Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by mjaviem »

Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm Contact and consciousness relate directly to the six senses...
I agree.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ...
Think of less intelligent life forms - they are driven largely by their physical need for food, and not for pleasure or taste as such...
I agree here too. I think you mean those lifeforms aren't driven by a desire or lust to acquire pleasure. No "hedonism" to be found in this life forms.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ... pleasure or taste as such. Those are more refined...
On the contrary, those seem to be the coarsest, less refined, and most vulgar of all the intentional pursuits. And those lifeforms are not intentionally pursuing anything. They are just pursuing food. They might be less intelligent, but they don't seem to be less wise than someone seeking sensual pleasure.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ... It is said that the higher the life form, the less need for physical food. Beings without a physical body don't require the nutriment of food anymore, they subsist on the other three....
I agree. The Ahara Sutta explains the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ... And a being that is blind, deaf, can't smell, taste or feel touch, while alive will still require food.
...
I don't think food to be the nutriment to maintain such a being. Such a particular being would be sustained by contact with thoughts by volitions and by mental cognitions. What body a being with no sight, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, and no touching has? And if you meant proteins, fat, and carbohydrates going through the throat, that's not food for sustaining beings.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ...
Food is physical, the other three are mental.
Sounds fair.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

Dear mjaviem: Your response to Dhamma chameleon, is brilliant. I could not have done, as well you have done here. Congratulations!
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:21 pm
... pleasure or taste as such. Those are more refined...
On the contrary, those seem to be the coarsest, less refined, and most vulgar of all the intentional pursuits. And those lifeforms are not intentionally pursuing anything. They are just pursuing food. They might be less intelligent, but they don't seem to be less wise than someone seeking sensual pleasure.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:21 pm
... It is said that the higher the life form, the less need for physical food. Beings without a physical body don't require the nutriment of food anymore, they subsist on the other three....
I agree. The Ahara Sutta explains the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings.
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:21 pm
... And a being that is blind, deaf, can't smell, taste or feel touch, while alive will still require food.
...
I don't think food to be the nutriment to maintain such a being. Such a particular being would be sustained by contact with thoughts by volitions and by mental cognitions. What body a being with no sight, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, and no touching has? And if you meant proteins, fat, and carbohydrates going through the throat, that's not food for sustaining beings.
  • You identified pleasure or tastes to be the coarsest, less refined, and most vulgar of all intentional pursuits.
You have solved the mystery of the first nutrient for me.
  • The difference in the wording between Pali and agama suttas.
I see how Theravadins created a basic confusion in the sutta by including a term in the translation that was not there in the original teaching. I puzzled over the difference in wording for months.
Regarding your response to
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 6:21 pm
...
Food is physical, the other three are mental.
you wrote
Sounds fair.
Sounds fair? you mean in the context of SN 12.63? In this sutta all the factors that feed puthujjanas are considered food, and are related to the working of consciousness. None of the factors are physical.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Dhamma Chameleon
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Dhamma Chameleon »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:25 am
Dhamma Chameleon wrote: Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:21 pm ... And a being that is blind, deaf, can't smell, taste or feel touch, while alive will still require food.
...
I don't think food to be the nutriment to maintain such a being. Such a particular being would be sustained by contact with thoughts by volitions and by mental cognitions.
...
And if you meant proteins, fat, and carbohydrates going through the throat, that's not food for sustaining beings.
Yes that is what I mean. If the being gets no food nutriment, its physical body dies. Of course the other three nutriments are drivers of our behaviour too and their lack can mean that a person loses the will to look after themselves or even to live.

In the suttas the usual order of lists is from grossest to subtlest. Food is the grossest nutriment, then contact, then consciousness with volition the most refined.
mjaviem wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:25 am ..those [contact and consciousness] seem to be the coarsest, less refined, and most vulgar of all the intentional pursuits. And those lifeforms are not intentionally pursuing anything. They are just pursuing food. They might be less intelligent, but they don't seem to be less wise than someone seeking sensual pleasure.
By your reasoning, Mjaviem, animals are wiser than devas because they follow their physical urges without caring about taste or the quality of the experience. Some devas don't have a physical body but do delight in refined sense pleasures. Do you believe that means they are coarser and less wise than a dung beetle making a ball of dung?

Animals would certainly be superior to humans by this line of reasoning, which is not what the Buddha taught.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by mjaviem »

Pulsar wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 11:16 am ... Sounds fair?... None of the factors are physical...
Thank you dear Pulsar. And about physical vs mental I don't want to go off-topic but to me, understanding that "nothing is physical" regarding DO or understanding the opposite that "literally physical" is what is meant are both inaccurate and incomplete views.

I don't have the answer, though. But I can only say that they look like two opposing views contesting for becoming the truth. I believe there's something not-right in both cases, they seem two extremes as we like to comment here and for many topics. They both must be partially true and partially wrong, in my opinion. Perhaps they are two ways of approaching the understanding.

I trust you can consider this opinion and one day, perhaps you would bring us all closer to the truth, whether those of us on one side or the other. Just don't battle people who believe in literal physicality, they might hold keys helpful for your own understanding.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Dhamma Chameleon
Posts: 584
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:55 am

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Dhamma Chameleon »

mjaviem wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 1:35 am And about physical vs mental I don't want to go off-topic but to me, understanding that "nothing is physical" regarding DO or understanding the opposite that "literally physical" is what is meant are both inaccurate and incomplete views.
Are you worried that taking food nutriment literally means that only the literal (three lives) interpretation of DO is true? You can look at seeking/eating food in terms of dependent origination, but that is not what this sutta is about.

All this sutta is saying is that edible food is one of the things beings subsist on. The other three mental nutriments show up in DO precisely because it's a mental process, physical food is there in its mental nama-rupa form, so the sutta is perfectly compatible with the middle road interpretation. Some things are physical and some things are mental, it's not all one or the other.

As you have noted, seeking and eating food can involve the other nutriments too (especially for more highly evolved beings) but at its coarsest level we are talking about the real, physical food on your plate that you feed on.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by mjaviem »

Sorry, it's too late here now to reply sentence by sentence.

When our friend Dhamma Chamaleon says "It's physical! It's physical! Food and body referred here are physical!" I won't deny that. It's a clear reference to food which we know quite well and which has its own form or physical appearance.

When our friend Pulsar says "It's a fabrication! It's a fabrication, only made by our volition! Food and body here are fabrications of volition!" I won't deny that. It's a clear reference to the making-up we do out of bare food.

Food sustain beings and must be seen correctly, without any intentionality, with no desire. That's how we turn off food, that's how we quench being. That's how body doesn't come to be.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

mjaviem wrote
Thank you dear Pulsar. And about physical vs mental I don't want to go off-topic but to me, understanding that "nothing is physical" regarding DO
Dependent Origination is about the arising of suffering, correct? That creation of suffering occurs in the living human being linked to 6 sense bases. Suffering in DO arises due to the activity at the six senses bases.
Even the arahant is linked to the six sense bases until the life principle expires.
How do you understand Salayatana? Arahant is disconnected from Salayatana. Retro's response to Asahi, viewtopic.php?t=43483&hilit=Asahi&start=15.
When you re-read that thread, do you feel that the Arahant is still linked to Salayatana in
a soteriological sense? Buddha Dhamma is about soteriology.
This is also one of my go to posts, that stresses what Buddha meant by Rupa not what the tradition meant by Rupa.
viewtopic.php?t=40493&hilit=Abhidhmma
Arahant is linked to the senses, but he is not generating suffering (in an emotional sense) or he is not generating karma due to what he sees and hears etc.
Can you imagine a state like this due to a short period of meditation engaged in, based on the instructions in SN 47.42?
  • On the other hand, can you say that "this disconnection from Salayatana, makes the Arahant, blind, deaf, and dumb?
DO is an activity that involves only consciousness, but it does not mean one completely ignores the fact that it is happening due to the presence of a body with six sense bases.
So if you say Pulsar is saying "nothing is physical" are you not misrepresenting Pulsar?
I am trying to communicate that DO is happening at the level of consciousness, in order to do so, I have to resort to language. How skillfully Pulsar uses that language? Perhaps Pulsar is not so skillful in use of language.
But if you understood the doctrine as Buddha taught it, you will understand why Pulsar is saying DO deals with the activity of the mind, and therefore an individual by restraining the mind has the capacity to do away with suffering.
You are free to point out my weakness in use of language. I admit that the six sense bases are linked to a physical body.
With love :candle:
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 1:18 pm I admit that the six sense bases are linked to a physical body.[/b]
what you mean by physical body? rupa kaya?
if rupa kaya is not equal to mundane body? then what pali word is for mundane body?
https://suttacentral.net/sn10.1/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “The Buddhas say that form is not the soul.
“Rūpaṁ na jīvanti vadanti buddhā,
Then how does this body manifest?
Kathaṁ nvayaṁ vindatimaṁ sarīraṁ;
Where do the bones and liver come from?
Kutassa aṭṭhīyakapiṇḍameti,
And how does one cling on in the womb?”
Kathaṁ nvayaṁ sajjati gabbharasmin”ti.
perhaps the jiva refer to attabhava, which has the qualities of good and bad deeds: deed-born body(karajakāya, an10.219). So if to directly focus on rupa is wrong since that rupa is not jiva.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

My Dear mjaviem, in my previous comment I wrote
I admit that the six sense bases are linked to the body.
when satipatthana sutta writes "Meditate on the body" many times the tradition interprets this as a meditation on a physical body or a corpse etc. Perhaps the wording of some suttas are at fault.
But SN 47.42 is a sutta that does not say so. In fact V. Thanissaro claimed this is a very unusual sutta. Is it because in this sutta first satiptthana is not recognized as a meditation on a physical body?
Can you tell me why SN 47.42 is unsual?
There are some on DW who understand the first Satpatthana, as a meditation on the activity taking place at the six sense bases.
It is true that the eye with its visual equipment, and ear with its auditory equipment etc are clearly physical. Transmission of nerve impulses that communicate vision or hearing to the CNS are based on bio physics or bio chemistry.
Eye consciousness generated due to the activity of eye (physical), however belongs to the domain of mind.
  • No one ever says that eye consciousness arises without a functional eye ball and and a viewed object
To that extent the physical eye and physical objects play a role in eye consciousness.
But consciousness itself? are you saying it is composed partially of a physical body?
When you think, that thought? is it not wholly mental?

How do you understand Phagguna sutta which I introduced at the beginning of the discussion?
In it Buddha says that consciousness thrives by eating consciousness. Do you think
Buddha is misleading us? that in reality consciousness eats physical things like meat? or even eat a thing like the the flesh of a son, literally?
By and by I will try to get this point across to you.
With love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 8:50 pm
when satipatthana sutta writes "Meditate on the body" many times the tradition interprets this as a meditation on a physical body or a corpse etc. Perhaps the wording of some suttas are at fault.
What you meditate upon is an aspect of the body. Breath, element, foulness etc.
“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: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote
What you meditate upon is an aspect of the body. Breath, element, foulness etc.
Your #1.
I will treat each point separately. It will take me a couple of weeks.
Let us take the body first,
When you say body, are you referring to the physical body, as you claimed at Sutta Central? plus no one at sutta central seemed bothered by your presentation "body as physical?"
They had to know that meditation should lead to an end to suffering, I presume?
Over there, you also claimed Satipatthana is an innovation of Buddha.
The Pali canon itself, influenced by Abhidhamma, gives two different versions of Satipatthana.
You seem to follow the version created by Vibajjavadins approximately 200 years after Buddha's death?
I remember one time another participant at SC asked
"200 years after Buddha" Is that not modern Theravada???
I love snippets like this, from this particular poster. Truths wrapped in humor.
To get back to the point,
  • Is there not a contradiction between the first satipatthana presented
    as a meditation on the physical body, which you claim Buddha innovated, and first Satipatthana as meditation on the arising of eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc, and exerting effort to avoid this arising? which Buddha innovated, according to Pulsar
Latter surely is Buddha's innovation, (if one understands the doctrine correctly) it is found in the
Samyutta Nikaya.

I once wanted to discuss the real Satipatthana sutta SN 47.42, but I gave up. Interruptions by one of our other friends proved to be too much. This was a while ago. Some of my comments were deleted, but not by me.

Recently I felt I could do the same via another sutta in Samyutta Nikaya. "What Feeds consciousness???" Hopefully, no one will try to object too much.
Now Ceisiwr appears claiming, SN 47.42 is not about Satipatthana, even though it is found in Satipatthana Samyutta.
Ceisiwr has not openly said that.
  • But when he claims that first Satipatthana is a meditation on a physical body, or even a rotting body is he not indirectly implying that SN 47.42 is untrue.
Correct me if I am wrong. I find it hard to carry on a discussion on Son's Flesh SN 12. 63, as long as he keeps showing up and claiming that First Satipatthana is about a physical body or a rotting body.
Why would Buddha teach us a meditation on a physical body or rotting body? Is not the goal to relieve us of our self created suffering. Is it not mental activity that Buddha is concerned with?
Dhammapada begins with, guess what? "Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states"...Narada translation
Is the Buddha tending to the mind or the physical body in the first Satipatthana? can you please clarify?
With love :candle:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 3:55 pm Your #1.
I will treat each point separately. It will take me a couple of weeks.
Let us take the body first,
When you say body, are you referring to the physical body, as you claimed at Sutta Central? plus no one at sutta central seemed bothered by your presentation "body as physical?"
They had to know that meditation should lead to an end to suffering, I presume?
Over there, you also claimed Satipatthana is an innovation of Buddha.
The Pali canon itself, influenced by Abhidhamma, gives two different versions of Satipatthana.
You seem to follow the version created by Vibajjavadins approximately 200 years after Buddha's death?
I remember one time another participant at SC asked
"200 years after Buddha" Is that not modern Theravada???
I love snippets like this, from this particular poster. Truths wrapped in humor.
I'm not really sure which topic you are referring to over at SC. It does look like satipaṭṭhāna is unique to the Buddha. In the earliest non-sectarian version, kāyānupassanā involves the physical body.
To get back to the point,
Is there not a contradiction between the first satipatthana presented
as a meditation on the physical body, which you claim Buddha innovated, and first Satipatthana as meditation on the arising of eye consciousness, ear consciousness etc, and exerting effort to avoid this arising? which Buddha innovated, according to Pulsar
Latter surely is Buddha's innovation, (if one understands the doctrine correctly) it is found in the
Samyutta Nikaya.
I once wanted to discuss the real Satipatthana sutta SN 47.42, but I gave up. Interruptions by one of our other friends proved to be too much. This was a while ago. Some of my comments were deleted, but not by me.

Recently I felt I could do the same via another sutta in Samyutta Nikaya. "What Feeds consciousness???" Hopefully, no one will try to object too much.
Now Ceisiwr appears claiming, SN 47.42 is not about Satipatthana, even though it is found in Satipatthana Samyutta.
Ceisiwr has not openly said that.
But when he claims that first Satipatthana is a meditation on a physical body, or even a rotting body is he not indirectly implying that SN 47.42 is untrue.
I'm not aware of any version of satipaṭṭhāna where kāyānupassanā involves contemplation of the sense-conciousness. The 12 bases are brought in in some versions, but it's always under dhammānupassanā and looks to be the result of later editing. On SN 47.42, it's one of my favourites. Notice there that kāyānupassanā is related to the physical body.

Correct me if I am wrong. I find it hard to carry on a discussion on Son's Flesh SN 12. 63, as long as he keeps showing up and claiming that First Satipatthana is about a physical body or a rotting body.
Why would Buddha teach us a meditation on a physical body or rotting body? Is not the goal to relieve us of our self created suffering. Is it not mental activity that Buddha is concerned with?
Dhammapada begins with, guess what? "Mind is the forerunner of (all evil) states"...Narada translation
Is the Buddha tending to the mind or the physical body in the first Satipatthana? can you please clarify?
With love :candle:
To help overcome the hindrances and establish the mind in samādhi.
“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: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

My Dearest Ceisiwr: Some people spout nonsense, I am not saying you are. You wrote 
I'm not really sure which topic you are referring to over at SC.
On March 6th you posted your thoughts, under the title The Brahmavihārās and Satipaṭṭhāna. I was underwhelmed by that post.
You continued here
"it does look like satipaṭṭhāna is unique to the Buddha. In the earliest non-sectarian version, kāyānupassanā involves the physical body"
Can you bring me the non-sectarian version?
The likes of MN 10 and DN 22 are not quite found in Satipatthana Samyukta, the one that is closest to Buddha. MN 10 and and DN 22 are concoctions by later Buddhists by mixing facts and fiction. Some have shown that the skull and jaw fragments of Piltdown Man actually came from two different species. Likewise are these Satipatthana suttas. 
AN 8.63, sutta discussed, on the SC post, I find that Pali compilers got it muddled up. The Agama mentions these in the reverse order, which makes sense.  The teaching was to do Satipatthana first, (to do away with dependent origination of suffering), and once the mind is clear, do Brahma Viharas to stabilise resulting jhana. This miscommunication points to the extent that some Pali compilers got Satipatthana mixed up.
  • However the Pali compiler of SN 47.42 did not get Satipatthana mixed up.
If you continue to insist that the first satipatthana of SN 47. 42 is about a solid physical body or a rotting body, then we have nothing more to say to each other. 
Let us not waste time, of ours or others.
With love  :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

In the teaching of the 4 nutrients of Son's flesh
THE FIRST NUTRIENT is spoken of as  gross and fine food. The agama version refers to the first item as gross food only.  A difference?
The Sutta refers to feeding? 
It refers to growth of consciousness. Consciousness grows when fed. 
What does consciousness feed on?
  • Delight in what is seen, heard, sensed, and cognized, feeds the consciousness and makes it grow.
Son's flesh ultimately refers to the death of the worldly consciousness, which is the goal of the Arahant. When all that defiling underlying tendencies die, worldly consciousness that arises out of it dies.
Buddha and Arahants personify a purified consciousness. This is uncharted territory for ordinary people. Scripture writes all conversation or description ends here.
But for 2500 years the tradition made it, its business, to speculate on this uncharted  territory.
Founder asked us "Don't go there"  
His point is "why go there"? without understanding the Origination of Suffering? Once the origination is understood, all pieces fall into place.
All mental frolicking ends right there. End.
However, while on the subject of Son's Flesh, later schools understood the first food as gross and fine, as seen by its translations in the Pali canon. Vibajjavadins like Analayo openly interpreted the First Nutrient to be solid food like Papayas or flesh?
Some folks leave behind their common sense, when it comes to the Pali canon.
Can consciousness be fed on solid or liquid food? or for that matter invisible food particles floating in the air? or hot dogs? Food for thought?
To Convince us of this misinterpretation Pali sutta compilers manipulated the sequential order of suttas in SA. The sequence in SN does not correspond with the sequence in SA. 
In the agama sequence: in the Sutta preceding Son's flesh
  • Buddha teaches Moliyaphagguna that consciousness feeds on consciousness.
Why did the Pali compilers tamper with the sequence of the suttas found in Agama? By an ill placed order, were they trying to present Buddha as a liar?  The sutta ranked prior to Sons flesh in Agama.....does not say consciousness feeds on solid, liquid, airy food or hot dogs, as the first nutrient is presented in Pali Exegesis. In my next comment I will outline the anomaly I find in the Pali canon.
With love  :candle:
Last edited by Pulsar on Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Ahara Sutta, Son's Flesh

Post by Pulsar »

Continuing with my earlier comment: Regarding the placement of SA 372 and SA 373, why did it lose the preferred sequence in the Pali compilation?
In the Chinese canon,
  • SA 372/SN 12.12 Moliyaphagguna which says consciousness feeds on consciousness immediately precedes SA 373/SN12.63 Son's Flesh
  • In the Pali canon SA 372/SN 12.12 Moliyaphagguna which says consciousness feeds on consciousness is separated by an intervening 50 suttas from SN 12.63 Son's Flesh i.e. SA 373
It is obvious to anyone reading the two canons that agama compilers had it right,
it makes sense, a reader will understand that the first nutrient is not about physical food, if they read SA372/Sn12.12 right before reading SA 373/SN 12.63.
SN 12.63 dramatizes the deadliness of delighting in the seen, heard, sensed and cognized by introducing the simile of parents eating a son's flesh. It is a metaphor. When we delight in things of the sensory world we are like a mother that gains pleasure by eating the only son's flesh. This is how much Buddha condemned the pleasures of the sensory world.
Did the Pali compilers think that no one would ever notice this artificial separation?
Were they trying to accommodate the physicality of rupa of Nama-rupa in their version of Dependent Origination? which was not so for the Buddha?
If they did they were plainly short sighted. Because the intervening 50 suttas found between SN 12.12 and SN 12.63 did not fool me into thinking that the first nutrient was about feeding a physical body.
It was about feeding the body/kaya of consciousness as the teaching in Moliyaphagguna implies. For those who agree with Abhidhamma that consciousness is created by linking nama to a physical body, this may sound very inconvenient.
For those who understand that
  • rupa of nama-rupa is dealing with mental images arising due to things seen, heard, sensed, cognized and craved for,
it will make perfect sense.
with love :candle:  
Post Reply