DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:06 pm 4 = 2+2

The above is the sort of equivalency you are talking about, where one side of the literal "equation" is completely identical to, exhaustively corresponding to, the other side of the equation and each side is interchangeable without loss of meaning. For instance here 2+2=4 is the same as 4=2+2 which surprises no one. However, there are also classes of equivalency. For instance, if B is the set of all balls, and ~ is the equivalence relation "is coloured identically", in that case, one particular equivalence class consists of all of the red balls, and B/~ could be identified with the set of all ball colours. The only equivalency relation that you want admitted is "is (utterly) equal to." That's fine. It's a normal usage of "equates to," but I don't think that is what the poster meant.
Equivalence of class, as you say, relates to all subsets of S having the same equivalence relation (~): Taking X to be the set of all polygons, ~ to be the equivalent relation of "same number of sides" then one set would be triangles and another pentagons (among others), both of which can be identified with all polygons with the same number of sides:

X/~

Whilst this is a mathematical equivalence of groups, it does not help us much here. Consider again our case above. All triangles in the subset of S would be equivalent in terms of having the same number of sides and so we can make the following statement:

"Triangles have the same number of sides"

The predicate here is describing the subject "triangle", thus standing in relation to it. We can't however say that the predicate and subject are equivalent, as in synonyms, since "triangle" and "same number of sides" do not share the same meaning. If "triangle" meant the same as "same number of sides" then we should be able to do the following:

"Squares have the same number of sides"

"Squares are triangles"


We can't do this because "triangle" and "same number of sides" are not interchangeable. If we change them the meaning is also altered. Consider further still differences within a class:

"This triangle has three 60° angles"

Here the predicate of "60°angles" is modifying the noun "triangle". If they were equivalent then we could plug in "three 60°angles" instead of "equilateral triangle" without any loss of meaning for any triangle. However, the two are not equivalent despite being within the same equivalence class since not all triangles are equilateral. Now, "equilateral" and "three 60° angles" are equivalent. We can interchange them without any loss of meaning:

"This triangle has three 60° angles"

"This triangle is equilateral"


No meaning has been lost because the words are fully interchangeable. It's important to note that this only relates to the predicate and not the subject here. Returning to our equivalent classes we have the subject "polygons" with the predicate "same number of sides" with a subset of "3 sided shape" which is a synonym for "triangle". Taking triangle as the subject, all sub-classes of 3 sided shapes would also be triangles thus being tautological and equivalent, but the adjectival predicate of each triangle within that sub-set would be different. We would also have "3 sided shape" being non-interchangeable with the set "polygons". Therefore, in any given statement which is synthetic the subject and predicate can never be equivalent, i.e. synonyms, since the predicate is modifying the noun rather than being interchangeable with it. Returning to our subject at hand, whilst kāyo rūpī can belong to an equivalent class we still cannot say that kāyo and rūpī are equivalent. Just like how "3 sided polygon" is not equivalent to "polygon", so to "kāyo rūpī" is not equivalent to "kāyo"
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by ToVincent »

A fat lot of good that does me.

Still, rūpa is not just a mere "form/appearance".
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:06 pm A fat lot of good that does me.

Still, rūpa is not just a mere "form/appearance".
.
.
Not that you have shown.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pmWhilst this is a mathematical equivalence of groups, it does not help us much here.
Well, perhaps my bringing up of the mathematical material obfuscated instead of clearing. I was imagining a set of red balls where the only thing they had in common was their redness. They could be whatever size and texture, etc. I wanted to dwell specifically on relations of equivalency rather than just equivalency to point out that there are more than one kind of relation of equivalency. Three balls can be equivalent inasmuch as they are red. Equivalency needn't be exhaustive, as I mentioned above, but it can be. The adjectives can be equivalent in that they all refer to the same noun, on a very crude basic level of just grammar. It doesn't have to mean that each adjective exhaustively describes all qualities that the noun it corresponds to has. Another example using our previous character: John is fat, strange, and constipated. Fatness, strangeness, and constipation are all (correctly) equated here inasmuch as they are all things that John is suffering from and/or currently categorized as. They don't have to all be the same thing or all be "all that John is."
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 6:14 pmReturning to our subject at hand, whilst kāyo rūpī can belong to an equivalent class we still cannot say that kāyo and rūpī are equivalent. Just like how "3 sided polygon" is not equivalent to "polygon", so to "kāyo rūpī" is not equivalent to "kāyo"
Consider though, who is saying this? We are dealing with a specific instance of "kāyo rūpī." If someone were to take this and infer that kāya in "nāmakāyo" means "nāmakāyo rūpī" and that kāya in "nikāyo" means "nikāyo rūpī," or if they equated all instances of what was rūpī as what was also mātāpettikasambhavo, that would be very silly and an example of what you suggest as I understand it.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

ToVincent wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:06 pm A fat lot of good that does me.

Still, rūpa is not just a mere "form/appearance".
.
.
tell me what you know ..

the concept of form in Vedismo, pre Buddhist and post Buddhist..

:namaste:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
User avatar
Lucas Oliveira
Posts: 1890
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:07 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Lucas Oliveira »

This discussion of form reminded me of the concept of the Hologram...
Holography is the science and practice of making holograms. A hologram, also known as a holograph,[1] (from the Greek for "whole description" or "whole picture") is a recording of an interference pattern which uses diffraction to reproduce a 3D light field, resulting in an image which still has the depth, parallax, and other properties of the original scene.[2] A hologram is a photographic recording of a light field, rather than an image formed by a lens. The holographic medium, for example the object produced by a holographic process (which may be referred to as a hologram) is usually unintelligible when viewed under diffuse ambient light. It is an encoding of the light field as an interference pattern of variations in the opacity, density, or surface profile of the photographic medium. When suitably lit, the interference pattern diffracts the light into an accurate reproduction of the original light field, and the objects that were in it exhibit visual depth cues such as parallax and perspective that change realistically with the different angles of viewing. That is, the view of the image from different angles represents the subject viewed from similar angles. In this sense, holograms do not have just the illusion of depth but are truly three-dimensional images.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography
New evidence for Holographic Universe backs up ancient esoteric teachings

When light interacts with an interference pattern to produce a three dimensional image, most commonly with the assistance of a laser, we get a hologram.

In a Holographic Universe where does consciousness come into play? If we replace the word “light” in the above description with “consciousness” we get a completely radical understanding.

“You are not a drop in the ocean. You are the entire ocean in a drop.” – Rumi

“The universe exists in infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness is unmanifest, though omnipresent, even as space, existing everywhere, is manifest.” – The Yoga-Vasistha

https://sociable.co/technology/holograp ... hilosophy/
For the CIA Astral Plane exists and is potential Parapolitic weapon (Portuguese)

Image

But it appears that the document suggests something much bigger, in addition to the espionage missions or rescue of kidnapped officers.

The document also discusses the concept of consciousness as energy trapped in a three-dimensional space in which the entire Universe would present itself as a hologram. However, this energy belongs to the “Absolute” (“The Absolute”) an original and infinite state that would transcend the different holograms by which each reality is represented on each vibrational level of the Astral Plane.

The goal would be to expand consciousness until it reaches the dimension of the Absolute in which no hologram is generated on itself. Without more time / space restrictions, consciousness would reach the “foci” from 15 to 21 - the journey of consciousness in time from the past to the future.

But the curious thing is one of the final conclusions of the document that open up for possible future research: intellectually preparing astral projectors for “possible encounters with forms of intelligent and non-bodily energies when space and time limits are exceeded”.

https://cinegnose.blogspot.com/2017/10/ ... e-e-e.html
:namaste:
I participate in this forum using Google Translator. http://translate.google.com.br

http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by ToVincent »

Lucas Oliveira wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 8:38 pm This discussion of form reminded me of the concept of the Hologram...
....
Listen friend, I am not really interested in that interpretative aspect of cosmology.
I'd rather stick to the matter at stake — namely:
"Does kāya has to do with matter?"

As noted before (+ a visual representation):
Rūpa takes on the three meanings of the suttas - that is to say:
- mahābhūtāna rūpa (fire, water, earth, air).
- upādāya rūpa (The "forms derived" from them [e.g. a tree]).
- bāhirāni āyatanāni rūpa (the "sight" [e.g. of a tree]).

Kāya being an upādāya rūpa —the same way that a tree is an upādāya rūpa — a simple question would be: "does a body running into a tree, (with the sense of touch), runs into an appearance (e. g. hologram) — or does it run into matter? — as in, matter runs into matter?
If rūpa can also mean" matter" (as seen below) - wouldn't it possibly be the case?

On what ground can one affirm, with much sureties based on pretendings, and therefore dubious knowledge, that rūpa means only "image/appearance".

---------

Now an Eel-wriggler, running on deviling, asks for the proof that rūpa is not just a mere "image/appearance" — while he had given HIMSELF, the proof of it, a few posts earlier - namely:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39902&p=617862#p617862

Rūpin (adj.) [fr. rūpa] 1. having material qualities, possessed of form or shape or body or matter, belonging to the realm of form. rūpī is nearly always contrasted with arūpī, formless.

?!?!?!?!

As far as rūpa itself is concerned in Sanskrit, I already told him that he should not rely only on the sole reference of the M.W. dictionary. Rūpa doesn't just appear in the RV.
As a matter of fact, I already told him to read Veda to have a big picture of it - and not just pretend to have done so.
A search on the pre-Buddhist texts - (providing he knows what they are) - would not even be sufficient.

Metta
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by ToVincent »

I mean "kāya being an upādāya rūpa", in the case of the ajjhattikka āyatana - of course.
https://justpaste.it/img/8b5aab8360db19 ... 2d3961.png

Again, kāya is the ci in action => different determinations — of which kāya, as ajjhattikka āyatana, is the sensory (physical + *) actualization.

* For instance, the "eye" — another ajjhattikka āyatana — is not just the optics of the eye; but involves also deeper structures in the brain.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:44 am
Kāya being an upādāya rūpa —the same way that a tree is an upādāya rūpa — a simple question would be: "does a body running into a tree, (with the sense of touch), runs into an appearance (e. g. hologram) — or does it run into matter? — as in, matter runs into matter?
If rūpa can also mean" matter" (as seen below) - wouldn't it possibly be the case?
This does not establish matter let alone rūpa as matter.
Now an Eel-wriggler, running on deviling, asks for the proof that rūpa is not just a mere "image/appearance" — while he had given HIMSELF, the proof of it, a few posts earlier - namely:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=39902&p=617862#p617862

Rūpin (adj.) [fr. rūpa] 1. having material qualities, possessed of form or shape or body or matter, belonging to the realm of form. rūpī is nearly always contrasted with arūpī, formless.
In the interest of transparency and honesty I provided the entire definition. If I hadn't I could easily be accused of being misleading by only quoting the parts which agreed with me, which it would be. This, however, is not definitive proof on its own. Many pāli dictionaries get their definitions from the Abhidhamma or commentarial texts. Nothing wrong in that of course, and those texts could well be right, but they offer little if said definition is what is being called into question. They are helpful in establishing that x definition is possible. Its not impossible that rūpa means matter, I just don't think it is likely.
As far as rūpa itself is concerned in Sanskrit, I already told him that he should not rely only on the sole reference of the M.W. dictionary. Rūpa doesn't just appear in the RV.
No, but it is found in there. For example:

tveṣaṃ rūpaṃ kṛṇuta uttaraṃ yat saṃpṛñcānaḥ sadane gobhir adbhiḥ
He makes him a most noble form of splendour, decking him in his home with milk and waters.


ṚV, 1, 95, 8.1

If you have an example where rūpa means "matter" it would be interesting to see it.
As a matter of fact, I already told him to read Veda to have a big picture of it - and not just pretend to have done so.
A search on the pre-Buddhist texts - (providing he knows what they are) - would not even be sufficient.
I'm beginning to suspect that contrary to your claims you know little of said texts. Another point, earlier you complained when I provided a definition based on pre and post Buddhist sources. If I had based it only on pre-Buddhist sources, you would have complained (since you ask for pre and post sources). It seems the only consistency here is complaining and gainsaying for the sake of gainsaying. You also have not addressed an earlier question of mine regarding the apparent inconsistency of your methodology through your adoption of the Sarvāstivādin definition of nāmarūpa despite it having no parallel in pāli, apart from later commentaries?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by ToVincent »

For the people on this forum

viewtopic.php?p=617862#p617862

please note that MBh. & Kāv. are both post-Buddhist.
MBh. - why not as a pre-post "literature" (who knows where to date exactly a word's meaning in that text (better consider it as "post") — but the kāvya literature !?!?!?! - Come on!

(Should I bother with the rest of this "eel-wriggling" and synthetic a priori nonsense? - (he is beginning to suspect!?!?! )
.
.
Last edited by ToVincent on Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22382
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:14 pm For the people on this forum

viewtopic.php?p=617862#p617862

please note that MBh. & Kāv. are both post-Buddhist.
MBh. - why not as a pre-post "literature" (who knows where to date exactly a word's meaning in that text (better consider it as "post") — but the kāvya literature !?!?!?! - Come on!

(Should I bother with the rest of this "eel-wriggling" and synthetic a priori nonsense?)
.
.
You ask for references from pre and post Buddhist sources. I give a definition from a dictionary based on said references. You complain that the references are post-Buddhist. The only consistency here is you complaining and attacking me for any reason, even at the cost of your own internal consistency. Likely this is due to me calling you an amateur in the past. Get over it, life is short.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by ToVincent »

Deviling as usual.

As already mentioned many times:

If one wants to add a post-Buddhist reference to an already existing pre-Buddhist reference, that's fine - (It will show a great probability that the meaning spanned Buddha's era).
But one, two, or more post-Buddhist references, without a pre-Buddhist reference is nonsense.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: DN 2 conclusively details: What is rūpa (form), and a-rūpa in four jhānas context?

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:11 pm
ToVincent wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:06 pm A fat lot of good that does me.

Still, rūpa is not just a mere "form/appearance".
.
.
Not that you have shown.
Body is an appearance(rupa) if to know it is anicca. Anicca is characteristic of existence.
If we don't know that, then we identify(sakkaya) with the rupa and thus there is no body, instead there is sakkaya ditthi.
Post Reply