Doodoot wrote:You have a tendency to generalize and "spread out" a little bit too much, for me.
This comment is not in reference to anything I have written. To the contrary, this comment is very applicable to your own posts & not at all application to my posts, despite its irrelevance is any reasonable discussion. I consider my posts are an attempt at extreme accuracy to accord with the suttas, such as pointing out "satta" & "possession of sense objects" occurs specifically at "jati" (11th link) in the suttas. I imagine this is a Theravada forum where discussion is according to the Pali suttas.
You are answering me about contact - and in this particular case, the underlying meaning of "transfer of possesion" in the word "phassa" -
I already made posts with clear sutta references showing "contact" does not refer to "transfer of possession" because in many places in the suttas contact is said to be void of self. It does not matter what "phassa" means in Sanskrit because I have never personally read in suttas that phassa itself is "taking possession". The suttas say "jati" includes "taking possession" or "acquisition" of the sense spheres. What taking possession means is believing "I am the owner of this object; this sense object is mine
". Please, let us discuss the suttas rather than Hinduism, Mayanana & other philosophies.
and here comes, out of nowhere, "nati", "mati" and generally the concept of anussaya ?!?!?
No. Nati is not necessarily wholly related to anusaya
(underlying tendencies) in MN 19 & Dependent Origination. Anusaya
(underlying tendencies) are related to ignorance (1st link) and "erupt" as "asava" (1st link - refer to MN 9). Then, it is at nama-rupa (4th link) where nama (mentality), under the control of ignorance & heedlessness
, continues with the development of those eruptions (asava) or, otherwise
, if mindful
, perceives (4th link) those eruptions as unwholesome and makes the intention (4th) & gives attention (4th link) to turning back, abandoning & eradicating those eruptions (asava). Thus, in relation to Dependent Arising, where each link is without inner mindfulness, nama-rupa (4th link) will incline (namati) to follow the stream of those eruptions (asava; anusaya) rather than turn those asava-anusaya back.
This kind of dispersion, is either the shortcoming of newbies; or the intentional desire to have people getting lost in the "sea of the overmuch" (aka red herring).
I think the above comment is unnecessary; similar to your first comment. You appear to not be discussing the suttas but taking your personal idiosyncratic views to be the final truth.
I have posted 'nama-rupa' includes 'namati', which is mentality inclining to follow the stream of ignorance that has erupted at the 1st link. You have posted, in direct opposition or contradiction to the suttas, that nama-rupa is the 'descent' of a "satta". I have posted that the term "satta" is only found in the 11th link of dependent origination, which is "birth". You have posted contact (6th link) is taking possession of sense object & I replied in the Pali taking possession occurs at the 11th link called "jati" ("birth").
I think I have strongly adhered to the suttas where as you keep citing Sankrit, Agama, etc, which are not the suttas. I am certainly not engaged in any kind of "dispersion" but if I kept referring to non-sutta ideas this would appear to be "dispersion".
Sometimes also, there are people who had not understood things properly.
I think this comment is true. In MN 61, the Buddha asked this 7 year old newbie son Rahula what is the purpose of a mirror. Thus, only by continued reflection we can judge whether we understand things properly.
And when someone teaches them the proper understanding of those things; they do appropriate that (with "contact"), repeat it in a different phrasing, and add up a bit to it (usually out of context,), like saying "you know, I knew better!". Charming.
If this comment is asserting you have taught phassa properly, I must disagree. I already posted from MN 148 & elsewhere, which clearly say "phassa" is not taking possession because these suttas say phassa can occur with the wisdom of voidness. These suttas essentially say arahants have "phassa".
Your first statement is not uninteresting - something I usually call an "exercise of style" - and therefore, still a little bit confused. It gives somewhat a "big picture" of what is going on. And somewhat follows so far what I have been expounding.Anyway, who could give a short clear "big picture"?
I don't know what you are talking about here. As I posted initially in this reply, you are not replying here to anything specific I have posted but just making generalised comments,
But what's the point of the anussaya, in that "exercise of style" of yours; with the meaning of "transfer of possession" in the word "phassa"?
There is no transfer of possession in the word "phassa" according to the suttas. In the Pali suttas, phassa refers to the meeting of three phenomena, namely, sense organ, sense object & sense consciousness. Neither of these three things can exist independently of each other, as explained in MN 38. You seem to be saying there is an "independent consciousness", similar to an "Atman/Soul", that takes possession of sense-objects where as the suttas say (MN 148; MN 18; MN 38, etc) that the arising of consciousness is dependent upon
the sense bases.
You seem to adress that issue in your second statement, though; that is to say, the meaning of "transfer of possession" (phassa) in reference to the SN 12.2 extract - in which phassa would be equated to paṭilābho.
No. Phassa is completely unrelated to possession/paṭilābho. It is you that is inferring phassa is possession/paṭilābho. I have mentioned the suttas say jati (11th link of birth) includes paṭilābho. But you are saying phassa (6th link) is possession/paṭilābho.
My reading of that extract is that "pati-labh-ing" is something that is done since the contact (phasso) nidāna.
Yes. This is your reading but in my reading the suttas is not the same as your reading because paṭilābho is only mentioned at the 11th link and nowhere else.
"Āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho" could apply to any link or process, betweeen phassa and jāti.
Not according to the suttas but only according to your personal ideas, views & opinions. You may certainly believe this yourself but you certainly are not convincing me.
In this sketch - https://justpaste.it/1695d
- see the note in the top left: "the latter nidāna "inherits" the elements of the formers, when it applies. A little bit like in object oriented programming, in computer science. I would even add that they can be overridden as well.
Thanks. But I find little in the suttas to support this sketch, particularly its reliance on SN 12.59.
Also, paṭilābho has an underlying meaning of "wishing" to acquire, that does not have phassa. The latter being just the fact that something has been transferred.
Paṭilābho is used in the suttas in contexts such as acquisition of wisdom (AN 8.2), gaining of faith (SN 55.1), gaining of individuality (attabhavo - AN 4.171), obtaining equanimity (MN 106 ) and acquiring a view ( SN 42.8). You seem to be dispersing the discussion based in Sanskrit dictionaries rather than using the suttas.
The original core view of paṭiccasamuppāda is obviously the 12 links found in the Udana (Ud 1.1), SN 12.2, SN 12, MN 9, MN 38, etc. Then later views would be the different links, both in number & particularly definition
, found in DN 15, Agamas and then later in Visuddhimagga, etc, i.e., the 3 lifetimes model that really has no direct support in the original core suttas (apart from DN 15).
It think in this topic the definition of nama-rupa found in DN 15 seems to predominate because my impression is Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda relies mostly on the DN 15 definition and bends the SN 12.2 definition to conform with the DN 15 definition. For me, at least, I keep the definitions in DN 15 separate from those in SN 12.2. I do not regard DN 15 to be authentic but, as stated even by conservative scholars, as part of the DN which was primarily composed for propagation to or conversion of Brahmans. The term 'nama-rupa' appears very important in Brahmanism and, at least in my opinion, the Buddha would have used 'nama-rupa' in some contexts to mean exactly what Brahmans held it to mean when he was talking to Brahmans.
In this thread, I have decided to use/contribute Buddhaghosa's definition of 'nama', namely, 'to bend' or 'incline' ('namati').