Agree.is not created by oneself
I am talking here conventionally.
Agree.is not created by oneself
In the Abhidhamma model perhaps, but not in the Suttas.
I think it is patavi, apo, thejo, vayodoesn't rupa means particles?
I tend of think of the form in "name and form" as the same as form in the five aggregates. What is your opinion on this?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:11 am Greetings,
In the Abhidhamma model perhaps, but not in the Suttas.
Although, you may also be thinking of kalapas.
Metta,
Paul.
In pali context, the form in terms of aggregates and the form in dependant origination is totally different or somewhat related or the same?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:38 am Greetings form,
As others have pointed out above, words can have spectrum of meanings, and just as the word English "form" can span a range of meanings from physicality through to image, so too is it with the Pali term rūpa.
I don't think that's particularly controversial, however I expect what I say next to raise a few eyebrows...
As I understand it, aggregates (aka khandas, lit: bundles) are not ongoing extant things. They arise only upon their delineation (see: MN18). The five aggregates signify various means by which experience can be aggregated and bundled, but those fabricated bundles are totally void, empty and without substance, as per the Phena Sutta
That is a concise summary, but these matters have been discussed more comprehensively in the twelve page topic: Aggregate?.
Metta,
Paul.
As I understand it, the rūpa (form) in paticcasamuppada is conjoined with nāma (name), and has a vortex/whirlpool dynamic with "vinnana".
Metta,Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any form that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in form?
...
Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he grows dispassionate. Through dispassion, he's released. With release there's the knowledge, 'Released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
As a modern person, you're welcome to take up rupa however you like... but I do wonder how you're going to righty see it, and become disenchanted with it, in keeping with the Phena Sutta, when you regard it thus.
Modern science can already prove that form are atoms and smaller particles are constantly in motion, they are impermanent. The biological system constantly renewed their cells and the physical body aged and died. The world created by psychology or in terms of the mental aggregates change much faster, thus even more impermanent than the biological body. Hence modern science prove that, the five aggregates are impermanent, whatever that is impermanent cause suffering, since a self is ever-changing... there is no permanent self.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:18 am Greetings,
As a modern person, you're welcome to take up rupa however you like... but I do wonder how you're going to righty see it, and become disenchanted with it, in keeping with the Phena Sutta, when you regard it thus.
Metta,
Paul.
Sorry. But this topic, imo, has no scope for conventional language. You seem to have been talking in the language of "self" in that, like Brahma, you are the creator of your reality because it is you that names your reality.
Where? Please quote? Thanks
This post includes a mistranslation. The Pali is rittakaññeva khāyati, tucchakaññeva khāyati, asārakaññeva khāyatikhāyati. The sutta appears to be making a value judgment on those aggregates; that they are of no tangible worth. The sutta does not deny there is a lump of foam.retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:38 amThe five aggregates signify various means by which experience can be aggregated and bundled, but those fabricated bundles are totally void, empty and without substance, as per the Phena Sutta
Bhikkhus, suppose that this river Ganges was carrying along a great lump of foam. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder it and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be worthless, hollow, trifling. For what substance could there be in a lump of foam?
tuccha
empty; vain; fruitless; trifling; lacking substance; deserted.
asāra
worthless; sapless; vain.
ritta
pp. of riñcati
devoid; empty; rid of.
-hattha (adj.) empty-handed
-assāda finding one’s taste in empty things
riñcati
to leave, abandon, leave behind, give up, neglect
paññattiṃ paññāpessatīti — ṭhānametaṃ vijjati = nama-rupa?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:05 am Re: MN18, it is from "Now, when there is the eye..." onwards.
...it is possible to point out the manifestation of... Bodhi
Now, when there is the eye, when there are forms, when there is eye-consciousness, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is a delineation of contact, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is a delineation of feeling, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is a delineation of perception, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is a delineation of thinking, it is possible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification. Thanissaro
Having never read the entirety of this sutta before, my impression is "pannatti" is being used to describe "papanca":paññatti
feminine
making known, manifestation, description, designation, name, idea notion, concept.
fr. paññāpeti, cp. paññatta
paññapeti
pa + ñā + āpe
regulates or make a rule; makes known; declares; prepares (a set, etc.).
paññatta
pp. of paññāpeti
regulated or made a rule; made known; declared; prepared (a set, etc.)
vijjati
vid + ya
exists; to be found.
ṭhāna
neuter
place; locality; condition; reason; office; cause; standing up; stay.
When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.
"So, concerning the brief statement the Blessed One made, after which he entered his dwelling without analyzing the detailed meaning — i.e., 'If, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder' — this is how I understand the detailed meaning. Now, friends, if you wish, having gone to the Blessed One, question him about this matter. However he answers is how you should remember it."