DooDoot wrote:What is your opinion about DN 15
Late stuff - https://justpaste.it/imcr
DooDoot wrote:Can you clarify what you mean here by 'satta'?
Pali: living being, creature.
Vedic: सत्त्व sattva [sat-tva]
सत् sat [ppr. √as]
- being , entity , reality (TS.)
√ अस् as
- to become (BṛĀrUp.)
- forms neuter substantive of state.
Please do look at this: https://justpaste.it/1695d
- Satta is the pinky part.
Obviously, this is just a sketch. No one can represent perfectly, in a simple way, the complexity of paṭiccasamuppāda. But it does outline the major features of the Dhamma - and this is the best way, to my knowledge, to represent satta (a living being, like you and me).
DooDoot wrote:The Agamas were composed after the Buddha.
Āgamas are not "late" stuff. They are just late translations of early stuff.
SA 298, the "parallel" to SN 12.2, is a Sarvāstivāda text, translated in Chinese in the fourth century CE.
That does not make Sarvāstivāda, a fourth century CE sect.
Sarvāstivāda are said to have existed aroud 237 BCE; and the Theravada around 240 BCE.
I don't think three years will make such a big difference.
I suppose there has been as much "added stuff" in both camps.
DooDoot wrote:later views of dependent origination
What do you mean by "later views"?
To come back to the logic in https://justpaste.it/1bzye
- I would say that the Pali suttas are in accord with that logical development.
For instance the descent of consciousness (SN 12.59) - and consciousness finding a home in the khandhas of NāmaRupa (SN 22.3) seems logical when the khandhas are viññāṇa, saṅkhāra, vedanā and sañña (as in SĀ 298 & Arv 5). But pretty weird, when what should be "khandhas", becomes: phasso, vedanā, sañña, cetanā and manasikāro.
This is just an example.
SĀ 298, [the same than the Sanskrit Arv 5]
What is name?
The four formless (無 - non-existent) aggregates
受陰 feeling (sensation) aggregate
想陰 perception (ideation) aggragate
行陰 synergie (volition/"practice") aggregate
識陰 consciousness (know) aggregate
Avidyā saṃskārā vijñānaṃ nāmarūpaṃ ṣaḍāyatanaṃ sparśo vedanā tṛṣṇā upādānaṃ bhavo jātir jarāmaraṇaṃ (Arv 5)
I have tried other pseudo-parallels like EA 49.5, (supposedly from a Mahāsāṃghika or Dharmaguptaka Ekottarāgama sutra;) but they don't fit the Pali suttas' logic of SN 12.2.
In other words - the complementarity of SA 298 and SN 12.2 seems totally evident; as far as the Pali's suttas are concerned. While EA 49.5 below, for instance, leads to a total nonsense.
what do we call name?
想 perception (ideation)
Again, what do you mean by "later views" of paṭiccasamuppāda?
That would get my attention.
‘Dependent on eye and forms, there arises eye-consciousness. ...
– ‘tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso’: ‘The coming-together of the three is contact.’
And contact is just the moment when the transfer of possesion occurs.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30370&sid=fece5b8e ... 0e#p440038
Transfer of the "sensualized" feeling khandha, from the nāmarūpa nidāna - to the feeling nidāna proper to satta.
Again, like when you see a picture of Picasso - what you see is the form, feeling, perception, synergies and consciousnes that Picasso has put in his painting. Once that picture gets in your sensorial eye; after having been "sensualized" in the external sensory field of experience (aka external sense base); then there is sense-consciousness, and contact. The latter being the transfer of possession. The moment when you appropriate these khandhas; first through your own feelings (vedanā nidāna) - and usually the rest of the khandhas become also "clinging"-khandhas (or appropriated-khandhas).
Conclusion: there is no reason to mix the experience of the object-subject (in one) - but instead, to prevent this transfer of possession.