the terms ‘sabbam atthi’ and ‘sabbam natthi’.
The exact meaning of ‘sabba’ (‘all’; ‘the All’) is not important here because SN 12.48
explains ‘sabbam atthi’ and ‘sabbam natthi’, together with ‘sabbam ekattam’ and ‘sabbam
puthuttam’, are included in four types of ‘cosmologies/world-views’ (‘ lokāyataṁ’) which
are extreme non-Buddha wrong views. Also, SN 12.48 confirms the term ‘loka’ (‘world’)
in SN 12.15 refers to a ‘world-view’ (or ‘notion’) rather than refers to the biological social
world of people because SN 12.15 is also about ‘sabbam atthi’ and ‘sabbam natthi’.
Finally, the Kaccānagotta Sutta concludes by explaining the world of suffering co-originates
from ignorance (and the other conditions of Dependent Origination); and the world of
suffering ceases when ignorance (and the other conditions of Dependent Origination) cease.

END 30 May 2024

Page 5 of 5