Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6728
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

There is some misinformation that is contrary to the contents of the EBTs that is presented in this thread. It is claimed that "food" does not refer to the physical food that one puts in one's mouth. This is directly contradicted by the Pali suttas and Chinese agama parallels:
Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
(Āhārasutta SN 12.11 as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
At one time, Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard was teaching in the rosewood pavillion in the park by the Kmart. Summarizing, he concluded: "The gist is to be unconscious of conceptualizations." "What about the concept of 'concepts versus non-concepts?'" asked Frampton the Initiate. "Ooooh you think you're so clever," responded Thomas, "but when I was porking your mother last night, she achieved a non-dual gnostic bliss that transgresses the binaries of even your foolish question. Do not question the Bodhi-Wizard."

The students rejoiced.
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6728
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Now we see this term used in its direct original context in the EBTs:
"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband & wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up & depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours, dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat & jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son? Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks: Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for putting on bulk, or for beautification?"

"No, lord."

"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through that desert?"

"Yes, lord."
(Puttamaṁsasutta SN 12.63 as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro)
At one time, Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard was teaching in the rosewood pavillion in the park by the Kmart. Summarizing, he concluded: "The gist is to be unconscious of conceptualizations." "What about the concept of 'concepts versus non-concepts?'" asked Frampton the Initiate. "Ooooh you think you're so clever," responded Thomas, "but when I was porking your mother last night, she achieved a non-dual gnostic bliss that transgresses the binaries of even your foolish question. Do not question the Bodhi-Wizard."

The students rejoiced.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

OP wrote
But if you believe that, what is laid on the dinner table (i.e. Papayas, peas)
  • is related to taste consciousness,
and the main thrust of the sutta is the dynamics of consciousness that can be disciplined/restrained, (in relation to what is seen, heard etc) then please carry on reading.
Trolls trolls what can the OP do?
Objects of the sensory world are responsible for the arising of sense consciousness.
This goes way over the heads of some trolls.
Happy Rainy Day!
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6728
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

We can even see this usage of āhāra in the Sanskritized formal register of the contemporary Hindi language:

āhāra = food/diet
āhāravijñāna = dietetics
āhāravaijñānika = dietitian

We see some of the more abstract meanings carried over into modern Hindi with:

āhāravihāra = routine

These that are in this post are modern examples, though. For how this term was used in the Buddha's time, we need to go to the Pāli suttas above. Four kinds of food: one physical and edible, three non-physical and inedible. These modern examples of Sanskritized Hindi are survivals of the first sense with which the Buddha speaks of "āhāra" in the Prākrit that the Pāli Canon is preserved in, namely "physical food" as translated by Venerable Ṭhānissaro.
At one time, Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard was teaching in the rosewood pavillion in the park by the Kmart. Summarizing, he concluded: "The gist is to be unconscious of conceptualizations." "What about the concept of 'concepts versus non-concepts?'" asked Frampton the Initiate. "Ooooh you think you're so clever," responded Thomas, "but when I was porking your mother last night, she achieved a non-dual gnostic bliss that transgresses the binaries of even your foolish question. Do not question the Bodhi-Wizard."

The students rejoiced.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

Thanks to the discussions on DW, one can see how Abhdhamma evolved, due to misinterpretation of Dependent origination.
First came the elders who could not figure out what Buddha meant by "body" in relation to Nama-rupa of DO.
Brahmanism was familiar to them, so why not tweak it? Body changed clothes. Rupa of Nama-rupa of DO became a physical component of the sequence.
Once changed body became perfectly physical, that fitted age old brahmanic notions of Nama-rupa. Case closed.
However a meditation begun with a physical body as a focus, created a subject. Buddha was trying to get rid of the subject AKA "Identification"

To make things edible or palatable, elders named the newly created Dhamma, Abhidhamma, or superior Dhamma, which implied Buddha Dhamma was somehow inferior.
A good strategy. People got hooked on Abhidhamma.
To make mattes worse the elders interpreted the teaching of Son's Flesh, as a teaching on what the tongue consumes.
But in the original sutta eating/consuming is not limited to the tongue. Buddha used the scariest possible simile, to drive the point home.
  • Who would want to eat a son's flesh?????
  • Why would you want to feed on the products of the sensory world that only bring suffering??
was the idea behind.
What Buddha intended was to teach the dangers or consequences of feeding on the sensory world.
It is disgusting,
  • Consuming the products of the sensory world are like consuming One's son's flesh.
Sensory world includes senses other than the tongue.
What is seen? sights
What is heard? sounds
What is cognized? Consciousness
Sensory world is not limited to the tongue.
Take home was
  • "Don't feed on the food of the five senses"
but as expected elders again misinterpreted it? as Trolls here do.

An excerpt from SN 12.63, that is conveniently overlooked,
"it is in such a way, bhikkhus that I say the nutriment edible food should be seen.
When the nutriment of edible food is fully understood,
lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure
is fully understood
. When lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood, there is no fetter bound by which a noble disciple might come back again to this world"
I am parroting what VBB translated, in case Trolls scream my words are not found in the canon.
My point previously was not to parrot the canon, which so many are good at.
In this excerpt found exactly so, in VBB translation
The excerpt does not say "When the nutriment of edible food is fully understood, lust for the one cord of sensual pleasure is fully understood"
Buddha is not referring to what is eaten/consumed by the tongue only. The teacher is referring to what is eaten/consumed by the eye, nose, other senses also.
The most outspoken troll has the least understanding of what Buddha intended by simile of the Son's flesh.
In conclusion Buddha was not thinking of only rice and baked fish, he was referring to what is eaten/consumed by the five senses.
But the trolls do not have the imagination or intelligence to understand that the
  • "Eye also eats"
Sun has come out. Happy Sunny Day! :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

There seems to be an assumption that majority of the early sangha was comprised of Brahmins. On top of that those who were Brahmins should be treated as suspect, which is a strange form of bigotry.
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that, when it’s not tamed, is so very harmful as the mind. A wild mind is very harmful.”

Adantavagga
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 6728
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:47 pmThere seems to be an assumption that majority of the early sangha was comprised of Brahmins. On top of that those who were Brahmins should be treated as suspect...
Rather than bigotry, since modern Brahmins aren't made to be a source of revulsion, I think it's just a boring old conspiracy theory about supposed wicked evil monks who twisted up the Buddhadharma with rebirth and karma nonsense and gave us our first written redactions of the Buddhadharma.
At one time, Thomas the Bodhi-Wizard was teaching in the rosewood pavillion in the park by the Kmart. Summarizing, he concluded: "The gist is to be unconscious of conceptualizations." "What about the concept of 'concepts versus non-concepts?'" asked Frampton the Initiate. "Ooooh you think you're so clever," responded Thomas, "but when I was porking your mother last night, she achieved a non-dual gnostic bliss that transgresses the binaries of even your foolish question. Do not question the Bodhi-Wizard."

The students rejoiced.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

Retro wrote
This is correct. If they are engaging with the topic, and not the individual, that is fine. Thanks.
Are the comments above supposed to be engagement with the topic which is "Sutra on Origination" or related suttas? It appears to me as an engagement with the individual??? Do you not see it like that Retro? Pl clarify.
Am I misreading?
Regards :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism
by Johannes Bronkhosrt might be well worth a read, generally and in relation to the discussion too.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Sam Vara »

Moderator note: please desist from personalised attacks, which count as such even if a name is implied rather than stated. Posts have been removed. Use the report function rather than attempting to game the ToS guidelines.
Pulsar
Posts: 1779
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

Johannes Bronkhorst is a renowned scholar. Here is an Excerpt from his text Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism
P 167 from the chapter on Buddhism Confronted with Brahmanism
The general picture that emerges from the preceding reflections is that
there was a general tendency, also among Buddhists,
to conceive of Buddhism's past as having been dependent upon and in a way secondary to Brahmanism.
In this understanding which is really a misunderstanding, Buddhism arose in a Brahmanical society, but not only that.
It derived its most original ideas and methods from Brahmanism, too. Buddhism, seen in this way, is nothing but a form of yoga, and Yoga is nothing but an aspect of Brahmanism that existed long before Buddhism"
This excerpt gives a glimpse as to why some buddhists consider
  • that there is no difference between the meditation of the 8-fold path and the methods of meditation that prevailed prior to Buddha.
Hopefully there won't be any more disruptions on the thread.
May long live the "Sutta on Origination" with the truths it presents,
  • the methods of meditation that address the undoing of Dependent Origination.
The sutta presents in a nutshell how Buddha taught the bhikkhus, to terminate the five aggregates, It is by doing away with "Identification" that brings suffering into existence. identification begins when rupa is named due to ignorance, the rupa being the mental retrieval of sights, sounds, smells etc.
Good night!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 17090
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:18 am
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:28 pm No. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that swearing in any context breaks the Vinaya? I used Ajahn Brahm as an example. When he swears, is he breaking the monks rules? If so, can you point this out to us please? So far you have not shown that swearing in any context breaks said rules, is unwholesome or in any other way incompatible with being a Buddha or Arahant.
Would be happy to address but you are the one who claimed 2 things without any backup evidence first:
1. Using profanity is not incomptatible with Buddhahood; AND:
2. Ven. Brahm and some other teachers used profanity

Please provide backup evidence for those 2 claims first.
In the context of this thread I haven't claimed anything regarding swearing. You have made a claim, so the onus would be upon you. Given our past interactions however I sense pushing this point with you would lead to an endless meta-discussion about how the onus is indeed yours, so on this occasion I'll accept your request. Regarding point 1, for swearing to be incompatible with Buddhahood it would have to fall under one of the categories of wrong speech. Whilst swearing in front of some would might not always be appropriate speech as it might not be pleasing and could be offensive to them, to others this would not be the case. For example, someone like me. Regarding point 2, please see this video where Ajahn Brahm swears:

Earlier you argued that swearing would break the Vinaya. Could you please point out which rule Ajahn Brahm has broken?
“Mendicants, I do not see a single thing that, when it’s not tamed, is so very harmful as the mind. A wild mind is very harmful.”

Adantavagga
santa100
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by santa100 »

Ceisiwr wrote:In the context of this thread I haven't claimed anything regarding swearing. You have made a claim, so the onus would be upon you. Given our past interactions however I sense pushing this point with you would lead to an endless meta-discussion about how the onus is indeed yours, so on this occasion I'll accept your request. Regarding point 1, for swearing to be incompatible with Buddhahood it would have to fall under one of the categories of wrong speech. Whilst swearing in front of some would might not always be appropriate speech as it might not be pleasing and could be offensive to them, to others this would not be the case. For example, someone like me. Regarding point 2, please see this video where Ajahn Brahm
No, that's not a logical answer at all. It's completely absurd to say that just because one has passed the bare minimum requirement of right speech would automatically qualify one to Buddhahood or Arahantship. One can attend orgy parties (provided that all members in that swinging club are consenting adults over 18 yrs old) and still claim s/he's technically fulfilled the Five Precepts! And if that was the case, the Buddha would've never used that common stock phrase: "one has virtues that are dear to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.'". And this phrase already applies to Sotapanna-hood, let alone Buddhahood!

Now regarding the 2nd point, I already pointed out that it also utterly absurd to use Ven. Brahm as a reference point to back up the first point you made about Buddhahood, let alone Brahm technically only falls in the grey area of profanity, since he never said "oh, shit!". He only said "one gets shit in their life". You can't blame someone when s/he sees some big steaming pile on the street and says: "that's one big pile of shit on the road", although one could argue s/he should've used a more "gentle" alternative to be 100% qualified for the "virtues that are dear to the noble ones" above. And that's also why Brahm is still Brahm, he's no Buddha!
Post Reply