What would the the Theravādin reply here, particularly to b? Does the Paṭṭhāna help us at all here?a) If as Vasubandhu claims, the cittasantati continues by virtue of the äksepahetu, then it would be without a support (nisraya) when a kusala or klista citta arises.
(b) Since he acknowledges that the citta, etc of beings in the käma and rüpa-dhätu definitely cannot operate without depending on the physical body, why is it that for beings in the ärüpya, their citta, etc., 90 can operate without absolutely any support?
The Formless
The Formless
I’m currently reading Ven. Dhammajoti’s book "Abhidhamma Doctrines and Controversies on Perception", which I thoroughly recommend. In it he mentions a debate between Ven. Saṃghabhadra and the Sautrāntika/Vasubandhu regarding the formless. I believe the Vaibhāṣika position was that there is some kind of subtle form even in the formless realms, whilst the Sautrāntikas argued the opposite. Ven. Saṃghabhadra’s criticism is as follows:
“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.”
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.”
Re: The Formless
An aside: this view of "subtle form in the formless" is ascribed to the Vibhajyavādins in Abhidharmakośakārikā AFAIK, indicating a divide between continental and insular Vibhajyavādins.
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.
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.
Re: The Formless
This is a good question.
I think there is Kathavattu on this issue as well.
What is form? That is earth,water,fire and wind.
What is form less? That is space,mind,nothingness, neither perception nor non perception
Hence there is no forum in formless.
I think there is Kathavattu on this issue as well.
What is form? That is earth,water,fire and wind.
What is form less? That is space,mind,nothingness, neither perception nor non perception
Hence there is no forum in formless.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
retrofuturist
- Posts: 27859
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Formless
Greetings,
Regardless, it would appear imperative to differentiate what rupa is and is not in this context, before progressing further.
Metta,
Paul.
I could give you a sutta-based reply, but I don't think you'd be entirely happy with it.
Regardless, it would appear imperative to differentiate what rupa is and is not in this context, before progressing further.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: The Formless
So why don't you give a reply based on Sutta?retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:39 am Greetings,I could give you a sutta-based reply, but I don't think you'd be entirely happy with it.
Regardless, it would appear imperative to differentiate what rupa is and is not in this context, before progressing further.
Metta,
Paul.
Please give the Sutta reference.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: The Formless
It is important to remember that they have only mind base( Manayatana) not all six sense bases.
But some say Arupavacar beings can see and hear.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
retrofuturist
- Posts: 27859
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: The Formless
Greetings,
Generally though, I'd say it's up to those who wish to deviate beyond the standard rendering to explain themselves, so it would be for the Vaibhāṣika to explain how there's some validity to the Vaibhāṣika position, rather than have others pre-emptively counter it.
Metta,
Paul.
Because I did that here and it's not really in keeping with the guidelines of this section.
Generally though, I'd say it's up to those who wish to deviate beyond the standard rendering to explain themselves, so it would be for the Vaibhāṣika to explain how there's some validity to the Vaibhāṣika position, rather than have others pre-emptively counter it.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
