Iti 63

[Ceisiwr]

I guess maybe. Are you suggesting that the three times qualifier was added to the Pāli version as a way to polemicize against Sarvāstivādin tri-temporality? I don't totally get what you mean here.

Yes, as well as the Pudgalavādins since they also accepted tri-temporal realism.

[Coëmgenu]

Here is the other parallel:

應說想眾生 依應說安住 不了知應說 而招集生死
若了知應說 於說者無慮 由無有此故 他不應譏論
若計等勝劣 彼遂興諍論 於三種無動 等勝劣皆無
斷名色愛慢 無著煙寂靜 無惱悕不見 此彼天人世

What can be expressed is the perception of sentient beings,
[who] dwell by what is to be expressed;
not understanding what can be expressed,
is in tandem with birth and death.
If fully understanding what can be expressed,
One does not worry about what others express;
because he does not have this [concern],
others should not censure [him].
If one thinks “the equal, the superior and the inferior,”
one would then engage in disputes [on this account];
because one is not shaken in the three [discriminations],
there is no [notion of] equality, superiority or inferiority at all.
One who cuts off name and form, craving, conceit,
has no attachment [like] the stillness of smoke;
absence of vexation and expectation,
this one cannot be found in the heavens or any of the abodes.

(Yogācārabhūmiśāstra, Śarīrārthagāthā 3.1.2, T1579.370b29–c7 translated by Hsu-Feng Lee)

You will find it on pages 92 & 93 of this study of the Śarīrārthagāthā. That same paper also gives us translations of the Sanskrit and Tibetan parallels:

(2) Sanskrit version:
ākhyeyasaṃjñinaḥ sattvā, ākhyeye 'smin pratiṣṭhitāḥ |
ākhyeyam aparijñāya, yogam āyānti mṛtyunaḥ ||
ākhyeyaṃ tu parijñāya, ākhyātāraṃ na manyate |
tad vai na vidyate tasya, vadeyur yena taṃ pare ||
samo viśeṣa uta vāpi hīno, yo manyate sa vivadeta tena |
vidhātraye 'smin na vikampate yaḥ, samo viśiṣṭaś ca na tasya bhavati ||
ācchidya tṛṣṇām iha nāmarūpe, prahāya mānaṃ ca na saṅgam eti |
taṃ śāntadhūmam anighaṃ nirāśaṃ, nādrākṣus te devamanuṣyaloke |
iha bāhirataś ca || (Enomoto 1989: 24 [YBh 113a3–5; ŚrBh 3a7.4f])

[The Buddha said:]
Sentient beings conscious of what can be expressed,
fixed in what can be expressed;
not fully understanding what can be expressed,
come under the yoke of death.
But having fully understood what can be expressed,
one does not think about the one who expresses;
that does not exist for him
by which others might blame him.
One who thinks “equal, superior or inferior,”
might thereby engage in dispute.
One who is not shaken in these three kinds [of discrimination]
does not have the [thought] “equal or better [than others].”
Cutting off craving in this life in regard to name and form,
and abandoning conceit, one does not develop attachment.
They did not see him who is like abated smoke, free from troubles,
without desire in the world of gods and humans,
in this life and beyond.

(3) Tibetan version:
/ sems can brjod bya'i 'du shes can /
/ brjod bya la ni gnas pa rnams /
/ brjod bya yongs su mi shes pas /
/ 'chi ba dang ni phrad par 'gyur /
/ brjod bya yongs su shes na ni /
/ gang gis de la gzhan dag gis /
/ brjod pa de ni de la med /
/ brjod pa por ni sems pa med /
/ mtshungs sam khyad zhugs 'on te dma'o zhes /
/ gang 'dzin de ni des na rtsod par 'gyur /
/ gang zhig rnam pa gsum la mi g.yo ba /
/ de la mtshungs dang khyad par zhugs pa med /
/ 'dir ni ming dang gzugs la sred bcad cing /
/ nga rgyal spangs nas chags pa med pa de /
/ dud pas sangs shing 'joms med re ba med /
/ lha mi'i 'jig rten dag na de mi snang /
(Peking 5536.255a4–7; Derge 4035.220b5–221a1)

[The Buddha said:]
Sentient beings conscious of what can be expressed,
who abide in what can be expressed;
not fully understanding what can be expressed,
come to meet with death.
[As to one] fully understanding what can be expressed,
what is expressed about him by others
does not exist for him,
[because] he has given no attention to the one who expresses.
Fixating on that which is called “equal, superior or inferior,”
one will lead to dispute.
But for one who is unmoving in the three types [of discrimination],
there is no equality or superiority.
Cutting off craving in this life in regard to name and form,
having abandoned conceit, there is no attachment
like vanished smoke, it cannot be destroyed or hoped for;
one cannot be seen in the worlds of gods and humans.

(p. 93-5)

[Ceisiwr]

Here is the other parallel:

應說想眾生 依應說安住 不了知應說 而招集生死
若了知應說 於說者無慮 由無有此故 他不應譏論
若計等勝劣 彼遂興諍論 於三種無動 等勝劣皆無
斷名色愛慢 無著煙寂靜 無惱悕不見 此彼天人世

What can be expressed is the perception of sentient beings,
[who] dwell by what is to be expressed;
not understanding what can be expressed,
is in tandem with birth and death.
If fully understanding what can be expressed,
One does not worry about what others express;
because he does not have this [concern],
others should not censure [him].
If one thinks “the equal, the superior and the inferior,”
one would then engage in disputes [on this account];
because one is not shaken in the three [discriminations],
there is no [notion of] equality, superiority or inferiority at all.
One who cuts off name and form, craving, conceit,
has no attachment [like] the stillness of smoke;
absence of vexation and expectation,
this one cannot be found in the heavens or any of the abodes.

(Yogācārabhūmiśāstra, Śarīrārthagāthā 3.1.2, T1579.370b29–c7 translated by Hsu-Feng Lee)

You will find it on pages 92 & 93 of this study of the Śarīrārthagāthā.

Thanks. I suspected it would be missing the opening line about time.

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr wrote

Reading and Understanding are two different things

I agree, did I say I did not understand what I read? My understanding however is independent of abhidhamma.
You asked

Did the Buddha feel pain?

he did, but he did not think "His body was in pain", if you can understand the subtle nuance here.
What do you mean by sanna? Do you mean consciousness? Buddha did not have a consciousness like we do.
He had escaped the worldly consciousness that continues to make Nama-rupa and keeps one trapped in samsara.
You would know this if you understood Paticca-samuppada, or of you understood the sutta on Origination SN 47.42.
The problem with the unenlightened is when he feels a bodily pain, he registers the pain, and thinks "this body of mine is in pain" and mentally proliferates from there onwards. Other than bodily pain, Buddha did not have pains or suffering due to issues related to the sensory world.
Be well

[Ceisiwr]

You asked

Did the Buddha feel pain?

he did, but he did not think "His body was in pain", if you can understand the subtle nuance here.

He still experienced pain then, which is a form of the vedanā aggregate.

What do you mean by sanna? Do you mean consciousness? Buddha did not have a consciousness like we do.

I mean conceptualisation/recognition.

[Pulsar]

C wrote

He still experienced pain then, which is a form of the vedanā aggregate.

What is your definition of aggregate? To me aggregate means aggregating or grouping or assembling or collecting around the notion of "I" and thus building, or creating suffering, for an individual. This buildup causes samsaric burning.
SN 35.28. When it says "World is burning", does it mean anything is literally on fire?
It is only the phenomenon of aggregation that causes burning, gathering around a notion of "I"

• There was no notion of "I" in the Buddha. Around what will pain aggregate?

Bodily pain of Buddha's Body arose, but it did not gather. Pain was felt but it did not aggregate.
In response to my query on Sanna, you wrote

I mean conceptualisation/recognition.

There is no conceptualization in the Buddha.
Best!

[Ceisiwr]

What is your definition of aggregate? To me aggregate means aggregating or grouping or assembling or collecting around the notion of "I" and thus building, or creating suffering, for an individual. This buildup causes samsaric burning.

A conventional way of splitting experience into categories.

SN 35.28. When it says "World is burning", does it mean anything is literally on fire?
It is only the phenomenon of aggregation that causes burning, gathering around a notion of "I"

• There was no notion of "I" in the Buddha. Around what will pain aggregate?

Bodily pain of Buddha's Body arose, but it did not gather. Pain was felt but it did not aggregate.

When the Buddha talks about not building up the aggregates, it's always (as far as I recall) in the future tense. In other words, it doesn't mean he isn't experiencing them at the time of speaking.

In response to my query on Sanna, you wrote
"I mean conceptualisation/recognition."
There is no conceptualization in the Buddha.
Best!

The Buddha spoke of "I am", and so had the thought "I am". I'll assume he was also able to still count, so yes he still did conceptualise. Conceptualising doesn't seem to be the problem per se. Rather it's what we are conceptualising and how we understand it. I think it's pretty clear from the suttas that without conceptualisation there wouldn't be any sense experience at all.

[Pulsar]

Dear Ceiswr: Before we waste each other's time, let us figure out whether we are on the same page.
We spoke of aggregates. I said Buddha does not have what we call aggregates. You say Buddha has aggregates.
Suttas say aggregates burn. SN 35.28.
According to ceiswir "Does Buddha's aggregates burn?" Sutta definition of aggregate is "something on fire"
With love

[un8-]

The Buddha spoke of "I am", and so had the thought "I am". I'll assume he was also able to still count, so yes he still did conceptualise. Conceptualising doesn't seem to be the problem per se. Rather it's what we are conceptualising and how we understand it. I think it's pretty clear from the suttas that without conceptualisation there wouldn't be any sense experience at all.

Arahants do not conceive based on sensual perceptions (sanna)

He does not conceive the slightest mental image regarding what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised.

Tassīdha diṭṭhe vā sute mute vā pakappitā natthi aṇu pi saññā.

— Sn.v.802

Friend, in the eighty years since I went forth [into the ascetic life] I do not recall a sensuous mental image having ever arisen in me.

Asīti me āvuso kassapa vassāni pabbajitassa nābhijānāmi kāmasaññaṃ uppannapubbaṃ.

— M.3.125

So they get neither sensual conceptions nor sensual perceptions, but they do get wholesome perceptions

Just as the Veramba wind blows clouds in the rainy season, so [in the city of Veramba] mental images connected with physical seclusion [would] overwhelm me.

Yathā abbhāni verambo vāto nudati pāvuse
Saññā me abhikīranti vivekapaṭisaṃyuttā.

— Th.v.589

The Buddha was fully conscious of mental images:

In this regard, Ānanda, the arising, continuance, and vanishing of sense impressions (vedanā), mental images (saññā), and thoughts (vitakkā) is known by the Perfect One.

Idhānanda tathāgatassa viditā vedanā uppajjanti. Viditā upaṭṭhahanti. Viditā abbhatthaṃ gacchanti. Viditā saññā uppajjanti viditā upaṭṭhahanti. Viditā abbhatthaṃ gacchanti. Viditā vitakkā uppajjanti. Viditā upaṭṭhahanti. Viditā abbhatthaṃ gacchanti.

— M.3.124

Some more info

The arahant is free of unvirtuous and deluding mental images

So when the suttas say that the arahant is free of mental images, this would mean that he is free of:

unvirtuous mental images, and

deluding images

We parenthesise accordingly. This is justified, because in the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, where the following quote comes from, the Buddha explains how his teaching does not lead to unwholesome consequences. This rationally means that the mental images he is condemning are those which are unwholesome. The usual combination of words used in the scriptures to capture unwholesome connotations is pāpakā akusala, i.e. 'unvirtuous and spiritually unwholesome.' We use this parenthesis here, for example:

a doctrine, friend, such that…​ one does not abide quarrelling with anyone in the world; such that for the Brahman who abides emancipated from sensuous pleasures, free of uncertainty [about the significance of the teaching], free of anxiety, free of craving for all states of individual existence, [unvirtuous and spiritually unwholesome] mental images do not lurk within him.

yathāvādī kho āvuso…​ na kenaci loke viggayha tiṭṭhati yathā ca pana kāmehi visaṃyuttaṃ viharantaṃ taṃ brāhmaṇaṃ akathaṅkathiṃ chinnakukkuccaṃ bhavābhave vītataṇhaṃ saññā nānusenti.

— M.1.108
Solving the Kalahavivāda Sutta

To solve the puzzle of the Kalahavivāda Sutta (Sn.v.873-4), we render saññā as 'mental images,' as follows:

[Question:] 'For one attained to what state does bodily form vanish? Whether pleasant or painful, how does it vanish? Tell me this, how does it vanish? My objective is that we should know this.'

Kathaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ sukhaṃ dukkhaṃ vāpi kathaṃ vibhoti
Etaṃ me pabrūhi yathā vibhoti taṃ jāniyāmāti me mano ahu

— Sn.v.873

[Answer:] 'He does not perceive mental images [of what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised]. He does not perceive [what is seen, heard, sensed, or cognised] with deranged perception. He is not without perception. He does not perceive what has vanished. For one arrived at such a state, bodily form vanishes. Mental images are indeed the source of entrenched conception.'

Na saññasaññī na visaññasaññī no pi asaññī na vibhūtasaññī
Evaṃ sametassa vibhoti rūpaṃ saññānidānā hi papañcasaṅkhā.

— Sn.v.874

[Ceisiwr]

Dear Ceiswr: Before we waste each other's time, let us figure out whether we are on the same page.
We spoke of aggregates. I said Buddha does not have what we call aggregates. You say Buddha has aggregates.
Suttas say aggregates burn. SN 35.28.
According to ceiswir "Does Buddha's aggregates burn?" Sutta definition of aggregate is "something on fire"
With love

It says they are burning with lust etc. That doesn’t mean the Buddha doesn’t still experience them. He can do, without lust.

[Ceisiwr]

Arahants do not conceive based on sensual perceptions (sanna)

What does “conceive” mean here? The Buddha could still count and conceptualise the world around him, no?

[un8-]

Arahants do not conceive based on sensual perceptions (sanna)

What does “conceive” mean here? The Buddha could still count and conceptualise the world around him, no?

A mental image arising in your mind. Close your eyes and imagine a chair. For the Arahant sensual mental images do not arise. He can see the chair, think about the chair, but he doesn't imagine or visualize a chair in his mind.

[Ceisiwr]

Arahants do not conceive based on sensual perceptions (sanna)

What does “conceive” mean here? The Buddha could still count and conceptualise the world around him, no?

A mental image arising in your mind. Close your eyes and imagine a chair. For the Arahant sensual mental images do not arise. He can see the chair, think about the chair, but he doesn't imagine or visualize a chair in his mind.

So how does he think of what happened in the past? Seems your only option is to go down the road of the Sarvāstivādins. The Buddha can be aware of the past because it still exists, and so is cognised. If not, how then if he can't mentally visualise anything? Personally I doubt your interpretation. The Buddha still had a functioning mind, and so I don't see why he couldn't think about the past and conceive abstract ideas such as numbers. In general when "conceive" is used, it mostly has to do with conceiving the self and notions of existence and non-existence. If your view is correct, how then did he do math? Are numbers real existents which are cognised, or are they abstract ideas?

[un8-]

What does “conceive” mean here? The Buddha could still count and conceptualise the world around him, no?

A mental image arising in your mind. Close your eyes and imagine a chair. For the Arahant sensual mental images do not arise. He can see the chair, think about the chair, but he doesn't imagine or visualize a chair in his mind.

So how does he think of what happened in the past? Seems your only option is to go down the road of the Sarvāstivādins. The Buddha can be aware of the past because it still exists, and so is cognised. If not, how then if he can't mentally visualise anything? Personally I doubt your interpretation. The Buddha still had a functioning mind, and so I don't see why he couldn't think about the past and conceive abstract ideas such as numbers. In general when "conceive" is used, it mostly has to do with conceiving the self and notions of existence and non-existence. If your view is correct, how then did he do math? Are numbers real existents which are cognised, or are they abstract ideas?

I don't know about you but I don't visualize numbers in order to think about them.

When I do math I think logically, there is no sensory mental image in my mind. However, I noticed when cravings arise there is usually a mental image associated with it, like say I'll relive the experience of taste and smell of pizza in my mind.

Mental images are mind pollutants

When you live with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind faculty unrestrained, your mind becomes polluted when it comes to thoughts known by the mind.

Think about when you're meditating and you're physically secluded, the biggest threat to your meditation is mental images. If a mental image of that chocolate bar in the kitchen pantry arises, that's enough to get you to break your meditation and leave the room. It's happened to me countless times.

As for memories, that's a good point, perhaps an Arahant is able to intentionally call up memories rather than a mental image arising on its own, or maybe memories are not mental images but something else. When I remember something I don't have a mental image with it, it's more of a story. For example, I know I was at the golden gate bridge, but I don't actually remember from a first person perspective as it happened. My mind just fetches images of concepts like you would doing a Google images search, based on a story. An AI could do the exact same thing, I just need to feed it a picture of me, and the rest it can put together by querying google images.

When you recall a memory, is it actually the way you experienced from the first person perspective? or is it an amalgamation of concepts, which is a mental image. I think for most it's the latter, and not an actual real memory.

[Ceisiwr]

I don't know about you but I don't visualize numbers in order to think about them.

Well, what do you mean by "mental image"? An actual image, or something else? For example I can think of an image of an elephant that I've once seen, but I can also right now mentally recreate a song I heard earlier. Sound isn't visual at all, much less past sound, but it is mental. When I'm counting in an abstract way, I just think of the words.

Mental images are mind pollutants

I would disagree. The mind pollutants are ignorance, lust and aversion. I think we can still have mental experiences when those are absent, much like how we can continue to see or taste when they are absent.

When you live with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind faculty unrestrained, your mind becomes polluted when it comes to thoughts known by the mind.

Think about when you're meditating and you're physically secluded, the biggest threat to your meditation is mental images. If a mental image of that chocolate bar in the kitchen pantry arises, that's enough to get you to break your meditation and leave the room. It's happened to me countless times.

Just like the eye and visual forms, it's not the mind and mental image which is the problem. It's the lust or aversion towards them.

“Friend Koṭṭhita, the eye is not the fetter of forms nor are forms the fetter of the eye, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there. The ear is not the fetter of sounds nor are sounds the fetter of the ear, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there…. The mind is not the fetter of mental phenomena nor are mental phenomena the fetter of the mind, but rather the desire and lust that arise there in dependence on both: that is the fetter there."

- SN 35.232

Distractions during meditation can occur at any of the senses, but I possibly have a different idea on just how deep meditation should be.

As for memories, that's a good point, perhaps an Arahant is able to intentionally call up memories rather than a mental image arising on its own, or maybe memories are not mental images but something else. When I remember something I don't have a mental image with it, it's more of a story. For example, I know I was at the golden gate bridge, but I don't actually remember from a first person perspective as it happened. My mind just fetches images of concepts like you would doing a Google images search, based on a story.

When you recall a memory, is it actually the way you experienced from the first person perspective? or is it an amalgamation of concepts, which is a mental image. I think for most it's the latter, and not an actual real memory.

Well any experience is conceptualised, so all memory is an amalgamation of concepts.