Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by zan »

Perhaps it is simply that food, like apples are not considered nutriment, or at least not the type of nutriment spoken of in SN 12.11 until they are consumed? Hence, apples are not generated by craving, but internal nutriment is.

External apples are external nutriment, generated by nutriment or tejo, and only once swallowed are considered internal nutriment, and that nutriment is what is considered food and nutriment generated by craving? Whereas food that is never consumed cannot be considered as food nutriment generated by craving?
13 Nutriment as Mode of Origin

Nutriment, known as nutritive essence, on reaching its stage of presence, produces material phenomena originating from nutriment at the time it is swallowed.

...

20
The pure octad and the un-decad of the lighteness triad are the two material groups that originate from nutriment.

21 The Internal and the External

Of them, the two material groups produced by temperature - the pure octad and the sound nonad - are found externally too. All the rest are strictly internal.

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Bhikkhu Bodhi, chapter VI
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by DooDoot »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:34 pm I'm really sorry Dootdoot, but I still don't see how that explains that it is not that a being literally generates their own food merely by desiring it (craving for it). The sutta sounds like it is saying that if a being wants an apple, an apple will be generated merely by that want, out of craving alone. Could you explain it more in depth please?
You are misconstruing the text. The text is not about the physical origin of physical food. The text is about how physical food is an object for the origin of the self-view of "beings".

There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
coconut
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:10 am

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by coconut »

Here is a relevant sutta, zan.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.
-- AN 4.159
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by zan »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:17 am
zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:34 pm I'm really sorry Dootdoot, but I still don't see how that explains that it is not that a being literally generates their own food merely by desiring it (craving for it). The sutta sounds like it is saying that if a being wants an apple, an apple will be generated merely by that want, out of craving alone. Could you explain it more in depth please?
You are misconstruing the text. The text is not about the physical origin of physical food. The text is about how physical food is an object for the origin of the self-view of "beings".

I completely agree lol!

From the op:
This is clearly a wild misinterpretation!
I still fail to see how a straight reading is to be got around. The sutta literally states, clear as day, that the source and origin of food is craving and that this is what food is born and produced from. I believe you are correct, I simply don't see how the sutta can conclusively be said to be saying anything but this incorrect reading, since that's exactly what it says.
“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness. These are the four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be.

“Bhikkhus, these four kinds of nutriment have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of nutriment have craving as their source, craving as their origin; they are born and produced from craving.
-SN 12.11
It isn't even possible for this reading to be correct. The dhamma would make zero sense if it were. By that logic, one never need pack food when traveling, nor go grocery shopping lol! So it almost seems like this must be a sutta that was passed down incorrectly somehow or something. This just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps there is some kind of linguistic nuance that I am missing? Does the trick lie in understanding "ahara" in this context as not merely speaking about the physical source for groceries?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by zan »

coconut wrote: Wed Jan 27, 2021 10:58 pm Here is a relevant sutta, zan.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.

"This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.
"'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.
-- AN 4.159
These suttas certainly seem to contradict the "craving makes food appear" reading, as, a being must have a body to crave for food, and here the source for the body is food, in which case, body cannot be the source for food itself.

I still don't understand how SN 12.11 isn't saying literally that craving creates food, since that seems to be exactly what it says:
“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness. These are the four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings that have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be.

“Bhikkhus, these four kinds of nutriment have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of nutriment have craving as their source, craving as their origin; they are born and produced from craving.
-SN 12.11
Food is literally produced, born from and has craving as it's source. How can it be read any other way? As I asked above, perhaps there is a further understanding of "ahara" that is crucial?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by DooDoot »

zan wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 4:35 pm
I still fail to see how a straight reading is to be got around.
:reading:
“Bhikkhus, there are four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings [SELF-VIEWS] that have already come to be and for the assistance of those [SELF-VIEWS] about to come to be. What four? The nutriment edible food, gross or subtle; second, contact; third, mental volition; fourth, consciousness.

Bhikkhus, these four kinds of nutriment have what as their source, what as their origin, from what are they born and produced? These four kinds of nutriment have craving as their source, craving as their origin; they are born and produced from craving.
-SN 12.11
Compare to SN 22.81:
Regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
BlackMagic
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by BlackMagic »

zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:55 pm
coconut wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:45 pm
zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:40 pm

Thank you. I have follow up questions, but first, forgive me, but I have to ask which position you come from? Do you believe that all things are imaginary or non existent or that there is a special consciousness outside the five aggregates that lives forever?
I hold neither annihilationist nor eternalist views.
Or do you hold the classical Theravada position that matter, like food, is real and is not generated by the mind, nor explained by a special consciousness outside the five aggregates because no such consciousness exists?
Food is real, the body is real, the mind is real. The Buddha does not say what happens after parinibbana because it's not applicable.
Apologies, but the vast majority of users on this site hold the Yogacara position that all is mind or the Madhyamaka position that nothing exists, or the position that a special consciousness outside the aggregates answers most questions, and so it is important to know where someone is coming from before engaging them, as we may be coming from totally incompatible, irreconcilable positions. I hold the classical Theravada position.
My view is rare on this site.
Okay! Thank you! Rare indeed!

So, what if we approach it from another angle? I clearly am having trouble with the approach you and Dootdoot are using, which appears to be similar.

Let's say hypothetically I state that "Apples appear out of thin air for anyone who desires (craves for) them. If no one had any desire for them, there would be no such thing as apples. Because apples are food, SN 12.11 supports my position."

How could you refute my position? I do not at all understand how your most recent explanation refutes this misunderstanding of SN 12.11. This is due to my own failings, obviously.

Or even another angle (I am asking this strictly from the perspective of the classical Theravada, which is that land is not generated by kamma and matter is not subjective, and the tejo element can generate insentient matter all on it's own, and so other planets can exist [see Katthavatthu and Abhidhammattha Sangaha]): What about food that is nowhere near a being: a hypothetical planet with no sentient life on it, but that does have apple trees. Does SN 12.11 declare that the apples (food) on this planet, that will never have sentient beings on it, were generated by craving?

What about some hypothetical biscuit crumbs accidentally left on the golden record put inside the Voyager and launched in 1977? Are they floating out there, billions of miles away, and per SN 12.11, are being generated by craving?

Per the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, apples (food) on distant planets would be generated purely by the tejo element, not craving. Hence my difficulty with SN 12.11.
What is an apple?

Is it a fruit?

what is a fruit?

What buds on trees?

What flowers on trees?

What landed on the flower looking for refuge?

What is refuge?

If a bee or other insect can reach the nibbana of becoming seeking refuge... once thinking; Hive was kinship, hive was the source of happiness, food and sustenance, why can't you or anyone else?

Tree not letting go of bee, it is a source of food and sustenance... Humans and Daeva alike give praise, hommage and honor to the tree that bears fruit. So are flowers really a refuge?

For the bee?

Fruit is the tree's currency; it''s favor in being a Daeva among other trees.

Yet they live no different than human or the bee thinking of kinship, happiness, food and sustenance.

Parinibbana for the bee, the tree? When there is nothing further to ever become as living a life, knowing a life.

On "Buddha ground" I saw a bhikkhu reach down and kill an "Ant" biting on the bhikkhu, sharing the same food when cast out, I suppose so. The sutta that comes to mind for bhikkhu and little brother? He hit me, he abused me, etc. etc.

Hungry ghosts for dhamma :smile: ... both big brother and little brother wearing the same color robes were in the correct place; As I've learned food is why the abbot first became a bhikkhu over 70 years ago.
What has happened; Is that which has yet to come. What will be ...Already is.
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by zan »

BlackMagic wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:22 am
zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:55 pm
coconut wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:45 pm

I hold neither annihilationist nor eternalist views.



Food is real, the body is real, the mind is real. The Buddha does not say what happens after parinibbana because it's not applicable.



My view is rare on this site.
Okay! Thank you! Rare indeed!

So, what if we approach it from another angle? I clearly am having trouble with the approach you and Dootdoot are using, which appears to be similar.

Let's say hypothetically I state that "Apples appear out of thin air for anyone who desires (craves for) them. If no one had any desire for them, there would be no such thing as apples. Because apples are food, SN 12.11 supports my position."

How could you refute my position? I do not at all understand how your most recent explanation refutes this misunderstanding of SN 12.11. This is due to my own failings, obviously.

Or even another angle (I am asking this strictly from the perspective of the classical Theravada, which is that land is not generated by kamma and matter is not subjective, and the tejo element can generate insentient matter all on it's own, and so other planets can exist [see Katthavatthu and Abhidhammattha Sangaha]): What about food that is nowhere near a being: a hypothetical planet with no sentient life on it, but that does have apple trees. Does SN 12.11 declare that the apples (food) on this planet, that will never have sentient beings on it, were generated by craving?

What about some hypothetical biscuit crumbs accidentally left on the golden record put inside the Voyager and launched in 1977? Are they floating out there, billions of miles away, and per SN 12.11, are being generated by craving?

Per the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, apples (food) on distant planets would be generated purely by the tejo element, not craving. Hence my difficulty with SN 12.11.
What is an apple?

Is it a fruit?

what is a fruit?

What buds on trees?

What flowers on trees?

What landed on the flower looking for refuge?

What is refuge?

If a bee or other insect can reach the nibbana of becoming seeking refuge... once thinking; Hive was kinship, hive was the source of happiness, food and sustenance, why can't you or anyone else?

Tree not letting go of bee, it is a source of food and sustenance... Humans and Daeva alike give praise, hommage and honor to the tree that bears fruit. So are flowers really a refuge?

For the bee?

Fruit is the tree's currency; it''s favor in being a Daeva among other trees.

Yet they live no different than human or the bee thinking of kinship, happiness, food and sustenance.

Parinibbana for the bee, the tree? When there is nothing further to ever become as living a life, knowing a life.

On "Buddha ground" I saw a bhikkhu reach down and kill an "Ant" biting on the bhikkhu, sharing the same food when cast out, I suppose so. The sutta that comes to mind for bhikkhu and little brother? He hit me, he abused me, etc. etc.

Hungry ghosts for dhamma :smile: ... both big brother and little brother wearing the same color robes were in the correct place; As I've learned food is why the abbot first became a bhikkhu over 70 years ago.
Thanks, but riddles do not help me. I am looking at this from the orthodox perspective which uses the abhidhamma, and something like the source of edible food is usually laid out plainly and simply and would not require a bunch of philosophical questions.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
BlackMagic
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by BlackMagic »

zan wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:16 am
BlackMagic wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:22 am
zan wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:55 pm

Okay! Thank you! Rare indeed!

So, what if we approach it from another angle? I clearly am having trouble with the approach you and Dootdoot are using, which appears to be similar.

Let's say hypothetically I state that "Apples appear out of thin air for anyone who desires (craves for) them. If no one had any desire for them, there would be no such thing as apples. Because apples are food, SN 12.11 supports my position."

How could you refute my position? I do not at all understand how your most recent explanation refutes this misunderstanding of SN 12.11. This is due to my own failings, obviously.

Or even another angle (I am asking this strictly from the perspective of the classical Theravada, which is that land is not generated by kamma and matter is not subjective, and the tejo element can generate insentient matter all on it's own, and so other planets can exist [see Katthavatthu and Abhidhammattha Sangaha]): What about food that is nowhere near a being: a hypothetical planet with no sentient life on it, but that does have apple trees. Does SN 12.11 declare that the apples (food) on this planet, that will never have sentient beings on it, were generated by craving?

What about some hypothetical biscuit crumbs accidentally left on the golden record put inside the Voyager and launched in 1977? Are they floating out there, billions of miles away, and per SN 12.11, are being generated by craving?

Per the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, apples (food) on distant planets would be generated purely by the tejo element, not craving. Hence my difficulty with SN 12.11.
What is an apple?

Is it a fruit?

what is a fruit?

What buds on trees?

What flowers on trees?

What landed on the flower looking for refuge?

What is refuge?

If a bee or other insect can reach the nibbana of becoming seeking refuge... once thinking; Hive was kinship, hive was the source of happiness, food and sustenance, why can't you or anyone else?

Tree not letting go of bee, it is a source of food and sustenance... Humans and Daeva alike give praise, hommage and honor to the tree that bears fruit. So are flowers really a refuge?

For the bee?

Fruit is the tree's currency; it''s favor in being a Daeva among other trees.

Yet they live no different than human or the bee thinking of kinship, happiness, food and sustenance.

Parinibbana for the bee, the tree? When there is nothing further to ever become as living a life, knowing a life.

On "Buddha ground" I saw a bhikkhu reach down and kill an "Ant" biting on the bhikkhu, sharing the same food when cast out, I suppose so. The sutta that comes to mind for bhikkhu and little brother? He hit me, he abused me, etc. etc.

Hungry ghosts for dhamma :smile: ... both big brother and little brother wearing the same color robes were in the correct place; As I've learned food is why the abbot first became a bhikkhu over 70 years ago.
Thanks, but riddles do not help me. I am looking at this from the orthodox perspective which uses the abhidhamma, and something like the source of edible food is usually laid out plainly and simply and would not require a bunch of philosophical questions.
Fruit given to monastics has to be marked or imperfect in some manner... They are also not supposed to keep/store food by rely on alms and not prefer families or skip houses on alms rounds. Monsatics also have a no solid food after noon policy including drinks with pulp.

Over all the Buddha banned these for all sanga to eat no matter the realm; feline(big and small), snake, elephant and human... else they commit a grievous error. Willingly and not knowing it was a grievous offence is pardinable, giving it to another with them not knowing and you do? Unpardonable offence and it is to be confessed.

I have eaten human not knowing it was wrong (certain sects still eat human in India and Southeast Asia) some women including those in Western countries request the placenta of their child to eat after it's birth... knowing it is wrong now and abstaining from it ever since? I can smell the charnel grounds crematorium clearly. As I am sure anyone that has eaten human knowingly at the time or unknowingly and later have found out they have eaten it or any of the unpardonable foods of grievous error; if one just focuses their mind.

The previous I gave you was a meditation if followed as a path it teaches "food chain" as it relates to suffering of self and other in that chain. Some beings eat light, some beings eat sound, most of such beings are or exist beyond the average non meditative human perception.

Namaste
What has happened; Is that which has yet to come. What will be ...Already is.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by Ceisiwr »

BlackMagic wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:34 pm
...
You’ve knowingly engaged in cannibalism? :shock:
“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
BlackMagic
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by BlackMagic »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:07 pm
BlackMagic wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:34 pm
...
You’ve knowingly engaged in cannibalism? :shock:
Yes.
What has happened; Is that which has yet to come. What will be ...Already is.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by Ceisiwr »

BlackMagic wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:05 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:07 pm
BlackMagic wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:34 pm
...
You’ve knowingly engaged in cannibalism? :shock:
Yes.
:? How did that come about?
“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
BlackMagic
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 12:21 am

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by BlackMagic »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:10 pm
BlackMagic wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:05 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:07 pm

You’ve knowingly engaged in cannibalism? :shock:
Yes.
:? How did that come about?
Before I left for the homeless/wandering mendicant life from an arranged marriage the bride's parents wanted; The mother of the child from the union wanted to eat the placenta and I ate the umbilical cord piece that fell off after a friend confessed possible parentage of the child I'd kept all that time.

Despite what people have said; it is nothing like pork at all. Unless they are making a bhavacakra joke meaning ignorance of it(represented by the pig); as in having knowingly eaten human or not.
What has happened; Is that which has yet to come. What will be ...Already is.
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by salayatananirodha »

heres my guess.
the elements that comprise what is known as food do not have 'food-ness' inherent to them, but we impute that quality. so, our craving creates 'food' from elements.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than.html wrote:"'All phenomena are rooted in desire.[1]

"'All phenomena come into play through attention.

"'All phenomena have contact as their origination.

"'All phenomena have feeling as their meeting place.

"'All phenomena have concentration as their presiding state.

"'All phenomena have mindfulness as their governing principle.

"'All phenomena have discernment as their surpassing state.

"'All phenomena have release as their heartwood.

"'All phenomena gain their footing in the deathless.

"'All phenomena have [nibbāna] as their final end.'
see also: aggañña sutta
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: Orthodox explanation of a SN 12.11?

Post by salayatananirodha »

coconut wrote: Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:45 pm Food is real, the body is real, the mind is real.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.01.than.html wrote: The monk who hasn't slipped past or turned back,
knowing with regard to the world
that "All this is unreal,"
sloughs off the near shore & far —
as a snake, its decrepit old skin.
The Buddha does not say what happens after parinibbana because it's not applicable.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html wrote:"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out'."
what's left to say?
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.072.than.html wrote:'Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught. Those who have practiced for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — they have practiced well in this world. Those whose passion... aversion... delusion is abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising: they, in this world, are well-gone.'
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Post Reply