SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by tiltbillings »

kirk5a wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
So which part of "the all" is this "mind's awareness" which never dies?
It's not.
Like consciousness which "does not land" of SN 12.64? "It's not" part of "the all" in that sense?
If it is not in the "all" where is it? Also, that would make the Buddha wrong.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by kirk5a »

tiltbillings wrote:If it is not in the "all" where is it? Also, that would make the Buddha wrong.
That's what I was asking you. :smile: You said "it isn't" in the "all" so therefore... what. Doesn't exist? Must be a figment of the imagination?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sylvester »

beeblebrox wrote:
kirk5a wrote:As regards this sutta "The All" all I know is that the Buddha did talk about this "consciousness without feature" a little bit here and there, and so it would seem to present a difficulty in interpreting "The All" as meaning - there is nothing else besides the 6 sense and their objects. Or so it seems to me, but I'm always open to having misunderstood :smile:

Wouldn't that fit with what Sariputta says in the Kotthita Sutta?
[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"

[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And then the venerable Sāriputta goes on to say:
The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
This so-called "consciousness without feature" (as it is translated in here) is just a state where no one would be able to find any description for... since there are no objects that we can "stick" onto it, so to speak. That is why no one can ever measure a Tathāgata... even not another Tathāgata can.

:anjali:
Hi, I thought that I should just mention that the "objectifies" offered by Ven Thanissaro's translation is simply "papañceti", the verbal form of papanca. "Non-objectification" is just "appapañcaṃ". The problem was papancizing "appapañca".

Maybe the venerable has chosen to translate papanca as "objectification" in a subtle attempt to distance himself from the Abhidhammic "dhamma-s" theory. That may be legitimate, but when the scope of papanca in MN 18 is considered, it seems to me that we need not foist an anti-ontological intent for Ven Sariputta's discussion in AN 4.174.

So, the problem with Ven Kotthita's approach seems to have been that he was papacizing a "thing-ness" of "un-papancizability" to the tetralemma of the six contact media going into "asesavirāganirodhā ". This tetralemma occurs in many other places, such as Vacchagotta's questions to the Buddha in SN 44.10. In MN 18, Ven Thanissaro offers another translation option for papanca, ie reification, and I think this best describes Ven Sariputta's instructions in AN 4.174.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by beeblebrox »

Sylvester wrote:Hi, I thought that I should just mention that the "objectifies" offered by Ven Thanissaro's translation is simply "papañceti", the verbal form of papanca. "Non-objectification" is just "appapañcaṃ". The problem was papancizing "appapañca".
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize that they were papañca related words, and of course, I think it really makes a lot of sense. I think papañca is like a diffusion of ideas upon other ideas, and different objects layered upon other objects, among other objects... obscuring themselves even further, like a spiral of delusions.

Seems like when we try to papañcize what lies "beyond the range," we basically only obscure it even further, which would only vex us even more (of course). Objectification (and reification) is a type of papañca I think... but they don't seem to have the same depth of definition that the word papañca would have.

This is what PED have to say about papañca: [meaning uncertain whether identical with Sanskrit prapañca (pra+pañc), to spread out; meaning "expansion, diffuseness, manifoldedness"]; 1. obstacle, impediment, a burden which causes delay hindrance, delay; 2. illusion, obsession, hindrance to spiritual progress.

And papañceti: 1. to have illusions, to imagine, to be obsessed; 2. to be profuse, to talk much, to delay on.

I think "papañca" is one of the important words to know. Ven. Ñāṇananda talks about it in his "Concepts and Reality" book. "Concepts" are papañca.

:anjali:
Last edited by beeblebrox on Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by ground »

kirk5a wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:If it is not in the "all" where is it? Also, that would make the Buddha wrong.
That's what I was asking you. :smile: You said "it isn't" in the "all" so therefore... what. Doesn't exist? Must be a figment of the imagination?
But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind regards
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sherab »

tiltbillings wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:It's not.
Like consciousness which "does not land" of SN 12.64? "It's not" part of "the all" in that sense?
If it is not in the "all" where is it? Also, that would make the Buddha wrong.
It would seem then, that that which is beyond range in included in "the all". If so, what does this mean?
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sylvester »

kirk5a wrote:Like consciousness which "does not land" of SN 12.64? "It's not" part of "the all" in that sense?
Hi

I don't think it's correct to speak of "consciousness which does not land". SN 12.64 simply refers to "appatiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ" which does not describe a consciousness that floats around without contact. The phrase simply means "consciousness is not established there". SN 12.64 was discussing the 4 "ahara"/nutriment for the maintenance of beings, consciousness just being one of the 4. A little later in the sutta, the negation is discussed -
Viññāṇe ce bhikkhave, āhāre natthi rāgo, natthi nandi, natthi taṇhā. Appatiṭṭhitaṃ tattha viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ yattha appatiṭṭhitaṃ viññāṇaṃ avirūḷhaṃ, natthi tattha nāmarūpassa avakkanti.

Where there is no passion for the nutriment of consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form.
This is just the patiloma order of DO, and does not create a vinnana that will go on forever and ever as our happy Parinibbana Retirement Resort.
Last edited by Sylvester on Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sylvester »

Sherab wrote:It would seem then, that that which is beyond range in included in "the all". If so, what does this mean?

Hmm, how can something beyond range be included in the ALL?

The All has many things listed, but IMHO the central "player" is "phassa" (included in SN 35.24). Without contact, there is no consciousness, feelings or perceptions, those things that lead to papanca and Dukkha.

You should be able to see that the Buddha's discussion of the All is very limited. He only included in the All whatever was of soteriological utility in understanding and escaping from Dukkha. If Dukkha is nothing more than the 5 Aggregates Associated with Clinging, then pivotal to the 5 Aggregates is contact. If you can't make contact with something, you cannot suffer on account of it.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sherab »

Sylvester wrote: The phrase simply means "consciousness is not established there".
Is this what you meant: Where there is no nutriment, consciousness is not established there, i.e., there is no dependently arisen consciousness?
If so, does this mean that there is completely no consciousness whatsoever?
If so, does it also mean that the D.O. chain becomes completely non-existent as well?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by tiltbillings »

Who sees paticcasamuppada sees Dhamma, who sees Dhamma sees paticcasamuppda. - MN 1 190-1.

I think we need to be very, very careful about reading into descriptions of meditation experiences ontological status.
Recall that from the perspective of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali, the ‘All’ {SN IV 15} is composed entirely of phassa, contact between sense base and sense object. We can only directly know phenomena within this ‘world of experience’, so from the Theravadin perspective, we cannot know whether there really exists a ‘brain’ or a ‘body’ apart from moments of intellectual consciousness, of seeing (the image of a brain), and so on. The discourses of the Pali describe an individual world of experience as composed of various mental and physical factors, nama and rupa. These two are not the separate, independent worlds that Rene Descartes envisioned.

"…the Buddha spoke of the human person as a psychophysical personality (namarupa). Yet the psychic and the physical were never discussed in isolation, nor were they viewed as self-subsistent entities. For him, there was neither a ‘material-stuff’ nor a ‘mental-stuff’, because both are results of reductive analyses that go beyond experience."53
The physical and mental aspects of human experience are continually arising together, intimately dependent on one another.

53 Kalupahana 1976: 73, refers to D.15{II,62}, where the Buddha speaks of both
physicality and mentality mutually dependent forms of contact (phassa).
Physicality is described as contact with resistance (pat.ighasamphassa),
mentality as contact with concepts (adhivacanasamphassa).


STRONG ROOTS by Jake Davis, page 190-1. http://www.dharma.org/bcbs/Pages/docume ... gRoots.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by mikenz66 »

It's really interesting how suttas can be interpreted in several different ways.

This one can be read as a deep statement about the Buddha's philosopical/soteriology approach, as indicated by a number of posts.

But it can also be read, as indicated by Dave http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p117918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and Tilt http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p117921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as a taunting of those holding Bhraminic views ("my all beats your all...so there! :tongue:").

It seems to me that the Commentary picks up on the latter interpretation:
"If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and, further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because, Bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain."

Spk: People become vexed when they go outside their domain. just as it is outside one's domain to cross a deep body of water while carrying a stone palace on one's head, or to drag the sun and moon off their course, and one would only meet with vexation if one makes the attempt, so too in this case.
Quite a sense of humour here by both the Buddha and the Commentary... :tongue:

Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by tiltbillings »

mikenz66 wrote:It's really interesting how suttas can be interpreted in several different ways.

This one can be read as a deep statement about the Buddha's philosopical/soteriology approach, as indicated by a number of posts.

But it can also be read, as indicated by Dave http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p117918" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and Tilt http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p117921" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; as a taunting of those holding Bhraminic views ("my all beats your all...so there! :tongue:").
I would say both are the case.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by Sylvester »

Sherab wrote:
Sylvester wrote: The phrase simply means "consciousness is not established there".
Is this what you meant: Where there is no nutriment, consciousness is not established there, i.e., there is no dependently arisen consciousness?
If so, does this mean that there is completely no consciousness whatsoever?
If so, does it also mean that the D.O. chain becomes completely non-existent as well?

Errh, is DO susceptible to papancizing into "atthi" and "natthi"?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:I would say both are the case.
Yes, I agree, sorry if it sounded like one has to choose one option... The more the merrier in this case... :tongue:

Mike
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta: The All

Post by kirk5a »

Sylvester wrote: This is just the patiloma order of DO, and does not create a vinnana that will go on forever and ever as our happy Parinibbana Retirement Resort.
:rofl:

Ok just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you definitely disagreeing with the following interpretation of Ven Thanissaro:

"In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all"
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Locked