5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ontheway »

Pulsar, you wrote
I am more like a person who lived at the beginning of Buddha's dispensation.
Any historical evidence you can provide to that "Vibhajjavada" is the schismatic group?

Care to share any idea? since you claimed that you are like a person " lived at the beginning of Buddha's Dispensation".

*Btw, the term "Vibhajjavada" was coined by Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera when he was dealing with Sassataditthi and Ucchedaditthi, which occurred in many schools of Buddhism (those which modern scholars used to call 'Early Buddhism') of his time.*

Now, the Third Sangayana Council was presided by Arahant Moggaliputta Tissa Thera and 1000 Arahants completed with Patisambhidā and Chalabiññā. Since you are rejecting Vibhajjavada and you called it "degenerated", are you rejecting these Arahants too?

And you also wrote
For the Vibajjavadins too, rupa in Nama-rupa of DO is physical.
No, Vibhajjavada (upholder of Pāli Tipitaka) don't say like that.

In Paṭiccasamuppāda sutta, "Rupa" was defined as "The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form."


In Visuddhimagga, "Rupa" was defined as:
"35. Herein (a) primary materiality is of four kinds as the earth element, water element, fire element, and air element. Their characteristic, function, and manifestation have been given under the definition of the four elements (XI.87, 93); but as to the proximate cause, each has the other three as its proximate cause.

36. (b) Derived materiality is of twenty-four kinds as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body , visible datum, sound, odour, flavour; femininity faculty , masculinity faculty , life faculty , heart-basis; bodily intimation, verbal intimation; space element; lightness of matter, malleability of matter, wieldiness of matter, growth of matter, continuity of matter, ageing of matter, impermanence of matter, and physical nutriment."
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote 
I doubt you have the authority to declare that, but out of interest why?
Let me try another way. Let us bring in Buddha's words.
As long as we don't misinterpret them?
Rupa in nama-rupa is the rupa aggregate,
agree? do you?
Let us fetch two very simple suttas before Vibajjavadins had the opportunity to crucify them. These are not suttas of the Piltdown category.
  • Take Phena sutta SN 22.95.
How did Buddha define the aggregates there?
  • Buddha compares the form/body to foam
  • Is foam evocative of solidity?
  • form as foam is evocative of endless sights, sounds, scents, that roil through my mind
when I resort to careless thinking instead of engaging in the four establishments of mindfulness.
"Monks, suppose that a large glob of foam were floating down this Ganges River, ...to a person observing, ... it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a glob of foam?" 
If form was solid, Buddha would have said "watch that mass of fish floating" or "see that log" but did he say this? Do you think if Buddha lived today,
  • he would have used 'a log' or a 'pebble' instead of foam to compose the simile for rupa?
Now let us bring in Radha SN 23.2, I love when friends bring up meaningful suttas, like DD did.
Thank Retro, for enriching the discussion with Radha. As Retro and some others know, Radha Samyutta is  also a teaching on the 5 aggregates.
After explaining to Radha how a being comes to be, due to the arising of five aggregates, Buddha says
 "Radha scatter form, demolish it, put it out of play"
Buddha is asking Radha to demolish form, put it out of play, like children would kick and flatten sand castles after play.
Your understanding of form as physical???? Does it make sense in this context?.
  • Is form described in the suttas on the aggregates like a log or like foam?
If Buddha lived today would he rewrite Phena sutta? "form is like a log, sorry form is not like foam"?.
Coming back to Radha,
  • when Buddha tells us to destroy the bodies (of loved ones, or loved things) is he telling us to physically destroy these bodies, of a mother, a friend? Or is he telling us to avoid the "arising of their forms in our minds?"
Dearest C: Is Buddha teaching us the tactics of shooting and destroying the physical forms of those we love? Or is he teaching us the tactics of killing the arising of reflections of loved ones in our minds by not craving for them??????
I will get back to SN 47.42, I am happy you are trying to understand it. If Buddha lived today, would he redefine the aggregates in SN 23.2? 
Buddha did not present the first aggregate or the rupa in nama-rupa in DO as the Vibajjavadins or the latter day Sarvasvastivadins did. This makes some buddhists unhappy, because they neither understand the aggregates nor DO accurately, so they try to twist the teaching using abhidhamma.
Previously you mentioned that if Buddha lived today he would redefine rupa in nama-rupa? do you mean according to the way Vibajjavadins redefined it? or is there a better definition?
Love to hear your suggestions.
With love  :candle:
Jack19990101
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:40 am

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Jack19990101 »

We can't directly know or in contact with physical object itself if there is any.

What we mean rupa, it means what we can sense via the organic sense organs.
Usually we offer them a name as designation, as in an apple, which is nama.
But there is pure mind made object, like santa. Santa doesn't offer any other 5 senses stimuli, it is only nama.

Nama-rupa, makes up all 6 sense stimuli - or all our sensory experience, which we usually call the world.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Spiny Norman »

I don't understand the argument that rupa in DO nama-rupa is purely a "mental" phenomenon.

Look at the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2.
You will find it uses the stock description of rupa for the nama-rupa nidana, ie the four great elements and the form derived from them. That sounds like matter, not mind.
There is no basis for "naming form" as an interpretation of nama-rupa, based on the suttas.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by auto »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 4:57 pm I don't understand the argument that rupa in DO nama-rupa is purely a "mental" phenomenon.

Look at the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2.
You will find it uses the stock description of rupa for the nama-rupa nidana, ie the four great elements and the form derived from them. That sounds like matter, not mind.
There is no basis for "naming form" as an interpretation of nama-rupa, based on the suttas.
nati=namarupa
In this Sutta is nati
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.40/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:When this support exists, consciousness becomes established.
Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.
When consciousness is established and grows, there is an inclination.
Tasmiṁ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nati hoti.
In this Sutta is namarupa
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:When this support exists, consciousness becomes established.
Ārammaṇe sati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa hoti.
When consciousness is established, name and form are conceived.
Tasmiṁ patiṭṭhite viññāṇe virūḷhe nāmarūpassa avakkanti hoti.
nati,
https://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/n/nati/ wrote:Concise Pali-English Dictionary by A.P. Buddhadatta Mahathera

nati:[f.] bending; inclination; bowing down.
PTS Pali-English dictionary The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

Nati,(f.) [Sk.nati of nam] bending,bent,inclination S.II,67; IV,59; M.I,115.(Page 345)
Pali Word Grammar from Pali Myanmar Dictionary

nati: nati(thī)
နတိ(ထီ)
[namu+ti.nīti,dhā.133.(nati-saṃ)]
[နမု+တိ။ နီတိ၊ ဓာ။ ၁၃၃။ (နတိ-သံ)]
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by thomaslaw »

Regarding SN12.38-40 = SA 359-361, see Choong Mun-keat's comparative study. SA 361 (= SN 12.40) (p. 171) has "name-and-material form" in place of "a bending" (nati): :candle: :reading:
Attachments
Pages 169-172 from the-fundamental-teachings-of-early-buddhism_Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf
(281.24 KiB) Downloaded 48 times
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Pulsar »

thomaslaw wrote:
Regarding SN12.38-40 = SA 359-361, see Choong Mun-keat's comparative study. SA 361 (= SN 12.40) (p. 171) has "name-and-material form" in place of "a bending" (nati)
I think I mentioned this before, our own DD joked about it.
I remember he used to post a picture of Obama leaning towards a pretty woman, one way of explaining! DD was entertaining (the life of the party) and brilliant at times. I miss the brilliance not the entertainment so much. But words like bending can create a heap of mental proliferations? 
Yesterday I noticed another SNAFU in the Samyutta nikaya, this time in SN 54.8. Have you noticed instances when the samadhi of 8-fold path (buddhist jhana) is described in the Samyukta agama (SA 814) as in Sn 4.11, (Kalaha vivada sutta, a sutta that was closed during Buddha's lifetime) yet Pali compilers do a switcheroo on it. SN 54.8 Pali version, packs in the 4 arupas not found in the agama version
One finds it in the VBB and Sujatho translations. Besides the length of the Pali version? with elaborations that that are not found in the agama version???
The falsification and fake elaborations arei not the fault of the translator. Translators stay faithful to the Pali tradition. Major falsifications began around the 3rd Buddhist council??? Scholars have reported that this was a one sided council. No one but Vibbajjavadins participated in this council.
Rewriting the history of Buddha Dhamma, began with Mahasatipatthana sutta, (or before that?) when the first satipatthana was distorted, when
  • body/rupa became solid, instead of an impression on the consciousness
Today still folks argue that what is derived from the four primary elements is not the eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc (the six classes), but solid rupas, that are out there.
These 6 classes of consciousness (dhatu) are derived from earth, air, water and fire (also called primary dhatu) or the four primary elements. Many fail to understand the significance of this foundational truth of Buddha Dhamma, not Abhidhamma.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

SĀ 814 also lists the arūpyasamāpattis:

是比丘欲求第二、第三、第四禪,[...] 空入處、識入處、無所有 入處、非想非非想入處 ...
This monk who desires to strive for the second, the third, and the fourth dhyāna, [...] the abode of space, the abode of consciousness, the abode of nothingness, the abode of neither perception nor non-perception ...

The material omitted by the "[...]" is a description of the dhyānas as associated with the brahmāvihāras: "(with) maitrī, karuṇā, muditā, and upekṣā" (慈、悲、喜、捨).
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.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22402
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:46 pm


Let us fetch two very simple suttas before Vibajjavadins had the opportunity to crucify them. These are not suttas of the Piltdown category.
Take Phena sutta SN 22.95.
How did Buddha define the aggregates there?
Buddha compares the form/body to foam
Is foam evocative of solidity?
form as foam is evocative of endless sights, sounds, scents, that roil through my mind
when I resort to careless thinking instead of engaging in the four establishments of mindfulness.
A lack of substance doesn't necessarily mean non-physical. This sutta really depends on what the Buddha meant by "substance". Did he mean substance the likes of which Vaiśeṣika and Jainism argued for, or was he using in a more casual and general conversation sort of way so as to highlight forms impermanence? Or, further still, did he simply mean it is without an atta. I believe the commentaries explain it in such a way. Personally I don't think it's a stretch to read it as a critique of substance metaphysics. Let's assume that that is what is meant. What the Buddha then is saying here is that form has no permanent substance behind it's phenomenal quality. No permanent reality behind the sense experience of form. This would be tantamount to scepticism regarding the ontological existence of what we call matter IMO. Does this then mean that rūpa has nothing to do with physicality? I wouldn't say so. In the Cambridge dictionary a definition given for "physical" is "relating to things you can see or touch, or relating to the laws of nature". Now this is a western definition. It defines physical as sense objects, with the senses restricted to the 5 senses. Of course in Buddhism there are 6 senses. Approaching this then with a western mindset, rūpa can include both the physical and non-physical. That which is experienced both mentally and physically. What then of rūpa in the standard 12-link formula of paṭiccasamuppāda? I think there rūpa means one's physical form, which is the basis for the 5 physical sense organs (with nāma or nāma + viññāṇa making up the mind). However, let's say it is not. Let's say that rūpa in nāmarūpa is merely the objects that we sense. Well, one of the sense objects would include physical touch and physical touch has the physical body as it's sense base. So, even with this interpretation the body is still implied. I don't think it quite works, because the physical body comes next in the 12-fold link. This is why I think form means one's physical form that has as it's basis the 4 elements which shape the physical world, as per the Indian worldview at the time amongst wise and learned men and women.
Buddha is asking Radha to demolish form, put it out of play, like children would kick and flatten sand castles after play.
Your understanding of form as physical???? Does it make sense in this context?.
Ending continuous birth would demolish form. In that sutta he also said one should demolish feelings. Did the Buddha have no feelings at all, according to you?
when Buddha tells us to destroy the bodies (of loved ones, or loved things) is he telling us to physically destroy these bodies, of a mother, a friend? Or is he telling us to avoid the "arising of their forms in our minds?"
Where does he say that?
I will get back to SN 47.42, I am happy you are trying to understand it. If Buddha lived today, would he redefine the aggregates in SN 23.2?
If the Buddha was born today, let's say in Scotland, he wouldn't even talk of "aggregates" IMO.
Buddha did not present the first aggregate or the rupa in nama-rupa in DO as the Vibajjavadins or the latter day Sarvasvastivadins did. This makes some buddhists unhappy, because they neither understand the aggregates nor DO accurately, so they try to twist the teaching using abhidhamma.
I don't know what you are trying to say here?
Previously you mentioned that if Buddha lived today he would redefine rupa in nama-rupa? do you mean according to the way Vibajjavadins redefined it? or is there a better definition?
That isn't what I said. I said he wouldn't talk of nāmarūpa at all, because know one would have a clue what he was talking about. Nāmarūpa is a concept from iron age India. Talk about "name and form" to a modern audience that hasn't been influenced by Indian traditions and they wouldn't know what you were talking about. Instead the Buddha would make use of other concepts to correct our distorted view.
“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.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Pulsar »

Thanks Dear Coemgenu, my rough translations using DeepL gave me,
excerpt:
 The bhikkhu who desires the second, third, and fourth zazen, (fourth zazen is 4 jhana?) compassion, mercy, joy, and even mindedness,
and the empty, consciousness, no-thing, and non-thought, non-non-thought,
it is not quite the way you translate.
Neither perception nor non-perception is how 4th jhana is described in Sn 4.11. Folks could easily mistake this for Arupa samapathis as Niddesa did???
There are different recensions of the same sutta. In
Traces of Incorporation, in some examples of samyukta-agama suttas in the mulasarvastivada Vinaya
by Yao Fumi, It discusses the complexity of textual transmission. Fumi's publication is found in the
 Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama
edited by Dhammadinnā 2020. Quite a helpful read. You might enjoy it.
But all those terms  empty, consciousness, no-thing, and non-thought, non-non-thought, the way my translation reads imply emptiness, free of worldly consciousness.
These phrases no-thing, and non-thought and non-non thought are like a description pulled out of Sn 4.11 describing fourth jhana. Many misread the formlessness of this state as Arupa samapatthis, but that is not correct.
Earlier in the thread OP gave us this translation of of Sn 4.11 verse 874
One not percipient of perceptions
not percipient of aberrant/twisted perceptions,
not unpercipient,
nor percipient of what’s disappeared:

For one thus-arriving,
form disappears—
for objectification-classifications
have their cause in perception.”
A few other trnslations, Olendszki
For a person in this state form vanishes, sensation/feeling is the cause of obsessive thought.
Laurence Khantipola Mills:
for one in what state does form cease to be
From the Slovak translation
"For one who achieves this, form disappears, since perception is the basis for an established perception.
From the Sinhala translator
In what kind of discipline does form cease to manifest? and thus neither pleasure nor pain. How does form disappear. The translator goes out of the way to say this formless state is not Arupa samapatti.
Yet, Niddesa infers this is Arupa samapatthi, a nice excuse to import Arupa samapathis into the canon???
Earlier on this thread (page 2) is a text book example of how scholars might reinforce Niddesa'a abhidhamma view???
Using Niddesa's view as the background to explain SN 4.11
"not lacking perception, nor perceiving what has disappeared"
they fall into the trap
"these enigmatic states refer to an advanced state of Samadhi" probably formless attainments???
But if you read Sn 4.11 on its own merit, all it says is Samadhi is without form.
And we know that once rupa is removed from nama-rupa, normal consciousness vanishes.
  • Consciouness becomes transformed into an enlightened state.
Why bring in Arupa samapatthis into Buddha's doctrine, when one can get rid of form simply by using the 4 establishmnets of mindfulness as explained in SN 47.42?
Samma samadhi is mere stabilization of what is already achieved, if you approach librartion via 8 fold path. The mind that excludes form is free of wordly sorrow, no more generation of consciousness.
What purpose does Arupa samapatthis serve?
Now if your version of the Chinese sutta specificaclly contains the word Arupa samapathis, perhaps Niddesa has influenced the compiler???
My version describes the formless state, similar to the description found in Sn 4.11.
Thanks again for Sariarthagatha. It saved my life, what I was always looking for.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Pulsar wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:40 pmBut all those terms  empty, consciousness, no-thing, and non-thought, non-non-thought, the way my translation reads imply emptiness, free of worldly consciousness.
The trouble is that DeepL, for whatever reason, is not registering the term āyatana (入處) found after all those items. They are definitely the arūpyas, the age of the translation aside.

DeepL is also reading "(empty) space" as "empty," because the terms are synonyms in Chinese. It can't properly intuit the context here.
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.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Pulsar »

Coemgenu wrote 
DeepL is also reading "(empty) space" as "empty," because the terms are synonyms in Chinese. It can't properly intuit the context here.
I love what you say, it opened my eyes to the complexity of oral or written transmission, mentioned by Yao Fumi.
On paper there were holes sometimes, deleted sections, in memory there were holes sometimes, so the sutta transmitter resorted to some other faulty memory (or his own faulty understanding) to fill in the blank.
Imagine a scenario where he was incapable of intuiting the context, esp when it came to dependent origination.
We know that a number of our friends on this forum still adhere to the notion that rupa in nama-rupa is physical and not mental.
If one approaches a sutta with missing parts with that mindset, one can transform buddhism into hinduism or some form of Upanishads, the transmitter's or the machine's chosen variety.
Sujato wrote recently 
At the end of the day, we must all be accountable for our beliefs, and you must ultimately figure out your own understanding of Dhamma.
Let us hope that our intuition over time, approaches that of the Buddha on the night he awoke, when he finally realized how the 5 aggregates arose, via one's craving for nama rupa. 
  • Buddha never intuited that forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches were solid.
Once on a thread DD said something like what you wrote. There is something to be said for sound bites. I was totally blown away. 
with love  :candle:
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:31 pm
  • Buddha never intuited that forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches were solid.
You got to decide what you mean by the sound, is it a sense impression what arrives at the mind door? or do you mean sound and the ear what simultaneous arising(uppada) is a support(ārammaṇa) for the thiti(existence) of consciousness.
Or do you mean the sound what you hear?
Its not enough to claim: 'oh i mean the sound what buddha meant in the suttas'

On top of that read up from vibhanga or abhidhamma what it says about rupa in jhana, that it is related to the realm of the senses not the rupa realm. And what is the kaya(4 khandhas, no rupa) in 3rd jhana.
https://suttacentral.net/ds2.2.3/en/rhysdavids_litt wrote: All form is that which is
..
related to the universe of sense,
not related to the universe of form,
nor to that of the formless,..
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Pulsar »

Dearest Coemgenu, I appreciate your comments,
even though I may not agree with you, it is fun to interact with you. You bring in something refreshing to the community here. Did you get a chance to read Yao Fumi? her publication is intriguing. She introduced a sutta from Mulasaravastivadin Vinaya, that I had never heard of before. That gal is quite something.
She covers the entire Anapanasati Samyutta, and points out deficiencies in some suttas( transmission errors?). She admits the best and most complete sutta in Anapanasati Samyukta is SA 810. Our parallel is SN 54.13.
Taisho parallel is SA 815.
When I read these two agama versions although the core is similar,
there are differences in the reporting. One involves a teaching to Ananda only. The other sounds more like MN 118, involving groups of monks. Do you have any idea why? These two versions? were they transmitted by two different lineages of Mulasarvastivadins?
Then, here is the fun, Anapanasati sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya MN 118 resembles this very same sutta, kinda jazzed up by the Pali compilers. Somewhere along the way they annexed a sutta from Bojjanaga Samyutta SN 46.3 to the narrative.
Pali compilers thought, longer the better, no matter how many distracting repetitions are involved?
  • Agama suttas offer the core of the teaching and are neat and tidy,
when it comes to Samyukta Nikaya specially, this must be the
  • Hallmark of MulaSarvastivadins
In the complete sutta SA 810, there is absolutely no hint of Arupa Samapatthis.
There was a time when I believed Pali suttas were the most authentic. Now the agama suttas are beginning to open my eyes. What an education! thanks to the good people here, and the availability of Agama suttas, made possible by V. Sujato.
with love and hugs :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Pulsar wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:09 pmSA 810. Our parallel is SN 54.13.
Taisho parallel is SA 815
Why these two different numberings? If "SA 815" is the "Taisho parallel," what is SA 810? I've never heard of two numbering systems that both use the acronym "SA." I'll be honest, I'm not quite sure it exists. What are you talking about with one citation, then a citation of what appears to be a different sutra entirely called a "Taisho parallel?"

When you see "SA 810" or "SA 815," it refers to the 810th or 815th sutra in the Samyutkagama. These numbers, like DA 2, SA 218, etc., are derived from the Taisho numbering. Do you have something to offer to the contrary?
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.
Post Reply