5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

[Pulsar]

Coemgenu: a while ago you wrote

Lastly, in SĀ's understanding of "nāmarūpa," "nāma" means the four immaterial aggregates and "rūpa" means "the physical body.

and I asked you

Can you bring me some suttas from SĀ to support this?

You have not answered my question. You continue with your misconception that rupa as the physical body. I flipped through SĀ', nowhere can I find a sutta that says so.
Can you give me the sutta number? If there is a sutta stating that rupa is the physical body, it has to be in Khanda Samyutta or Nidana Samyutta, right? This should make it easy for you to look up the sutta. Just a reminder, we are discussing Nama-rupa in relation to DO.
Regards

[Coëmgenu]

I've been busy and still am. Patience is a virtue. Nothing I have said concerning SĀ is false.

[Pulsar]

Retrofuturist asked

Do you see much evidence, from cross-canonical textual analysis that they retrofitted their own sectarian doctrines back into their Sutta baskets, or did they maintain the discipline and integrity to merely transmit that which they had inherited?

I am only very familiar with the Pali canon. Scholars have admitted that there are two layers of suttas in the Sutta Pitaka.
This is directly visible to anyone with a firm understanding of DO, reading the Pali canon. My take is that Vibajjavadins did not always maintain the discipline and integrity to merely transmit that which they had inherited?
They tampered with some suttas, not all. They dared to feed words into the mouth of Buddha in suttas like DN 22 and MN 111. Samyutta Nikaya indicates the lowest level of corruption. Take a sutta like SN 10.3 Suciloma, the compiler tampered with the transmission. Other than that Sariputta Samyutta is an entirely late fabrication, by Vibajjavadins, that I can think of right now.
Let us take a simpler instance, when a sutta writes Buddha or Sariputta went on alms round, returned, sat down and entered first or second jhana, it indicates to me that particular compiler did not understand the meaning of liberation.
Arahant is liberated, why does he have to re-liberate himself?
Samyukta agama is entirely free of such SNAFUs. Whoever compiled SA suttas had a good understanding of Dependent Origination and maintained the discipline and integrity to merely transmit that which they had inherited?
Regards

[Coëmgenu]

These traditions also created their own sectarian doctrines apart from those Sutta baskets, in the form of Abhidharmas, commentaries and such. Do you see much evidence, from cross-canonical textual analysis that they retrofitted their own sectarian doctrines back into their Sutta baskets, or did they maintain the discipline and integrity to merely transmit that which they had inherited?

This one is difficult, because we're presuming that the Sarvastivadins and Theravadins ever inherited a body of sayings and attributed wisdom that was identical. "Sarvastivadin" and "Theravadin" do not exist in the theorized pre-sectarian period, and their specific recensions of the texts arguably did not either. There simply isn't that much solid history from before the sectarian period of Buddhist history. We don't have "pre-sectarian Buddhist texts" from ~400BC. They would be quite handy if we did have them. The trouble is, said sectarian period is when "Buddhist texts" start to exist at all. We have no Buddhist texts from this period because there likely were none. The Dharma was oral when it was pre-sectarian, IMO, but that is just my own suspicions. It is circumstantially backed-up by the fact that we know that the early transmission of the Dharma relied on memorizers/reciters and not on the production and circulation of texts. I can't prove that the Dharma was never both textual and pre-sectarian, but it is incredibly unlikely and it would be groundless to suggest that there were pre-sectarian Buddhist "texts." One of my operative assumptions here is the notion that oral cultures start to write things down in a "big way" (i.e. formalize scriptures) when there is either 1) a risk of losing the transmission of the knowledge, or 2) a belief that the transmission is being lost. The Israelites, for instance, wrote down their scriptures in exile, when the lines of transmission corresponding to traditional knowledges were severely endangered due to geopolitical instability. I have absolutely no proof to offer that a parallel crisis of transmission, memorization, and recitation was the material cause of the first textualizations of the Buddhadharma, but I personally suspect that such was the case.

Why would they write down the canon at all? Everything had been ticking along fine using the person-to-person transmission model of reciter and memorizer, no? Perhaps things hadn't been working fine with the tripitaka reciters. Perhaps multiple divergent accounts of what the Buddha said had already appeared by this relatively early period, before textualization. We have EBTs. They are mostly the same, but are also divergent with one another. It is possible that the material in them diverged while they were texts. This would involve some party with suspicious intentions materially altering a text. If they haven't suspicious intentions, then certainly inscrutable ones. It's also possible to unintentionally alter a text. What is more likely, IMO, is that as the Buddhist communities splintered and broke-up and schismed, they stopped reciting the Dharma together. Certainly, persons at a great physical distance from each other weren't able to recite together at this time historically regardless if they were schismed or not. Once communities become schismed, and I'm not just talking about a "formal schism of the samgha" here, once they are no longer reciting together, it becomes so much easier for the lines of transmission to become diversified.

The groups who assembled the accounts of the Buddha's speech that we call today "EBTs" were themselves schismed. They did not hold "great recitations" together, nor "councils." There was a historical memory of a great ancient council held in the collective memories of these sects, but all of the recollections of it differ. Human memory is tragically fallible. My theory is that, as these differences in the canons grew more noticeable, textualization occurred as a by-product of attempting to "freeze in place" the recensions.

The second part of your question is "did they maintain the discipline and integrity." I don't think that it takes a lack of integrity to muddle or alter a line of Buddhavacana. A lack of discipline, perhaps. All you have to do is mishear a line, repeat it, internalize it, and then proliferate it. Take the opening of the Dharmapada:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,
manoseṭṭhā manomayā;
Manasā ce paduṭṭhena,
bhāsati vā karoti vā;
Tato naṁ dukkhamanveti,
cakkaṁva vahato padaṁ.

Manopūrvvaṃgamā dhammā,
manośreṣṭhā manojavā;
Manasā ca praduṣṭena,
bhāṣate vā karoti vā;
Tato naṃ dukhamanveti,
cakramvā vahato padaṃ.

The first is Pali. It is very famous -- arguably the "definitive" Dharmapada. The second is the Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dharmapada (notice Prakritisms like "dhamma").

One word is different, "maya" vs "java." It changes the meaning from "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought" (Ven Buddharakkhita translation) to "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-impelled." Someone doesn't have to have a lack of integrity to make this mistake.

With this in mind, before I am otherwise-engaged with needed sleep, I can answer your question with primary sources, which will also go towards answering Pulsar's inquiry, but will not answer it entirely, as that will require more interfacing with the Chinese materials and it has gotten late and I do not have the time that I thought I would. This piece of buddhavacana, the same that Mun-Keat was discussing in the cited excerpt earlier, is at variance with every other known version of itself. This is how the Sarvastivadins inherited this discourse. How it was changed, if it was changed, the intentions or lack thereof behind the change -- no one can know save for the Buddhas, rhetorically speaking.

SA 298
云何名？
What is "the name?"

謂四無色陰
It is said: "the four immaterial aggregates:

受陰、想陰、行陰、識陰。
feelings, perceptions, the saṃskāras, and consciousness."

云何色？
What is "the form?"

謂四大、
It is said: "the four mahābhūtas

四大所造色，
and the form derivative of the four mahābhūtas."

是名為色。
That is called "the form."

此色及前所說名，是為名色。
This is "the form," and "the name" was previously explained. They are "the name and the form."

That's all I'm able to type today. I should have more time over the weekend.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Thanks for sharing your perspective. Much appreciated.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

There is one mistake I'll correct before turning in for the night. In the second line here:

謂四無色陰
It is said: "the four immaterial aggregates:

受陰、想陰、行陰、識陰。
feelings, perceptions, the saṃskāras, and consciousness."

...it should read:

謂四無色陰
It is said: "the four immaterial aggregates:

受陰、想陰、行陰、識陰。
the aggregate of feelings, the aggregate of perceptions, the aggregate of the saṃskāras, and the aggregate of consciousness."

The text goes out of its way to stress that nāmarūpa is being aligned as something equivalent to the aggregates. This is also reflected in extant Sanskrit fragments of the Sarvāstivādin scriptures.

Tatra katamannāma?

Catvāro ’rūpiṇaḥ skandhāḥ ||

Katame catvāraḥ?

Vedanāskandhaḥ |
saṁjñāskandhaḥ |
saṁskāraskandhaḥ |
vijñānaskandhaḥ | Idaṁ nāma ||
Rūpaṁ katamat?

Yatkiṁcidrūpam | sarvaṁ tat: catvāri mahābhūtāni | catvāri ca mahābhūtānyupādāya ||

It does not specify that the "rūpa" in "nāmarūpa" is the rūpaskandha here, but as we will see in other Sarvāstivādin texts, this is what the Sarvāstivādins understood from their version of the sūtra. Whether they retroactively "Abhidharmicized" their sūtra, or whether their sūtra had always said this as far back as their collective memory would allow is a chicken-and-egg type question. Does the variance in the sūtras precipitate the variance in the Abhidharmas, or do the Ābhidharmikas with their varied Abhidharmas incorporate their theories into the sūtras, causing them to be varied? It is an unanswerable question due to a lack of historical sources. I think it is more likely that the variances in the sūtras precipitated the variances in the Abhidharmas.

[Pulsar]

thomaslaw wrote

Yes, all extant EBTs are sectarian.
However, their essential form (structure) and content, recognised in common by all schools of Sectarian Buddhism, were certainly established in the period of Early Buddhism.

When I think of Early Buddhism I think of the

• essential form (structure) and content, recognised in common by all schools of Sectarian Buddhism,

You wrote

Early Buddhism contains both the first and second councils (before the first schism of the Sangha into two main branches, Mahasanghika and Sthavira).

The Sutra collections of Early Buddhism include SA/SN (originated at the first council)

this surely must be why SA is a gold mine, if you approached Buddha himself as the goldmine. But based on my readings of SN and SA it is possible that the SN compilers lapsed where the integrity of transmission was concerned, a very few times. Were they memory issues? other external issues? If this was the case, we cannot blame them. More we discuss SA/SN, clearer the differences become. Two instances in Sagathavagga are particularly striking, which I noticed, thanks to Coemgenu. He provided DW with a commentary on Sarirarthgatha, a mini gold mine of sorts. Thanks C.
You wrote
and MA/MN, DA/DN, and EA/AN (originated at the second council, one hundred years after the death of the Buddha). But were they not open for quite sometime? Did this not provide ample room for sectarian doctrines to creep in and become canonized? Is it not possible these compilations stretched over a few hundred years? even as late as 500 years, way after third council? SA was closed quite early. This possibly is why it is closest to the spirit of Buddha.
You wrote

SA/SN represents the situation with regard to the compilation of the Buddhist teachings shortly after the death of the Buddha.

I think this applies more to SA. I found a few instances where Arupa samapatthis got into SN. When I compared the parallels, I could not find a single instance of Arupa samapatthis in SA. Dear thomalaw, If you find any, it would be nice to explore that.
Regards

[mikenz66]

Charles Patton discussion of how the various Chinese translations of Northern Indic texts show how they changed over time is interesting here. As he says, for the Pali, we don't have records of multiple translations to other languages over time so determining "early" and "later" involves more complex reasoning.

... I think the problem is that I’m coming from an East Asian studies background and then looking at the Agamas and Nikayas. When a scholar studies the Pali as their primary background, there’s a different overall experience, and there are biases that arise from that. I don’t think it’s necessarily intentional, but sometimes it gets heated like it seems to be here.

So, when I study sutras in Chinese closely, I come to the conclusion that they changed quite a bit over time. I come to that conclusion objectively by comparing translations of the same text made repeatedly over the course of five or six centuries. With Pali studies, this isn’t an obvious thing because we don’t have an objective basis for comparing the versions of a Pali sutta as it existed between the same comparable period (2nd and 8th centuries CE). We’re just thinking, “Well, this seems like an early sutta. This doesn’t.” In Chinese, we can actually see examples of earlier and later Buddhist texts. The caveat, of course, is that they are all after 0 CE. Still, we can see the patterns.

From the outset, then, I’m looking for and seeing the same patterns of accretion and expansion that I see with say, the six translations of the Diamond Sutra or the Astasahasrika Sutra (and I have historical records telling me their dates). This is not something we can do with Indic texts. We can to some extent, but there’s more conjecture taking place.

The other thing Chinese studies makes clear is the heterogeneity of early Buddhist texts. The Pali canon is a single, uniform version, but in Chinese I can look at parallels from Sarvastivada, Dharmaguptaka, and other versions that are likely Mahasamghika, Mulasarvastivada, and Kasyapiya. There’s alot of variation between these canons.

However, some are closer to each other than others. So, for example, I can objectively say that the Sarvastivada and Theravada canons are very close to each other in canonical lineage because I can compare them and see how similar they are. I can also say objectively that the Ekottarika Agama is probably from a different canonical lineage than those other two because it’s quite different when I look at its parallels. I’m not guessing about it. I can see these things with actual texts.

The takeaway for me, then, is that there’s alot of conjecture and educated guessing happening in the Indic Buddhist field, and I can see that Buddhist texts evolved over time. I don’t see why that didn’t happen between the Buddha’s time until the time of the earliest texts that exist. To me, it’s a baked in assumption. They changed. But I don’t know how they changed because there are no texts to compare.

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/cr ... bt/19677/9

Mike

[asahi]

The takeaway for me, then, is that there’s alot of conjecture and educated guessing happening in the Indic Buddhist field, and I can see that Buddhist texts evolved over time. I don’t see why that didn’t happen between the Buddha’s time until the time of the earliest texts that exist. To me, it’s a baked in assumption. They changed. But I don’t know how they changed because there are no texts to compare.

Actually , C Patton havent delve into some historical accounts yet . For example , did he or other pali scholar already studies Śāriputrābhidharma (held by Vibhajjavāda) ? In comparison with vibhanga it doesnt discuss about dhamma-hadaya .

[Coëmgenu]

That's a very difficult text to study. Likely not, but I don't think that discounts the rest of his perspective.

[asahi]

Nobody discounts what he said . What i pointed out is that chinese sources appears to have more texts that can sort out many thing that many scholars (especially the western or pali lineage) misses out .

[Coëmgenu]

I agree with that. The Śāriputrābhidharmaśāstra is a difficult text to study even for Chinese, no? Obviously for a Chinese scholar, they have an advantage in dealing with the text, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a very difficult and terse translation.

Also, it has unconditioned dharmas "out the wazoo" as they say.

1. pratisaṃkhyānirodha
(i.e. nirvāṇa)
2. apratisaṃkhyānirodha
(i.e. worldly nirodha)
3. gotra
(i.e. pratyekabuddha vs arhat vs stream-enterer vs one-returner etc.)
4. dharmasthiti
(i.e. the [regularity of the] twelve dependent originations)
5. daśapratyaya
(i.e. the ten causes)
6. ākāśānantyāyatanajñāna
(i.e. knowledge of the realm of endless space)
7. vijñānānantyāyatanajñāna
(i.e. knowledge of the realm of endless consciousness)
8. ākiṃcanyāyatanajñāna
(i.e. knowledge of the realm of nothingness)
9. naivasaṃjñānasaṃjñāyatanajñāna
(i.e. knowledge of the realm of neither perception nor nonperception)

(taken from T1548.526c Śāriputrābhidharmaśāstra)

Nine asaṅkhāta dhammas. They've non-conditioning in plenty.

[asahi]

According to a chinese scholar monk whom has studied Śāriputrābhidharma , the beginning of the corruption of dhamma in the nikaya can be seen through this text when compare to other chinese historical texts and agama sutras where the falsification and alteration occured due to lack of consensus as early as 3rd bce or in the period of 100 years after parinibbana of Buddha .

[thomaslaw]

About the terms, nāmarūpa, in SA, SN, and EA, see:

Another interpretation of the terms, nāma and rūpa, in SA 294 = SN 12.19, see particularly in pp. 187-8:

[Ceisiwr]

No disagreement??
Vibajjavadins who broke off from the earlier sects, Mulasarvastivada???? whatever??

On dependent origination operating across lifetimes, as well as in the present, no. None at all really that we know of. Based on the evidence, the earliest teaching in terms of dependent origination is how it is traditionally understood. What differs is the details.

invented a new school based on their failed understanding of Dependent Origination of suffering.
Name and form in DO was redefined.
The Rupa in Nama Rupa became a physical entity

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. 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

This shares a parallel with the Sarvāstivādins, so we are looking at an understanding of rūpa that goes back to before the 3rd council. Is this how the Buddha understood it? Hard to say, but since rūpa in the Upanishads meant something like "appearance", particularly in reference to the world we see around us, the above definition isn't all that wrong. It's simply an emphasis on physical rūpa over non-physical rūpa. The idea then seems to be that based on consciousness there will be a mind and a physical form.

Were they expelled to Sri Lanka, an island where they could carry on their propaganda??

They weren't expelled and neither was Ven. Mahinda nor the Theras of that Island engaging in propaganda, at least now in relation to this topic.

When these derived elements (eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc) are named due to ignorance, that initiates suffering.

Naming things isn't the problem.

Recently you wrote on another thread something to the effect that "If Buddha was alive today he would not rely on Nama-Rupa". If craving was not found for nama-rupa, there would not be a Buddha. We would all be Arahants. What point is a Buddha then?

If the Buddha had appeared in modern day Cymru, he wouldn't talk of nāmarūpa at all IMO. He wouldn't do so because his audience wouldn't understand what he was talking about. The Buddha spoke in terms of nāmarūpa because that was part of how his audience understood the world back then.

Rupa is not the vina, but the sound that was derived from it.

Personally I think a case can be made that "derived form" simply means our individual bodies. All nāmarūpa is saying IMO is that based on consciousness there is a mind and physical form. A named individual that we can see, hear, smell etc and who in turn can see, hear, smell etc (disabilities notwithstanding).

Vibajjavadin's major accomplishment was remaking of suttas like the Four Establishments of mindfulness (DN 22/MN10) after their own understanding, of Nama-Rupa.
These are proven to be frauds.

If you are referring to Ven. Sujato et al., I believe it's not so much that the suttas are frauds but rather they have been expanded and added to.

They also dragged in a bunch of meditations already prevalent in India into the sutta pitaka, to support their theory. A scam.
Some portions of pali canon are littered with Arupa samapatthis, thanks to the Vibajjavadins, misleading earnest buddhists.

Still on this I see. I will say I do think some editing has gone on in relation to the formless. Ven. Yin Shun suggested that infinite space and infinite consciousness came from element meditation, whilst ākiñcaññāyatana & nevasaññānāsaññāyatana were separate and that eventually they were both merged into one list. I think there is some merit there. Certainly ākiñcaññāyatana & nevasaññānāsaññāyatana make sense as annihilationist meditations, whilst infinite space and consciousness sound more on the eternalist side. Either way, what is clear is that from the earliest times it was agreed that the Buddha taught these meditations as a valid means of practice. Nothingness is even portrayed as an aspect of nibbāna, alongside the signless (possibly a synonym of nevasaññānāsaññāyatana) and emptiness.

Dearest Ceisiwr: Can you pl explain how DO can be reversed using DN 22 which defines body as physical body?

You don't reverse dependent origination. You stop it. You stop it no longer craving and clinging, which is the basis for rebirth-linking consciousness.