Jhana

[Pulsar]

Dearest Coëmgenu: you wrote

I guess I would need to know more about what Venerable Bodhi meant when he said "leads to some strange incongruities." What was the specific incongruity Ven Bodhi pointed out? I agree that "contact" is placed irregularly, but what else does he point out?

Pali version
1. elements dhātu
2. perceptions saññā
3. intentions saṅkappa
4. contacts phassa
5. feelings vedanā
6. desires chanda
7. passions pariḷāha
8. searches pariyesanā
9. gains lābha

the incongruity is in the odd placement of contact and feeling. Clearly someone made an error. But according to BB an elder named Uruvelayavasi Culatissa corrected it as follows. But the correction is found only in the footnote and not in text. This elder is brilliant.

Corrected version
*perception,
*intention,
*desire (which implies proliferation, papanca, which includes craving, a synonym of desire)
*passion, *quest (these two are obsessions or samaudacara),
*gain of form (implying object gained)
*contact (with object gained, mentally)
*Feeling (as the experience of the object)

In such a way this pair, contact with feeling can be experienced,

elder says.

In the sequences given in the agama versions, although they are slightly different I don't find an incongruity.
I found such an incongruity in the Pali version of AN6.61 also. The Chinese were sharper, or understood DO perfectly. They clearly understood that Nama in Nama-rupa was about designation or denomination. It is that designation that does you in soteriologically, the seamstress that walks in and sticks the needle of designation.
A trick of karma. When the mind is unguarded, she stabs you in the back.
When the mind is guarded, it does not succumb to signs, features, nimittas, details etc of things seen, heard etc, the seamstress cannot see, or cannot designate.
S 1.39

Denomination is the one thing that has everything under control

the darned naming

Now in some instances that designation is called perception, which has lead to a whole lot of confusion.
Erich Frauwallner writes

"In the ancient buddhist scholasticism
not only perception, but also designating and thinking of an object
signifies a contact, which is merely of a different kind than the contact
of material objects that mutually resist each other"

Your comment below throws a whole lot of light into messy business of translation...

This is a very old translation. One of the terms used, 覺, normally means "bodhi," but has a wide range of meanings before the "normative era" of Chinese translation of the Dharma. It can mean essentially anything to do with cognition when it is used in this sense and is difficult to pin down what it means. "Manasikara" is a guess because it seems to list some features associated with nāma(rūpa) in the Pali tradition. If it is not manasikara, then 覺 stands for vijñāna here, but that reading introduces far more problems than it solves.

I wonder what some Pali words really meant, once upon a time. For instance third foundation of mindfulness is translated as mind. So many meditate on the mind. Now what the heck is mind? Is it consciousness/vinnana? No it is really about perception which is also translated as sanna, the cognition arisen due to a contact with a sense base, since to arise that there are only six cognitions. The first foundation is a meditation on the sense bases located on the conscious body.
Third foundation is about dismantling sanna, or the rising cognition. Once that cognition is seen for what it is worth, no more permanent than a feeling arisen.. the job is well done.
In Dhammanupassana all notion of a self is given up, there is no identity there.
With love
Many thanks for wading into the agama sutta, at my request. You are precious.

[Coëmgenu]

The Chinese were sharper, or understood DO perfectly.

Well, it's not necessarily a matter of one community understanding or misunderstanding DO in toto. It's about the contents of this particular sūtra. Do the Theravādins have a corrupt version, the Sarvāstivādins, or both? As for "the Chinese," it is important to remember that the āgamas are preserved in Chinese, certainly, but also that they are actually Indian Sarvāstivādin scriptures in translation. It would be the Sarvāstivādin sūtra-recensions you find sharper, not necessarily "the Chinese." I'm glad you found it useful. Looking at historical ranges of meaning implicit in 覺 was very fascinating. It can even mean "prajñāpti."

[Ceisiwr]

The Chinese were sharper, or understood DO perfectly.

Well, it's not necessarily a matter of one community understanding or misunderstanding DO in toto. It's about the contents of this particular sūtra. Do the Theravādins have a corrupt version, the Sarvāstivādins, or both? As for "the Chinese," it is important to remember that the āgamas are preserved in Chinese, certainly, but also that they are actually Indian Sarvāstivādin scriptures in translation. It would be the Sarvāstivādin sūtra-recensions you find sharper, not necessarily "the Chinese." I'm glad you found it useful. Looking at historical ranges of meaning implicit in 覺 was very fascinating. It can even mean "prajñāpti."

I might have been too rash earlier. The Pali version does seem to match MN 28. It seems the Pali version is describing what leads to contact in terms of the saḷāyatana whilst the Agama is discussing what leads to contact in nāma. Neither are wrong, they are just approaching the same thing from different angles.

[Pulsar]

Coëmgenu wrote

it is important to remember that the āgamas are preserved in Chinese, certainly, but also that they are actually Indian Sarvāstivādin scriptures in translation. It would be the Sarvāstivādin sūtra-recensions you find sharper, not necessarily "the Chinese."

I understand that the origin was Sarvastivadin... but same text could have been interpreted differently by the Chinese monks, if they had a wider knowledge of all the suttas that dealt with DO and a better understanding of it. Consider the confusion we face with Nama-rupa. Some folks do not want to admit that Nama is designation, even though DN 15 clearly implies this. Some prefer a different definition for Nama, simply because one sutta says so, (without making any sense).
Anyways Let us check this out using one sutta. AN 6.61 Middle Sutta. There is a horrendous incongruity in the Pali version. Now BB writes this particular point is not found in the Chinese version. We will take his word for that.
Can you locate the Sarvastivadin version of AN 6.61. This is only if you have the time, and only if you are inclined to do so.
Good night

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr wrote

It seems the Pali version is describing what leads to contact in terms of the saḷāyatana whilst the Agama is discussing what leads to contact in nāma.

Can there be contact without salayatana? Can you explain how else contact can happen?
With love

[Ceisiwr]

Ceisiwr wrote

It seems the Pali version is describing what leads to contact in terms of the saḷāyatana whilst the Agama is discussing what leads to contact in nāma.

Can there be contact without salayatana? Can you explain how else contact can happen?
With love

Yes, the 2 contacts of DN 15. Namarupa is the condition for experiencing the domains, or abodes, of the ayatana. No resistant or designation contact, no intention & attention and so no visual contact and it’s corresponding consciousness as per MN 28. The same for the other senses.

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr wrote

Yes, the 2 contacts of DN 15. Namarupa is the condition for experiencing the domains, or abodes, of the ayatana.

OK so these words domain, abode, ayatana refer to the same thing, the field experienced by the sense organ, right? because I am not sure whether you understand it correctly, since elsewhere on another thread you have admitted that Nibbana is an ayatana. (Granted there are erratic claims in Itivutakka and some Udana suttas, which are later fabrications). This does not mean all of these suttas are wrong, but some compilers made serious errors there)

Can you defend your thesis that Nibbana is an ayatana? then perhaps I will understand what ayatana means to you, so I am on a better footing to comprehend what you are saying here.
You continued

No resistant or designation contact,

Without a designation, can we even define it as a contact? To me contact is the same as a designation, once the designation is made, contact is complete. Let me qualify it by saying 'all ignorant contacts, not the non-ignorant contact made by an Arahant'. That is a different story.
You continued

no intention & attention and so no visual contact and it’s corresponding consciousness as per MN 28.

MN 28 "The simile of the Elephant's Footprint". It does not contradict how DO is defined elsewhere. This is Sariputta speaking, the 'General of the Dhamma'. I don't think these words were fed into his mouth. The sutta appears authentic to me unlike MN 111.

• Without intention and attention can a consciousnesss related to the 6 sense bases arise?

With love

[Ceisiwr]

OK so these words domain, abode, ayatana refer to the same thing, the field experienced by the sense organ, right?

I wouldn't call the 6 internal āyatana "sense organs", no. I would translate it as "domain" of "vision" rather than "sense organ" of "eye" etc.

Can you defend your thesis that Nibbana is an ayatana? then perhaps I will understand what ayatana means to you, so I am on a better footing to comprehend what you are saying here.

Āyatana literally means "domain" or "abode":

आयतन [ āyatana ] [ ā-yátana ] n.
- resting-place
- support
- seat
- place
- home
- house
- abode

Lit. TS. Lit. ŚBr. Lit. ChUp. Lit. AitBr. Lit. Mn. Lit. Yājñ. Lit. Kum.

तस्य क्व मूलं स्यादन्यत्रान्नादेवमेव खलु सोम्यान्नेन शुङ्गेनापो मूलमन्विच्छाद्भिः सोम्य शुङ्गेन तेजो मूलमन्विच्छ तेजसा सोम्य शुङ्गेन सन्मूलमन्विच्छ सन्मूलाः सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठाः ॥ ६.८.४ ॥

tasya kva mūlaṃ syādanyatrānnādevameva khalu somyānnena śuṅgenāpo mūlamanvicchādbhiḥ somya śuṅgena tejo mūlamanviccha tejasā somya śuṅgena sanmūlamanviccha sanmūlāḥ somyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ sadāyatanāḥ satpratiṣṭhāḥ || 6.8.4 ||

4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.

Chāndogyopaniṣad

In the Dhamma the abode (āyatana) of beings is not existence (sat) but the 12 āyatana of vision & images etc. These are the domains/abodes/resting places where beings like humans dwell, for vision & images etc are what we are intent towards and desire. Within these domains we then create our own individual worlds (lokā). The unconditioned element is the domain of those who have awakened.

Without a designation, can we even define it as a contact? To me contact is the same as a designation, once the designation is made, contact is complete.

If there were no nāma there would be no contact of any kind, no. There are 2 contacts. That within nāmarūpa, which is further sub-divided into designation & resistance contact, and that based on the 12 āyatana (domains, abodes, resting place) of vision & images etc. Contact within the āyatanā (domains) depends upon intention & attention, which then creates the duality of inner and outer. If there is no more intention and attention then there is no bifurcation into the 12 āyatana. There is cessation of the 12 āyatana, of those domains/abodes. Instead there is entry into the special domain (āyatana) of the awakened ones:

“There is that āyatana, monks, where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air, no sphere of infinite space, no sphere of infinite consciousness, no sphere of nothingness, no sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, no this world, no world beyond, neither Moon nor Sun. There, monks, I say there is surely no coming, no going, no persisting, no passing away, no rebirth It is quite without support, unmoving, without an object,—just this is the end of suffering.”

Without intention and attention can a consciousnesss related to the 6 sense bases arise?

I would say no. It’s not a passive process. Visual consciousness etc requires intention & attention.

[Coëmgenu]

तस्य क्व मूलं स्यादन्यत्रान्नादेवमेव खलु सोम्यान्नेन शुङ्गेनापो मूलमन्विच्छाद्भिः सोम्य शुङ्गेन तेजो मूलमन्विच्छ तेजसा सोम्य शुङ्गेन सन्मूलमन्विच्छ सन्मूलाः सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठाः ॥ ६.८.४ ॥

tasya kva mūlaṃ syādanyatrānnādevameva khalu somyānnena śuṅgenāpo mūlamanvicchādbhiḥ somya śuṅgena tejo mūlamanviccha tejasā somya śuṅgena sanmūlamanviccha sanmūlāḥ somyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ sadāyatanāḥ satpratiṣṭhāḥ || 6.8.4 ||

4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.

Chāndogyopaniṣad

Makes "ṣaḍāyatana" take on a whole new level of meaning as a potential pun on "sadāyatana."

[Pulsar]

Ceisiwr: You quoted from Udana...
Udana and Iti contain later fabrications. Do you really believe that ayatana in this verse means the same thing as a sense sphere ayatana? Is that your understanding? It is possible that a word may have more than one meaning.

This ‘sphere’ can also mean an 'origin' or 'source'. It could even refer to the absolute.

What is the relevance of the quote from Chāndogyopaniṣad?
If you paid attention to my comment, I did not say ayatana is a sense organ, I did say it is the field experienced by the particular sense organ ...there is a difference.
I find it tiring to read quotes from Upanishads. I did appreciate the talk you posted on Dr. Gombrich.
That was v. helpful.
Good night, let us just make a long night a short one. Be well!

[ToVincent]

Sadāyatanāḥ = Sat is the abode

?!?!?!?!

I would call that the "holophrastic indeterminacy*" of the empiricist.

When hearing such nonsenses, based on so much pretense — (feigning to know Veda and Sanskrit, etc) — one has to kowtow to second-raters' sureties, and bow out.

* As Quine once said:
"... for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statements simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith."

.
.

[Ceisiwr]

तस्य क्व मूलं स्यादन्यत्रान्नादेवमेव खलु सोम्यान्नेन शुङ्गेनापो मूलमन्विच्छाद्भिः सोम्य शुङ्गेन तेजो मूलमन्विच्छ तेजसा सोम्य शुङ्गेन सन्मूलमन्विच्छ सन्मूलाः सोम्येमाः सर्वाः प्रजाः सदायतनाः सत्प्रतिष्ठाः ॥ ६.८.४ ॥

tasya kva mūlaṃ syādanyatrānnādevameva khalu somyānnena śuṅgenāpo mūlamanvicchādbhiḥ somya śuṅgena tejo mūlamanviccha tejasā somya śuṅgena sanmūlamanviccha sanmūlāḥ somyemāḥ sarvāḥ prajāḥ sadāyatanāḥ satpratiṣṭhāḥ || 6.8.4 ||

4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.

Chāndogyopaniṣad

Makes "ṣaḍāyatana" take on a whole new level of meaning as a potential pun on "sadāyatana."

That it does.

[Ceisiwr]

Ceisiwr: You quoted from Udana...
Udana and Iti contain later fabrications.

Are they? Based on what? Whilst the main prose have no parallel the inspired utterances do. Ven. Anālayo puts forward the idea that the main text are commentaries to these utterances, which are authentic themselves. It was this which I quoted.

Do you really believe that ayatana in this verse means the same thing as a sense sphere ayatana? Is that your understanding?

It means "domain" or "abode".

It is possible that a word may have more than one meaning.

Sure, but you need to find some evidence of that. You can't just assert that it does.

This ‘sphere’ can also mean an 'origin' or 'source'. It could even refer to the absolute.

Some can misread it that way. Some here in fact do just that.

What is the relevance of the quote from Chāndogyopaniṣad?

To show what "āyatana" meant just prior to the Buddha, or possibly contemporary with.

If you paid attention to my comment, I did not say ayatana is a sense organ, I did say it is the field experienced by the particular sense organ ...there is a difference.

I wouldn't mention "sense organ" at all. Its not relevant to paṭiccasamuppāda.

I find it tiring to read quotes from Upanishads.

That is a shame. They are a useful tool to better understand where the Buddha was coming from. The Buddha borrowed much from that tradition, likely due to his time studying under it.

[Pulsar]

Apple cart of Vedas, Upanisads, Jains, Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama, (not golden delicious, not pink lady, not Arkansas black)
sits on top of the Himalayas.
Buddha walks up and tips it over, without as much as a touch.

• That was the first miracle.

Two thousand six hundred years later, some pick up the rotten apples and declare these apples "delicious!", "amazing!"  with eyes filled with a pathetic joy.
What is wrong with their taste buds? Taste buds that cannot tell apart the good, the bad and the ugly? rotten apples? This decay!
A tragedy of Shakespearaen magnitude Juliet dies, Romeo dies...
Tathagata had roasted the world weary ideas of then prevailing traditions, on the flames of innovation. Fumeless smoke emerged. Those without eyesight could not see. Born Blind!

Somewhere in Long length Discourses it is said that

a village pig, even if bathed
in perfumed water, 
garlanded and laid on the best bed
will still return to the dunghill.

 In modern times we could say

those who keep returning,
to the dunghill
of Upanisads, is like this village
pig,

after 2600 years.
Having seen the origination of suffering, and how it originates, who would return to rotten 
apples, or the dunghill of Upanisads?
Dear Ceisiwr, I wish not to engage in your peculiar brand of
inane argument.
Do not fill the thread with vacuous thought,
a hallmark of yours.
According to the rules of the Forum, once a participant or OP expresses a wish not to engage with a guest, that person should leave OP alone. Thank you.

There has appeared in magadha before thee
An uncertain dhamma by impure minds devised.
Open the door of deathlessness,
let them hear
Dhamma awakened to by the stainless one,
.....Man of the caravan!
walk the world over!

• They who learn will grow

With love 

[Ceisiwr]

What is wrong with their taste buds? Taste buds that cannot tell apart the good, the bad and the ugly? rotten apples? T

Reading the Upanishads doesn’t mean agreeing with the Upanishads. It’s about understanding part of what the Buddha was arguing against and seeing why he used certain terms, thus helping to inform what they mean.

village pig

No need to compare me to a pig because i disagree with you. If you want this to be our last interaction on this thread then that is, of course, your decision.