Land

Discussion of Abhidhamma and related Commentaries
Post Reply
zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Land

Post by zan » Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:27 am

If anyone wondered whether or not the suttas support matter independent of mind, as the abhidhamma does, look no further:
There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.
DN 1

Body (matter) only, no mind.

And then, as to rocks and the earth and such, the Buddha certainly speaks about them as if they exist and never, to my knowledge, states that they only exist in the presence of mind nor that they are necessarily the result of action (kamma). The Buddha strongly implies that the earth will still exist even after all life has left it: in the Sermon of Seven Suns (AN 7.66) the world is dry and on fire. Mountains are evaporating it is so hot. It hasn't rained in hundreds of thousands of years. Neither people nor animals could be living on this earth, indeed none are mentioned, yet it can still be spoken of as something existing.

As to land matter not being the result of kamma, as taught in the abhidhamma, I found a point of controversy where they use sutta inferences to prove that land is not generated by kamma:

points of controversy

7.7. Of the Earth and Karma
Controverted Point: That land is a result of action.

Theravādin: As well say that the earth belongs to feeling pleasant, painful, or neutral, or is conjoined as mental with feeling or with perception, or volition, or cognition, that the earth has a mental object, that she can advert to, reflect upon, consider, attend, intend, anticipate, aim. Is not just the opposite true of her? Hence your proposition is wrong.

Again, compare her with something mental—with contact. Of contact you could say that it is both (i.) a result of action and also that it (ii.) belongs to feeling, and so on (as in § 1). But you cannot say both these things of earth. Or if you affirm the former (i.) and deny the latter predicate (ii.) of earth, you must be prepared to do no less in the case of contact.

Again, the earth undergoes expansion and contraction, cutting and breaking up. Can you say as much of the mental result of action?

Again, the earth may be bought and sold, located, collected, explored. Can you say as much of the result of action?

Again, the earth is common to everyone else. But is the result of my action common to everyone else? “Yes,” you say. But was it not said by the Exalted One:

“This treasure to none else belongs,
No bandit hence may bear it.
The mortal who would fare aright
Let him work acts of merit”?

Hence it is wrong to say that a result of action is experienced by everyone else.

Again, you would admit that first the earth is established and afterwards beings are reborn on it. But does result first come to pass and afterwards people act to insure result? If you deny, you cannot maintain that earth is a result of action.

Again, is the earth a common result of collective action? Yes, you say? Do you mean that all beings enjoy the use of the earth? If you deny, you cannot affirm your proposition. If you assent, I ask whether there are any who pass utterly away without enjoying the use of it? You assent, of course. But are there any who pass utterly away without exhausting the experienced result of their actions? Of course you deny… .

Once more, is the earth a result of the action of a being who is a world-monarch? and do other beings share in the use of the earth? Yes, you reply. Then do other beings make use of the result of his actions? You deny… . I ask again, and you assent. But then, do other beings share also in his contact, feelings, perception, volition, consciousness, faith, energy, mindfulness, samādhi, understanding? Of course you deny… .

Andhaka: But if I am wrong, surely there is action to gain dominion over the earth, action to gain sovereignty on the earth? If so, surely the earth is a result of action.
Also, the world contracts and beings are not born there during this time which also shows matter not being dependent on mind. If the world were dependent on mind, why would it go through cycles of contraction where it is uninhabitable while minds are present? And if it were dependent on mind wouldn't it cease contracting and disappear the moment the last being perished, making a statement about it contracting while beings are not present incorrect?
While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world.
-DN 1
I am sure there are other places in the suttas where these things are implied or stated or otherwise can be inferred as well.
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

SarathW
Posts: 12792
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Land

Post by SarathW » Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:27 am

Body (matter) only, no mind.
Very interesting indeed!
What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:05 pm

SarathW wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:27 am
Body (matter) only, no mind.
Very interesting indeed!
What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
Thanks and I don't know, good question.
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

santa100
Posts: 3826
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Land

Post by santa100 » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:33 pm

SarathW wrote:What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
Enlightenment obviously :smile: . On a technical level, the Arahant's sanna is intact. It only temporarily ceases during the Nirodha session while the ASannaSatta's sanna simply isn't there, hence the term ASannaSatta (being without sanna).

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:19 pm

Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 12674
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Land

Post by DNS » Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:39 pm

:thumbsup:

Some take anatta too far (imo) and believe it means nothing exists and try to place Buddhism completely with quantum mechanics and New Age beliefs.

Material exists. If you look at the moon and then turn away, not looking at it anymore; it's still there.

Dinsdale
Posts: 6813
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Land

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:12 pm

The suttas do distinguish between internal and external elements, eg the distinction between bodily fluids and the ocean.
See MN28 for example.
https://suttacentral.net/mn28/en/bodhi

This distinction isn't negated by adopting a phenomenological approach, since sense objects are derived from form, ie the four great elements.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

samsarictravelling
Posts: 173
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:17 am
Contact:

Re: Land

Post by samsarictravelling » Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:20 am

zan wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:05 pm
SarathW wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:27 am
Body (matter) only, no mind.
Very interesting indeed!
What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
Thanks and I don't know, good question.
The question was for someone else, but I reply to it here. I don't myself know what the difference in the experience of abiding as an non-percipient being (asaññasatta) compared to an Arahant or Anāgāmi (Non-returner) in Nirodha Samapatti would be -- personally, I have hardly any meditative attainment myself, nor do I know the information from any literature (except that it is said of Nirodha Samapatti: 'The peace it gives is reckoned as Nibbána here and now' in the very end of this post, so that might make the experience of it higher that the experience of an asaññasatta? I don't know.) -- but I can tell you the qualities of each. I did some research to add to previous knowledge of this, to come up with this (possibly it took around 4 hours to research and write this, I am guessing):

non-percipient beings (asaññasatta). See: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attainment is said to be the outcome of a mode of practice called the “development of dispassion towards perception” (saññāvirāga-bhāvanā). The Pali texts deal only very cursorily with this, presumably because it’s deemed to be a wrong practice that leads only to rebirth as an impercipient deva – a rather useless achievement unless you like the idea of spending five hundred aeons as a de facto stone.

In the Sammohavinodanī Buddhaghosa merely states:
“Of the non-percipient beings” means “of the beings lacking perception.” Certain persons, having gone forth in dispensations outside [of the Buddha’s teaching], perceive a defect in consciousness (citta), [thinking]: ‘being greedy, hateful or deluded depends on consciousness; but a state free of consciousness would be beautiful – it would be Nibbāna in the present life.’ They then generate dispassion towards perception (saññāvirāga) and developing the fifth attainment (samāpatti) in conformity with this [view] they are reborn there [i.e., in the realm of the impercipient beings]. At the moment of their rebirth only the aggregate of matter (rūpakkhandha) is produced. If they are reborn standing, they stand only; if sitting, they sit only; if lying down, they lie only. They then remain for five hundred kalpas just like painted statues. After that their bodies disappear and a sense-sphere perception arises leading those [former] devas to realize that their [non-percipient] body has now passed away.
(Vibh-a. 520-1)

Source: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=25789&hilit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ancient meditators (in the line of Alarakalama, Uddakaramaputta) knew the problem lies with "Sanna". World is created by Sanna it's anihilated by Sanna. So they were looking for a refuge from the pilage of Sanna. Maybe they were looking something beyond Sanna perhaps... So they were examining Sanna and how to find an escape from it.


As you climb the ladder of Jhana you give up considerable amount of Sanna that contribute to the vividness of the world. At neither perception nor non perception there exist only very subtle form of Sanna ( subtlest form of Sanna about Sanna bound by the impermenece , that's how I understand it).

Forth Jhana is the last rupa Jhana which only has one pointedness and equaminity. Similar to the last formless Jhana in someways. Some meditators who arrived at this state saw not something beyond Sanna but equaminity, but it's still attached to Sanna. Still bound by it. Born of it. Worldly being would consider equaminity to be a higher achievement but these folk saw that equaminity is still a Sanna. They were at the end of Rupa Jhana yet still haven't found refuge.

In this state they meditated on "Dhi Cittam". This phrase is suppose to say " disgusting cittam, shamefull cittam". And that repulsion towards Sanna or citta caused the state called Asanna satta in forth Jhana realm.

Or it could be they meditated on Dhi cittam from the day one but could not go beyond last Rupa Jhana because they didn't focus on relinquishing form. They were merely concerned on giving up mind.

In case you want sutta support look for the phrase "Dhi Cittam". I remember reading it somewhere but couldn't recall where.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=34174&start=15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti ('cessation of perception and feeling', you called it. Actually it is 'attainment of extinction'). This Nirodha Samapatti is also called saññā-vedayita-nirodha ('extinction of feeling and perception', or ' cessation of ideation and feeling', or 'cessation of perception and feeling'):

32. But the detail is this. When a bhikkhu who desires to attain cessation has
finished all that has to do with his meal and has washed his hands and feet
well, he sits down on a well-prepared seat in a secluded place.
Having folded
his legs crosswise, set his body erect, established mindfulness in front of him, he
attains the first jhána, and on emerging he sees the formations in it with insight
as impermanent, painful, not-self.

33. This insight is threefold as insight that discerns formations, insight for the
attainment of fruition, and insight for the attainment of cessation. Herein, insight
that discerns formations, whether sluggish or keen, is the proximate cause only for
a path. Insight for the attainment of fruition, which is only valid when keen, is
similar to that for the development of a path. Insight for the attainment of cessation
is only valid when it is not over-sluggish and not over-keen. Therefore he sees those
formations with insight that is not over-sluggish and not over-keen.

34. After that, he attains the second jhána, and on emerging he sees formations
with insight in like manner. After that, he attains the third jhána … (etc.) … After
that, he attains the base consisting of boundless consciousness, and on emerging
he sees the formations in it in like manner. Likewise he attains the base consisting
of nothingness. On emerging from that he does the fourfold preparatory task,
that is to say, about (a) non-damage to others’ property, (b) the Community’s
waiting, (c) the Master’s summons, and (d) the limit of the duration.
[706]

35. (a) Herein, non-damage to others’ property refers to what the bhikkhu has
about him that is not his personal property: a robe and bowl, or a bed and chair,
or a living room, or any other kind of requisite kept by him but the property of
various others. It should be resolved14 that such property will not be damaged,
will not be destroyed by fire, water, wind, thieves, rats, and so on. Here is the form
of the resolve: “During these seven days let this and this not be burnt by fire; let
it not be swept off by water; let it not be spoilt by wind; let it not be stolen by
thieves; let it not be devoured by rats, and so on.” When he has resolved in this
way, they are not in danger during the seven days.


36. If he does not resolve in this way, they may be destroyed by fire, etc., as in the
case of the Elder Mahá Nága.
The elder, it seems, went for alms into the village
where his mother, a lay follower, lived. She gave him rice gruel and seated him in
the sitting hall. The elder sat down and attained cessation. While he was sitting
there the hall caught fire. The other bhikkhus each picked up their seats and
fled. The villagers gathered together, and seeing the elder, they said, “What a
lazy monk! What a lazy monk!” The fire burned the grass thatch, the bamboos,
and timbers, and it encircled the elder. People brought water and put it out. They
removed the ashes, did repairs,15 scattered flowers, and then stood respectfully
waiting. The elder emerged at the time he had determined. Seeing them, he said,
“I am discovered!,” and he rose up into the air and went to Piyaògu Island. This
is “non-damage to others’ property.”

37. There is no special resolving to be done for what is his own personal
property such as the inner and outer robes or the seat he is sitting on. He protects
all that by means of the attainment itself, like those of the venerable Sañjìva.
And
this is said: “There was success by intervention of concentration in the venerable
Sañjìva. There was success by intervention of concentration in the venerable
Sáriputta” (Paþis I 212—see XII.30).

38. (b) The Community’s waiting is the Community’s expecting. The meaning
is: till this bhikkhu comes there is no carrying out of acts of the Community. And
here it is not the actual Community’s waiting that is the preparatory task, but the
adverting to the waiting. So it should be adverted to in this way:
“While I am
sitting for seven days in the attainment of cessation, if the Community wants to
enact a resolution, etc., I shall emerge before any bhikkhu comes to summon
me.” [707] One who attains it after doing this emerges at exactly that time.

39. But if he does not do so, then perhaps the Community assembles, and not
seeing him, it is asked, “Where is the bhikkhu so and so?” They reply, “He has
attained cessation.” The Community dispatches a bhikkhu, telling him, “Go
and summon him in the name of the Community.” Then as soon as the bhikkhu
stands within his hearing and merely says, “The Community is waiting for you,
friend,” he emerges. Such is the importance of the Community’s order. So he
should attain in such-wise that, by adverting to it beforehand, he emerges by
himself.

40. (c) The Master’s summons: here too it is the adverting to the Master’s summons
that is the preparatory task. So that also should be adverted to in this way:
“While I am sitting for seven days in the attainment of cessation, if the Master,
after examining a case, makes known a course of training, or teaches the Dhamma,
the origin of which discourse is some need that has arisen,16 I shall emerge
before anyone comes to summon me.” For when he has seated himself after
doing so, he emerges at exactly that time.

41. But if he does not do so, when the Community assembles, the Master, not
seeing him, asks, “Where is the bhikkhu so and so?” They reply, “He has attained
cessation.” Then he dispatches a bhikkhu, telling him, “Go and summon him in
my name.” As soon as the bhikkhu stands within his hearing and merely says,
“The Master calls the venerable one,” he emerges. Such is the importance of the
Master’s summons. So he should attain in such wise that, by adverting to it
beforehand, he emerges himself.

42. (d) The limit of duration is the limit of life’s duration. For this bhikkhu
should be very careful to determine what the limit of his life’s duration is. He
should attain only after adverting in this way: “Will my own vital formations go
on occurring for seven days or will they not?” For if he attains it without adverting
when the vital formations are due to cease within seven days, then since the
attainment of cessation cannot ward off his death because there is no dying
during cessation,17 he consequently emerges from the attainment meanwhile. So
he should attain only after adverting to that. For it is said that while it may be
permissible to omit adverting to others, this must be adverted to.

43. Now, when he has thus attained the base consisting of nothingness and
emerged and done this preparatory task, he then attains the base consisting of
neither perception nor non-perception. Then after one or two turns of
consciousness have passed, he becomes without consciousness, he achieves
cessation. But why do consciousnesses not go on occurring in him after the two
consciousnesses? Because the effort is directed to cessation. For this bhikkhu’s
mounting through the eight attainments, coupling together the states of serenity
and insight, [708] is directed to successive cessation, not to attaining the base
consisting of neither perception nor non-perception. So it is because the effort is
directed to cessation that no more than the two consciousnesses occur.

44. But if a bhikkhu emerges from the base consisting of nothingness without
having done this preparatory task and then attains the base consisting of neither
perception nor non-perception, he is unable then to become without
consciousness: he returns to the base consisting of nothingness and settles
down there.

45. And here the simile of the man and the road not previously travelled may
be told. A man who had not previously travelled a certain road came to a ravine
cut by water, or after crossing a deep morass he came to a rock heated by a fierce
sun. Then without arranging his inner and outer garments, he descended into
the ravine but came up again for fear of wetting his belongings and remained
on the bank, or he walked up on to the rock but on burning his feet he returned
to the near side and waited there.

46. Herein, just as the man, as soon as he had descended into the ravine, or
walked up on to the hot rock, turned back and remained on the near side because
he had not seen to the arrangement of his inner and outer garments, so too as
soon as the meditator has attained the base consisting of neither perception nor
non-perception, he turns back and remains in the base consisting of nothingness
because the preparatory task has not been done.

47. Just as when a man who has travelled that road before comes to that place,
he puts his inner garment on securely, and taking the other in his hand, crosses
over the ravine, or so acts as to tread only lightly on the hot rock and accordingly
gets to the other side, so too, when the bhikkhu does the preparatory task and
then attains the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception, then
he achieves cessation, which is the other side, by becoming without
consciousness.

48. (vii) How is it made to last? It lasts as long as the time predetermined for its
duration, unless interrupted meanwhile by the exhaustion of the life span, by
the waiting of the Community, or by the Master’s summons.


49. (viii) How does the emergence from it come about? The emergence comes about
in two ways thus: by means of the fruition of non-return in the case of the non-
returner, or by means of the fruition of Arahantship in the case of the Arahant.

50. (ix) Towards what does the mind of one who has emerged tend? It tends towards
Nibbána. For this is said: “When a bhikkhu has emerged from the attainment of
the cessation of perception and feeling, friend Visákha, his consciousness
inclines to seclusion, leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion” (M I 302). [709]

51. (x) What is the difference between one who has attained and one who is dead?
This is also given in a sutta, according as it is said: “When a bhikkhu is dead,
friend, has completed his term, his bodily formations have ceased and are quite
still, his verbal formations have ceased and are quite still, his mental formations
have ceased and are quite still, his life is exhausted, his heat has subsided, and
his faculties are broken up. When a bhikkhu has entered upon the cessation of
perception and feeling, his bodily formations have ceased and are quite still, his
verbal formations have ceased and are quite still, his mental formations have
ceased and are quite still, his life is unexhausted, his heat has not subsided, his
faculties are quite whole” (M I 296).

52. (xi) As to the question is the attainment of cessation formed or unformed, etc.? It is
not classifiable as formed or unformed, mundane or supramundane. Why?
Because it has no individual essence. But since it comes to be attained by one
who attains it, it is therefore permissible to say that it is produced, not
unproduced.18

This too is an attainment which
A Noble One may cultivate;
The peace it gives is reckoned as
Nibbána here and now.

A wise man by developing
The noble understanding can
With it himself endow;
So this ability is called
A boon of understanding, too,
The noble paths allow.

Source: The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), Chapter XXIII, 16-52: The Attainment of Cessation --
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... on2011.pdf

from,
samsarictravelling

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:06 pm

DNS wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:39 pm
:thumbsup:

Some take anatta too far (imo) and believe it means nothing exists...
And it seems the Buddha and Bhikkhu Bodhi agree with you:
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists.

“That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.

-SN 22.94
The affirmation of the existence of the five aggregates, as impermanent processes, serves as a rejoinder to illusionist theories, which hold that the world lacks real being.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, note to SN 22.94
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:38 pm

“What is the cause, sir, what is the reason why the aggregate of form is found?

...

"The four primary elements are the reason why the aggregate of form is found.

-MN 109
“What, friends, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to; that is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle, snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the external water element are simply water element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the water element and makes the mind dispassionate toward the water element.

“Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean sink down a hundred leagues, two hundred leagues, three hundred leagues, four hundred leagues, five hundred leagues, six hundred leagues, seven hundred leagues. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven palms deep, six palms deep…two palms deep, only a palm deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven fathoms deep, six fathoms deep…two fathoms deep, only a fathom deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand half a fathom deep, only waist deep, only knee deep, only ankle deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean are not enough to wet even the joint of a finger. When even this external water element, great as it is, is seen to be impermanent, subject to destruction, disappearance, and change, what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am.’
-MN 28
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 992
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: Land

Post by Pondera » Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:23 am

samsarictravelling wrote:
Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:20 am
zan wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:05 pm
SarathW wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:27 am

Very interesting indeed!
What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
Thanks and I don't know, good question.
The question was for someone else, but I reply to it here. I don't myself know what the difference in the experience of abiding as an non-percipient being (asaññasatta) compared to an Arahant or Anāgāmi (Non-returner) in Nirodha Samapatti would be -- personally, I have hardly any meditative attainment myself, nor do I know the information from any literature (except that it is said of Nirodha Samapatti: 'The peace it gives is reckoned as Nibbána here and now' in the very end of this post, so that might make the experience of it higher that the experience of an asaññasatta? I don't know.) -- but I can tell you the qualities of each. I did some research to add to previous knowledge of this, to come up with this (possibly it took around 4 hours to research and write this, I am guessing):

non-percipient beings (asaññasatta). See: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The attainment is said to be the outcome of a mode of practice called the “development of dispassion towards perception” (saññāvirāga-bhāvanā). The Pali texts deal only very cursorily with this, presumably because it’s deemed to be a wrong practice that leads only to rebirth as an impercipient deva – a rather useless achievement unless you like the idea of spending five hundred aeons as a de facto stone.

In the Sammohavinodanī Buddhaghosa merely states:
“Of the non-percipient beings” means “of the beings lacking perception.” Certain persons, having gone forth in dispensations outside [of the Buddha’s teaching], perceive a defect in consciousness (citta), [thinking]: ‘being greedy, hateful or deluded depends on consciousness; but a state free of consciousness would be beautiful – it would be Nibbāna in the present life.’ They then generate dispassion towards perception (saññāvirāga) and developing the fifth attainment (samāpatti) in conformity with this [view] they are reborn there [i.e., in the realm of the impercipient beings]. At the moment of their rebirth only the aggregate of matter (rūpakkhandha) is produced. If they are reborn standing, they stand only; if sitting, they sit only; if lying down, they lie only. They then remain for five hundred kalpas just like painted statues. After that their bodies disappear and a sense-sphere perception arises leading those [former] devas to realize that their [non-percipient] body has now passed away.
(Vibh-a. 520-1)

Source: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=25789&hilit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ancient meditators (in the line of Alarakalama, Uddakaramaputta) knew the problem lies with "Sanna". World is created by Sanna it's anihilated by Sanna. So they were looking for a refuge from the pilage of Sanna. Maybe they were looking something beyond Sanna perhaps... So they were examining Sanna and how to find an escape from it.


As you climb the ladder of Jhana you give up considerable amount of Sanna that contribute to the vividness of the world. At neither perception nor non perception there exist only very subtle form of Sanna ( subtlest form of Sanna about Sanna bound by the impermenece , that's how I understand it).

Forth Jhana is the last rupa Jhana which only has one pointedness and equaminity. Similar to the last formless Jhana in someways. Some meditators who arrived at this state saw not something beyond Sanna but equaminity, but it's still attached to Sanna. Still bound by it. Born of it. Worldly being would consider equaminity to be a higher achievement but these folk saw that equaminity is still a Sanna. They were at the end of Rupa Jhana yet still haven't found refuge.

In this state they meditated on "Dhi Cittam". This phrase is suppose to say " disgusting cittam, shamefull cittam". And that repulsion towards Sanna or citta caused the state called Asanna satta in forth Jhana realm.

Or it could be they meditated on Dhi cittam from the day one but could not go beyond last Rupa Jhana because they didn't focus on relinquishing form. They were merely concerned on giving up mind.

In case you want sutta support look for the phrase "Dhi Cittam". I remember reading it somewhere but couldn't recall where.

Source: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=34174&start=15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti ('cessation of perception and feeling', you called it. Actually it is 'attainment of extinction'). This Nirodha Samapatti is also called saññā-vedayita-nirodha ('extinction of feeling and perception', or ' cessation of ideation and feeling', or 'cessation of perception and feeling'):

32. But the detail is this. When a bhikkhu who desires to attain cessation has
finished all that has to do with his meal and has washed his hands and feet
well, he sits down on a well-prepared seat in a secluded place.
Having folded
his legs crosswise, set his body erect, established mindfulness in front of him, he
attains the first jhána, and on emerging he sees the formations in it with insight
as impermanent, painful, not-self.

33. This insight is threefold as insight that discerns formations, insight for the
attainment of fruition, and insight for the attainment of cessation. Herein, insight
that discerns formations, whether sluggish or keen, is the proximate cause only for
a path. Insight for the attainment of fruition, which is only valid when keen, is
similar to that for the development of a path. Insight for the attainment of cessation
is only valid when it is not over-sluggish and not over-keen. Therefore he sees those
formations with insight that is not over-sluggish and not over-keen.

34. After that, he attains the second jhána, and on emerging he sees formations
with insight in like manner. After that, he attains the third jhána … (etc.) … After
that, he attains the base consisting of boundless consciousness, and on emerging
he sees the formations in it in like manner. Likewise he attains the base consisting
of nothingness. On emerging from that he does the fourfold preparatory task,
that is to say, about (a) non-damage to others’ property, (b) the Community’s
waiting, (c) the Master’s summons, and (d) the limit of the duration.
[706]

35. (a) Herein, non-damage to others’ property refers to what the bhikkhu has
about him that is not his personal property: a robe and bowl, or a bed and chair,
or a living room, or any other kind of requisite kept by him but the property of
various others. It should be resolved14 that such property will not be damaged,
will not be destroyed by fire, water, wind, thieves, rats, and so on. Here is the form
of the resolve: “During these seven days let this and this not be burnt by fire; let
it not be swept off by water; let it not be spoilt by wind; let it not be stolen by
thieves; let it not be devoured by rats, and so on.” When he has resolved in this
way, they are not in danger during the seven days.


36. If he does not resolve in this way, they may be destroyed by fire, etc., as in the
case of the Elder Mahá Nága.
The elder, it seems, went for alms into the village
where his mother, a lay follower, lived. She gave him rice gruel and seated him in
the sitting hall. The elder sat down and attained cessation. While he was sitting
there the hall caught fire. The other bhikkhus each picked up their seats and
fled. The villagers gathered together, and seeing the elder, they said, “What a
lazy monk! What a lazy monk!” The fire burned the grass thatch, the bamboos,
and timbers, and it encircled the elder. People brought water and put it out. They
removed the ashes, did repairs,15 scattered flowers, and then stood respectfully
waiting. The elder emerged at the time he had determined. Seeing them, he said,
“I am discovered!,” and he rose up into the air and went to Piyaògu Island. This
is “non-damage to others’ property.”

37. There is no special resolving to be done for what is his own personal
property such as the inner and outer robes or the seat he is sitting on. He protects
all that by means of the attainment itself, like those of the venerable Sañjìva.
And
this is said: “There was success by intervention of concentration in the venerable
Sañjìva. There was success by intervention of concentration in the venerable
Sáriputta” (Paþis I 212—see XII.30).

38. (b) The Community’s waiting is the Community’s expecting. The meaning
is: till this bhikkhu comes there is no carrying out of acts of the Community. And
here it is not the actual Community’s waiting that is the preparatory task, but the
adverting to the waiting. So it should be adverted to in this way:
“While I am
sitting for seven days in the attainment of cessation, if the Community wants to
enact a resolution, etc., I shall emerge before any bhikkhu comes to summon
me.” [707] One who attains it after doing this emerges at exactly that time.

39. But if he does not do so, then perhaps the Community assembles, and not
seeing him, it is asked, “Where is the bhikkhu so and so?” They reply, “He has
attained cessation.” The Community dispatches a bhikkhu, telling him, “Go
and summon him in the name of the Community.” Then as soon as the bhikkhu
stands within his hearing and merely says, “The Community is waiting for you,
friend,” he emerges. Such is the importance of the Community’s order. So he
should attain in such-wise that, by adverting to it beforehand, he emerges by
himself.

40. (c) The Master’s summons: here too it is the adverting to the Master’s summons
that is the preparatory task. So that also should be adverted to in this way:
“While I am sitting for seven days in the attainment of cessation, if the Master,
after examining a case, makes known a course of training, or teaches the Dhamma,
the origin of which discourse is some need that has arisen,16 I shall emerge
before anyone comes to summon me.” For when he has seated himself after
doing so, he emerges at exactly that time.

41. But if he does not do so, when the Community assembles, the Master, not
seeing him, asks, “Where is the bhikkhu so and so?” They reply, “He has attained
cessation.” Then he dispatches a bhikkhu, telling him, “Go and summon him in
my name.” As soon as the bhikkhu stands within his hearing and merely says,
“The Master calls the venerable one,” he emerges. Such is the importance of the
Master’s summons. So he should attain in such wise that, by adverting to it
beforehand, he emerges himself.

42. (d) The limit of duration is the limit of life’s duration. For this bhikkhu
should be very careful to determine what the limit of his life’s duration is. He
should attain only after adverting in this way: “Will my own vital formations go
on occurring for seven days or will they not?” For if he attains it without adverting
when the vital formations are due to cease within seven days, then since the
attainment of cessation cannot ward off his death because there is no dying
during cessation,17 he consequently emerges from the attainment meanwhile. So
he should attain only after adverting to that. For it is said that while it may be
permissible to omit adverting to others, this must be adverted to.

43. Now, when he has thus attained the base consisting of nothingness and
emerged and done this preparatory task, he then attains the base consisting of
neither perception nor non-perception. Then after one or two turns of
consciousness have passed, he becomes without consciousness, he achieves
cessation. But why do consciousnesses not go on occurring in him after the two
consciousnesses? Because the effort is directed to cessation. For this bhikkhu’s
mounting through the eight attainments, coupling together the states of serenity
and insight, [708] is directed to successive cessation, not to attaining the base
consisting of neither perception nor non-perception. So it is because the effort is
directed to cessation that no more than the two consciousnesses occur.

44. But if a bhikkhu emerges from the base consisting of nothingness without
having done this preparatory task and then attains the base consisting of neither
perception nor non-perception, he is unable then to become without
consciousness: he returns to the base consisting of nothingness and settles
down there.

45. And here the simile of the man and the road not previously travelled may
be told. A man who had not previously travelled a certain road came to a ravine
cut by water, or after crossing a deep morass he came to a rock heated by a fierce
sun. Then without arranging his inner and outer garments, he descended into
the ravine but came up again for fear of wetting his belongings and remained
on the bank, or he walked up on to the rock but on burning his feet he returned
to the near side and waited there.

46. Herein, just as the man, as soon as he had descended into the ravine, or
walked up on to the hot rock, turned back and remained on the near side because
he had not seen to the arrangement of his inner and outer garments, so too as
soon as the meditator has attained the base consisting of neither perception nor
non-perception, he turns back and remains in the base consisting of nothingness
because the preparatory task has not been done.

47. Just as when a man who has travelled that road before comes to that place,
he puts his inner garment on securely, and taking the other in his hand, crosses
over the ravine, or so acts as to tread only lightly on the hot rock and accordingly
gets to the other side, so too, when the bhikkhu does the preparatory task and
then attains the base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception, then
he achieves cessation, which is the other side, by becoming without
consciousness.

48. (vii) How is it made to last? It lasts as long as the time predetermined for its
duration, unless interrupted meanwhile by the exhaustion of the life span, by
the waiting of the Community, or by the Master’s summons.


49. (viii) How does the emergence from it come about? The emergence comes about
in two ways thus: by means of the fruition of non-return in the case of the non-
returner, or by means of the fruition of Arahantship in the case of the Arahant.

50. (ix) Towards what does the mind of one who has emerged tend? It tends towards
Nibbána. For this is said: “When a bhikkhu has emerged from the attainment of
the cessation of perception and feeling, friend Visákha, his consciousness
inclines to seclusion, leans to seclusion, tends to seclusion” (M I 302). [709]

51. (x) What is the difference between one who has attained and one who is dead?
This is also given in a sutta, according as it is said: “When a bhikkhu is dead,
friend, has completed his term, his bodily formations have ceased and are quite
still, his verbal formations have ceased and are quite still, his mental formations
have ceased and are quite still, his life is exhausted, his heat has subsided, and
his faculties are broken up. When a bhikkhu has entered upon the cessation of
perception and feeling, his bodily formations have ceased and are quite still, his
verbal formations have ceased and are quite still, his mental formations have
ceased and are quite still, his life is unexhausted, his heat has not subsided, his
faculties are quite whole” (M I 296).

52. (xi) As to the question is the attainment of cessation formed or unformed, etc.? It is
not classifiable as formed or unformed, mundane or supramundane. Why?
Because it has no individual essence. But since it comes to be attained by one
who attains it, it is therefore permissible to say that it is produced, not
unproduced.18

This too is an attainment which
A Noble One may cultivate;
The peace it gives is reckoned as
Nibbána here and now.

A wise man by developing
The noble understanding can
With it himself endow;
So this ability is called
A boon of understanding, too,
The noble paths allow.

Source: The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), Chapter XXIII, 16-52: The Attainment of Cessation --
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... on2011.pdf

from,
samsarictravelling
Nice quote. I especially appreciate the part where it mentions that, after neither perception nor non perception, a couple turns of consciousness arise and then He is without consciousness and he enters cessation.

The two attainments are linked in this way. One can only observe NPNNP for a brief moment before all perception and feeling cease.
What is “rupa” Jhāna? Here are four simple meditations on earth, water, fire, and wind - leading to tranquility and pleasure, rapture and equanimity - peacehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1sdgpi ... hIz3wgz7ep

sentinel
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Land

Post by sentinel » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:35 pm

zan wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:27 am
There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.
DN 1

Body (matter) only, no mind.
If you regard mind as feeling perception volition consciousness .

Also, the world contracts and beings are not born there during this time which also shows matter not being dependent on mind. If the world were dependent on mind, why would it go through cycles of contraction where it is uninhabitable while minds are present? And if it were dependent on mind wouldn't it cease contracting and disappear the moment the last being perished, making a statement about it contracting while beings are not present incorrect?
Because
Mind ~ kamma ~ mind ~ kamma
Matter does depends on mind .
:coffee:

sentinel
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Land

Post by sentinel » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:42 pm

SarathW wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 10:27 am
Body (matter) only, no mind.
Very interesting indeed!
What is the difference between an Arhant in Nirodha Samapatti (cessation of perception and feeling) and a non-percipient being?
Good question .
Cessation of feeling perception is the 9 th stage jhana beyond arupa realm . Whereas non percipient being reside in the rupa loka .
Non arya can attain cessation of feeling perception . However , an arhat without attaining cessation of feeling perception is still an arhat .
That's shows that cessation feeling perception is not a liberation state .
:coffee:

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:09 pm

sentinel wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:35 pm
zan wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:27 am
There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.
DN 1

Body (matter) only, no mind.
If you regard mind as feeling perception volition consciousness .

Also, the world contracts and beings are not born there during this time which also shows matter not being dependent on mind. If the world were dependent on mind, why would it go through cycles of contraction where it is uninhabitable while minds are present? And if it were dependent on mind wouldn't it cease contracting and disappear the moment the last being perished, making a statement about it contracting while beings are not present incorrect?
Because
Mind ~ kamma ~ mind ~ kamma
Matter does depends on mind .
Thanks for the post but no, not according to the abhidhamma in regards to land. Please read the above point of controversy called "Of the Earth and Kamma". If we were discussing in another forum I'd maybe debate with you lol! But in the abhidhamma forum the abhidhamma is authoritative so there's nothing to discuss: abhidhamma states land is not the result of kamma. And we are not supposed to challenge the authority of the abhidhamma here by trying to debate it and disprove it or whatever.

Also see Abhidhammattha Sangaha where temperature born matter is stated to be not the result of kamma (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, VI guide to 12).
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

zan
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Land

Post by zan » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:08 am

Please note, this is a long post in support of the Abhidhamma view and surely some will disagree with it because they disagree with the Abhidhamma, so please keep in mind; this is not the place to prove the Abhidhamma/commentary wrong. I love a good debate, but we should respect the guidelines and debate in another thread in a different forum. From the guidelines for this forum (emphasis mine):
The Abhidhamma and Classical Theravada sub-forums are specialized venues for the discussion of the Abhidhamma and the classical Mahavihara understanding of the Dhamma. Within these forums the Pali Tipitaka and its commentaries are for discussion purposes treated as authoritative. These forums are for the benefit of those members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of these texts and are not for the challenging of the Abhidhamma and/or Theravada commentarial literature.
-Guidelines, Abhidhamma forum
If you agree with the Abhidhamma, please share your thoughts on why it is correct and which suttas support this fact.

That said, let's look at the Abhidhamma position. I believe it is correct. Many are of the disposition that the Abhidhamma is all wrong and should be completely ignored. I think this is extreme and totally presumptuous. The composers of the Abhidhamma were very familiar with the suttas and while some Abhidhamma doctrines take more sutta knowledge than I have to explain, I will attempt to show how this specific issue about matter and land is very much found in the suttas and was only detailed and expanded on in the Abhidhamma, it did not originate with the Abhidhamma but with the suttas.
Buddhism does not attempt
to solve the problem of the ultimate origin of matter. It
takes for granted that matter exists
-A Manual of Abhidhamma Narada Maha Thera
(note 1)

1. The Abhidhamma holds that matter exists and is composed of the four elements.

The Buddha stated that matter (rupa) exists. He also stated that matter is made up of the four elements (note 2). So the idea that matter is imaginary or some other such thing is not only heretical from an orthodox Theravada perspective, but from the perspective of the suttas themselves.

2. The Abhidhamma holds that there is matter that exists regardless of the presence or absence of mind or minds (For example see A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, VI guide to 12 and A manual of Abhidhamma, Narada Maha Thera, chapter six, page 319).

This, too, is completely supported by the suttas (note 3).

3. The Abhidhamma holds that land is not created by kamma.

The Points of Controversy posted above uses the suttas and workings of kamma to prove that this is the case. This is satisfactory and settles the issue. But looking to the suttas is useful too.

A good point is that, while the Buddha frequently spoke about how a being's kamma would influence their body, certainly by dependent origination leading to the birth of their body, in the next life, he didn't teach that a being would create planets to live on with their kamma. So there's no reason to assume that the Earth is the result of kamma. The suttas strongly imply that a being creates their own body matter in their current life with their past kamma. They nowhere imply that a being or beings create planets. In fact, in the Devadaha sutta, it even seems that the great Brahma didn't even create the world, but that the world just appears on it's own and people mistakenly believe that it was created by a being.

There are suttas where the Buddha spoke of a single beings six senses as the world in a figurative sense. These suttas may be misinterpreted by some. Below the conclusion of this post are some useful notes to help support the Abhidhamma view that matter exists and that land is not caused by kamma, specifically in regards to these suttas.

When the Buddha spoke about the world broadly, not speaking about a single person's senses, he did not tie it to kamma, he just spoke of it as an inanimate object going through cycles. The world is said to contract and reform, or to be destroyed by natural forces, but no kamma is mentioned with this cycle. If the earth was created by a being or beings kamma, then surely it's destruction would be the result of kamma too, and yet this is never stated. Rupa, in the form of land is spoken of in the suttas as taken for granted as existing. The Buddha spoke of dirt and such as if it is just assumed that land exists, and needs no explanation. If land was completely produced by beings kamma, surely he would have mentioned this while discussing it. He told many stories in which it would have been relevant if a beings past kamma would have completely altered their present planet's surface.

So the Abhidhamma position is perfectly sound with regards to the suttas on these broadly stated issues: matter exists, is composed of the four elements, some matter does not depend on the presence of mind or minds, and land is not the result of kamma.

Side note to clarify a likely assumption based on misunderstanding some suttas:
He spoke of the origin of the world as the gaining of the six senses, the six senses themselves, or as the consciousness that arises from contact between the sense organs and their objects, and the end of the world as nibbana, however this is in a sense of direct perspective from a single person, as, of course, a person who has no senses will not experience any world at all and so when the six senses arise, for them, so does the world, and a person who has passed into parinibbana will have had the world end for them. But this does not mean that a person creates the world literally for everyone else (which would be the opposite of the Abhidhamma position), obviously, as if that were the case then only one person would have to reach nibbana and the whole world and all of it's inhabitants would reach nibbana too! This would also mean that the Buddha never reached nibbana, because if each person creates the world, and it ends with nibbana, that would mean that the Buddha couldn't have been said to reach nibbana since the world is still here!

Or, taken incorrectly in another way, this would mean that each person lives completely alone in a self created universe where only they can reach nibbana. Here, too, the Buddha never reached nibbana, because only the creator could reach it, since everyone else is just their imagination. This, taken literally, would also mean that non-percipient beings could not exist, as they have no senses, but obviously they do exist. The meaning is that the world, on a personal level, exists only for those with senses, not that the world literally doesn't exist for those without them.

If it meant that then non-percipient beings would nibbana instead of falling away and gaining senses again at death, since the end of the world is declared by the Buddha as nibbana (SN 2.26). So clearly this is in a personal, direct experience sense, and not in a literal, objective sense. This is the same as saying "The world begins for a baby when it first opens it's eyes." We are not saying "The baby created the world." or "The Earth was created by a baby." The Buddha reached nibbana and non-percipient beings exist! So there is no reason to misapprehend these suttas as making each being a creator god or something else absurd.

If that is not convincing enough, let us turn to the suttas that actually state this. One speaks solely of the six sense objects, and makes no mention of their bases, as defining the "world (loka)" (SN 35.116) (note 4). Since consciousness depends on a dyad (SN 35.93), we would have a world utterly devoid of consciousness if this were misinterpreted and taken too literally. This sutta, if misunderstood, would also contradict SN 12.44 where the world doesn't originate at all until after the sense base makes contact with it's object and consciousness arises.

Further, SN 12.44, if misunderstood, creates a rather bizarre paradox: before the origin of the world there exist sense bases and objects. If the world has not yet originated, then where are these sense bases and objects? Would this mean that the world is literally, always to be understood as 100% consciousness? This would negate the form aggregate entirely and make the meeting of the eye and form, to form eye consciousness, completely impossible; if the only way for form in the world to arise is for consciousness to arise, then, before the origin of the world, when there are only sense bases, there could be no form and so the origin of the world involving form would never come to be at all.

One may think that form is created by consciousness to be contacted by the eye base, which would solve this problem. But then one would contradict the Buddha, as he declared the four elements as the source for form (MN 109), not consciousness. This would also contradict the Buddha having declared that there are five aggregates, not just one; consciousness. And of course the teachings on the necessary conditions for the arising of consciousness would go out the window as they all depend on multiple factors. If all was consciousness then the only factor for the arising of all would be consciousness. Instead of the nose base depending on contact with smells for the arising of nose consciousness, we would have consciousness depending on consciousness for the arising of consciousness, likewise for all of the other senses. We would have complete and total monism and this would contradict the Buddha's refusal to agree that the world is a monism in SN 12.48. This would also make DN 15 illogical when it speaks about nama-rupa (rupa in "nama-rupa" defined as the four elements and form derived from them in SN 12.2) as a condition for the arising of consciousness, as consciousness depends on rupa in this respect. So saying that there is no such thing as rupa, and all rupa is pure consciousness is clearly and flatly incorrect with regards to the suttas.

Another example, if these suttas are misinterpreted and taken too literally, and a world is strictly one beings six senses, then sentences discussing a world that belongs to one being but contain other beings would render the other beings senseless, or as imaginary, or the sentence would become unintelligible. For example in SN 1.49 we have "They might be reborn in hell, In the animal realm or Yama's world", Bhikkhu Bodhi notes that this is the world of peta or ghosts, who do have senses, making the interpretation of the above suttas to mean that "world" always denotes only one beings six senses, incorrect as this would then read "They might be reborn in hell, In the animal realm or Yama's six senses". Strictly Yama's six senses would be all that exist in this world and so preta's would be born in Yama's six senses, which is quite unintelligible.

According to the commentary tradition the different uses of the word "loka" are polysemes, sharing the same verbal root of "luj" and connected by all being subject to crumbling (lujjana) and disintegration (palujjana). Every time the word "loka" pops up it does not necessarily mean the exact same thing.

If one mistakenly thought that they did always mean the same thing and assumed it was always the meaning from the suttas referenced above, it would make Ud 3.10, and similar suttas, gibberish if we misinterpret the suttas that use the word "loka" to figuratively denote the six senses of a single being as literally meaning such at all times and in all cases, when in many cases what is actually meant is the usual sense of the word "loka (world)". For example, instead of Ud 3.10 reading:

"Then with the passing of those seven days the Gracious One, after rising from that concentration, looked around the world (loka) with his Buddha-eye."

we would have

"Then with the passing of those seven days the Gracious One, after rising from that concentration, looked around the eye with his Buddha-eye."

or

"Then with the passing of those seven days the Gracious One, after rising from that concentration, looked around the consciousness with his consciousness."

or

"Then with the passing of those seven days the Gracious One, after rising from that concentration, looked around the world with his Buddha-world."

or

"Then with the passing of those seven days the Gracious One, after rising from that concentration, looked around the six sense bases with his six sense bases."

Assuming all to be consciousness would also contradict many other suttas or make them unintelligible. For example, the Buddha states that one can produce a mind made body (DN 11), and gives similes to express that the body is different from the original body and is made of mind (as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' ). Yet when he speaks about the normal human body, he does not call it mind made, but rather specifies that it is made of the four elements (SN 12.61) and dependent on and originates with food (SN 47.42). He uses the phrase "mind made" to delineate between the normal body, that is the result of past mind/kamma, and in the present is made of the elements and subsists on food, and the mind made body, which originates presently and subsists on and is purely mind. If both bodies were pure consciousness, then these statements would be illogical.

The fact that the body is stated in the suttas to be the result of past kamma but in the present is said to be made of the four elements and originates with and subsists on food is clearly recognized by the Abhidhamma and it is explained that there is matter that is not generated by volitional formations (kamma) and that the matter generated by kamma, nutriment and consciousness is strictly internal, leaving only temperature born matter as external and this kind of matter is not generated by kamma or consciousness and includes things like rocks and climatic formations (Abhidhammattha Sangaha VI 21). So the past kamma still generates present matter, but strictly internally. This squares the two teachings about the reason for the body (past kamma) and the current make up and origin of the body (four elements, food).

These examples could be produced almost endlessly as the suttas are vast, but let us conclude:

My point was not to say the suttas are incorrect, only that they should not be misinterpreted. These suttas are completely accurate and correct, and problems only arise when they are misunderstood. Further, it can easily be stated that to attempt to interpret the suttas as completely devoid of physicality and/or to be a teaching that everything is pure consciousness is to introduce rampant contradictions, incoherencies, redundancies, and many, many other problems. Hence, the Abhidhamma's assertion that matter exists is inextricably bound up with the suttas themselves.

End side note


1. Surely the Venerable is denoting Theravada Buddhism specifically, as some Mahayana and Vajrayana schools teach the exact opposite. Since this is his commentary on a Theravada text, clarification on which school of Buddhism was not necessary and I only note it here to clarify, since the quote was separated from the larger text and so may have lost some context.

2. "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Rupa that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists."
-SN 22.94
"What is the cause, sir, what is the reason why the aggregate of rupa is found?..."The four primary elements are the reason why the aggregate of rupa is found."
-MN 109

3. "There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings."
DN 1
"Feeling, perception, and consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
-MN 43
"While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world."
-DN 1
AN 7.66 Speaks about the world, obviously being utterly devoid of all life, indeed no life nor minds are mentioned, having been without rain for thousands of years, the oceans are dried up and eventually the whole earth is on fire, mountains evaporating in the heat, and yet the Earth doesn't disappear, despite the absence of minds, until it is utterly destroyed by extreme heat. This is exactly the way it would be in the Abhidhamma understanding of land not being the result of kamma: the Earth goes through cycles of destruction that have nothing to do with beings, apparent in the complete lack of all beings and the persistence of the Earth and it's extremely long destruction over hundreds of thousands of years, which affects no beings after a point because they all died long before and were reborn elsewhere.

4. Bhikkhu Bodhi provides some helpful words in his note to this sutta (SN 35.116) that clarify the meaning a bit:

"99 On the six sense bases as "the world" in the sense of disintegrating, see 35:82. Here they are called the world because they are the conditions for being a perceiver and a conceiver of the world. We might conjecture that the five physical sense bases are prominent in making one a"perceiver of the world," the mind base in making one a "conceiver of the world." ... The six sense bases are at once part of the world ("that in the world") and the media for the manifestation of a world ("that by which"). The "end of the world" that must be reached to make an end to suffering is Nibbana, which is called (among other things) the cessation of the six sense bases.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Samyutta Nikaya, note to 35.116"

"182 ...elucidated at 35:116 by the Venerable Ananda, who explains that in the Noble One's Discipline "the world" is "that in the world by which one is a perceiver and conceiver of the world," i.e., the six sense bases. From Ananda's explanation we can draw out the following implications: The world with which the Buddha's teaching is principally concerned is "the world of experience," and even the objective world is of interest only to the extent that it serves as the necessary external condition for experience. The world is identified with the six sense bases because the latter are the necessary internal condition for experience and thus for the presence of a world.
-Bhikkhu Bodhi, Samyutta Nikaya, note to 2.26"



End Bhikkhu Bodhi's notes, the following is my observations:

The wording in SN 35.116, too, make clear that the six sense bases alone do not literally constitute the world and that the word "world" does not always strictly denote the six sense bases alone: "that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world...this is called the world in the Noble One's Discipline" So the word "world" is already being used in more than one sense here. It cannot denote literally, solely the sense bases, as if this were the case then we would have the six sense bases perceiving the six sense bases, no objects, and this obviously is impossible. The sentence would read "that in the six sense bases by which one is a perceiver of the six sense bases...this is called the six sense bases in the Noble One's Discipline"

To me it seems apparent that the word "world" in the following can be safely interpreted as such: "That in the world (here "world" denotes the world in the usual sense and is referencing the sense bases) by which one is a perceiver of the world (here it is denoting just the "world" in the usual sense.)...this is called the world (here it is solely denoting the six sense bases) in the Noble One's Discipline"
Never read anything I write as an accurate statement about anything whatsoever. First, look to wiser ones than I. Look to wise texts. Unless you can confirm their accuracy from a reliable source, treat my writings like word games, nothing more.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests