🟩 The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

[SDC]

…sat is not properly a "wordly" thing, as far as the definition of the world is concerned, namely: "The eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition.
The ear … The mano … Whatever feeling arises with mano-contact as condition." (SN35. 82)
"Wordly-manifestation" would be more proper. A manifestation that starts outside the world, and descends (avakkanti) in the world.

As long as one doesn't establish himself back in an unpolluted citta, there is no way that one can see that wordly-manifestation, from the starting point of the primeval sat — nor can one see how it develops.
.
.

A great contribution to the discussion, ToVincent. Thank you!

[ToVincent]

"The sage at peace is not born", because the sage at peace is neither sat, nor asat.

As there is no longer a descent of the viññāṇa nidāna in the nāmarūpa nidāna, there is no more sat. There is no more "real"; there is no more "I am" (that sat) in the nāmarūpa nidāna, to be called upon (hoti*); there is no more "is to become" in the actual world; there is no more "I am this" (in the external world); there is no more "is"; there is no more "will be" — there is no more maintenance of consciousness (viññāṇa).

* That turns out there - this calls,
From the coming forth of that, this originates.
That doesn’t turn out, this does not call,
Due to the cessation of that there, this ceases.

Imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti,
Imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati.
Imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti,
Imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati

With hoti coming from root hū/hve (to call), not bhū

--------------

The common denominator of the three parallels SN 22.47 / SA 63 / SA 45, is the following - (Pali version):

Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging — ("subject to clinging" does not turn up in SA 45).
What five?

The uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards:
- form as self,
- or self as possessing form (= distinct from self) ,
- or form as in self,
- or self as in form.
He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self …
- consciousness as self (viññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati),
- or self as possessing consciousness (viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ),
- or consciousness as in self (attani vā viññāṇaṃ),
- or self as in consciousness (viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ).

Contemplating it like this, the notion ‘I am’ (‘asmī’ti) has not vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a descent of the five faculties (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti)
(Note: SA 63 = Contemplating it like this, he says "I am real" [actual] (sat) (言我真實). One who says "I am real", engages with the sense faculties.)

—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is, bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance (avijjādhātu).
(Note that SA 63/SA 65, extend all the faculties to contacts).

When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘‘I will be’ (‘bhavissan’tipissa hoti) and ‘I will not be, (‘na bhavissan’tipissa hoti)’ occurs to him — (SA 63/SA 65 = existence and non-existence).

The five faculties (contacts for SA 63/SA 65), remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed noble disciple abandons ignorance and arouses true knowledge. With the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ (SA 63/SA 65 = existence and non-existence), do not occur to him.”
(Note: SA 63/SA 65 add also the "superior, inferior or equal" pericope).

Real-manifestation would even be more proper.
.
.

[equilibrium]

That's the burning question!!

That the experience has been developed to the point where nibbana can be discerned is all that seems to make sense to say for the question of “what”. Just my opinion.

Thinking of citta as the third frame in satipatthana, could you say that Nibbana is a radically different state of mind?

According to the section on cittānupassanā in MN 10/DN 22, “liberated mind” can be contemplated, so it looks to be a quality that can be known. It is also called bright, luminous and unlimited. In the least it is, for lack of a better word, the shape of the mind that has reached the unconditioned. As radical as it may be it didn’t destroy the mind on account of it being there, so the mind is still an aspect of the experience for the arahant. Not sure if that adds anything.

This is good. So we can agree on two things here initially:
The body and the mind.

But there are things needs to be considered here being:

1. The mind reaching the unconditioned, which is beyond the ALL, which also means it cannot be destroyed, ie. permanent. That being the case, it would make sense as there are sutra noted:

Remember me as awakened

You cannot awaken the body right.

AN 10.81:
Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata — freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things — dwells with unrestricted awareness.

That is after passing.

But the mind as we all know of, is the physical one right?…..how can a physical mind reach the unconditioned? It’s impossible right?
Furthermore, it is permanent?

There is something else happening here isn’t there?

Anyone?

[SDC]

Can you explain what the difference between vinnana and citta is, as you see it. What is the danger in solely relying vinnana, if I do not understand the role of citta?

Take this all with a grain of salt - this is just what I’ve gathered over the years:

The aggregates are heaps and there are no more general descriptions of the experience than those five aggregates, form, feeling, perception, consciousness and volitional formations. Desire and lust towards the aggregates is the clinging. Perception and feeling are what support citta (MN 44) in that those different minds described in MN 10/DN 22 are given their shape by both what is perceived and what is felt. Vinnana gets a very prominent position in MN 43, but what I find most telling is that when compared with wisdom, Sariputta says, wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be understood. That’s a profound difference as far as I can see. Back to Dhp 153, it is citta that is said to have reached the unconditioned. It has been developed. Meanwhile from a different angle, consciousness has been understood and that upadana (clinging) destroyed.

So since the aggregates look to be broader than citta, I don’t find that they can be described in the same terms.

Citta is merely a word introduced by the abhidhammikas in their relentless efforts at creating lists.

I disagree. Between SN 47.8 and AN 6.68 we find just how critical it is to pick up the sign of the mind.

But I do agree that the tradition has complicated the term, but I must default to the profound simplicity of MN 10/DN 22.

SN 46.42 is an incredible little sutta. Thanks for recommending it.

Citta has been given a prominent place in the suttas, but for some reason that has not been enough for the Theravadin orthodoxy,

I do not understand this... Theravada orthodoxy?? I try to stay away from Theravada abhidhamma.

I know you do. I was criticizing the orthodoxy for what has been done to the concept, but I think the above suttas show just how significant recognition of citta is to practice.

I think it is just that our approaches are different, so maybe things get mistranslated???? But the subject matter we are dealing with, is very deep, so we need to be patient, and gentle with each other's approaches.
I learn to fine tune my own approach a bit more as I engage with you. For this I am grateful.

Our approaches are very different, but our attitudes align easily, which makes it easy work at these ideas together. Priceless when we are able to understand each other in these situations.

[SDC]

This is good. So we can agree on two things here initially:
The body and the mind.

Glad we found some common ground.

But the mind as we all know of, is the physical one right?…..how can a physical mind reach the unconditioned? It’s impossible right?
Furthermore, it is permanent?

I guess if we had to say something was physical it would be what is associated with the body, which would be the six sense base. That would be mano though, not citta. So even though the faculty of mano is the reason citta can be known, I agree that this would not imply mano has gone anywhere. If anything, the suttas say that mano should be reined in from what leads to unwholesome; so at best, mano remains with what is wholesome, while citta now includes the quality of liberation.

Lots of terminology issues for us all to work out. This is my take on the matter, but not meant as a final word.

[equilibrium]

2. Furthermore on the mind under the unconditioned:

It is said:

Unconditioned:

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.

This would mean the mind had always been there, in the unborn state…..hidden within the body.

Am not keen on the labels and would rather use the word mind.

The part that is missing is the most important one, the knowledge and vision, this is where the mind will be revealed.

It’s getting late.

[Spiny Norman]

I'm still not convinced about the idea of self-view and "I am" being continually "reborn". To me these feel fundamental, underlying and all-embracing, not things that come and go. And the idea of self-view "aging" sounds really awkward.

I think that they are fundamental and all-embracing, since self-view and conceit "I am" are fetters that are stucked into avijja/ignorance so every time DO occurs experientially all the steps are tainted with that ignorance, sankharas will be in a certain way and the craving will be one “that leads to renewed bhava.” and so there will be new births, new conceits of "I am" stored (like "I am young, I am superior, "I am not dead yet and I don't want to") in memory that you have to care for, to mantain, bringing you inevitable agitation and possibly affliction.

What you can see is that sometimes a craving in your mind arises and that contains elements of ignorance and attachment in it (for example "I desire it" with a strong self-view can be witnessed and comes and go, a lesser ignorant "there's a desire for x" too) and observe the drawbacks of producing sankharas in that "personal" way even if it can be delightful to do so: those births, those acquisitions of identity will inevitably result in suffering, decay and death and no real peace will be possible even when they are mantained because they are anicca. Of course, when you stop conceit, all that suffering bounded to those conceits like "I am X", "I am superior", "I am equal" etc will never originate in the first place because it is the best option for the mind to avoid those cravings that leads to becoming and to stop birth altogheter for ultimate peace.

I'm not sure. I think you could look at DO in various ways if you focus on "I am" (ahamkara).
Is DO all a consequence of "I am"?
Is DO an explanation of how "I am" develops, and/or a description of how "I am" manifests?

I think it's correct to say that "I am" repeatedly manifests. But I'm not sure it makes sense to say that "I am" is repeatedly born, ages and dies, given that it appears to be continuously present in the background.

[Pulsar]

Dearest SDC: You have introduced two new suttas. you wrote

I disagree. Between SN 47.8 and AN 6.68 we find just how critical it is to pick up the sign of the mind.
But I do agree that the tradition has complicated the term, but I must default to the profound simplicity of MN 10/DN 22.

SN 46.42 is an incredible little sutta. Thanks for recommending it.

This changes the game. But it is exactly the thing a sutta study should do, reveal to us the contradictions present within the canon.
I can continue as long as time assigned to this session remain.
The way you ended the comment,

Our approaches are very different, but our attitudes align easily, which makes it easy work at these ideas together. Priceless when we are able to understand each other in these situations.

It warmed my heart. Let me try to formulate a sensible well spoken response to your comment.
With love

[Pulsar]

Dearest SDC, continuing with my last comment, let us take the phrase  

"pick up the sign of the mind"

Relying on AN 6.68, I researched. I looked it up. cittassa nimittam

the object of the mind of concentration, and insight, the aspect of concentration and insight ...commentaries interpret ...this via  two meanings of the word nimitta...as object and as "mark" Writes VBB.

Now we are on the turf of commentaries, its  meaning is rather diffused. It comes across as a term coined by late Theravadin abhidhamma, bears the stamp of Visuddhimagga.
The word nimitta or "sign" has been interpreted by the commentaries in a way that makes its original meaning obscure. Let us focus on the original meaning, since Buddha can be found only there.

Nimitta originally was used in the context of Dependent Origination. DO begins with a contact made with an object. The ignorant mind is overwhelmed by nimittas (sparks or marks) and features released by the object. If one takes up the signs and features, he proceeds to feel, perceive and intend etc. Dependent on these mental proliferations come about. Hence (kamma) creation. 
Restraint is primary, for its reversal.
When Buddha speaks of restraint, he is telling us to avoid the entry of nimittas released by objects encountered. Satipatthana addresses this issue. 
Late abhidhamma began using nimitta or sign in a different context. Using the phrase  "sign of the mind" presents such an instance. It takes away the soteriological significance of the word nimitta. Aside of that, the phrase introduces two problems. "Sign of the mind"???
What is the mind or citta? There is no object called the mind or citta. If so, how can it release a sign/nimitta? Also if Citta is an object, it implies a subject. This is impossible, according to Buddha.
Unfortunately Theravada abhidhamma and yogacara use this term, Citta. It is impractical to say 5 aggregates every time, referring to the person. So citta or mind is used instead.
By facilitating communication compilers have created confusion. Soteriologically, there is no steady mind or steady citta other than the constantly arising vinnana.
But when using citta to refer to the "entity" it makes us think, citta is a thing.
There is no steady self projecting a steady citta. Abhidhamma took liberties with DO and their ideas have crept into the canon. It seems to me that what the sutta is trying to say is "the goal of the mind" when it writes  "pick up the sign/nimitta of the mind" 
But using the term sign or nimitta for that purpose, confounds its meaning.
Soteriologically nimitta is used in a different context. So again let me remind you:
1. Your approach is through DN22/MN 10 which the scholars have openly admitted are late constructions based on late Theravada abhidhamma (around the time of the 3rd council). There is a whole group  of suttas in the canon based on the late Theravada thinking.
2. My approach is to avoid these. Hence I use SN 47.42 for the purpose of Satipatthana.
It is a sutta that has not been tampered with. Now some might think that it is a brief sutta. 
But if one pays attention to it, its practice requires elaborate thoughtful attention, and relies on multiple seminal suttas such as  Son's flesh, which talks about the feeding mechanism of vinnana. 
I am trying to avoid the word citta, since there is no steady citta, but only vinnana that keeps renewing every moment.
This makes us think of it as citta, (basically a substitute for self, if you think about it).
Our differences are due to two trends of thought found in the pali canon.
I try to follow those suttas (uninfluenced by late Theravada Abhidhamma). 
You are right in what you say, I too am right in what I say, but it seems like we have chosen to pursue two different paths presented by the canon.
It is just that, abhidhamma has crept into the writings of some suttas, and created two trends in the canon.
Some might find my impressions sensible, others might think of my impressions as nonsense. 
But I love engaging with you, you allow me free expression, instead of saying "it is my way or the high way".
You also teach me important lessons regarding the Pali canon, how it evolved over time. Some of the suttas you quote such as MN 43 and and MN 44, I had once argued on Sutta Central, that these are constructions of late abhidhammikas, fabricated in order to support their late ideas. 
Come to think of it, they are fabricated as cleverly as DN 22/MN10 are fabricated.  
V. Sujato identified DN 22. as a " Piltdown sutta". This has been discussed on DW before.

This engagement makes me realize how true Dr. Alexander Wynne's take is, that there are  two strata of suttas, in the Pali canon. Second, influenced by Theravada abhidhamma, the first, is uninfluenced.
I will discuss the "sutta on the cook" SN 47.8 that you introduced, in my next comment.
It is an amazing sutta, once its true meaning is revelaed, so thank you for that.
My words are meant to be friendly. If someone perceives it otherwise, that kamma is mine and mine alone.
With love  

[Pulsar]

Dearest SDC: As to SN 47.8 "The Cook" that you brought up to justify
"pick up the sign of citta", here is my response. Sutta tells the story of a chef and the king she serves. It is about the ability of the chef to satisfy the palet of the king. A good chef knows how to.

A delicious metaphor used by the Buddha.The teacher is not intending to teach monks culinary skills. What is his intention? He intends to teach how to gather the dissipating, or distracting thought, in order to make it work for the aspirant, aspiring for nibbana.
The aspirant is the cook, the king is nibbana, the cessation of pain.
Let us cut to the chase.
Correct meditation requires gathering of thought, pl. recall the simile for first jhana, recall SN 47.42 also, which teaches us to get rid of all worldly thought. A unification of sorts, as the peaking of a mountain.
How will the monk tailor his meditation to seek nibbana, or bring about cessation?
An excerpt from the Chinese version, that helped me with a breakthrough. Until SDC brought it up I had brushed it aside. In the past I had relied on the Sujato and BB translations of Pali version. It was not quite clear to me, since it referred to a "picking up a sign"
The corresponding Sarvastivada version SA 616 implies the following. 

The foolish bhikkhu is also a foolish, undiscerning, unskillful bhikkhu, who cannot remove the worries that assail his mind, who cannot take in his mind, who cannot have the inner stillness, who cannot have the superior right mind and right knowledge, who cannot have the four kinds of establishments of mindfulness, who cannot have the happiness of the present dharma, and who cannot have the nirvana that is not yet attained.

This clicked with me, and I carried on from there. But the pali translation has this..

" foolish bhikku's corruptions are  not removed, he does not pick up that sign".

Pick up the sign is something that late Theravadin abhidhammikas inserted into the sutta. That idea is commonly found in the commentaries. A point that misleads good Theravadin folk.
To analyse the sutta further...What assails the mind? firstly, the hindrances. One has to figure out how to remove the hindrances, the methods of removal.
This is like the cook choosing between the right amounts of sour, bitter, pungent sweet etc which the Theravadin version elaborates at length. Meditator recalls how she achieved right meditation in previous instances? she thinks? a recollection of what was done before when the meditation was successful. 
In the simile The wise Cook remembers how she satisfied the king before.
Get my drift?
Pali version writes

"The wise competent cook gains gifts of clothing, wages, bonuses."

In terms of the meditator, it means rewarded by qualities of renunciation of five sensory strands, ability at unification, gaining equanimity etc.
What is she renouncing? She is renouncing the worldly vinnana. MN 10/DN 22 never clearly identifies this.
This is why it is called a Piltdown sutta by scholars. Due to the way it is compiled, it comes across as profound and simple, but it fails in the task of bringing one to Nibbana.
SN 47.42 executes this with precision, but many fail to see the breath of this sutta, since their vision is clouded by Theravadin abhidhamma ideas.
The Theravada version also implies....

"The wise competent cook dwells contemplating body, clearly comprehending etc "

referring to 4 establishments of mindfulness...This pericope always says body in body, feeling in feeling, mind in mind, and phenomena in phenomena.  
But the way to execute this is only explained in SN 47.42, which the Theravadin abhidhamma failed to emphasize, even if it is included in the Pali canon.
Their use of lang, "not picking up that sign of mind/citta" misleads the aspirant.
Does this make sense to you?
I am a bit exhuasted by my attempt to explain the thoughts tidily.
But if I formulated it correctly within this short span  of time, my exhaustion is well rewarded.
Thank you SDC for re introducing me to this amazing sutta. If not for you, I would have never looked up the sarvastivadin version of this sutta.
With love

[nirodh27]

I think it's correct to say that "I am" repeatedly manifests. But I'm not sure it makes sense to say that "I am" is repeatedly born, ages and dies, given that it appears to be continuously present in the background.

Is DO all a consequence of "I am"?

I would say that "I am" is a consequence of ignorance, that is not knowing that it is better not to fabricate an "I am" since if you don't, you resolve the problem of birth, old age, sickness and death at a mental level with all the stress and pain that it brings.

Is DO an explanation of how "I am" develops, and/or a description of how "I am" manifests?

I would say that "I am" develops inside DO, caused by ignorance, it is fabricated like all fabrications. then it descends into consciousness (consciosness with I am has a certain quality I think), it descends in the senses, in contact, in feelings (I feel) and perceptions (I perceive), in craving (i want), in bhava (i am). Probably I must say there's no real "entity" I am, is a mode of speech and a thought useful to try to recognize an experience of acquisition/appropriation/craving of experience that you can have or not have.

I would say that "I feel this" is a fabrication that is observed at the level of feeling, "i want" at craving, "I am" or "I am superior, equal, inferior" at bhava. All this happens very fast, but you can train yourself to retroactively observe that, giving a name to a very fast experience. When you have a thought "I want chocolate" and you are aware of it, you are already doing that.

I think it's correct to say that "I am" repeatedly manifests. But I'm not sure it makes sense to say that "I am" is repeatedly born, ages and dies, given that it appears to be continuously present in the background.

This is a very important remark. I've tried to remake my argument in a different way. My previous quote:

and so there will be new births, new conceits of "I am" stored (like "I am young, I am superior, "I am not dead yet and I don't want to") in memory that you have to care for, to mantain, bringing you inevitable agitation and possibly affliction.

I would now not say "there will be new births" (like Thanissaro, that says that everytime a "you" is born in a "world" to fulfill the desire), but simply that I am/existence (but in reality is ignorance, the cause of the fabrication I am in the first place as we said) is the one that creates the problem of birth, age and death. Bhava = existence seems the step more indicated to watch the mind originate a thought of "I am" or "I am X". As long as the mind "Bhavas" (as a verb, we could call it "selfing") because it delights into "bhaving"/"becoming", there's "birth" as a concept in the mind. And also the prospect and the "i will be dead in the future" would be unavoidable.

So:

for the unenlightened being: when there's Bhava => Birth, old age and Death are there too as concepts for the carrier of the burden that stress him. You are attached to all your "I am", especially the "I am" and to the unavoidable "I will get annihilated" that is dependantly originated.

while

for the sage at peace: birth, old age, death are are not there (is not born, not being born, how could he die?) because there is no ignorance so => no bhava (no attachments of existence, no "I AM", no selfing, no confronting, no taking an identity if not conventional) and so no concepts of birth, age, death make any sense for him. If bhava, then birth, then death. No bhava, no Birth, no death as a preoccupation full of Dukkha. Problem solved.

The death of the body is seen as branches of the forest burning at a distance, no agitation whatsoever since those branches not myself or pertaining to myself. Seems very liberative to me, with a strong taste of freedom.

So probably when we speak about desires like "I want chocolate" there's no need to bother birth, old age and death. We can stop at Bhava. But until there's this Bhava, so until there's attachment and desire, of course you cannot be free of birth, old age and death because you will think yourself as a being until sotapanna, and you will still feel as a being until arahant (even if there are grades, the non-returner has some smell of conceit yet but is nowhere near the sotapanna and the sotapanna is nowhere near the worldling).

I like this way of seeing DO a lot in this moment, I don't know if it makes sense to you

[ToVincent]

The aggregates are heaps and there are no more general descriptions of the experience than those five aggregates, form, feeling, perception, consciousness and volitional formations. Desire and lust towards the aggregates is the clinging. Perception and feeling are what support citta (MN 44) in that those different minds described in MN 10/DN 22 are given their shape by both what is perceived and what is felt. Vinnana gets a very prominent position in MN 43, but what I find most telling is that when compared with wisdom, Sariputta says, wisdom is to be developed, consciousness is to be understood. That’s a profound difference as far as I can see. Back to Dhp 153, it is citta that is said to have reached the unconditioned. It has been developed. Meanwhile from a different angle, consciousness has been understood and that upadana (clinging) destroyed.

I like that.
I like all this very much.

Note:
May something be added about upādāna.

::::::::::::::::::::::::
Upādāna
::::::::::::::::::::::::

From upa + ā + √dā
Lit. to wish to take (ādā) upon (upa) oneself (ā) — (ā in front of √dā reverses the latter usual meaning of "to give" - and keeps its underlying meaning of "towards oneself").


Because upādāna — as well as taṇhā (tṛṣṇā) — are not found in the earlier Upanishads, one has to turn towards the root meaning of the word — However, one can also rely upon the extract in BṛĀr.Up 4.4.5

atho khalv āhuḥ |
kāmamaya evāyaṃ puruṣa iti |
sa yathākāmo bhavati tatkratur bhavati |
yatkratur bhavati tat karma kurute |
yat karma kurute tad abhisaṃpadyate.

Others however, say
that a person consists of desires (kāma).
As becomes his desire, so becomes his will (kratu);
as becomes his will, so is the deed he undertakes (kurute - fr. kṛ),
whatever deed he undertakes, that he becomes similar to.

Upādāna and taṇhā are not found in the Upanishads, but the ideas contained in them are somewhat similar to the words:
- kāma = [fr. √ kam ] — wish , desire , longing - Pāṇ. — desire for , longing after, love , affection , object of desire or of love or of pleasure - RV. - VS. - TS. - AV. - ŚBr. - MBh.)
and
- kratu = desire, will - RV. — determination - RV. - VS.- ŚBr.- BṛĀrUp.
and
- Abhisaṃpad = to become similar to - ŚBr.

With kāma and kratu being somewhat that "thirst" that is taṇhā (tṛṣṇā) — and abhisaṃpad being somewhat upādāna.

This commitment to actions, or things, in accordance with desire, would be upādāna (viz. to wish to take upon oneself).

Thanks again SDC, for those great studies.
Very nice indeed.
.
.

[Pulsar]

A note in relation to my previous comment on SN 47.8 The cook.
I noticed Sujato translated "mind's sign/nimitta" as mind's hint.
Being aware of the "mind's hint" implies awareness of what is happening currently in the mind and adjusting the process of meditation accordingly, like a good cook would adjust the meal to suit the master's current mood. I poked around the web and found that DooDoot had asked the same question on Stack Exchange
ie

What does the word 'nimitta' ('sign') refer to in SN 47.8?

I guess this word puzzles those of us who associate nimitta with sparks/marks released by an object as it is described in relation to Dependent Origination.
Yet when it is used in relation to the mind or citta, it is a bit discombobulating, even though commentaries do so.
Sujato's translation "Mind's hint" makes more sense.
link to discussion on SN 47.8 on Stack Exchange.
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/ques ... in-sn-47-8

Wading through this sutta made me walk through suttas SN 47.1-8, it was enriching.
Thanks SDC for this great homework assignment in the sutta study. Understanding a sutta I had set aside as incomprehensible, and now it is comprehended due to Sutta study.
With love

[mjaviem]

... But I'm not sure it makes sense to say that "I am" is repeatedly born, ages and dies, given that it appears to be continuously present in the background.

The king of the hill is born, ages and dies. You are not king of the hill forever.

[Spiny Norman]

... But I'm not sure it makes sense to say that "I am" is repeatedly born, ages and dies, given that it appears to be continuously present in the background.

The king of the hill is born, ages and dies. You are not king of the hill forever.

Sorry but I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Could you elaborate?