Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

[Pulsar]

I will try a little more, mjaviem wrote 

Oh! You mean "arūpa" means "not"-form. Thank you dear Pulsar! Thank you very much.

Correct. Then you wrote 

So there's indeed nama-rupa in arupa realms. How can there be not?

This is incorrect.
Let me clarify. The word Arupa is loaded, since it has (non-Buddha connotations), so I will stick with formless or without form, since my object is clarification of Kalaha Vivada.
You wrote:

It's only the rupa which is part of contact of the five sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, "tactile body") that is not present (You call this "physical object") but there's stil rupa which is part of contact of the sixth sense base ("mano") that is indeed present (you call this "images due to recollection").

Here is where you appear to be confused. What enters via the sixth sense base (what enters via the mind, aside of the other five bases) are concepts confused by the entries that arrived via the five sense bases.

• Rupa of the 6th sense base would be a deluded concept, Ie faulty conception, or conceiving related to images arising via other 5 sense bases of the puthujjana.

Please remember the object of the 6th sense is a concept.
You need to understand Paticca samuppada in a magnificent way to comprehend this.
Do you? If not, make that a priority.
I will try to help you with a sutta from the Chinese canon, that Vibajjavadins left out.
Bottom line: workings of the mind of arahant will not generate forms via any of the six senses. in the enlightened mind of arahant forms do not arise.
Why? there is no craving for objects of the sense sphere. It is free of polluted underlying tendencies. Are you with me so far?
With love

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

Pulsar wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2023 1:17 pm
... Ignorant or not everyone has a nose, right? When you refer to non-ignorance, are you referring to the Arahants who have got rid of ignorance?...
One gets a nose because of not understanding (avijja). What does it mean "to get a nose"? It means to not understand the nose. If someone gets rid of ignorance, an Arahant, it means they get rid of the nose, because now they fully understand the nose.

I see where I found your comment on "nose" confusing, perhaps in suttas one finds writing like this, which can be misinterpreted?
It is more accurate, If someone says ..

What does it mean "to get a nose"? It means to not understand the olfactory or smell ayatana not nose as such. If someone gets rid of ignorance, an Arahant, it means they get rid of the olfactory or smell ayatana, not nose as such, because now they fully understand the nose/smell sensory field

There is a world of difference between nose and the smell ayatana/sensory field.

• Arahant has a nose but not the ayatana related to the smell, due to having lost craving for smell.

• Puthujjana has a nose plus the olfactory or smell ayatana, due to his ignorance, or due to clinging to the sense of smell.

Do you see my point?
With love

[mjaviem]

... what enters via the mind, aside of the other five bases) are concepts... the object of the 6th sense is a concept.

Yes, you call it concept, I noticed that, ok.

I understand it's not the physical appearance, possible with the other five senses. But it's still something objective, possible with the mind. Arupa existence is not a physically apparent existence of the five senses but it doesn´t mean thereś no objectivity. It's still an objective existence of the mind. There are still these objects of the mind. Nama-rupa is still present. Subjectivity-objectivity, as I like to call it, still arises. You showed to me that arupa does not mean without objectivity but only not a physical appearance.

...

• Arahant has a nose but not the ayatana related to the smell, due to having lost craving for smell.

• Puthujjana has a nose plus the olfactory or smell ayatana, due to his ignorance, or due to clinging to the sense of smell.

Do you see my point?
...

I see it but it's not so. The Arahant doesn't have a nose in the same way he doesn´t have smell-ayatana. Because if by "nose" we're only referring to the skin-covered cartilage, the arahant doesn´t have this either, he doesn´t possess anything, like a body with a nasal appendix nor any belongings nor anything. He understands the nose and the smell-ayatana correctly so these can't arise.

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

Pulsar wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 10:46 am
... what enters via the mind, aside of the other five bases) are concepts... the object of the 6th sense is a concept.
Yes, you call it concept, I noticed that, ok.

I understand it's not the physical appearance, possible with the other five senses. But it's still something objective, possible with the mind.

Concept is objective, right? and can only apply when a subject is present (in the case of the ignorant (puthujjana it is true). Can it be true in the case of the Arahant, when the subject has vanished, in a doctrinal sense?
Let me ask you "Is anything objective present for the Arahant?"
How do you understand the state of release from suffering? Is that not one released from object-subject conundrum? Where a subject is absent, can an object exist? This is really supra mundane Dharma, which we are trying to understand while in a mundane state.
So watch out when your brain plays tricks!
When I wrote the concept is a creation of the mind (6th sense), I was referring to a state present in the non-enlightened, not in the arahants/enlightened.
You continued:

Arupa existence is not a physically apparent existence of the five senses but it doesn´t mean thereś no objectivity. It's still an objective existence of the mind. There are still these objects of the mind. Nama-rupa is still present. Subjectivity-objectivity, as I like to call it, still arises. You showed to me that arupa does not mean without objectivity but only not a physical appearance.

• The phrase Arupa existence is an oxymoron.

I cannot blame you for this, for it is mentioned all over the scriptures written by later schools. Please remember the Pali canon is a Sectarian document.

• Non-sectarian canons cannot be found in the present day.

However if we want to get at the Buddha it is essential for us to rely on Sectarian documents. We have to be grateful to those who brought us fragments of Buddha's teaching, so that those who have eyes could see.
With love

[Pulsar]

I decided to break up the last comment. It was getting too long in order to retain my own attention. Here is the continuation.
You write

There are still these objects of the mind.

When the subject has vanished can an object exist?
You cotinue

You showed to me that arupa does not mean without objectivity but only not a physical appearance.

If I said so, it is a SNAFU. Can you repeat it in relation to the context that was used? Did I say something out of context? Please point out my error.
With love

[mjaviem]

Concept is objective, right? and can only apply when a subject is present (in the case of the ignorant (puthujjana it is true). Can it be true in the case of the Arahant, when the subject has vanished, in a doctrinal sense?
Let me ask you "Is anything objective present for the Arahant?"
How do you understand the state of release from suffering? Is that not one released from object-subject conundrum? Where a subject is absent, can an object exist?...

Exactly, cessation of namarupa means cessation of subjectivity-objectivity. The arahant is free from this subject-object dichotomy.

... When the subject has vanished can an object exist?
...

An object cannot arise for someone who has fully understood.

...
If I said so, it is a SNAFU. Can you repeat it in relation to the context that was used? Did I say something out of context? Please point out my error.
...

No error, you simply pointed out that there was something there to consider with the word arupa.

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

No error, you simply pointed out that there was something there to consider with the word arupa.

Thanks, now that you are sure that when the word Arupa is used on this thread, it refers to something that Buddha taught while he was living (the proof is that there is reference to without form in Atthakavagga, or formless according to the original doctrine), based on this we proceed.

• The formless in Atthakavagga has absolutely no reference to Arupa samapatthis as Niddesa understood

• Buddha's teaching is what Buddha woke up to, not what other wanderers woke up to, or what abhidhamma woke up to after Buddha's decease. When I ask you to use great caution in reading Pali canon, it is because many Pali suttas were written using fragments of Buddha's teaching, seen through the lens of Abhidhamma.
  
  Fortunately there are enough suttas in the Pali canon written by compilers who saw the spoken fragments of the Buddha without dust in their eyes.
  • So, as much as it is a struggle to wade through the Pali canon, It all pays off at the end, when the true Dhamma shines in our minds.
  Remember Buddha himself saluted and worshipped True Dharma after his awakening. Garava sutta, is witness to that.
  Based on the above, I will return to a comparison of the teaching found in Kalaha Vivada with some other presentations of Dependent origination found in the canon. Thanks for bringing in SN 12.2, a clear example of how Paticca samuppada was seen through the lens of Abhidhamma.
  With love

[Pulsar]

Ceiswir wrote

Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:54 am

These are later teachings associated with Arupa samapatthis
which prevailed in India before the Buddha awakened. Unfortunately some sutta compilers of later schools, who could not understand Buddha's awakening, imported these non-buddhist taechings into the canon. And so much of this understanding crept into the Scholastics of Vibajjavadins, based on which many later suttas were written.
C replies The formless attainments do pre-date the Buddha, yes. Everyone acknowledges that. The Jhānas also pre-date the Buddha. Within those attainments a consciousness arises without reference to physicality/matter. Based on mind and mind-objects, consciousness arises.

You use the word jhana very loosely, just because commentaries called arupa samaptthis jhana, do they qualify as jhana? Visuddhimagga has led people astray regarding jhana. Can you describe the jhanic state as Buddha accomplished it? not as Visuddhimagga accomplished it?

Can one attain Jhana (the one that leads to extinction of suffering) without understanding the original meaning of words like nimitta (as in sign or signless concentration)?
Originally nimitta meant one thing and one thing alone. The tradition used nimitta in various contexts, which contributed to the confusion.

• The tradition failed to see the crucial role nimitta plays in DO.

Were the prebuddhists who practiced Jhana have access to dependent Origination?? How could they? not even you after so many years of participation in DW has got it. I will break up my response into two comments. Pl scroll down and continue reading.
With love

[Pulsar]

Ceiswir continued

Within those attainments a consciousness arises without reference to physicality/matter. Based on mind and mind-objects, consciousness arises.

Within what attainment? Can you clarify? Are you speaking of the Arahant, or the non-arahant during jhana meditation?
In that state, if mind objects arise can it be called jhana (Samma Samadhi). When you say "mind object of the Arahant?" is that even possible? Without a subject, can an object arise?
What objects are you imagining, and ascribing to the mind of Buddha? Do these objects belong to the sense sphere?
You appear to understand the doctrine in a peculiar way. Can you give me an example of a mind object of an Arahant, or the Buddha?
Let us keep things straight, without leading folks astray with your convoluted logic.
This is the forum on Early Buddhism. I prefer to stick to the Nikaya that contains the core teachings i.e. Samyutta Nikaya, preferably Samyukta agama. Attahkavagga and Parayana vagga predate the nikayas. They are even more welcome.
With love

[Eko Care]

Atthakavagga clarifies the original meaning of the word formless as the founder intended. A sutta which was studied by honest monks during Buddha's lifetime.

During the Buddha's time monks were honest, not like modern text-critical monks.

If we misinterpret the original meaning ... do these suttas still qualify?

Yes, don't misinterpret then.

Niddesa misinterpreted "without form" in Sn 4.11 with endless negative repercussions.

This is claiming intellectual superiority over Venerable Maha Kaccayana.

No need more evidences.

[Pulsar]

Eko Care wrote

During the Buddha's time monks were honest, not like modern text-critical monks.

You seem ill informed. Can you explain the circumstances under which Buddha was forced to come up with the sutta on the Son's Flesh? Buddha used this devastating simile that

• when we feed on the sense sphere indiscriminately, it is like we are eating our own son's flesh.

Can you explain why Buddha took leave of the monks for three months? It relates to an incident in Kosambi. He did take leave of monks several times, in fact.
How intolerable, how dishonest, those monks must have been?

• Are you aware that there is a document called Sutta Pitaka?

where not every sutta is influenced by Abhidhamma. This tells me there were honest monks, but not every monk was honest.

Your specialty is based on a Sect that was born 200-300 years after Buddha's decease?
It is no wonder that the tradition born in this manner
misinterpreted the meaning of Son's Flesh.
How could they understand Kalaha Vivada Sn 4.11? which V. Sona recited in Buddha's presence?
How could they understand the foundational doctrine of Dependent Origination, when they interpreted deformed Rupa of Kajjaniya sutta as a deformed physical body,
and

• not the collection of consciousness influenced by anger, greed and confusion?

With love

[Sadat]

mjaviem wrote

No error, you simply pointed out that there was something there to consider with the word arupa.

Thanks, now that you are sure that when the word Arupa is used on this thread, it refers to something that Buddha taught while he was living (the proof is that there is reference to without form in Atthakavagga, or formless according to the original doctrine), based on this we proceed.

• The formless in Atthakavagga has absolutely no reference to Arupa samapatthis as Niddesa understood

• Buddha's teaching is what Buddha woke up to, not what other wanderers woke up to, or what abhidhamma woke up to after Buddha's decease. When I ask you to use great caution in reading Pali canon, it is because many Pali suttas were written using fragments of Buddha's teaching, seen through the lens of Abhidhamma.
  
  Fortunately there are enough suttas in the Pali canon written by compilers who saw the spoken fragments of the Buddha without dust in their eyes.
  • So, as much as it is a struggle to wade through the Pali canon, It all pays off at the end, when the true Dhamma shines in our minds.
  Remember Buddha himself saluted and worshipped True Dharma after his awakening. Garava sutta, is witness to that.
  Based on the above, I will return to a comparison of the teaching found in Kalaha Vivada with some other presentations of Dependent origination found in the canon. Thanks for bringing in SN 12.2, a clear example of how Paticca samuppada was seen through the lens of Abhidhamma.
  With love

Hi Pulsar,

Your comments in this and some other threads make a lot of sense. I've been pondering for a while some inconsistancies in Pali suttas and what you say really resonates. Can you recommend any further readings regarding this topic?

BTW, I tried replying to your post before to express my interest but it was deleted for inappropriate speech...

[Pulsar]

Sadat wrote

I've been pondering for a while some inconsistancies in Pali suttas and what you say really resonates. Can you recommend any further readings regarding this topic?

Have you read my earlier posts on Dhamma Wheel? As for my reading list on earliest Buddhism, it is pretty long, do you have access to such publications through a nearby library?
I will try to begin with the Pali canon itself, but focussing attention on some suttas only. It is best to approach it that way. Give me some time to sort out my thoughts as how best to get about it.
You wrote

BTW, I tried replying to your post before to express my interest but it was deleted for inappropriate speech...

I apologise for what happened, no idea why a moderator thought your speech was inappropriate.
I used to think no one really understands me??? but I keep plugging away. I don't give up. I have been called all sorts of names such as "gaslighter" "Genius of the Dhamma Wheel" sarcastically, but such epithets do not bother me, hence I am able to carry on.
Thank you a million times, for saying my words resonate with you.
You make my day!
With love

[Sadat]

Sadat wrote

I've been pondering for a while some inconsistancies in Pali suttas and what you say really resonates. Can you recommend any further readings regarding this topic?

Have you read my earlier posts on Dhamma Wheel? As for my reading list on earliest Buddhism, it is pretty long, do you have access to such publications through a nearby library?
I will try to begin with the Pali canon itself, but focussing attention on some suttas only. It is best to approach it that way. Give me some time to sort out my thoughts as how best to get about it.
You wrote

BTW, I tried replying to your post before to express my interest but it was deleted for inappropriate speech...

I apologise for what happened, no idea why a moderator thought your speech was inappropriate.
I used to think no one really understands me??? but I keep plugging away. I don't give up. I have been called all sorts of names such as "gaslighter" "Genius of the Dhamma Wheel" sarcastically, but such epithets do not bother me, hence I am able to carry on.
Thank you a million times, for saying my words resonate with you.
You make my day!
With love

Thanks. I started reading your old posts and will continue. I do not have access to any libraries with Pali stuff. If you can PM me or post further guidance here it would be much appreciated.

Best wishes

[Pulsar]

Sadat wrote

I do not have access to any libraries with Pali stuff.

I did not mean Pali Pali, I meant English translations of the Pali canon. Do you have a copy of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi? To begin with I bought all of VBB's sutta translations, Long Discourses, Middle length Discourses, Samyutta and Anguttara. What was most helpful was the Samyutta Nikaya.
I spent a great deal of time comparing suttas of Samyutta Nikaya and Samyukta agama.
Not all of the Samyukta agama is neatly found in the Pali nikaya (I mean English translation). It is a bit maddening to make head or tail of why Pali compilers placed some suttas of Samyukta agama in the Anguttara Nikaya.
But I have identified those suttas in the Anguttara that came from Samyukta agama.
They should be rightfully in the Samyutta nikaya. Heaven knows what thoughts made them split Samyukta agama. I also learnt to translate Chinese agama parallels of Pali suttas.
An amazing new world opened up to me.
Just to point out the complications one has to put up with. If you are serious about the words that were closest to Buddha, spend a lot of time with Samyutta nikaya for now.
Sagathavagga is a wonderful place to start with.
If you understand that, along with Parayanavagga and Athakavagga you have come a long way. The last two can be found online at Sutta Central. Until you buy a copy of VBB Samyutta Nikaya (I highly advice it) you can read it all on Sutta Central or Thanissaro translations found online at Access to Insight. V. Thanissaro and V. Bodhi are good with foot notes.
Now that is a beginning...with time I will point out what to focus on. Meanwhile you are welcome to PM me with any questions. As for other reading material, I will point out a few later.
Best Wishes!