I recall Sujato said otherwise but i could be mistaken. Kindly ask Sujato on SC.
Mmmm... not helpfulOne must rely on the √ as.
अस् √ as
- to be , live , exist , be present ; to take place , happen ; to abide , dwell , stay ; to belong to (gen. or dat.) ; to fall to the share of. happen to any one (gen.) ; to be equal to (dat.) ŚBr. Mn.
Too general.- to become BṛĀrUp.
Relevant according to SN 23.2Conjugation of as:
Present Active Participle:
sat m. n. satī f.
सत्ता sattā [ sát-tā ]
- existence , being Up.
Too general. If sat as the same meaning as in sat-kāya then relevant. To regard the world as real or true and/or something material & fixed i think is relevant. I already posted about this but, as usual, you actually appear to never read other posts.सत् sat [ sát ]
- pr. p. of √ as
॰ता -tā suffix denoting state or quality.
सत् sat [ sát ] ( pr. p. of √ as )
- being , existing , occurring , happening , being present RV.
- belonging to (gen.) ŚBr.
Yes. I already posted about this.- living MuṇḍUp. (post-Buddhist, contemporary)
- lasting , enduring RV.
- real , actual , as any one or anything ought to be , true , good , right, beautiful , wise , venerable , honest ( often in comp. see below) RV.
- a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV.
Yes. I already posted about this.---------
- that which really is , entity or existence , essence , the true being or really existent (in the Vedânta , " the self-existent or Universal Spirit , Brahma " ) RV.
- that which is good or real or true , good , advantage , reality , truth ib.
No. AN 4.45 is the same as SN 12.44. The "world" must includes "self-becoming". Mere sense bases cannot be the world. Many suttas refer to "worldliness" or "beyond the world". The mere sense bases cannot be "the world". The world refers to puthujjana.you haven't stopped mixing up the definition of "the" world, which is given in SN 35.82 (with a perfect parallel), with the definition of "the origin and the passing away of the world" in SN 12.44 (with no parallel); which, by the way, is wrongly called "loka".
SN 35.107, that is identical to SN 12.44 - and which is called "Lokasamudaya" should be prefered by far.
As per SN 35.82 (// SA 23), the Buddhist "world" is:
- form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition.
- ear, ear-consciousness…
- mano, mano-consciousness...
All disintegrating, ([危脆 (breakable) 敗壞 (decaying)]).
No. I refuted this in my last comment.
Yes. I already interpreted like this: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sa301 I already linked the 1st "for the most part" with the 2nd "for the most part". However, the parallel https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sa301 removes/avoids the difficult phrase: "All exists" & "all does not exist".Note 3:
Again SN 12.15 (AND it's parallels,) is pretty straightforward enough.
DN 1 clearly explains Annihilationism. You have not.Note 4:
Section 4 - Annihilationism (Ucchedavādā) of DN1.
Annihilationists (to their greatest extent), did not believe in a self beyond the field of experience of neither perception nor non-perception, after death (break up of the body).
Papanca.It might be interesting to consider the "non-existence" of the annihilationist, as being located beyond the field of experience of neither perception nor non-perception.
Note that Sariputta resolves this issue of an existence beyond the field of neither- perception and non- perception (in SN 22.85) , by telling Yamaka : "When the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as **real and actual** here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”.
Bad translation. Regardless, I already mentioned this.
Papanca.And to consider the "existence" of the eternalists, as the existence of "what has become" in the "world".
Not really. It can be related but is not directly related.In other words, SN 12.15 seems to have little to do with eternalism and annihilationism.
This is merely one view of many included within annihilationism.The annhihilationists believed in the following (as per Buddha' saying):The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another.
This is related to SN 12.15."I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me".
I already said this.They did not deny the existence in the "world".
No. They believe a self dies at death.They just believed that the one who experienced in the "world", was not the same than the one who acted. And they believed in the cessation of an existence of the sort after death.
SN 12.17 is about two kinds of self-views; the same as SN 12.15.The Kaccānagotta sutta (SN 12.15) is not the Kassapa sutta (SN 12.17) .
SF 168 https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/sf168 avoids the difficult parts of SN 12.15. Plus it has questionable parts. I think it is wrong.SF 168 summarizes well the gist of SN 22.15. ”There is no mention of the annihilationist's view of non- existence beyond the realm of neither perception nor non-perception; is there?
Yes.I say that, I say nothing.
Unimportant. To end, its best to stop preaching to those not interested in your preaching. I have set an example for you, here. Please kindly reply to my posts sentence to sentence, as I have done replying to you. Please show you respect others enough to actually consider what they have posted and directly reply to what they have posted. ThanksI don't see why this thread is in the Pali sub-forum?!?!