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: 6377
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 11:44 am

Dharmasherab wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:53 am
Moha.
Returning to topic, The Teacher (The Buddha) will compare the papanca below:
Papanca wrote:It is said that “there is a self,” but “non-self” too is taught. The buddhas also teach there is nothing which is “neither self nor non-self….” Everything is real, not real; both real and not real; neither not real nor real: this is the teaching of the Buddha.” –Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamikakarika (Stephen Batchelor trans.)
1. The Buddha (The Teacher) in SN 12.15 never says “there is a self”. SN 12.15 only says "self" is "suffering arising". There is suffering mistaken for a self. To quote SN 12.15:
SN 12.15 wrote: have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Knowledge about this is independent of others....
2. The Buddha (The Teacher) taught all things are "not-self". Therefore, the Buddha taught there is no self, apart from an imaginary mistaken idea of self, which is in reality suffering or neurosis; what the Buddha called "a disease'. This world is burning. Afflicted by contact. It calls disease a 'self.' Ud 3.10

3. The Buddhas teach all things are non-self (sabbe dhamma anatta) therefore the Buddhas never teach there is nothing which is “neither self nor non-self….”. Nagarjuna here appears to have misunderstood SN 44.10, where the confused Vacchagotta essentially asked the Buddha: "Do I exist (atthattā)?""Do I not exist (natthattā)?" Vacchagotta never asked about non-self (anatta). The impression is Nagarjuna had similar ideas to Vacchagotta.

4. No. SN 12.15 does not say "everything is real (atthita), not real (natthita)". SN 12.15 says the very opposite; namely, atthita & natthita do not occur when there is right view.

5. SN 12.15 says, "for the most part" ("yebhuyyena") the world is shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting; this world relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence". Therefore, "yebhuyyena" appears certainly to refer to the wrong views of puthujjana or worldlings. Given Nargajuna appeared to adhere to these same worldly ideas, it appears the evidence indicates Nargajuna was possibly also puthujjana.

6. Everything is real, not real; both real and not real; neither not real nor real: is not the teaching of the Buddha. Since SN 12.15 says reality (yathābhūtaṃ) is seen (passato) with right wisdom (sammappaññāya), obviously this is "real" (yathābhūtaṃ) but not "atthita".

:bow: :buddha1: :bow:
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: 6377
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 12:06 pm

Returning to atthattā & natthattā found in SN 12.15, in MN 60, also reflected in MN 117, is:

1. atthikavādo

2. natthikavādo

MN 60 says about atthikavādo:
‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There is obligation to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 60 says about natthikavādo:
‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 117 says about this MN 60 atthikavādo:
And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings :shock: reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 117 says about this MN 60 natthikavādo:
And what is wrong view? ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
It appears to be the case atthattā & natthattā are referred to in MN 60 & MN 117 as not leading to liberation & to not-self.

Therefore, it appears it would be a false view if Nargajuna actually said: "Everything is atthattā, natthattā; both atthattā and not natthattā; neither natthattā nor atthattā: this is the teaching of the Buddha.

:|
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

sentinel
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by sentinel » Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:57 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 pm

Therefore, it appears it would be a false view if Nargajuna actually said: "Everything is atthattā, natthattā; both atthattā and not natthattā; neither natthattā nor atthattā: this is the teaching of the Buddha.

:|
Hi DD , where do you find the statement of nagarjuna came from ?
:coffee:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6377
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 7:09 pm

sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:57 pm
Hi DD , where do you find the statement of nagarjuna came from ?
The internet.
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: 6377
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 7:26 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:06 pm
Returning to atthattā & natthattā found in SN 12.15, in MN 60, also reflected in MN 117, is:

1. atthikavādo

2. natthikavādo

MN 60 says about atthikavādo:
‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There is obligation to mother and father. There are beings reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 60 says about natthikavādo:
‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There’s no obligation to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 117 says about this MN 60 atthikavādo:
And what is right view that is accompanied by defilements, has the attributes of good deeds, and ripens in attachment? ‘There is meaning in giving, sacrifice, and offerings. There are fruits and results of good and bad deeds. There is an afterlife. There are duties to mother and father. There are beings :shock: reborn spontaneously. And there are ascetics and brahmins who are well attained and practiced, and who describe the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
MN 117 says about this MN 60 natthikavādo:
And what is wrong view? ‘There’s no meaning in giving, sacrifice, or offerings. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds. There’s no afterlife. There are no duties to mother and father. No beings are reborn spontaneously. And there’s no ascetic or brahmin who is well attained and practiced, and who describes the afterlife after realizing it with their own insight.’
Wow :shock: . The above teachings from the suttas are about mundane kamma & a denial of mundane kamma. However, the above definitions appear to fit perfectly/seamlessly into SN 12.15, as follows:

1. For the most part, this world relies on two views: mundane right view & a denial of mundane right view (aka wrong view). :thumbsup:

2. But when the arising of the world is seen as it truly is with right wisdom, the denial of mundane right view will not occur :thumbsup: . (In other words, the reality of the arising of kamma & results will be seen & not denied).

3. When the cessation of the world is seen as it truly is with right wisdom, the full adherence to mundane right view will not occur :thumbsup: . (In other words, the attachment & self-view inherently connected to the mundane right view will be rejected).

4. For the most part, the world views in terms of self. :thumbsup:

5. But right view does not take a position of self and sees only suffering arising when self-view arises and sees only suffering ceasing when self-view ceases. :thumbsup:

6. Everything following the mundane right view is one extreme (because kamma & results can be ended (nirodha) with the Noble Path :thumbsup: ). The denial of the mundane right view is another extreme (because the efficacy of kamma is certainly true). :thumbsup:

7. The Buddha teaches the Dhamma from the middle. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of self-views, kamma, results & suffering. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of self-views, kamma, results & suffering. :thumbsup:

:smile: Sounds doctrinally complicated but it works perfectly/seamlessly & ticks all the boxes :thumbsup: .
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

sentinel
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

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

Post by sentinel » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:42 am

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:09 pm
sentinel wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:57 pm
Hi DD , where do you find the statement of nagarjuna came from ?
The internet.
I mean which text ?
:coffee:

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6377
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 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:56 am

sentinel wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 5:42 am
I mean which text ?
From here: https://www.existentialbuddhist.com/201 ... -not-self/
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: 724
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 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:13 am

Dinsdale wrote:
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

: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


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.
I agree Dinsdale.

Forget about my remark: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&start=30#p534022 (Friday 15).
I just wanted to corner Doodot, who has this strange habit to make his own, the remarks of others.
I suppose that Doodot wants to be the "practical executioner" of this forum.

I had originaly made (twice) the remark that there was a wordplay between satta (Skt sattva), and the past participle of sajjati (Skt sakta), that means "clinging or adhering to".
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&sid=b6548dbc ... c7#p533492 - see 2b - (Sun 10).
As usual, Doodot took it for himself later on:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&start=30#p534013

When I said "I see no satta into that (sañj) ", I just wanted Doodoot to say "Hey, it's you, who just said the contrary!" . Which he obviously didn't do (for some good reason, I suppose).


Yes, satta is also the past participle of sajjati in Pali:
https://palidictionary.appspot.com/browse/s/satta

And yes, there is both the existing being + the clinging being in satta. Not just an "idea", as Doodot puts it.
For that matter (again), the parallel to SN 23.2 (SA 122) is a lot clearer:
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.”
(Don't get me wrong, I am not a Sarvatisvadin (nor do I think Sarvatisvada is Mahayana) - just trying to make sense).

And I suppose we agree in our reading of a satta in SN 5.10.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&start=30#p534010
Something that Doodot doesn't seem to grasp yet.

_

And as far as Doodoot's views on self are concerned, I guess he should read SN 22.85/SA 104.
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn22.85
Might help him.
https://justpaste.it/4zgxr (SN 22.85/SA 104 side by side).
.
.
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: 6377
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 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:20 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:13 am
And I suppose we agree in our reading of a satta in SN 5.10.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&start=30#p534010
Puthujjana are generally in agreement. That is why they are "the many folks". "Satta" in SN 5.10 appears literally a "view". It is not biological. SN 5.10 cannot be any more clear; and also the definition of "jati" in SN 12.2. SN 12.2 literally says: "what is jati? wherever them & those beings (plural) in this & that category/class/group/collection of beings (singular).... ". This is exactly the same as how "jati" (aka "identity") is defined in India, as follows:
Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans, tribes, communities, and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each Jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some Jātis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (Jāti) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc.

Wiki
:alien:
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:13 am
(Don't get me wrong, I am not a Sarvatisvadin (nor do I think Sarvatisvada is Mahayana) - just trying to make sense).
Actually, I think your mention of "Sarvāstivāda" may be very important for this topic. You may have unintentionally solved the riddle. "Sarvāstivāda" means "all exists doctrine". There may have also been common opposite religious/spiritual doctrines, such as: "all does not exist; all is illusion". Thus, SN 12.15 may be referring to common Indian doctrines, including non-Buddhist doctrines, such as "All is Brahma", etc. If fact, I have often asked SN 12.15 may be a later addition to the suttas (even though it is similar to SN 12.17). :smile: :thumbsup: :thanks:
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: 724
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 » Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:48 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 12:20 pm
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:13 am
And I suppose we agree in our reading of a satta in SN 5.10.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&start=30#p534010

Puthujjana are generally in agreement. That is why they are "the many folks". "Satta" in SN 5.10 appears literally a "view". It is not biological. SN 5.10 cannot be any more clear; and also the definition of "jati" in SN 12.2. SN 12.2 literally says: "what is jati? wherever them & those beings (plural) in this & that category/class/group/collection of beings (singular).... ".
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 11:13 am
(Don't get me wrong, I am not a Sarvatisvadin (nor do I think Sarvatisvada is Mahayana) - just trying to make sense).

Actually, I think your mention of "Sarvāstivāda" may be very important for this topic. You may have unintentionally solved the riddle. "Sarvāstivāda" means "all exists doctrine". There may have also been common opposite religious/spiritual doctrines, such as: "all does not exist; all is illusion". Thus, SN 12.15 may be referring to common Indian doctrines, including non-Buddhist doctrines, such as "All is Brahma", etc. If fact, I have often asked SN 12.15 may be a later addition to the suttas (even though it is similar to SN 12.17).
-----------

SN 12.2
And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent into the womb, production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases (aka, fields of sensory experience). This is called birth.
Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti?
Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho. Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, jāti.
Arv5 (parallel)
What is birth?

For the various beings in the various classes of beings there is (the process of) birth, being born, rebirth, appearing, turning up, manifestation, the meeting with (√ लभ् labh - meet with, take, size (Br.)) the aggregates , the meeting with the elements, the meeting with the sense-spheres, the accomplishment (अभिनिर्हृ abhinirvṛtti) of the nāma-aggregates , the arising of the life faculty, being brought together in their respective divisions.
Jātiḥ katamā?
Yā [teṣāṁ] teṣāṁ sattvānāṁ tasmiṁs-tasmin sattva-nikāye jātiḥ, saṁjātiḥ, upapattiḥ, avakrāntiḥ, abhinirvṛttiḥ, prādurbhāviḥ | skandha-pratilambhaḥ (√ लभ् labh - meet with, take, size (Br.), dhātu-pratilambhaḥ, āyatanānāṁ pratilambhaḥ | skandha-nāmābhinirvṛttiḥ, jīvitendriyasyodbhavaḥ | nikāya-sabhāga-tāyāḥ sama-vadhānam ||
Iyam-ucyate jātiḥ ||


This is said to be birth.
Tell me how the "obtaining"!?!? of the sense bases in jati nidāna can happen after the coming to be of the sense bases in Saḷāyatana nidāna ?!?!

You haven't understood the nuance of "manifestation"(?) and "obtaining of (?)".
You are so limited to the explicit meaning of a word, or a definition in a particular sutta. It is painful.

निर्वृत्ति nirvṛtti [ nir-vṛtti ] completion Mn. MBh
लभ् labh - meet with, take, size Br.

Khandhas have already descended (from the Nāmarūpa nidāna), into the Saḷāyatana nidāna, well before they are manifested in jati (the link after the Bhava nidāna).
justpaste.it/img/62c4c6b65f2a5beca39abc9703710f2f.png

The sense bases (fields of sensory experiences,) have already existed - [With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be (SN 12.39)] - , before their "obtention" in the jati nidāna.

This is what the Sarvāstivādin (http://sanskritdictionary.com/sarv%C4%8 ... a/257072/1) meant.
It would have been quite incongruous if they had not taken this part out from from SA 104.
Sāriputta] asked again: “Is the Tathāgata without bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta”.

For this seems to mean that the Sarvāstivādins agreed that there was a bodily form, and so did the Theravadins.
What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”

—“No, friend.”
You kow the definition of form, do you?

So, your view of an "idea" seems like corrupted Theravada.
Because SN 22.85 seems to agree with the Sarvāstivādins on all the crucial points of both that existence and non-existence.
You are just propounding the idealism of the Bahya-artha-sunyata [Gupta era (roughly 4th - 5th century CE)
Chandragupta II "Vikramaditya"] - what is known as the third period of Buddhism.

Again, I hardly advise you to read that sutta/sutra.
https://justpaste.it/4zgxr

P. S.
As a puthujjana, should I call you Maaaaaster?
.
.
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: 6377
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 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:46 am

ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:48 pm
Tell me how the "obtaining"!?!? of the sense bases in jati nidāna can happen after the coming to be of the sense bases in Saḷāyatana nidāna ?!?!

You haven't understood the nuance of "manifestation"(?) and "obtaining of (?)".
MN 98:
You’re a farmer by your deeds,
Kassako kammunā hoti,

by deeds you’re a professional;
sippiko hoti kammunā;

you’re a trader by your deeds,
Vāṇijo kammunā hoti,

by deeds are you an employee;
pessako hoti kammunā.

you’re a bandit by your deeds,
Coropi kammunā hoti,

by deeds you’re a soldier;
yodhājīvopi kammunā;
How the aggregates manifest above & whatever relevant sense objects are the preoccupation is what is called jati (caste, class, identity). For example: a mind sees a cow, craving arises, then the body milks the cow. Due to these cravings & actions (becoming) towards the sense object of a cow, the idea of "a being" called a "diary farmer" is produced. "Jati" is how people are classified according to how their aggregates manifest (take shape) and according to what sense objects they seize. When you seize/appropriate (āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho) the udder of a cow and when with lust your body manifests (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) the pulling of the udder to milk the cow, your jati produced (abhinibbatti) that with the category of a "diary farmer" (tamhi tamhi sattanikāye).

:focus:
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:48 pm
Sāriputta] asked again: “Is the Tathāgata without bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness?”

[Yamaka] replied: “No, venerable Sāriputta”.

For this seems to mean that the Sarvāstivādins agreed that there was a bodily form, and so did the Theravadins. What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?”

—“No, friend.”You kow the definition of form, do you?
I think the above is worth considering but probably irrelevant. I suggested before, you appear to posting "word associations" rather than using wise reflection. While a Tathagata is not defined by aggregates however still has aggregates, this does not appear to relate to SN 12.15. I will reflect upon it.

1. Yamaka originally believes an Arahant exists (as a 'self') but later (that 'self') will not exist.

2. If Yamaka sees with right wisdom the arising of the world/self-view, he will not have the idea the Arahant-Self will not exist.

3. If Yamaka sees with right wisdom the cessation of the world/self-view, he will not have the idea the Arahant-Self exists.

Personally, I do not agree with the above because regardless of whether arising or cessation is seen with right wisdom; both types of seeing will end self-views. I don't see why arising must be correlated with no views of non-existence and cessation must be correlated with no views of existence.
ToVincent wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 2:48 pm
Sarvāstivādin
Wow! By sheer coincidence, I opened the Rig Veda for the 1st time ever to research what it teaches about marriage and, amazingly :shock: , the 1st verse of the Rig Veda is on-topic! :shock:
The non-existent (nAsadAsInno) was not; the existent (sadAsIttadAnIm) was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss?

There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the
void, that alone was born through the power of heat.

Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom.

Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above.

Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?

Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.


http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2 ... igveda.pdf
Therefore, based on the Rig Veda, it seems "non-existent" means "a nothingness void" and "existent" means the "physical world, including the names of forms". Plugging this into SN 12.15, we get:

1. The world for the most part relies on views of existence & nothingness.

2. When the arising of the world is seen with right wisdom, the view of nothingness will not occur. :thumbsup:

3. When the cessation of the world is seen with right wisdom, the view of existence/fixed creation will not occur. :thumbsup:

4. This Brahmin world for the most part clings to adherences, fixations, self-views, etc.

5. But right view does not view anything as self.

6. All has come to exist is one extreme. All once never existed is another extreme. :thumbsup:

:woohoo: Yes, as I previously speculated, I think SN 12.15 might be related to pre-existing religious philosophies and debunking them.

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: 724
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 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:35 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:46 am
Wow! By sheer coincidence, I opened the Rig Veda for the 1st time ever to research...
O boy!
Doodoot is just getting into Veda.

I must say that I come from the Vedic world, before I became a Buddhist.
The Rg was my Veda of predilection.
And I left the Vedic world, because of the mess it engendered.

You know - the Greeks killed the sphinx, because of the mess that the profoundly bottomless (yet very profound/intense) Egyptian philosophy engendered, (and where the spirit couldn't find its substance, therefore its essence ).
The early Buddhists got rid of the late Vedism philosophy, because no one could make sense of this absolute profound mess of the Vedas.

Another Doodoot's brick, for the "house of mess" of Master Doodoot.

Now Doodoot, if you want to escape your poorly formulated ideas on existence & non-existence on the micro level, by getting into the (messy) macro level, then read this:
https://justpaste.it/19m0u

The 10th mandala (and the first) are indeed late mandalas and MIGHT have been one of the preoccupation at the time of the Buddha.
However, it seems that in DN1, the "existence" issue appears only:

- In wrong view #5:
"‘Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ That was my wish, and then these beings came into this existence!”, says Brahma.

- In Wrong view #16, with the eel-wrigglers:
"Does the Tathāgata exist after death? Does he not exist after death? Does he both exist and not exist after death? ", etc.

- In Wrong view #17, with the devas called Unconscious:
"The self and the world have arisen by chance. How so? Before this I did not exist. Now from not-being I have been brought to being".

- In the wrong views of the annihilationists:
Pali:
There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are Annihilationists, who proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings, and they do so in seven ways. On what basis?
Chinese:
There are some recluses and Brahmāns who are annihilationists, who hold settled views about the future, and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation of a living being.
View #51 to 57
Note: as far as a real physical body made of the four great elements (not an "idea") is concerned (as in early Buddhism, where it happens in the saḷāyatana nidāna), all the annihilationists agree that the real physical body breaks up at death time.
Only the self that remains, differs in their different views (52 to 57) - and in wrong view #57, it ends up with a self that has realized the sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception, and is annihilated.

Here, we see that beings encompasses the real body and the self that accompnies it.

Note: Read also DA 21, the parallel. There are some interesting discrepancies.

However, the micro level in SN 12.15 is concerned with the "All" and the "world".
But about that, you have a very hard time to admit that the ONLY simple definitions with PERFECT parallels, are SN 35.23/SA 319 (the All), and SN 35.82/SA 231 (the World).
Strangely, it sounds like you'd rather come up with your own definition?!?!
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn35.82
https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn35.23


________________

And now, Doodoot goes for references in the "Wiki" !?!?
Why don't you just go for the Monnier-Williams dictionary, so as to b
make sure that the meaning existed at the time of Buddha.
I doubt that the Wiki embarasses itself with historical semantics.

जातिJāti (vr. jan-ti - √ जन् jan var. jā + ॰ति -ti)
- birth , production AitBr. Mn. MBh.

- the form of existence (as man , animal , ) fixed by birth Mn.

- position assigned by birth , rank , caste , family , race , lineage Mn. KātyŚr. (probably post-Buddhist - 300 BCE).

I am not sure that jati in our case, has to do with "position assigned by rank"; or as you presumed, deducted, and added on your own behalf: "identity".

Let's not get into post- Buddhist meanings, without some pre-buddhist occurence,will you.
And please, let's not infer some new meanings.

-----

As far as jati is concerned, I had come with that summary of the process on May 20 2018:

Once the body made out of form has come to be in the saḷāyatana nidāna, then a whole process develops.
(just see this https://justpaste.it/1695d)
That is to say, you tranfer the properties of the external khandhas (external namarupa) and their sensory (external) ayatanani, to the internal ayatanani, through sense-consciousness. This is phassa (namely the result of the combination of the last three).
Then you experience that, with a wish to inquire further (vedana) - you inquire and make assumptions (sanna) - you make up your mind (manasi kr) - You intent (cetana) - (and that leads to your "personal" knowledge).
You crave for that (tanha), you appropriate that as yours (upadana) - and, for that reason (mostly craving), you wish for more existence (bhava) and birth (jati) ensues.

So here, we are talking about a birth, that is the result of nāma (as defined by the nikayas) (as seen on this visual aid https://justpaste.it/1695d), that is also mentioned in the Arv5; namely, "the accomplishment (अभिनिर्हृ abhinirvṛtti) of the nāma-aggregates".
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&sid=7278027c ... 45#p534493
Birth is more concerned with the production (jati) of the cetana in nama, than by somekind of "identity" of a being/self. As you see on the visual aid, it is manosancetana that imports; not the "identity" of the being.

---------

Waiting for another excited elucubration from 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: 6377
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 » Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:11 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:35 pm
I became a Buddhist.

And I left the Vedic world
Are u sure about the above? :shrug:
ToVincent wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:35 pm
There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are Annihilationists, who proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings, and they do so in seven ways. On what basis?
Annihilationist means having a self-view that a self will cease at death. I already covered this option and ruled it out because both truly seeing arising (samudaya) & cessation (nirodha) will stop annihilationist view.

Eternalist & Annihilationist only fit into SN 12.15 when they are taken to refer to views about reincarnation (but Annihilation does not mean not believing in reincarnation nor is D.O. about reincarnation so I ruled these out).

I am happy that atthita & natthita refer to certain non-Buddhist religious doctrines. I think SN 12.15 is this simple & basic (rather than is exalted & profound as it is often regarded to be). :smile:
Āstika (Sanskrit आस्तिक IAST: Āstika) derives from the Sanskrit asti, "there is, there exists", and means “one who believes in the existence (of a soul or Brahman, etc.)” and Nāstika means "an unbeliever". These have been concepts used to classify Indian philosophies by modern scholars, and some Hindu, Buddhist and Jaina texts. Āstika has been defined in one of three ways; as those who accept the epistemic authority of the Vedas, as those who accept the existence of ātman, or as those who accept the existence of Ishvara. In contrast, nāstika are those who deny the respective definitions of āstika. The various definitions for āstika and nāstika philosophies have been disputed since ancient times, and there is no consensus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80s ... C4%81stika
Therefore, as I already posted, what "atthita" & "natthita" meant to the Buddha is defined in MN 60 & MN 117. I am happy to believe for my own purposes SN 12.15 is referring to these. Regards :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: 724
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 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:36 am

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:11 pm
...
Says it all.
.
.
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

auto
Posts: 1216
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 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:35 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:11 pm
Eternalist & Annihilationist only fit into SN 12.15 when they are taken to refer to views about reincarnation (but Annihilation does not mean not believing in reincarnation nor is D.O. about reincarnation so I ruled these out).
hmm
https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato wrote:“But does Master Gotama have any convictions at all?” “Atthi pana bhoto gotamassa kiñci diṭṭhigatan”ti?
“The Realized One has done away with convictions. “Diṭṭhigatanti kho, vaccha, apanītametaṃ tathāgatassa.
..
‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. ‘iti rūpaṃ, iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo;
..
That’s why the Realized One is freed with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all identifying, all worries, and all ego, possessiveness, or underlying tendency to conceit, I say.” Tasmā tathāgato sabbamaññitānaṃ sabbamathitānaṃ sabbaahaṅkāramamaṅkāramānānusayānaṃ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anupādā vimuttoti vadāmī”ti.

“But Master Gotama, when a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, where are they reborn?” “Evaṃ vimuttacitto pana, bho gotama, bhikkhu kuhiṃ upapajjatī”ti?

“‘They’re reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” “Upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they not reborn?” “Tena hi, bho gotama, na upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” “Na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they both reborn and not reborn?” “Tena hi, bho gotama, upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re both reborn and not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” “Upapajjati ca na ca upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
“Well then, are they neither reborn nor not reborn?” “Tena hi, bho gotama, neva upapajjati na na upapajjatī”ti?
“‘They’re neither reborn nor not reborn’ doesn’t apply, Vaccha.” “Neva upapajjati na na upapajjatīti kho, vaccha, na upeti”.
https://suttacentral.net/mn72/en/sujato wrote: “But Vaccha, suppose they were to ask you: “Sace pana taṃ, vaccha, evaṃ puccheyya:
‘This fire in front of you that is extinguished: in what direction did it go—‘yo te ayaṃ purato aggi nibbuto so aggi ito katamaṃ disaṃ gato
— east, south, west, or north?’ How would you answer?”
puratthimaṃ vā dakkhiṇaṃ vā pacchimaṃ vā uttaraṃ vā’ti, evaṃ puṭṭho tvaṃ, vaccha, kinti byākareyyāsī”ti?
“It doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. The fire depended on grass and logs as fuel. When that runs out, and no more fuel is added, the fire is reckoned to have become extinguished due to lack of fuel.”
No more fuel but you can summon(rebirth) fire using same conditions(trying to get the consciousness to alight) again.

Human body has elements, clinging to them gives the cause for the consciousness to alight like wood clings to oxygen it can be alighted by applying enough heat..you get the picture, its less naïve version of rebirth what actually makes you care about cultivation, developing mind and body etc not just some eternal heaven hope.

DooDoot, can you write in similar style what you believe?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests