SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Each week we study and discuss a different sutta or Dhamma text

Moderator: mikenz66

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by Volo » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:01 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:37 pm
Can you show any other place in Tipitaka , where anuyogaṁ anuyutta is sandhied as anuyogamanuyuttā ?
The choice between these two types of writing is up to the editor.

And, btw, "yes" I can show (Vinaya, Mahavagga, 251 in Myanmar edition):
Now at that time the monks of Bhaddiya were addicted to the practice of ornamenting their shoes in a variety of ways.

tena kho pana samayena bhaddiyā bhikkhū anekavihitaṃ pādukamaṇḍanānuyogamanuyuttā viharanti
Probably they decorated wisely (there are also a lot of other examples: pariyāyabhattabhojanānuyogamanuyutto, jāgariyānuyogamanuyutto, etc)
You are dragging us into useless red herring, Volo.
Then rather your post was a useless red herring, because I simply replied to it. Manu is not in PED for a very simple reason: it's never used in Pali, this is word from a different language.

ToVincent
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by ToVincent » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:51 pm

Volo wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:01 pm
ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:37 pm
Can you show any other place in Tipitaka , where anuyogaṁ anuyutta is sandhied as anuyogamanuyuttā ?
The choice between these two types of writing is up to the editor.

And, btw, "yes" I can show (Vinaya, Mahavagga, 251 in Myanmar edition):
Now at that time the monks of Bhaddiya were addicted to the practice of ornamenting their shoes in a variety of ways.

tena kho pana samayena bhaddiyā bhikkhū anekavihitaṃ pādukamaṇḍanānuyogamanuyuttā viharanti
Probably they decorated wisely (there are also a lot of other examples: pariyāyabhattabhojanānuyogamanuyutto, jāgariyānuyogamanuyutto, etc)
You are dragging us into useless red herring, Volo.
Then rather your post was a useless red herring, because I simply replied to it. Manu is not in PED for a very simple reason: it's never used in Pali, this is word from a different language.
Then why the "editor" does not sandhi it in more than four occurences, and does it in this particular case ( viz. Aniccasaññābhāvanānuyogamanuyuttā) - which, I repeat is not even adressed in the MN18's samyukta-āgama parallels.

Once more, the issue is not to know if manu (as "wise") exists or not (elsewhere) in the suttas, and if you prefer your reading of it- the issue is about the validity of looking at Sanskrit-English dictionaries, without being called "not-Buddhist".

Another example, for instance:
Nicca in Sanskrit is nitya ( नित्य). And it has two meanings in the Vedic litterature, as seen in the Monier-Williams:
- one’s own ( opp. to araṇa ) (RV) .
And
- continual, perpetual (permanent), eternal, (RV) .

Two pre-Buddhist meanings.
While only one meaning has been retained by the PTS & the subsequent Pali-English dictionaries - and by our usual translators (including the "new kids in town").

Can one translate anicca by "not one's own" in certain suttas; and not always by the usually translated "impermanent" - without being called a "non-Buddhist". Just because it has been omitted by Rhys Davids (PTS) and the subsequent Pali-English dictionaries (PED, or whatever) ?

Do I have to be called "non- Buddhist", and dragged into some useless red herring, because I say that आहार āhāra and √ हृ hṛ in the Monier-Williams gives a second meaning to āhāra.
Another (yet intertwined) meaning than "nutriment".

Gee, how pinched !
I question your intention.

________

Note:
Manu does appear in the Sutta. But Manu as Prajāpati (as the primordial man and thinking creature), whose quality is to be wise, as seen in the pre and post Buddhist literature:
- "The wise Manu" (Manusmriti LIX 1.102)
- "Manu was endued with great wisdom and devoted to virtue." (Mbh. - Adi Parva - LXXV).
.
.
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).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by Volo » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:53 am

ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:51 pm
Once more, the issue is not to know if manu (as "wise") exists or not (elsewhere) in the suttas, and if you prefer your reading of it- the issue is about the validity of looking at Sanskrit-English dictionaries, without being called "not-Buddhist".
One can do a more throughout study, investigating the term in Sanskrit, prakrit, etc. It can bring some better understanding, especially it might be useful in the case of terms with obscure meaning (like papañca). But this is a difficult work, one has to be an expert in linguistic, knowing how the language develops, what can change, what cannot, what is its early phase, what is late, etc, etc. But dubious suggestions (as prana from prajña, or manu in anuyogamanuyuttā) are not to be encouraged, because they confuse people.
Last edited by Volo on Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

thomaslaw
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by thomaslaw » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:45 am

Dear all,

Choong Mun-keat in his book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism pp. 202-204
discusses a few SN and SA discourses on the concept of ahara "nutriment". The below is copied from the pages:

"... SN 12.11-12, 63-64; SA 371-378 link arising by causal condition with the concept of nutriment ... For example, SN 12. 11 and its counterpart SA 371 report the Buddha as saying:

"There are these four nutriments ... for the maintenance or support of creatures or beings seeking to become. What are the four? Material nutriment ... whether coarse or fine, secondly contact ..., thirdly mental volition ..., [and] fourthly consciousness ..."

"In arising mode, the SN version says the four nutriments arise conditioned by craving, which in turn arises conditioned by feeling, contact, and so on back to ignorance; and then it repeats the series in the forward direction down to the arising of the whole mass of suffering. The SA version says that the nutriments arise conditioned by craving, and so on in sequence back to the six sense spheres, and then repeats the series in the forward direction down to craving, nutriment and the whole mass of suffering. In ceasing mode, the SN version states that from the total fading away and ceasing of ignorance the rest cease in turn; the SA version states it from the ceasing of the six sense spheres to the end. Hence, the notion of nutriment in both versions is clearly connected with the series of causal condition." ...

"... these four are linked in some significant way with arising by causal condition. One of the discourses, SN 12. 63 = SA 373, provides a detailed explanation of each item. Briefly, the relevant teachings are as follows.

1. In material nutriment, one should know the desire (raga ... ) ...
2. In contact nutriment, one should know the three feelings ...
3. In volition nutriment, one should know the three cravings ...
4. In consciousness nutriment, one should know name-and-material form ..."

"The teachings on nutriment shared by the two versions indicate the importance of regarding material food as merely a means for supporting and maintaining living beings; and they identify the other three kinds of nutriment as factors in the series of arising by causal condition. In all cases the emphasis is on the role of sensual desire as a key causal factor making for continued rebirth or suffering."
------

Thomas

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by DooDoot » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:34 am

ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:20 pm
parallels
My impression is the Chinese parallels are hundreds of years later than the suttas. Regardless, I was satisfied with my conclusions posted here (unless someone more learned than me can offer alternate rational logical viewpoints). In short, it seems no where in the suttas the word 'ahara' means 'craving & appropriation'. Regards :alien:
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: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by ToVincent » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:17 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:34 am
ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:20 pm
parallels
My impression is the Chinese parallels are hundreds of years later than the suttas.
Oh !
You are still at that level !?!?
Ok - no problem.
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).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

ToVincent
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by ToVincent » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:18 pm

Volo wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:53 am
ToVincent wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:51 pm
Once more, the issue is not to know if manu (as "wise") exists or not (elsewhere) in the suttas, and if you prefer your reading of it- the issue is about the validity of looking at Sanskrit-English dictionaries, without being called "not-Buddhist".
One can do a more throughout study, investigating the term in Sanskrit, prakrit, etc. It can bring some better understanding, especially it might be useful in the case of terms with obscure meaning (like papañca). But this is a difficult work, one has to be an expert in linguistic, knowing how the language develops, what can change, what cannot, what is its early phase, what is late, etc, etc. But dubious suggestions (as prana from prajña, or manu in anuyogamanuyuttā) are not to be encouraged, because they confuse people.
Holly Molly!

Still giving me that "prana from prajña" stuff, when I have already explained lengthily that it wasn't what I meant - (but that the title was badly formulated).
Bad faith.

Pretty soon, everything I'll say will be put to the bin, because I say "this are" instead of "this is".

_____

"An expert in linguistic", you say.

I don't think one has to get to that extreme.
Just checking the meaning of a word in the pre- Buddhist literature will suffice. And it is even better, when the meaning goes across Buddha's time.

Like in our case, the meaning of √ हृ hṛ and आहार āhāra, in the Indian litterature (other than Buddhist).

______

You're right with papañca:
https://justpaste.it/3f6gs

Again, no need to be an "expert in linguistic".

What is needed before all, is a good understanding of the pre-Buddhist Indian philosophy.

And my use of manu as "wise" is not so "confusing".
I explain:
Manu is used in the suttas, I said previously, as the primeval man and thinking creature. His qualities are to be wise and virtuous.
The same way that the god Ka (as body = kāya = Ka-iya [what belongs to Ka]), has permanence and bliss as its qualities.
These are all the different transformations, the qualitative changes of Brahma/Prajāpati.
Knowing this, allows one to better understand the concept of anatta.

To understand that is crucial.
And this is when I usually see shields being raised in unisson, to protect the nonsense merry-go-round.
______

What is "confusing people" (as you say), is not when you give proper alternatives to the meaning of a word.
What is "confusing" is when a bunch of prominent people continue to give the rest of the people, a ride on the nonsense merry-go-round; just because giving alternatives, would show their inadequacy at having delivered the right message all along.

Unless this is done on another purpose.

When I said previously that anicca means also "not one's own", I get into the taboo land of the Universalist. And the shields are raised high.
And I hear the clamor "not-Buddhist".
What I say will be forever occulted; unless I become an "expert in linguistic", I suppose.
Or maybe it won't even be sufficient.

Yet, one cannot pretend to be a Buddhist, if he does not understand what Buddha was arguing against.
That is to say, against making the external (the khandhas) "ours"; where mixing the external and the internal into one, would lead to an Upanishadic permanent and blissful Ka/Prajāpati/Brahman/Atman(Atta). Which is simply sakkāyadiṭṭhi.

This is never adressed. This is taboo.

Tergiversation or apostasy?
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).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by Volo » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:57 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:18 pm
"An expert in linguistic", you say.

I don't think one has to get to that extreme.
Just checking the meaning of a word in the pre- Buddhist literature will suffice. And it is even better, when the meaning goes across Buddha's time.
Well, at least one has to know what one is doing. In some cases there is not much problem in checking Sanskrit dictionary, when the Sanskrit equivalent is clearly known. Of course, everyone can check āhāra or anitya. Their Sanskrit meaning can be taken into account (although Pali usage might be different), but you are doing more complicated things, like introducing new words in Pali.
Like in our case, the meaning of √ हृ hṛ and आहार āhāra, in the Indian litterature (other than Buddhist).
PED also derives āhāra from hṛ. But meaning of the word is not derived from its etymology (not always at least).
Manu is used in the suttas, I said previously, as the primeval man and thinking creature.
In which sutta? (DPPN gives only late sources like Culavamsa).
When I said previously that anicca means also "not one's own", I get into the taboo land of the Universalist.
For anitya Monier-Williams doesn't give "not one's own", there might be a reason for that. May be negative form is not used as "not one's own".

Also we have to take into account, how often the word is used in a particular meaning. If you check any big dictionary of any language, for common words you would have like 20 possible translations, which doesn't mean they all are equal. Do you know how often nitya is used as "one's own"? You find something in the dictionary and think it's enough to revise known translations.

ToVincent
Posts: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by ToVincent » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:58 pm

Volo wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:57 pm
ToVincent wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:18 pm
Manu is used in the suttas, I said previously, as the primeval man and thinking creature.
In which sutta? (DPPN gives only late sources like Culavamsa).
_________

Also we have to take into account, how often the word is used in a particular meaning.

Happy are those born of Manu
Sukhitāva te manujā
SN 2.12

(ja: from janati = born,produced,sprung or arisen from)
_____

Now I shall leave you.
I know how time-consuming it is to operate a merry-go-round.

On my side, I'll go count how often words are used in a particular meaning in the Monnier-Williams.
Quite a task in perspective indeed.

Hilarious.
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).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by DooDoot » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:11 am

ToVincent wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:58 pm
Now I shall leave you.
Please do. Your contributions to this thread appear to be unrelated to this sub-forum of sutta study.
ToVincent wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:18 pm
What is needed before all, is a good understanding of the pre-Buddhist Indian philosophy.
The above is irrelevant because common words (such as ahara) can be used in a different way by different teachers. It was comprehensively & unambiguously shown your definition of "ahara" was alien to the Pali suttas; yet you continued to post & denounce the Pali suttas; despite the Pali suttas thoroughly refuting your non-Buddhist point of view.
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: 552
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by ToVincent » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:48 pm

thomaslaw wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:45 am
Choong Mun-keat in his book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism pp. 202-204
discusses a few SN and SA discourses on the concept of ahara "nutriment".
Hi,

I agree that we should study the following texts with parallels.
That is to say SN 12.11/SA 371; SN 12.12/SA 372; SN 12.63/SA 373 & SN 12.64/SA 374.

SA 371 & 374 have been translated.
https://bit.ly/2N4kANU
https://bit.ly/2Ic7n73

And I agree that Choong Mun-keat has done a wonderful and helpful job with his book.
Yet, there are sometimes some flaws, as we will see.

Anyway, SN 12.63/SA 373 are great parallels to be studied, when it comes to āhāra.

________

Āhāra (nutriment) - 食 (shí: to eat) is obviously a figure of speech in most of the suttas/sutras; a trope to convey an underlying meaning.
You don't eat consciousness - Consciousness is not food to eat proper.

And that underlying meaning is to be taken from the pre-Buddhist literature (and from the context of the suttas with parallels).

आहार āhāra [ā-hāra] - fr. √ हृ hṛ
- fetching , bringing near (KātyŚr.)
- bringing near , procuring, being about to fetch , going to fetch (MBh.)
OR
- food ( e.g. ā-hāraṃ √ kṛ , to take food , eat MBh.)

:::::::::::
√ हृ hṛ
- fetch , bring RV.
- to take to one's self , appropriate, come into possession of ŚBr. GṛŚrS.
- to be taken or seized AV.
- to wish to take to one's self or appropriate , covet , desire , long for AV.
::::::::::::

My favorite meanings from the above - just because the significations span pre and post Buddha's era - are:
- bringing near (KātyŚr. Mbh.)
and
- "To wish to take to one's self (appropriate)" (AV), +
- "Being about to fetch" (Mbh.)

Note that I still consider valid, the trope "nutriment" as plain "food" (Mbh.), when that applies.
_______
thomaslaw wrote:
SN 12. 63 = SA 373, provides a detailed explanation of each item. Briefly, the relevant teachings are as follows.


This is what Choong Mun-keat says:
1. In material (kabaḷīkāro?) nutriment, one should know the desire (raga) - [SA mentions desire and craving] for the five gunas of sensuality.
2. In contact nutriment, one should know the three feelings.
3. In volition nutriment, one should know the three cravings.
4. In consciousness nutriment, one should know name-and-mater"

But this is not what is said in SN 12.63.
Choong Mun-keat seems to put the cart before the ox.

Let's see "contact" (phasso) in SN 12.63, for instance.
Choong Mun-keat says:
"In contact nutriment, one should know the three feelings"
but SN 12.63 says:
"When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood"

Not the same !

“And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment contact be seen? Suppose there is a flayed cow. If she stands exposed to a wall, the creatures dwelling in the wall would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to a tree, the creatures dwelling in the tree would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to water, the creatures dwelling in the water would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to the open air, the creatures dwelling in the open air would nibble at her. Whatever that flayed cow stands exposed to, the creatures dwelling there would nibble at her.

“It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment contact should be seen. When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood. When the three kinds of feeling are fully understood, I say, there is nothing further that a noble disciple needs to do.


Here the meaning of āhāra has a lot to do with the meaning of आहार āhāra in KātyŚr and Mbh. (as seen above).
That is to say, "bringing near".

------

I let you play with the three others.
- kabaḷīkāro (kabaḷa (morsel) + kāro)
- mano­sañ­ceta­nā (viz. ceta­nā with mano).
- viññāṇa

_________
DooDoot wrote:
your definition of "ahara" was alien to the Pali suttas

I do'nt think it is (they are) alien at all.

Anyway, I don't know what "alien" is.
I know brahmas, maras, and humans; but not aliens.
I am myself "born of Manu" (SN 2.12) - Namely human.
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).
------
We are all possessed - more or less.
------
And what, bhikkhu, is inward rottenness? Here someone is immoral, one of evil character, of impure and suspect behaviour, secretive in his acts, no ascetic though claiming to be one, not a celibate though claiming to be one, inwardly rotten, corrupt, depraved. This is called inward rottenness.”
SN 35.241
------
https://justpaste.it/j5o4

thomaslaw
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: SN 12.31: Why is the term "nutriment" used ???

Post by thomaslaw » Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:29 pm

ToVincent wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:48 pm

This is what Choong Mun-keat says:
1. In material (kabaḷīkāro?) nutriment, one should know the desire (raga) - [SA mentions desire and craving] for the five gunas of sensuality.
2. In contact nutriment, one should know the three feelings.
3. In volition nutriment, one should know the three cravings.
4. In consciousness nutriment, one should know name-and-mater"

But this is not what is said in SN 12.63.
Choong Mun-keat seems to put the cart before the ox.

Let's see "contact" (phasso) in SN 12.63, for instance.
Choong Mun-keat says:
"In contact nutriment, one should know the three feelings"
but SN 12.63 says:
"When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood"

Not the same !

“And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment contact be seen? Suppose there is a flayed cow. If she stands exposed to a wall, the creatures dwelling in the wall would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to a tree, the creatures dwelling in the tree would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to water, the creatures dwelling in the water would nibble at her. If she stands exposed to the open air, the creatures dwelling in the open air would nibble at her. Whatever that flayed cow stands exposed to, the creatures dwelling there would nibble at her.

“It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment contact should be seen. When the nutriment contact is fully understood, the three kinds of feeling are fully understood. When the three kinds of feeling are fully understood, I say, there is nothing further that a noble disciple needs to do.


Here the meaning of āhāra has a lot to do with the meaning of आहार āhāra in KātyŚr and Mbh. (as seen above).
That is to say, "bringing near".
I see! If I present in other words: In the three feelings, one should fully know the contact nutriment. :twothumbsup:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests