Alex123 wrote:It would be misleading on Buddha's part to use perception based on visible form to designate perception of object coming from the mind only.
Now, now. Petitio principii
. You've not proven that "rūpa" in "rūpasañña" means "cakkhuviññeya rūpa", so how can you read the Buddha as intending "perception based on visible form"? You still have not offered any rejoinder to how MN 102 furnishes the context in which rūpasañña and arūpasañña are to be understood.
Without 5 saññā-s , what is left is dhammasaññā (or perception of such-and-such an āyatana). If we say that ALL 5 senses shut down in 1st Jhāna, then we couldn't go above 4th Jhāna, it would be Nirodha Sammapatti.
Wherein does your logic lie? Just because 5 indriyas do not make phassa with the 5 kāmā during the Rupa Jhana-s, does not mean that ONLY the Arupa attainments have a mental āyatana. Isn't the perception of Jhanic pitisukha also a dhammasaññā (per DN 9)? Or are you proposing the niramisa sukha are material and not mental? If you are going to suggest that perception of Jhanic pitisukha is a rūpasañña, perhaps you may like to offer a re-writing of the 1st Jhana's "born of seclusion" formula and DN 9.
"And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.
If rūpa is some sort of mental only object with no physical base, then how can it ever experience "[i]touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles."
It is clearly a 3-dimensional object that can be seen.
Has anyone argued that "rūpa is some sort of mental only object with no physical base"? Now certainly, a human rūpa is afflicted by those things, but do flies and mosquitoes roam the Rupaloka? Or are you suggesting that there flies with fine-rupa in the Brahmaloka to afflict the Brahmas?
Why did the Buddha instruct the baby-Brahma (ex Hatthaka) to take on a "gross" (oḷārika) appearance, as its original rupa kept collapsing under gravity (AN 3.128)? In fact, instead of using "rupa", the Buddha instructed Hatthaka to take on a "gross" attabhāva (personality); this choice of word serves probably to distinguish how Brahmas experience rūpa versus the kamaloka beings.
I mentioned this to you before in another forum, namely your line of reasoning presupposes that a human's rupa is always establishing contact/phassa with the exterior. You're short-circuiting DO by jumping straight from Namarupa to Phassa, bypassing Salayatana completely. You're completely ignoring MN 28's account of the cognitive process and the necessity of tajja samanahara. Your model requires that tajja samanahara is always present when a rupa is present, which violates MN 28's allowance for its absence. As it is, I am not even conscious of my underwear or socks or watch or assorted piercings, even though each of these is a kāma in the form of tactility.
As for the "cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles" that afflicts a human's rūpa, check out all the many suttas that deal with the allure and drawbacks of the kāmā (plural). In those suttas, the unpleasant feelings that arise with contact with "cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles" are specifically identified as the drawback (adinava) in the case of the kāmā. Seems pretty clear to me that the Buddha was thinking of "cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles" as being examples of kāmā, while the allure section portrays the Buddha depicting another example of kāmā, namely the kāmaguṇā. Check out MN 13 as a representative sutta of this genre.
What is the difference between 4th Jhana and base of infinite space? In 4th Jhana one can still perceive rūpa (rūpasaññā is not yet overcomed). In the base of infinite space one cannot. Hence, base of infinite space, is an arūpa attainment.
Not according to MN 102. That sutta offers a totally different meaning of rūpasaññā and arūpasaññā in the context of the rūpaloka and arūpaloka. They do not mean "perception of form/formless", but "perception in the form/formless world".
Even if I totally discount MN 102's explanation of rūpasaññā and arūpasaññā, and adopt the standard translation to be "perception of form", AN 3.128 gives a very clear indication that a Brahma's rūpa is absolutely nothing like a human's rūpa.
Sensuality (kāma) is purely mental and it comes from defilements which are purely mental. Seeing, hearing, etc, are Not defilements themselves. It is mental addition of kāma that makes it unwholesome, and what is unwholesome is kāma, not this or that viññāṇaṃ.
Not a relevant point to the discussion. Kāma is addressed in 1st Jhana's second seclusion formula. We are discussing the 1st Jhana's first seclusion formula which discusses kāmā. You can't seem to shake off conflating kāmā with kāma.
If desire and seeing (or hearing) where identical, then the only way to get rid of desire was to stop seeing or hearing. In such a case a blind-deaf person would be fully awakened for s/he doesn't see or hear.
If you reductio ad absurdum were valid, it would mean that suttas such as MN 148 and MN 152, which explicitly promise the possibility of equanimity and the freedom from raganusaya and patighanusaya on contacting the allure and drawback of kāmā, are false. I'll take my chances with the suttas' promise of the efficacy of satipatthana.
And kāmā is not 5 sense objects. It is purely mental event that originates from kilesas and ignorance which are totally mental. So in that part what is suppressed is the mental defilements, not ethically neutral phenomena such as this or that viññāṇa.
Not according to the CPD. Not according to the allure and drawback suttas.
"the eye is not the fetter of forms, nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds... The nose is not the fetter of aromas... The tongue is not the fetter of flavors... The body is not the fetter of tactile sensations... The intellect is not the fetter of ideas, nor are ideas the fetter of the intellect, but whatever desire & passion arises in dependence on the two of them: That is the fetter there.""
- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Which only addresses the 1st Jhana's second seclusion formula...