SDC wrote: ↑Sun Aug 22, 2021 6:31 pm
... , so the recognition of the aggregates in this respect could be more than the worldly.
Sat is what produces the wordly thing (the effect).
The effect is non-existent (asat), it comes into being for a moment (sat), and is lost (asat).
The world-manifestation at large — including the effect & what produces the effect — exists for a time - it "is" (sat) - but since it does not exist permanently - it "is not" (asat). The "being" at large (sat), is just there for a while.
(Note: For Buddha, this dichotomy did'nt have to be a matter of contention - for they are both happening - the world exists AND the world does not exist).
For one has to start with the "being" (sat) in the world - and then reach the primeval "being" (sat proper,) in the nāmarūpa nidāna.
It is the reverse of what usually takes place; namely:
There is an "is" (a being [sat]), in the nāmarūpa nidāna - and that being comes to be (is,) in the following nidānā.
It all starts with the sankharization of the khandhas in the nāmarūpa nidāna, then with the descent (avakkanti) of the latter in the "world" up to bhāva.
For instance:
- Satta is the sat "been made" — (sat-ta/sat kata).
- Bhāva is the affective satta - the sat with personalized emotions.
The phenomenal reality (sat,) starts with the manifestation of viññana in nāmarūpa — (providing that one uses the SA 298 complemental definition to SN 12.2).
Sat is just about the all process of the manifestation of reality - starting from nāmarūpa, and ending in bhāva. This sat, is the Buddhist reality.
This is what "is" — this is "being", according to what has come to be (yathābhūta).
--------
Once this has passed to be, there is no more "is", says SN 22.62 . There is no more sat.
What "was", and what "will be" is not sat.
SN 22.62 is without parallel in the other texts, and therefore dubious.
However it would not go against the Sarvāstivādins' creed.
The Sarvāstivādins ("those who proclaim that everyting exists"*) meant by "everything exists", that the eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mano and mental phenomena have an existence. Namely that All this "is" — that Sarva "is".
*Which goes pretty well with the Chinese translation: Shuōyīqièyǒu bù (說一切有部), which literally means "the sect that speaks of the existence of everything".
That does not preclude that they did not believe in the annihilation of things ("not exist"), as Buddha taught. And Buddha would have definitely told them that all this, also does not exist.
It just means that they believed that sat (what "is"/what "exists",) was in the All.
That also has nothing to do with the "three times" states (past, present, future).
It just mean that all things have an existence.
Vasubandhu's statement: "He who affirms the existence of the dharmas of the three time periods [past, present and future] is held to be a Sarvāstivādin", is just a late view, (of a possible late creed).
Maybe the difference between the Theravādins and the Sarvāstivādins, is that the Theravādins saw sat also in nāmarūpa, and up to bhāva - not just in the All (sarva/sabba).
______
So yes, 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.
.
.