5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:13 am Mahīśāsaka EBTs (the second Chinese Saṃyuktāgama)
I thought this was Mūlasarvāstivāda?
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 3:21 am
Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 12:13 am 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. I know absolutely nothing about the Mahīśāsakas and what makes them doctrinally unique and how people decide it is Mahīśāsaka, so I'm not in a position to gauge which is more correct. AFAIK, Mahīśāsaka doctrines are sometimes divined out of very late sources like Abhidharmasamuccaya, which is speculated to be highly based on Mahīśāsaka Abhidharma. Another point: AFAIK, absolutely no one knows what the actual difference between "Sarvastivadins" and "Mulasarvastivadins" are. "Mulasarvastivadins" are some kind of later Sarvastivadin movement, or are simply Sarvastivadins who called themselves something slightly different. In my view, sticking "Mula-" to the front of your name is making a statement about who you are, i.e. "real" Sarvastivadins versus "those fake ones" we are sectarian against, but I can't prove that's why they stick that to the front of their name.

Addressing another matter, Thomaslaw's cited paper works toward substantiating that the Sarvastivadins, based on their own versions of their own sutras, believed that "namarupa" refers to the makeup of the mental consciousness and physical body as "two sheaves." This is handy for me because I don't have to translate the passage myself. This is snipped from the latest PDF he posted from Mun-Keat's text:
namarupa and savijnanaka kaya.GIF
We see "namarupa" being treated in DO as corresponding to "savijnanaka kaya" (the "body with consciousness"). We also see this reflected in texts like DN 15, where "From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form" is followed by ""From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness" (Ven Thanissaro translation). In the case of the sutra analysed by Mun-Keat, one is external, the other is internal (like the internal mahabhutas and the external mahabhutas, which are the same internally and externally). I've nothing to disagree with Mun-Keat here on aside from pointing out that "internally" needn't be an innovation of the Chinese translation.

In the PDF link on the last page, Mun-Keat also presents a second theory that "namarupa" is being read as "the six external objects." This seems less likely, to me, from the text alone.
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:26 am In my view, sticking "Mula-" to the front of your name is making a statement about who you are, i.e. "real" Sarvastivadins versus "those fake ones" we are sectarian against, but I can't prove that's why they stick that to the front of their name.
That has been my hunch. We could imagine a group of Sarvāstivādins who accepted 2 unconditioned dharmas over 3, as per the Vaibhāṣika tradition. Ven. Dhammajoti does speak of such a split.
Addressing another matter, Thomaslaw's cited paper works toward substantiating that the Sarvastivadins, based on their own versions of their own sutras, believed that "namarupa" refers to the mental consciousness and physical body. This is handy for me because I don't have to translate the passage myself. This is snipped from the latest PDF he posted from Mun-Keat's text:
I read it more as consciousness & body + nāmarūpa with nāmarūpa being external objects to be cognised.
This is indicated by the fact that name-andmaterial form is spoken of as external in both traditions. That means that in SN 12. 19 and SA 294 name-and-material form refers to the six external objects, while body or body with consciousness refers to the six internal sense spheres, and contact is conditioned by the coming together of this pair: the six sense spheres and the six external objects.
In the Upanishads nāmarūpa can mean "individual person" and so consciousness + name and form, or it can mean external "names and forms", or, to put it another way, "named forms". We see the former in DN 15 and the latter in the sutta/sutra being discussed. Interestingly DN 15 also has a form of nāmarūpa that relates to how we actually name said forms, in addition to the nāmarūpa of the being being reborn. All in all, IMO all of these versions are saying the same thing just with differing emphasis. Largely distinctions without much of a difference, IMO.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

My wording was a bit clumsy (it's late and I had trouble going to sleep and went on the Internet -- always a bad idea for getting back to sleep!) when I initially wrote it. I think the Sarvastivadin parallel places them in a similar position as the "two sheaves" (which are "three sheaves" in the extant Chinese translation) which are mutually co-dependent. "Namarupa" is like the bare building blocks, and "savijnanaka kaya" is like the structure built of them, hence why "namarupa" can be "external" when it is not, metaphorically-speaking, "building" the savijnanaka kaya. Savijnanaka kaya cannot be external, because it is "the sentient being" and "sentient beings" are not external to themselves. If one were to speak of an "external" savijnanaka kaya, it would simply be "namarupa." I think this is how they read that passage. More to come.
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:46 am My wording was a bit clumsy (it's late and I had trouble going to sleep and went on the Internet -- always a bad idea for getting back to sleep!) when I initially wrote it. I think the Sarvastivadin parallel places them in a similar position as the "two sheaves" (which are "three sheaves" in the extant Chinese translation) which are mutually co-dependent. "Namarupa" is like the bare building blocks, and "savijnanaka kaya" is like the structure built of them, hence why "namarupa" can be "external" when it is not, metaphorically-speaking, "building" the savijnanaka kaya.
In terms of the sutra and the reciters in both traditions nāmarūpa was literally "named forms". The things we sense. When there is consciousness in the body and external objects to sense then there is sense experience. Elsewhere however nāmarūpa means the individual being that is reborn, or that by which we name said forms. Which kind of nāmarūpa was meant depends on the context. It's more flexible a term than people think, but all the different forms dance around each other.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:49 amElsewhere however nāmarūpa means the individual being that is reborn, or that by which we name said forms. Which kind of nāmarūpa was meant depends on the context. It's more flexible a term than people think, but all the different forms dance around each other.
That's in DN, no? Where one would expect the "descent of the gandharva" instead we find the "descent of namarupa." Am I remembering right?

EDIT: Nevermind, it's SN 12.64, not DN, and the "descent" doesn't seem related to the gandharval descent. I'll need to research more on these Pali parallels before I go shooting my mouth off about them! Anyways, back to either bed or reading for me.

:reading: :zzz:
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:59 am That's in DN, no? Where one would expect the "descent of the gandharva" instead we find the "descent of namarupa." Am I remembering right?

EDIT: Nevermind, it's SN 12.64, not DN, and the "descent" doesn't seem related to the gandharval descent. I'll need to research more on these Pali parallels before I go shooting my mouth off about them! Anyways, back to either bed or reading for me.

:reading: :zzz:
It is DN, yes. We have the being which is reborn (nāmarūpa) based on consciousness (rebirth-linking) followed by the nāmarūpa which is involved in cognition. The gandhabba suttas are saying something similar. The sutta/sutra in question instead talks of a "conscious body" plus the external nāmarūpa, but all are dancing to the same tune IMO.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Where in DN? I just did a very quick search with not much effort put in and couldn't find it, so I second-guessed myself when I saw "descent" in SN 12.64.
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: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:08 am Where in DN? I just did a very quick search with not much effort put in and couldn't find it, so I second-guessed myself when I saw "descent" in SN 12.64.
Here
“It was said: ‘With consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality.’

How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would mentality-materiality grow up, develop, and reach maturity?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for mentality-materiality, namely, consciousness.
DN 15
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form. With name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases come to be; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling … craving … clinging … existence … birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.39/en/bodhi
“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
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Coëmgenu »

Too funny. It's right between the sections I quoted.
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.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by asahi »

there is a descent of name-and-form.
Here the text already been falsified perhaps unknowingly .
The suppose actual sentence should be :
There is a descent onto the namarupa .

:smile:
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

asahi wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:20 am
there is a descent of name-and-form.
Here the text already been falsified perhaps unknowingly .
The suppose actual sentence should be :
There is a descent onto the namarupa .

:smile:
It's possible it's a mistake, but it's also possible it is correct. The descent of nāmarūpa could have just been another way of talking about the gandhabba, which is another way of talking about the being who is being born.
“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.”
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by 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 .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

This is also interesting
There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness.

‘“These are the six elements”: this is the Dhamma I’ve taught …’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

‘“These are the six fields of contact”: this is the Dhamma I’ve taught …’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it?

There are these six fields of contact: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind contact.

‘“These are the six fields of contact”: this is the Dhamma I’ve taught …’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.

Supported by the six elements, an embryo is conceived. When it is conceived, there are name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. It’s for one who feels that I declare: ‘This is suffering’ … ‘This is the origin of suffering’ … ‘This is the cessation of suffering’ … ‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering’.

And what is the noble truth of suffering? Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering. This is called the noble truth of suffering.

And what is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? Ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields. The six sense fields are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.

And what is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease. When the six sense fields cease, contact ceases. When contact ceases, feeling ceases. When feeling ceases, craving ceases. When craving ceases, grasping ceases. When grasping ceases, continued existence ceases. When continued existence ceases, rebirth ceases. When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases. This is called the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.

And what is the noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering? It is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion. This is called the noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering.

‘“These are the four noble truths”: this is the Dhamma I’ve taught that is irrefutable, uncorrupted, beyond reproach, and is not scorned by sensible ascetics and brahmins.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.”
https://suttacentral.net/an3.61/en/suja ... ript=latin

This texts seems to think of nāmarūpa are the individual being which as been reborn, equipped with a body and mind.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: 5A is a misinterpreted reformulation of DO

Post by Ceisiwr »

asahi wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 6:24 am 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?
“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.”
Post Reply