Ah, that's clearer now. As I was pointing out to TV, a "dwelling" as in a substantive noun would have been the upaṭṭhāna within the compound satipaṭṭhāna. We see it used adverbally as such -cjmacie wrote:It looked like "dwelling" was being used to mean a participial action -- nominalization of period of abiding, in this case a pondering / contemplating on a Sati=patthana, I guess -- and hence the reference to the verb vihati. Your critique seemed to take "dwelling" as the noun for a place of residing, a house, monastery, or whatnot (i.e. as you put it, vihara).Sylvester wrote:1. I have to confess i still don't get the dwellings bit. May i trouble you to dwell on it and elaborate? Are you saying that viharati is a verbal noun? That is unlikely, as a form is available in Pali to convey this.
parimukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā
having established mindfulness to the fore
Here you go - http://pali.hum.ku.dk/cpd/What's "CPD"? so I can look at it.Sylvester wrote:2a See the CPD entry
The Critical Pali Dictionary is a lovely tool, as it stratifies the lexicography of Pali words according to the Vinaya first, then the suttas, then the Abhidhamma, and then the post-canonical works.
Pearl's work is not an essay - it's 400 pages! But having gone through L.G. Neuberg's review and reading Cap. 9 of the work, it appears to be a work directed at scientists and jurists. It deals with the inferential method called Induction, ie how probable was A the "cause" of B. Am I correct in this? If so, that will have little bearing on the non-scientific conception of "causation" that pre-occupied us in the Timeless Model thread, since that was a discussion of what must necessarily be true, instead of the scientific community's acceptance of what is probably true. I particularly like Example 2 in section 9.3.2 regarding the firing squad with 2 gunmen. The statistical dis-proof of Shooter A being a necessary condition, when Shooter B is a sufficient condition, can be contrasted to Example 4 in section 9.3.4 which established that a particular drug was the cause of death, because the probability of that drug being a necessary condition was 1. As statistics does not play a role in the suttas, I think it will be difficult to import Pearl's discussion into conversations on Dependant Arising. The view I expressed in the Timeless Model thread was that This-That Conditionality is a retrospective search for necessary conditions, leading to my disagreement with translations and interpretations such as Ven T's.If I read that (where it is?) will you read the J. Pearl essay?Sylvester wrote:2b You'll have to read the entire Timeless Model of PS thread for my arguments on grammatical grounds and textual grounds as to the meaning of the existential locative absolute used in This-That Conditionality. That reading circumvents all of the "association" limitations imposed by Hume's Fork on "cause" and "effect".
If by "association" you mean statistical association and probability, I would disagree that Buddhist causation is probabilistic, as the texts appear clear to me to be taking idappaccayatā to be certain (ie having a probability of 1), even if it is not strictly deterministic.
If you're still interested in wading into the said thread, here it is - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=26072
I'll try to take that apart. Where's it from? I couldn't find it in the Pali (at SN 48.50) -- was the identification before correct (SN 48.50, and not SN 46.56 that was mentioned just prior)?Sylvester wrote:3 -
Saddhassa hi, sāriputta, ariyasāvakassa āraddhavīriyassa upaṭṭhitassatino etaṃ pāṭikaṅkhaṃ yaṃ vossaggārammaṇaṃ karitvā labhissati samādhiṃ, labhissati cittassa ekaggataṃ
It's definitely there - https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn48.50. You popped into SN 48.58 by mistake.