5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

[asahi]

Not the descent of namarupa , rather ,
The descent "onto" namarupa .
But i guess your interpretation of namarupa meaning (gandhabba) not the same with mine .

I don't think nāmarūpa means exactly the same thing in every sutta or sutra. Interestingly though the parallel has "descent into name". That the parallel omits rūpa though suggests some things.

The suppose actual sentence should be :
There is a descent onto the namarupa .

Why?

Either sutta or sutra namarupa meaning appear to have changed from its original meaning . Taking namarupa as embryo , it seems descending 《of》 embryo sounds weird dont you think . why would Buddha teach contemplation on descending of embryo ?
For gandhabba , if the sequence of descending is after the six sense base already develop then perhaps it would be more fitting . Therefore , the suppose sequence is after establishing of the consciousness onto namarupa (sense bases n objects) , it then trigger the next phase or future period of six sense bases .

[Ceisiwr]

Either sutta or sutra namarupa meaning appear to have changed .

Yes, or the reciters received similar yet slightly different teachings. Let's say there is a change or loss at play though. The parallel talks of descent into name yes? This is a bit odd. It leaves out rūpa entirely, yet in terms of DO we always find nāma with rūpa. We could be talking about the formless states, but for the Sarvāstivādins that we know of there was rūpa in in the formless. An argument can then be made that the parallel has lost rūpa from nāmarūpa. Still, this would leave "descent into nāmarūpa". Does this make sense? I would say so. To say that consciousness descends into nāmarūpa is to say the same thing as DN 15

“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to gain a footing in mentality-materiality, would an origination of the mass of suffering—of future birth, aging, and death—be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for consciousness, namely, mentality-materiality.

“It is to this extent, Ānanda, that one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise, to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description, to this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness.

For gandhabba , if the sequence of descending is after the six sense base already develop then perhaps it would be more fitting . Therefore , the suppose sequence is after establishing of the consciousness onto namarupa (sense bases n objects) , it then trigger the next or future period of six sense bases .

A simple way of understanding it would be that based on past kamma there is rebirth-linking. This is then the condition for the aggregates in this life, which in turn are the conditions for the senses bases and contact which in turn themselves are a condition for a fresh round of continuing existence due to the āsavā.

[Ceisiwr]

Regarding the meaning of jati in DO and the nature of dukkha, this sutta is quite telling

At one time, the Venerable Sāriputta was dwelling near the small village of Nālaka in Magadha. And then, there where Venerable Sāriputta was, there Sāmaṇḍakāni, the wanderer, approached. Having approached, he exchanged greetings with the Venerable Sāriputta. Having exchanged greetings, and courteous talk having passed between them, he sat to one side. Having sat to one side, Sāmaṇḍakāni, the wanderer, said this to Venerable Sāriputta:

“Now, what, friend Sāriputta, is the pleasant, and what is the painful?”

“Rebirth, friend, is painful; non-rebirth is pleasant. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected: cold and heat, hunger and thirst, excrement and urine, contact with fire, contact with punishment, contact with weapons, and anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. When, friend, there is rebirth, this pain is to be expected.

“When, friend, there is no rebirth, this pleasantness is to be expected: neither cold nor heat, neither hunger nor thirst, neither excrement nor urine, neither contact with fire, nor contact with punishment, nor contact with weapons, and no anger caused by meeting and associating with relatives and friends. When, friend, there is no rebirth, this pleasantness is to be expected.”

https://suttacentral.net/an10.65/en/nizamis

However, in the context of this thread there is no parallel currently listed on SuttaCentral.

[asahi]

Yes, or the reciters received similar yet slightly different teachings. Let's say there is a change or loss at play though. The parallel talks of descent into name yes? This is a bit odd. It leaves out rūpa entirely, yet in terms of DO we always find nāma with rūpa. We could be talking about the formless states, but for the Sarvāstivādins that we know of there was rūpa in in the formless. An argument can then be made that the parallel has lost rūpa from nāmarūpa. Still, this would leave "descent into nāmarūpa". Does this make sense? I would say so. To say that consciousness descends into nāmarūpa is to say the same thing as DN 15

“It was said: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness.’ How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to gain a footing in mentality-materiality, would an origination of the mass of suffering—of future birth, aging, and death—be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for consciousness, namely, mentality-materiality.

“It is to this extent, Ānanda, that one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise, to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description, to this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness.

Which parallel says descent into name ?
No , namarupa wasnt about formless .

[thomaslaw]

Mahīśāsaka EBTs (the second Chinese Saṃyuktāgama)

I thought this was Mūlasarvāstivāda?

There are two theories. I actually prefer Bingenheimer's hypothesis that the second SA comes from Central Asian or otherwise northerly Sarvastivadins ("Mula-," "Root," or "Fundamental" Sarvastivadins), but others think it comes from the Mahīśāsakas.

T100 SA (the second SA) is very unlikely belonging to Mūlasarvāstivāda, if comparing and checking the textual content between SA (T99) and T100 SA.

Also, Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda are just the same school. The term, Mūla, is just a self-styled title for being a truly original one of the tradition.

Another view is T100 SA may belong to the Kasyapiya.

Both Kasyapiya and Mahīśāsaka are belonging to the sub-schools of Vibhajyavada.

[Coëmgenu]

The parallel talks of descent into name yes? This is a bit odd.

AFAIK, they don't. It's "descent of." Even in modern biology, the egg descends down the fallopian tube: the "descent of the egg." I don't understand why people are thinking it's "descent onto" on linguistic grounds. The argument in favour of "descent into/onto" seems to be mostly doctrinal, based on the notion that consciousness precedes namarupa and that consciousness must "descent onto/into" it, and it doesn't seem to be based on the contents of the material texts.

"Descent onto" is tricky, because it confuses the object of the noun "descent of." The "descent of X" is something that X does. The "descent into/onto X" is something that something else does to X, and that would have to be differently declined in Pali. Now, "of" is a fraught word in English and has many diverse ways to connect nouns. I talked about that here. Nonetheless, from the established context surrounding the phrase "descent of X," it seems "of" is coordinating a relationship between "descent" and "X" wherein X itself "does" the descent. For instance, this belief in the "descent of the gandharva" is taken so literally by some Tibetan exegetes that they argue that an airy spectral body, the gandharva, literally descends into the mother's womb, attracted by the sexual intercourse of the mother and father. Where did it descend from? The airs above. During the last moments of life, the body formed in the air above the old body. Some say that it exits the old body via the mouth when air is expelled from the lungs as the body dies. It travels through the air, experiencing a "bardo of death," and descends into the womb of the mother. I don't believe in this model. I think that it seems too ham-fistedly literal about "the gandharva." Secondly, though the gandharva is not the self, is not "the same consciousness," it seems too close to the heresy of Sati the fisherman's son that "this same consciousness" transmigrates for me to comfortable with it. That being said, I have not given a particularly generous account of how rebirth is supposed to work according to that model. I personally don't believe in it, because I can't see a significant difference between it and a transmigrating soul, even though the difference has been explained to me. The gardharval body is not a soul that transmigrates because it is simply another set of aggregates that are acquired and discarded in the intervening period between two more significant births. Personally, I think the explanation is a proto-physicalist explanation. The mind-stream must be "embodied" in the form of the gandharva during the antarabhava. I disagree that it must be so embodied.

Touching on the matter of the school affiliation of the second SA collection, there's one thing that thomaslaw and Bingenheimer are starting to agree on, and that is that the attribution to the Kāśyapīya sect is problematized and tentative at best:

https://journals.equinoxpub.com/index.p ... /7677/1313

Compare that with Mun-Keat's theory (NOTE: his last name is actually "Choong." I've been mistakenly referring to "Mun-Keat" as his surname) that it does belong either to the Kāśyapīya sect or an unknown one from his 2011 article A comparison of the Pali and Chinese versions of the 'Devata Samyutta' and 'Devaputta Samyutta,' on p. 62, note 6. This very citation was once linked to me by a poster also posting in this thread who insisted that the second SA was Kāśyapīya. Minds change, it seems, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[Pulsar]

Thomaslaw wrote 

Also, Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda are just the same school. The term, Mūla, is just a self-styled title for being a truly original one of the tradition.

Peter Skilling does not think so. Might he be a better informed scholar? I think so.
When VBB was stuck on the Pali in SN, one time, (due to the many errors found in Pali transmission) he had to ask Skilling to straighten things out, which Skilling did. It is found in the foot notes of SN.
Sarirarthagatha that Coemgenu fetched is more fascinating than any scholar's work, however. It is obvious these fragments fell straight out of the mouth of the Buddha.  
As for the Sarvastivada and Mulasarvativada issue you might benefit from A. Wynne's publication on Acdemia.edu.

On the Sarvåstivådins and M ̈lasarvåstivådins.

On p265 it reads 

The claim that Upagupta simplified the original Vinaya to ‘ten recitations’ for those with ‘weak faculties’ is effectively a claim that the Sarvåstivådin community is an inferior offshoot of the
M ̈lasarvåstivådins.

An inferior group could not possibly have compiled SA. It is flawless. A major accompplishment.
Regards

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr wrote 

I think until you awaken you can't really go around saying for sure that x school has got it wrong. Regarding rūpa in nāmarūpa, in some of the earliest texts it is described in a way that strongly implies physicality.

If one goes around thinking that rupa in nama-rupa is a physical thing, that one will never awaken.
You wrote 

I'm thinking of here:

"And why do you call it form? It’s deformed; that’s why it’s called ‘form’. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, heat, hunger, and thirst, and deformed by the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. It’s deformed; that’s why it’s called ‘form’. - SN 47.42

Are you sure SN 47.42, the sutta on Origination, or Samudaya contains this passage?
The last time I looked up SN 47.42, It wrote

"And what bhikkhus is the origination of the body?
with the origination of nutriment there is the origination of the body?
With the cessation of nutriment there is the passing away of the body"

Do you My Dear Ceisiwr understand these words of the Buddha? If you do, can you please clarify it for the forum? Once you do, the forum will understand what Buddha meant by rupa in nama-rupa.
Right now I am beginning to wonder: Is Retrofuturist the only one who gets it? Surely it cannot be so.
With love

[thomaslaw]

Thomaslaw wrote 

Also, Mūlasarvāstivāda and Sarvāstivāda are just the same school. The term, Mūla, is just a self-styled title for being a truly original one of the tradition.

Peter Skilling does not think so.

I think he does not read Chinese Buddhist texts!

[Pulsar]

thomaslaw wrote

I think he does not read Chinese Buddhist texts!

that is a reason given by Patton to excuse the misinterpretations of agama suttas by Analayo. But Analayo is a different story. There are several issues with Analayo that I do not want to bring up here.
Besides, Patton also has said

• Analayo forces Pali like understandings to agama readings.

Repercussions of that is endless. If you continue to do this in some cases, one erases the Buddha from the canon and replaces him with

• nonsense like rupa in Nama-rupa of DO is a darned solid thing.

This basically destroys the path to Nibbana. Do we want that?
Calling Peter Skilling "uneducated in Chinese" does not help your case.
There are some of us here who can understand the Buddha without understanding Chinese, thanks
to the excellent translations of those who understood Chinese.
If Peter Skilling is the one VBB sought to help him understand abstruse Pali texts, what other proof do I need
regarding Peter Skilling's qualifications?
Besides the statement in my earlier comment? was not made by Peter Skilling. Let me repeat it.

The claim that Upagupta simplified the original Vinaya to ‘ten recitations’ for those with ‘weak faculties’ is effectively a claim that the Sarvåstivådin community is an inferior offshoot of the
M ̈lasarvåstivådins

With love

[thomaslaw]

The claim that Upagupta simplified the original Vinaya to ‘ten recitations’ for those with ‘weak faculties’ is effectively a claim that the Sarvåstivådin community is an inferior offshoot of the
M ̈lasarvåstivådins

No concrete details (evidence) are found to support that Sarvastivada is different from the so-called Mula-Sarvastivada.

[Pulsar]

thomaslaw wrote

No concrete details (evidence) to support that Sarvastivada is different from Mula-Sarvastivada

How much more concrete does it have to be? Is not the previous excerpt from A. Wynne's publication on the "two schools referring to Vinaya Rules" not adequate enuf? Was not Vinaya a big thing used to demarcate school affiliations? or was there another criterion?
Now if you ask me to prove that Buddha ever lived, I am not sure where to begin. Will it be Sarirarthagatha that our dear Coemgenu fetched the other day, or the Asokan Pillars? I am at a loss.
With love

[thomaslaw]

thomaslaw wrote

No concrete details (evidence) to support that Sarvastivada is different from Mula-Sarvastivada

How much more concrete does it have to be? Is not the previous excerpt from A. Wynne's publication on the "two schools referring to Vinaya Rules" not adequate enuf?

What Vinaya rules are shown clearly in what texts for which school, Sarvastivada or Mula-Sarvastivada?

[Pulsar]

thomaslaw wrote

What Vinaya rules are shown clearly in what texts for which school, Sarvastivada or Mula-Sarvastivada?

Now you are interrogating me about vinaya rules. You got me there. I am no Vinaya expert.
I am more like a person who lived at the beginning of Buddha's dispensation. That time no vinaya was required. People understood the teaching and disciplined themselves accordingly. Something that sounds so simple to me, got complicated as members of the Sangha became members for the wrong reasons, even over Buddha's
lifetime.
Upagupata's simplification of Vinaya rules reported in A. Wynnes publication that I quoted, satisfied my curiosity in this regard.
Did you read that publication?????????

As for me the content of SA and later evolutions in Sarvastivadan abhidhamma like rupa in Nama-rupa in DO is physical, which contradicts the writings in SA, is plenty of evidence.
This degeneration is kinda similar to Vibajjavadin abhidhamma.
If you say Sarvastivada and Mulasarvastivada are similar? it is bit like when a Vibajjavadin says they are similar to Sthaviras?
For the Vibajjavadins too, rupa in Nama-rupa of DO is physical. To see through these historical events and tinkering with DO, until rupa in nama-rupa became physical, one has to understand what sutta compilers did with Abhidhamma.
With Love

[Ceisiwr]

If one goes around thinking that rupa in nama-rupa is a physical thing, that one will never awaken.

I doubt you have the authority to declare that, but out of interest why?

Are you sure SN 47.42, the sutta on Origination, or Samudaya contains this passage?
The last time I looked up SN 47.42, It wrote

Yes you are right. I made a mistake there. The sutta which defines rūpa as that which is "deformed" is SN 22.79. I was also reading SN 47.42 at the time, and quoted that by mistake. SN 47.42 is interesting though. It's interesting because it is similar to SN 22.56, which defines nāmarūpa by way of the aggregates. There nāma = vedanā, sañña and intentions whilst rūpa = the form aggregate, with the consciousness aggregate standing in relation to them all. Elsewhere the form aggregate, and so rūpa in nāmarūpa, quite clearly means the physical body (which has edible food as nutriment). In MN 28 it is even more explicitly so

When a space is enclosed by sticks, creepers, grass, and mud it becomes known as a ‘building’. In the same way, when a space is enclosed by bones, sinews, flesh, and skin it becomes known as a ‘form’.

MN 28 however is interesting, as form can also include all sense objects including mental ones. This is interesting since it suggests that rūpa in the aggregates isn't just one's own body, but also anything that can be sensed through the sense organs. We see this idea in relation to nāmarūpa too in other suttas, where nāmarūpa are external sense objects. How then to understand nāmarūpa in the 12-fold link? Personally I think it's best to work backwards rather than forwards in order to understand it. Contact then can only come to be when there are the 6 sense organs. The 6 organs then can only come to be when there is a physical form built from the 4 elements (according to the worldview of iron age India) and the mental dhammas of feeling, perception, intention and attention both of which in turn depend upon consciousness. That consciousness in turn depended upon intentional action in a previous life.