🟧 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Each week we gather to discuss a single discourse or thematic collection.

Moderator: SDC

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 7755
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by SDC »

nirodh27 wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 2:46 pm You've put a lot more on the table SDC, I will think about that :tongue:

Only one remark:
He's focused on one thing without trying to discern the bigger picture.
This attitude expressed in this thoroughbred/wild colt distinction recalls me the cook simile in the SN47. It's not the same message, but there are similarities. The bad cook simply cooks what thinks is good following his desires, while the good cook makes some more questions, analysing what the master (the mind) wants and prefer so to serve better and better dishes. This is the attitude of the Dhamma and it is shared by both the similes, the thoroughbred looks at meditation not as simply food, but to get something more from it and understanding what is the bigger meaning, the cook by observations tries to get something more from his work that simply to appease the hunger of the master. They both reason on long term and on how the cooking/food must be used/understood.

Also both the good cook and the thoroughbred attitude obtain the same result: to avoid the hindrances and to get praised and rewarded (the jhanas or even more).
I’ve always felt both similes had the same structure as well.

To take a little of what Pulsar just put on the table, it does seem to be a reference to the direction of sensuality for the wild colt. I have little doubt the food is a sign, an indication of that bigger picture for the thoroughbred, though not the “sign of the mind” (cittanimitta of SN 47.8). Perhaps more of a reference to the direction of escape in terms of hindrances like you say? The opening amid confinement of AN 9.42? Nevertheless it seems clear that it is not in reference to a specific object, lest it be clarified that said object is a point of view, not an isolated point. (I’m likely going to have MN 19 for next week’s sutta, which I think really helps illustrate this).
“By breaking the root of unknowing, it smashes the mechanism of deeds, and drops the thunderbolt of knowledge on the taking up of consciousnesses.” Thag 6.8
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

Ce wrote ....
Ven. Dhammanando gave his views on this some time ago
but the response you copied from sutta central was a reply to
I am not sure why the Pali tradition prefers to use Nikaya instead of Agama
My question was not regarding why Pali tradition prefers Nikaya instead of Agama suttas.
Agama suttas mostly belong to the Sarvastivadin tradition. It was a canon closed much earlier than the Pali canon. Some of their suttas are clearer to me specially where Dependent origination is concerned. Theravada did not have a meditative tradition, so their understanding of DO is of more of a scholarly sort.
My question was "What is the difference between Ekottara agama and Samyukta agama" It puzzled me because one of the parallels to Sandha was from Samyukta, and the other was from Ekottara.
Jains or non-buddhist have nothing to do with it. Ekottara agama and Samyukta agama are both completely buddhist.
Perhaps someone who knows of Dharmaguptakas? I know this difference is related to that. I think I know the answer now?? Samyukta agama belongs with Sarvastivadin tradition??? Ekottaraagama with Dharmaguptakas??? not sure??
With love :candle:
PS I started reading that thread you introduced from Sutta Central, and look what I found, a comment by Bucknell
The Conclusion, and with it the entire work, finishes up with a simple but significant observation: the study has revealed no evidence that any particular line of transmission has preserved the discourses more faithfully than the others. An implication of this is that the researcher should not rely exclusively on any one version of the Nikāyas/Āgamas. In particular, study of the Pāli Nikāyas alone can yield only a partial and imperfect picture. For a maximally complete and clear picture, the Pāli suttas must be compared with their available Chinese and other parallels.
Thank you Ceisiwr, this is exactly what we did here with the study on Sandha, thanks to you.
More love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 15428
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:52 pm
Theravada did not have a meditative tradition, so their understanding of DO is of more of a scholarly sort.
That's a strange claim. If we take the Visuddhimagga it has numerous references to monks and their meditation. The Visuddhimagga itself is a mediation manual, as is the older Vimuttimagga. People might disagree with what is in either. Doesn't really matter here, but it's just not true that Theravāda had no meditative tradition. You do also realise that the Sarvāstivādins also had a scholarly approach? The Vaibhāṣika for example.
My question was "What is the difference between Ekottara agama and Samyukta agama" It puzzled me because one of the parallels to Sandha was from Samyukta, and the other was from Ekottara.
The Ekottara Āgama likely belonged to a Mahāsāṃghika tradition, but it has a few Mahāyāna ideas in it too.
Dharmaguptakas
Doctrinally speaking they are considered to be the closest to Theravāda, although the Śāriputrābhidharma does recognise 9 unconditioned elements including nibbāna. That's one difference.
“When your last breath arrives, Grammar can do nothing.”

Ādi Śaṅkarācāryaḥ
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by nirodh27 »

SDC wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:31 pm Nevertheless it seems clear that it is not in reference to a specific object, lest it be clarified that said object is a point of view, not an isolated point. (I’m likely going to have MN 19 for next week’s sutta, which I think really helps illustrate this).
Speaking of objects and points narrowly is a very tricky matter when we try to read the suttas with EBT in mind, even Sujato said that on Suttacentral many times.
Even a word like “object”, which Stephen is used to, based on later Buddhism, has no place in the EBTs.
Reasoning about directions, attitudes, actions, using themes of reflection suggested by the Buddha are what I find most helpful when I study and when I meditate.

I can't wait to read what you will bring about with MN19, even if I think that MN19 is one of the suttas that can benefit a lot from an Agama "treatment" (and luckily we don't need DeepL for MA102).

Have a good weekend!
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

Dear SDC: To explain the part below of the sutta.
"He is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind"
It is a reference to the unbroken colt's or unwise meditator's dependence on form derived from the four great elements.
When independent of form, nama does not appear. Nama in DO is designating the rupa derived from 4 great elements. 
If nama and rupa do not arise, consciousness does not arise, to get planted.
This requires a concise understanding of DO. Sandha sutta cannot be understood without that.
As for the the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, formulated this way.
these are meditations that are snuck into Pali canon, via buddhists who were influenced by Upanaisadic or Jain meditations. Vibhajjavadin???
definitely not the suttas that are products of Sthaviras???
Several suttas include these Arupa samapatthis, but these are clear indications that sectarianism had become rampant in the sutta Pitaka, even as short as 100 years after Buddha's passing away???
I recall Sujato once called Pali canon, a work of mythology, not sure what he meant? is it because of what the Vibajjavadins brought into the canon? like DN 22/MN 10?
Sandha sutta contradicts these alien entries. Sandha opposes the objectified nature of meditation, found in some suttas. Once an object is created, does it not immediately create a subject? a self?
Right meditation has no object.
The opposite of Sandha would be the late entry MN 111, where words have been forced into mouth of Buddha. There is no parallel in the agama for this atrocious sutta.
When Arupa samapatthis are found in a sutta, I conclude "It is a corruption" yet part of the sutta may not be???
A clever technique, at presenting bogus work? A sutta that is partly true, and partly untrue.
Nivapa sutta, MN 25 is a good example. Its metaphors of the deer are beautifully constructed, but the meditations?
Now the word formless is tricky, one must be very careful and pay attention to language.
When used in relation to Arupa samapatthis it is one thing.
But formless is used in relation to buddhist 4th jhana. If you read Kalahavivada Sn 4.11 carefully you will understand. I have dealt with it, at great length in my Jhana thread.
When the meditator is rid of form derived from the 4 great elements, that can very well be called formless, that state is without worldly consciousness, but it is not the same formless as in Arupa
samapatthis.
With love :candle:
PS maybe I will add more later.
 
pegembara
Posts: 2381
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by pegembara »

A thoroughbred is free to do as it pleases unlike a donkey who only thinks it is free to do as it pleases!

The thoroughbred is not trying to get anything out of its meditation having already completed its tasks.

https://image.shutterstock.com/image-ve ... 473300.jpg
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Pulsar
Posts: 1535
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

As for the the unwise meditator's dependence on a form derived from the four great elements.
SN 1.27 from Devata Samyutta contains the same idea.
"From where do the streams turn back?
Where does the round no longer revolve?
Where does name and form cease 
Stop without remainder?"

"Where water, earth, fire, and air,
Do not gain a footing;

It is from here that the streams turn back,
Here the round no longer revolves;
Here name and form ceases,
Stops without remainder.""
A brief  excerpt from  Kevatta sutta DN 11.
Consciousness without feature,
without end, luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 7755
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍 With Sandha, AN 11.9 (Week of November 28, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:37 am As for the the unwise meditator's dependence on a form derived from the four great elements.
SN 1.27 from Devata Samyutta contains the same idea.
"From where do the streams turn back?
Where does the round no longer revolve?
Where does name and form cease 
Stop without remainder?"

"Where water, earth, fire, and air,
Do not gain a footing;

It is from here that the streams turn back,
Here the round no longer revolves;
Here name and form ceases,
Stops without remainder.""
A brief  excerpt from  Kevatta sutta DN 11.
Consciousness without feature,
without end, luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind
have no footing.
Regards :candle:
Thanks for this excellent final thought, Pulsar!
Locked