My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:52 am

ToVincent wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:50 pm
Atthita for dummies:

Atthita / Sk. astitā

No pre-Buddhist reference in the "Sanskrit litterature".
I recall Sujato said otherwise but i could be mistaken. Kindly ask Sujato on SC.
One 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.
Mmmm... not helpful
- to become BṛĀrUp.
Too general.
Conjugation of as:
Present Active Participle:
sat m. n. satī f.

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

sattā

सत्ता sattā [ sát-tā ]
- existence , being Up.
Relevant according to SN 23.2
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.
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.
- 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.
Yes. I already posted about this.
---------

Sat m.
- a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV.
No.
---------

Sat (noun)
- 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.
Yes. I already posted about this.
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".
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.
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.
Note 3:
Again SN 12.15 (AND it's parallels,) is pretty straightforward enough.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn12.15
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". :smile:
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).
DN 1 clearly explains Annihilationism. You have not.
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.
Papanca.
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.
And to consider the "existence" of the eternalists, as the existence of "what has become" in the "world".
Papanca.
In other words, SN 12.15 seems to have little to do with eternalism and annihilationism.
Not really. It can be related but is not directly related.
The annhihilationists believed in the following (as per Buddha' saying):The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another.
SN 12.46
This is merely one view of many included within annihilationism.
"I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me".
This is related to SN 12.15.
They did not deny the existence in the "world".
I already said this.
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.
No. They believe a self dies at death.
The Kaccānagotta sutta (SN 12.15) is not the Kassapa sutta (SN 12.17) .
SN 12.17 is about two kinds of self-views; the same as SN 12.15.
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?
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.
I say that, I say nothing.
Yes.
I don't see why this thread is in the Pali sub-forum?!?!
Sorry!
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. Thanks :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

ToVincent
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:38 am

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&p=533865&sid ... e6#p533865
Doodoot wrote: I recall Sujato said otherwise but i could be mistaken. Kindly ask Sujato on SC.
1. If you "recall", then you have the burden of proof.
2. I don't go to SC anymore. Too "biased", and itchy to keep it so. Plus, it is becoming absolutely guffy.
3. As I already mentioned, Sujato, with his hapless "simplified" translations of Bhikkhu Bodhi's ones, is just putting the last nail on the genuine Buddhism's coffin.

___________

I don't know if the definitions in the Monier-Williams dictionary are "not helpful", or "too general" (as you put it); but they are what they are.
To Vincent wrote:I refered to a definition of Sat (m.) in the MW as:
- a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV.

You answer:
No.
I don't know if the definitions coming from the Monier Williams dictionary deserve a No! - but you'll have to explain why.
http://sanskritdictionary.com/?iencodin ... ion=Search

You're just making up things up.
Just like your ("coming out of nowhere" ) last definition (and "view") of addhabhavi as "govern" !?!?!?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35695&p=533614&hil ... ss#p533590
While none of the dictionaries come even close with that definition.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35695&p=533614&hil ... ss#p533614

Why should I bother reading your elucubrations (see my last remark below).

__________

The sandhi for sat+kaya is satkaya.
The sandhi for sak+kaya is sakkaya.

Why are you still giving us that satkayaditthi?

sak (√ शक् śak) + Ka + iya
lit. "to be able (to be like) what belongs to Ka" (where Ka is the other name for the god Prajāpati [made selves])
॰ईय -īya forms possesives in Sanskrit.
& sak means "to be able".

Ka is the continuous self, whose quality is to be blissful.

Prajāpati
Lord of creatures
praja (creatures) + pati (lord)

In ŚBr. 4.5.9.2 Prajāpati is the Self - a Self that wants to become more than one, and desires to reproduce (selves) > ŚBr. 6.1.1.8.


__________

Doodoot wrote: DN 1 clearly explains Annihilationism. You have not
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn1#84
At least I read it up to the end.
And, yes, it does clearly explains annihilationism. I suppose you have not.
___________
Doodoot wrote: 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. Thanks
I don't recall you answering all my (most important) questions/remarks; as in #2 here:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685#p533492
Stop your bad faith.
You are just answering what seems to be suitable for more fuzziness, red herring, or trivialities.

If I have just to answer you, like you do in this post, with trivial answers like "not helpful", "too general", "No", "yes" ,.... "papanca" - with no sound explanations from suttas with parallels, and a proper lexicography - what's the use?

So no, I am not "preaching". I am just refering to dictionaries and pre-&-contemporary-Buddhist litterary references - as well as proper parallels for the suttas' extracts. I am not having personal "views" on Pali words.
Which seems to bother you; and not only you...
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:17 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 11:38 am
I refered to a definition of Sat (m.) in the MW as:
- a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV.
No. Satta is not creatures. SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 say a being is an idea
You're just making up things up.
No. Satta is not creatures. SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 say a being is an idea
Just like your ("coming out of nowhere" ) last definition (and "view") of addhabhavi as "govern" !?!?!?
Govern is in the Pali dictionary therefore it is you just making up things up.
While none of the dictionaries come even close with that definition.
Govern is in the Pali dictionary therefore it is you just making up things up
New Concise Pali English Dictionary
addhabhavi
aor. 3 sg.
governed; controlled.

https://suttacentral.net/define/addhabhavi
addh[ā/a]-bhavati, pr. 3 sg. (according to Ctt. and
addha-bhavatiabhi + √bhū), to be on the level'of, be master of, to
have the command of, predominate
; — part. m. addhā-
bhavanto, Sn 968 (= abhibhavanto, Pj, Nidd [cf.
sa. addhā-puruṣa])); — aor. 3 sg. addhabhavi (old
error for ajjhabhavi, cf. sinhal. d < j), SN I 39,1*-3*
(kiṁ su [scil. nāmaṁ] sabbaṁ ~; = abhibhavati
anupatati, Spk I 95,6 (Sinhalese lectio facilior anva-
bhavi)); — pp. addha-bhūta q. v.; — caus. 3 sg.
addha-bhāveti, MN II 223,9 = 224,23 (na heva
an-addha-bhūtaṁ attānaṁ dukkhena ~, i. e. he does
not let himself be dependent of (or governed by) pain
(Ps III 424,19 read with Ce & Ck na nam an-addha-
bhāveti nâbhibhavati!).

https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=3171
:roll: :ugeek:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

auto
Posts: 1225
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by auto » Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:36 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:17 pm
ToVincent wrote: ↑Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:38 pmI refered to a definition of Sat (m.) in the MW as:
- a being , (pl.) beings , creatures RV.
No. Satta is not creatures. SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 say a being is an idea
The "smell of a flower" is satta, someone with a self view needs flower(khandhas) to be present to have satta to arise because of thinking that the scent(self) belongs to the petals(khandhas)... the "thinking" is not ordinary thoughts.

But that is half the picture, you need satta(sense of self) to find the object(self) regards to what it rises, dislodge it and then you also need summon the self and then send it to the world, the being there in the world is the female through her you get to the worlds of materiality. Its not easy to get human birth.

Sutta SN 5.10 says when khandhas are exhausted/santa
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato wrote: When the parts are assembled Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,
we use the word ‘chariot’. hoti saddo ratho iti;
So too, when the aggregates are present Evaṃ khandhesu santesu,
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use. hoti sattoti sammuti.
if your satta rises because of having party a lot etc have spent the jing, that is wrong place to look for the being(the conditions where it arises is bad)

ToVincent
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:17 pm
...
Now, let's answer your remarks.

Satta is not an "idea".
This is why I refer to the parallels.
The parallel to SN 23.2 (SA 122) states:
The Buddha said to Rādha: “Being defiled by attachment to and entangled with bodily form ― this is called a living being. Being defiled by attachment to and entangled with feeling … perception … formations … consciousness ― this is called a living being.”
See the difference?

In SN 5.3, satta is not an "idea", no more than the chariot is an "idea".
Just a "living being/thing" made of impermanent parts - with no substance (sāro) - with no continuity (santāno).

_________

As far as "governed" is concerned, I have to admit that it does not "come from nowhere", and that it appears in a (limited - and sometimes strangely interpretative) dictionary that I don't use.
PTS is my dictionary of choice. And in the case of addhabhavi = adhibhavi, I like when "surpass" appears in the PTS (Pali) , the Monier-Williams ((Sanskrit), and the Digital Dictionary of Buddhism (Chinese).
It's a bit more of work to check them all; but it's worth it, I suppose.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35695&p=533614&hil ... ss#p533614
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:00 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm
Satta is not an "idea".
:roll:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
:alien:
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm
The parallel to SN 23.2 (SA 122) states: a living being.
The Buddha taught the opposite of this in SN 23.2. He said "a being" is "strong attachment" (visatto) rather than a "living" being. "Attachment" is a "view", per SN 12.2. Your personal idea of "living being" is the same as the Bhikkhu Sujato false translation of SN 23.2 as "sentient being".
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm
See the difference?
Yes. I see the difference. I see SN 23.2 is the Buddha-Dhamma and SA 122 is not what the Buddha taught. Yes. I see the difference. :geek: :roll:

:soap:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

ToVincent
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:00 pm
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm
Satta is not an "idea".
:roll:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
Despite the fact that it is not the Buddha that speaks to Mara - but Vajirā - you should (again) rely on the parallel (SA2 218), which in this case (but not always) is (again) more explicit, while not different from SN 5.10, or the Theravada view expounded in SN 22.85 (as I stated before):
Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’, /
​saying and believing they actually exist as substantial entities.
Conventional, empty they are but compounded entities /
​there are in fact no ‘beings.’
Like when causes and various conditions /
​converge and yield the use of a ‘chariot’.

The same with aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhātus) and spheres (āyatanas):
​because of the convergence of such causes and conditions there are beings.
Because of karmic conditions they assemble.
SA2 218

What you have to understand is that the meaning of satta for the people aroud Buddha was, for the most part, the meaning of the Upanishads, or of the late Vedic Brahmanism, that has been reinstated in Vedanta.
That is to say a "being" (satta), with an essence, a true being, really self-existent, lasting and enduring, and blissful.

No selves like Ka, in the "world". No blissful, lasting (santāno) selves/beings, like Ka/Prajapati, is the Buddhist creed.

As SA2 218 states: "Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’, ​saying and believing they actually exist as substantial (sāro) entities" .

So Vajirā explains what a" Buddhist being" is:
"because of the convergence of such causes and conditions [aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhātus) and spheres (āyatanas),] there are beings."
.
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:18 am

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm
....
:focus: Thank you for your efforts, despite their fruitlessness. I am over SN 12.15.

I think SN 12.15 merely contains an unnecessary playing with words & negating of dualities in its 2nd & 3rd sentences.

I think all SN 12.15 is teaching is:
Doot wrote:1. For the most part, the world is clinging to views that 'acquisitions (including 'selves') exist and (painfully) won't exist. In other words, as said in the 4th sentence, both existence & non-existence are self-views.

2. When right view sees the true origination of the world/self (born from ignorance via Dependent Origination), the view that real world/self both exists & non-exists does not occur.

3. When right view sees the true cessation of the world/self, the view that real world/self both exists & non-exists does not occur.

4. For the most part the world clings to things as self.

5. Right view does not cling to things as self.

6. Right view only sees suffering arising when self-view arises and only sees suffering ceasing when self-view ceases.

7. All exists then all will not exist are extremes. They are both self-views.

8. The Buddha teaches the middle. Arising of ignorance is arising of self-views & suffering and cessation of ignorance is cessation self-views & suffering.
To conclude, that 'arising of world' is paired with 'no view of non-existence' and that 'cessation of world' is paired with 'no view of existence' is irrelevant. It is merely a play with words.

Otherwise, we will equate "arising" with "existence" and "cessation" with "non-existence", which is not correct.

The sutta cannot say seeing "arising" negates non-existence because "arising" is existence. This cannot be so because "existence" is clearly a wrong view in the sutta.

The sutta cannot say seeing "cessation" negates existence because "cessation" is non-existence. This cannot be so because "non-existence" is clearly a wrong view in the sutta.

:smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:46 am

I found a small commentary by Ajahn Buddhadasa, which says:
“Being” and “nothing,” “existence” and nonexistence,” “I am” and “I am not” are dualisms that we conceive and grasp. Buddha’s middle way teaching of paṭiccasamuppāda enables us to avoid the extremes of such dualisms by rightly seeing that the nature of all phenomena is arising and passing away. With this wisdom one does not take a stand on “my self.”
While the above is very general, the above appears to support my view that:

1. Seeing "arising" ("samudaya") with right view does not exclusively negate “I am not” ("natthita").

2. Seeing "cessation" ("nirodha") with right view does not exclusively negate “I am” ("atthita").

In other words, discerning paṭiccasamuppāda (both its arising & ceasing) and the three characteristics negates all self-views; it negates both "I am" and "I am not"; it negates both "bhava" & "vibhava".

:smile:
One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming (bhava) or un-becoming (vibhava). This being the case, one does not cling to anything in the world. Not-clinging, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

MN 140
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

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

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:51 am

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:00 pm
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 2:59 pm
Satta is not an "idea".
:roll:
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html

What you have to understand is that the meaning of satta for the people aroud Buddha was, for the most part, the meaning of the Upanishads, or of the late Vedic Brahmanism, that has been reinstated in Vedanta.
That is to say a "being" (satta), with an essence, a true being, really self-existent, lasting and enduring, and blissful.

No selves like Ka, in the "world". No blissful, lasting (santāno) selves/beings, like Ka/Prajapati, is the Buddhist creed.

As SA2 218 states: "Māra, you have a wrong view of ‘beings’, ​saying and believing they actually exist as substantial (sāro) entities" .
This sounds right to me. "Sat" had the meaning of a true essence, equivalent to atman/atta.

So by referring to "satta" as a view on SN 5.10, the Buddha was not denying living beings per se, rather he was contradicting the view of living beings as having an eternal essence, or "soul".
So he was contradicting the assumption of an atman/atta, not the existence of transient living creatures. Its another example of the Buddha redefining Vedic concepts in order to challenge them.
He wasn't saying that chariots don't exist, he was saying there is no lasting essence of chariot, its really just a collection of components which inevitably wear out. So neither chariots or living beings are fit to be clung to or cherished, since both are impermanent and therefore unsatisfactory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat_(Sanskrit)

To say that living beings are just "ideas" is completely missing the point of this teaching. What is being challenged here is the idea of living beings possessing an atman/atta, not the idea of living beings per se.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:16 am

ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm
...
:roll:

satta
hanging, clinging or attached to Vin.i.185; DN.ii.246; Mnd.23, Mnd.24; Dhp.342; Ja.i.376 Cp. āsatta & byāsatta.

pp. of sañj: sajjati

sajjati
saj + ya
clings to; to be attached.

pp satta

Pass. of sañj or saj to hang. Cp. sanga
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

ToVincent
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:43 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:16 am
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm
...
:roll:

satta
hanging, clinging or attached to Vin.i.185; DN.ii.246; Mnd.23, Mnd.24; Dhp.342; Ja.i.376 Cp. āsatta & byāsatta.

pp. of sañj: sajjati

sajjati
saj + ya
clings to; to be attached.

pp satta

Pass. of sañj or saj to hang. Cp. sanga
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:50 pm
I don't see why this thread is in the Pali sub-forum?!?!
Yes, don't see. :roll:
That one is a "fruitful" gem.
https://justpaste.it/5czxn
I see no "satta" in all this..
.
Some working for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
In this world with its ..., māras, ... - In this population with its ascetics.... (AN 5.30).
------

https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:57 am

ToVincent wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:43 am
That one is a "fruitful" gem.
https://justpaste.it/5czxn
I see no "satta" in all this..
.
You appear to be saying SN 23.2 says:
How is a living being defined?”
Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī”ti?

“Rādha, when you living being, strongly living being, to desire, greed, relishing and craving for form :roll: , then a living being is spoken of.

“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

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

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Dinsdale » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:24 am

ToVincent wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:43 am
DooDoot wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:16 am
ToVincent wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:13 pm
...
:roll:

satta
hanging, clinging or attached to Vin.i.185; DN.ii.246; Mnd.23, Mnd.24; Dhp.342; Ja.i.376 Cp. āsatta & byāsatta.

pp. of sañj: sajjati

sajjati
saj + ya
clings to; to be attached.

pp satta

Pass. of sañj or saj to hang. Cp. sanga
ToVincent wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:50 pm
I don't see why this thread is in the Pali sub-forum?!?!
Yes, don't see. :roll:
That one is a "fruitful" gem.
https://justpaste.it/5czxn
I see no "satta" in all this..
.
I think "satta" has a range of meanings in the suttas, as with many other Pali terms. It can just mean "living creature", it can mean "living creature with the assumption of atta", or it can mean "clinging" (based on the assumption of lasting essence or atta, so related to the previous meaning).
I reckon the second meaning is intended in SN5.10.

The meaning of these words is always dependent on context, and attempting to impose one definition throughout the suttas will lead to misunderstanding.
Particularly when this is done to promote a particular interpretation.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6422
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot » Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:45 am

ToVincent wrote: I see no "satta" in all this..
.
If satta, which is Jati, is regarded as biological, it appears directly knowing seeing experiencing the ending of birth, as the Arahants do, cannot be done. Instead, it appears satta will be materialism of identifying the biological as self. As a result “death” occurs. Old angry bitter nasty old men unable to gracefully accept the impermanent. This is what appears meant by existence & nonexistence. Believing the body & aggregates are a being or person that dies. Here, there appears to be no insight as described in the Phena Sutta. Instead just desperate clinging rooted in anger stubbornness fear & bitterness over a wasted life. Clinging desperately to eternalism attempted to escape the bitterness of nonexistent. I think this is the message of sn 12.15.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests