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

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
Locked
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

equilibrium wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:24 pm
SDC wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:10 am …..I don’t think it makes sense to say the mind is bearing the insight of nibbana - the development of the mind is reason the insight is discernible. The development has reached the scope of the unconditioned.
Bear in mind here that it is not mundane knowledge but rather supra-mundane.

It’s not a simple mundane knowledge where the teacher tells us 1+1=2. This happens within the ALL.

So any supra-mundane knowledge MUST happen outside of the ALL……it is the very reason why we’re under delusion/ignorance.

The words conditioned and unconditioned is the division and only wisdom is discovered outside the conditioned / ALL.

Perhaps one should not have any pre-conceived ideas as they can be a barrier in themselves.

Empty the cup.
I’m not sure what you mean by pre-conceived ideas. The point of this study group is to discuss meaning found in these discourses. Members share their understanding, and perhaps others can work with those ideas to develop their own. If you think others shouldn’t share their ideas, please put an explanation together for the suggestions thread in the Study Group and the admins will consider whether or not to allow it.

As I said earlier, I am here to facilitate the discussion. I am not here to teach an interpretation. I will share my understanding to move the discussion, but by no means do I expect my views to be accepted or serve as the sole basis for the discussion. In fact, I hope readers will look into every matter for themselves and not just trust what is said by anyone here.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4530
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by Dan74 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:27 pm
Dan74 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:54 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:35 am

Why? The descriptions of birth, aging and death in SN 12.2 are literal, so what's the basis for this view?
I think your early comment about not identifying with the body is relevant, but the sutta seems to go somewhat further to me. I am not a Pali scholar. I see Bhikkhu Sujato translates it as "reborn" rather than "born", which changes the meaning. To say that a sage at peace is not reborn would've been sufficient, then why add that he " does not grow old, and does not die" ? Maybe for emphasis, not sure.

I was initially going off Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation which said "born". To say that a sage is not born, when (s)he was clearly born, like every other human, implies to me that there is a different meaning to literal birth and suggests that as a sage at peace is free from craving, freed from ignorance, (s)he is free of becoming, which in its turn does not lead to birth.

If it is as B. Sujato translates, "rebirth', well, then it's clear. But if B. Bodhi's translation is more accurate, then the meaning points to the kind of being born that occurs in every moment as the illusion of self is born (perpetuated). Not born here refers to the self and all the ignorance and the clinging that goes with it. That is not born. This follows the sage at peace not seeing the elements as they are, not "I" and "mine", neither clinging nor delighting in elements and also feeds into the last passage, where it says that the sage does not conceive of himself as ....

There is some discussion by John Haspel here: https://becoming-buddha.com/becoming-ex ... la-suttas/ and perhaps more importantly, there are some relevant suttas.
I think Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation is correct, though I don't see why that favours a non-literal interpretation of birth, aging and death.

I see self-view and "I am" as deep-seated assumptions, not as things which are repeatedly "reborn". And not as things which repeatedly "age" and "die".
Maybe you could explain how self-view would "age", practically speaking?
It is a deep-seated assumption as you say, but I think it is a great deal more. Our very perception, the khandhas, etc are all coloured by this assumption, by "self-referencing", by ignorance and craving. This maintains the self-view on a moment-by-moment basis. Thus the self is born and continues to be born through this process.
_/|\_
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by ToVincent »

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.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 9:39 am
SDC wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:21 pm
equilibrium wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 5:03 pm

So what experiences Nibbana here?
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.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by mjaviem »

SDC wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 12:54 am ... the Buddha unequivocally declares the sage, "...is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn." What are the implications here? Why not say the sage will not be born (again), will not age, will not die, etc.? Why the immediacy? It seems this is saying that here and now - while there is still a living body - the sage is not born. Does this mean that the birth of that currently living body (which will age and will perish) is secondary to the general experience of the sage at peace, which does not age or die? Is the experience now more than just the range of that body, and would it limit the extent of the insight if the distinction is not clear?

Can SN 22.26 (Pathways of Language) offer any assistance with how to interpret the use of "is”?
...
I would say that more than immediacy, the use of present swipes the idea of time. "...is not born, does not age, does not die..." sounds like he "didn't, doesn't and won't" while using the future is conceiving possibilities which is not the point of his teachings which are not possibility but reality.

I think SN 22.26 seems to be defining concepts of time using the present rather than the other way around. We see something and we describe it as "it is in such and such way". But as soon as we have a conception different from what we see we say "it used to be different" or we say "it's going to be different". I like to believe that the teachings are about a present without speculations of future and past but it may be a wrong idea of course.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Pulsar wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:34 pm SDC wrote
The Pali is citta, and the mind of the arahant is said to be bright and unlimited when it is no longer with defilements. I don’t think it makes sense to say the mind is bearing the insight of nibbana - the development of the mind is reason the insight is discernible. The development has reached the scope of the unconditioned.
So let me explain it the way the suttas have presented it.
What I write is not necessarily limited to the suttas mentioned here. It is impossible to make sense of Buddha, in a discussion of this sort, using a few suttas.
Also the suttas are of two strata, first represents Buddha's teachings uncorrupted. The second represents suttas corrupted by abhidhamma. Scholars have written of this at length.
So the problem with "Mind" is the way canonical language communicates it to the reader. This lang. is corrupted by abhidhamma that seeped into the canon, and of course the difficulty of using lang. to communicate something inexpressible, which has been referred to in other threads.
The mind is a reference to consciousness.
If we keep it simple without resorting to Pali here. (pl. humor me here). Suttas say consciousness (or wordly consciousness as we puthujjana use it), can only be sustained by the sustenance of contact (with rupa), feeling, perception, and volition.
When a person does not engage in these (making no contact with the sensory world)nothing arises, no feeling, no perception, no intention. Do you see what I am trying to get at?
This is what SN 47.42 advices.
Now in the case of the Arahant, he has basically left the Sensory world,
  • so technically he has no worldly contacts, no worldly feelings, no worldly perception, no worldly intention.
There is no entry point for his karmic consciousness.
At the end of the day, the Dhamma is simple, yet so subtle. The jargon of abhidhamma has clouded the issue.
So instead of using language here, let me bring in the case of the slaughter cow, from Nandakovada sutta. I apologise for deviating from the current sutta list, but it is necessary to get my point across.
For all intents and purposes the puthujjana or we, see a cow, since
  • the butcher or the Arahant has done a perfectly skillful job,
In this case the puthujjana cannot but help think the butchered cow is any different from the unslaughtered cow. Imagine the two sitting side by side in a still life pose.
Do you see my point?
But the truth is that the Arahant has disconnected the outer sense bases from inner sense bases. Tell me dearest SDC, can the Arahant see, hear, sense or have a consciousness in a worldly manner, that we are familiar with? The language that applies to us, does not apply to the Arahant.
This a difficulty that the canon had to deal with. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes not, in surmounting that difficulty. Hence the confusions in the buddhist community.
Sutta Pitaka says Arahant has gone beyond the range. Many fail to understand this point.
Once I get this point across to you, I can explain how "mind" of the puthujjana differs from the mind of the arahant.
With love :candle:
P.S. It is nice to be back, thanks for bringing in this list of suttas, and creating a lively discussion around them.
DW rocks, with posts like these.
Yes I quite enjoy all the different approaches to this topic. :heart:

I see no reason to apply to consciousness (viññāṇa) what has been clearly been described as an attribute of mind (citta). Given that perception and feeling (aggregates) are the support for citta (being bound up with it), it seems dangerous to apply those descriptions to viññāṇa, which flips back to the level of aggregates. I’m doing my best to humor you (as you’ve asked), but I’m concerned that we are pressing together supporting conditions with that which they are supporting and may lose the important distinction.

Citta has been given a prominent place in the suttas, but for some reason that has not been enough for the Theravadin orthodoxy, and you are correct that heeps of debris have been attached to the term without adding much value. Still I don’t think any of it is enough to place the significance on another term. Besides, viññāṇa in terms of the arahant already has plenty of its own descriptions. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you.

As far as the experience of the arahant, there are a few hints in the suttas that I find helpful. A great one is found MN 121 - this is uttered after a description of the gain of arahantship, “There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.” So there seems to be an aspect of experience that is ordinary, but it isn’t limited to that so it isn’t a problem for the arahant.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

mjaviem wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 10:21 pm I think SN 22.26 seems to be defining concepts of time using the present rather than the other way around. We see something and we describe it as "it is in such and such way". But as soon as we have a conception different from what we see we say "it used to be different" or we say "it's going to be different". I like to believe that the teachings are about a present without speculations of future and past but it may be a wrong idea of course.
Good post! Reminds me of SN 35.31:
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the way that is suitable for uprooting all conceivings. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the way that is suitable for uprooting all conceivings? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu does not conceive the eye, does not conceive in the eye, does not conceive from the eye, does not conceive, ‘The eye is mine.’ He does not conceive forms … eye-consciousness … eye-contact … and as to whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he does not conceive that, does not conceive in that, does not conceive from that, does not conceive, ‘That is mine.’ For, bhikkhus, whatever one conceives, whatever one conceives in, whatever one conceives from, whatever one conceives as ‘mine’—that is otherwise. The world, becoming otherwise, attached to becoming, seeks delight only in becoming.

“He does not conceive the ear … … He does not conceive the mind … and as to whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … he does not conceive that, does not conceive in that, does not conceive from that, does not conceive, ‘That is mine.’ For, bhikkhus, whatever one conceives, whatever one conceives in, whatever one conceives from, whatever one conceives as ‘mine’—that is otherwise. The world, becoming otherwise, attached to becoming, seeks delight only in becoming.

“Whatever, bhikkhus, is the extent of the aggregates, the elements, and the sense bases, he does not conceive that, does not conceive in that, does not conceive from that, does not conceive, ‘That is mine.’

“Since he does not conceive anything thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna. He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

“This, bhikkhus, is the way that is suitable for uprooting all conceivings.”
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by Spiny Norman »

Dan74 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:08 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:27 pm
Dan74 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:54 am

I think your early comment about not identifying with the body is relevant, but the sutta seems to go somewhat further to me. I am not a Pali scholar. I see Bhikkhu Sujato translates it as "reborn" rather than "born", which changes the meaning. To say that a sage at peace is not reborn would've been sufficient, then why add that he " does not grow old, and does not die" ? Maybe for emphasis, not sure.

I was initially going off Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation which said "born". To say that a sage is not born, when (s)he was clearly born, like every other human, implies to me that there is a different meaning to literal birth and suggests that as a sage at peace is free from craving, freed from ignorance, (s)he is free of becoming, which in its turn does not lead to birth.

If it is as B. Sujato translates, "rebirth', well, then it's clear. But if B. Bodhi's translation is more accurate, then the meaning points to the kind of being born that occurs in every moment as the illusion of self is born (perpetuated). Not born here refers to the self and all the ignorance and the clinging that goes with it. That is not born. This follows the sage at peace not seeing the elements as they are, not "I" and "mine", neither clinging nor delighting in elements and also feeds into the last passage, where it says that the sage does not conceive of himself as ....

There is some discussion by John Haspel here: https://becoming-buddha.com/becoming-ex ... la-suttas/ and perhaps more importantly, there are some relevant suttas.
I think Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation is correct, though I don't see why that favours a non-literal interpretation of birth, aging and death.

I see self-view and "I am" as deep-seated assumptions, not as things which are repeatedly "reborn". And not as things which repeatedly "age" and "die".
Maybe you could explain how self-view would "age", practically speaking?
It is a deep-seated assumption as you say, but I think it is a great deal more. Our very perception, the khandhas, etc are all coloured by this assumption, by "self-referencing", by ignorance and craving. This maintains the self-view on a moment-by-moment basis. Thus the self is born and continues to be born through this process.
Maintaining self-view sounds different to it being continually "reborn". It probably depends on which DO interpretation you favour, but doesn't self-view develop earlier in the process than craving? So craving would arise in dependence upon self-view, rather than the other way round.

Is the idea of "rebirth" relevant or necessary here?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4530
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by Dan74 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:04 am
Dan74 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:08 pm
Spiny Norman wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:27 pm

I think Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation is correct, though I don't see why that favours a non-literal interpretation of birth, aging and death.

I see self-view and "I am" as deep-seated assumptions, not as things which are repeatedly "reborn". And not as things which repeatedly "age" and "die".
Maybe you could explain how self-view would "age", practically speaking?
It is a deep-seated assumption as you say, but I think it is a great deal more. Our very perception, the khandhas, etc are all coloured by this assumption, by "self-referencing", by ignorance and craving. This maintains the self-view on a moment-by-moment basis. Thus the self is born and continues to be born through this process.
Maintaining self-view sounds different to it being continually "reborn". It probably depends on which DO interpretation you favour, but doesn't self-view develop earlier in the process than craving? So craving would arise in dependence upon self-view, rather than the other way round.

Is the idea of "rebirth" relevant or necessary here?
B.Bodhi translates the passage as
And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?
It's all in the present tense, rather than saying "will never again be subject to being born, etc..." So I am still not clear what interpretation are you proposing. Do you mean because the identification with the body has ceased, then all kinds of things that afflict the body have no applicability?

I think this is a reasonable interpretation. However, if that all there was to it, the phrasing strikes me as strange. "A sage at peace was never born..." or even better "a sage at peace does not conceive of himself as having been born..." would've made more sense, no? If present tense is truly the implied meaning, then it is about an ongoing process that no longer applies. That being born, as an entity, that we perpetuate.

The two interpretations are compatible, I think. The ending of identification with the body and the ending of all kinds of processes that maintain an illusion of a self.
_/|\_
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by Spiny Norman »

Dan74 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:01 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 5:04 am
Dan74 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 3:08 pm

It is a deep-seated assumption as you say, but I think it is a great deal more. Our very perception, the khandhas, etc are all coloured by this assumption, by "self-referencing", by ignorance and craving. This maintains the self-view on a moment-by-moment basis. Thus the self is born and continues to be born through this process.
Maintaining self-view sounds different to it being continually "reborn". It probably depends on which DO interpretation you favour, but doesn't self-view develop earlier in the process than craving? So craving would arise in dependence upon self-view, rather than the other way round.

Is the idea of "rebirth" relevant or necessary here?
B.Bodhi translates the passage as
And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?
It's all in the present tense, rather than saying "will never again be subject to being born, etc..." So I am still not clear what interpretation are you proposing. Do you mean because the identification with the body has ceased, then all kinds of things that afflict the body have no applicability?

I think this is a reasonable interpretation. However, if that all there was to it, the phrasing strikes me as strange. "A sage at peace was never born..." or even better "a sage at peace does not conceive of himself as having been born..." would've made more sense, no? If present tense is truly the implied meaning, then it is about an ongoing process that no longer applies. That being born, as an entity, that we perpetuate.

The two interpretations are compatible, I think. The ending of identification with the body and the ending of all kinds of processes that maintain an illusion of a self.
Yes, I see it as identification with the body ceasing, so there is no further anguish about bodily existence and processes.
As for the way the passage is written, that's going to be a question of translation and context.

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.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by nirodh27 »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:21 am 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.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by Pulsar »

SDC wrote
Yes I quite enjoy all the different approaches to this topic. :heart:
True, my approach is to examine dhamma via Paticca samuppada. This way I avoid the ideas that crept in through a sutta compiler's dependence on late abhidhamma. I stay away from suttas such as DN 22/MN 10. Instead I rely on SN 47.42 that purely relies on DO to explain the purpose of Mindfulness. That purpose being to get rid of vinnana, by making worldly vinnana homeless.
You wrote
I see no reason to apply to consciousness (viññāṇa) what has been clearly been described as an attribute of mind (citta).
What is citta if not another name for vinnana?
You wrote
Given that perception and feeling (aggregates) are the support for citta (being bound up with it), it seems dangerous to apply those descriptions to viññāṇa, which flips back to the level of aggregates.
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?
You wrote
I’m doing my best to humor you (as you’ve asked), but I’m concerned that we are pressing together supporting conditions with that which they are supporting and may lose the important distinction.
I don't understand what you mean by losing the distinction. Do you mean the distinction between citta and vinnana?
For me these are not distinct. Citta is merely a word introduced by the abhidhammikas in their relentless efforts at creating lists. In the sequence of DO all you find is vinnana, i.e. eye vinnana, ear vinnana, ...mano vinnnana, and resulting feeling etc. There is no citta mentioned.
What advantage do we gain by subscribing to the idea of "Citta"?
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.
To make a long story short, and which will also address the points mentioned by you later:
My take on the difference between Us and the Arahant is We suffer from a worldly consciousness, but the arahant does not.
My approach is via paticca samuppada.
So I clarify the difference between the two, using that principle.
Arahant has done away with the puthujjana or ordinary vinnana, because it is that which fetches all the defilements and habit patterns.
In other words puthujjana vinnana creates Nama-rupa, and keeps one rolling in samsara. Arahant's vinnana which is immeasurable functions in this world, but never creates Nama-Rupa, so he is not involved with samsara. Mental suffering created by DO, is never created for the Arahant.
You wrote
and you are correct that heeps of debris have been attached to the term without adding much value. Still I don’t think any of it is enough to place the significance on another term. Besides, viññāṇa in terms of the arahant already has plenty of its own descriptions. Let me know if I’ve misunderstood you.
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.
You wrote
As far as the experience of the arahant, there are a few hints in the suttas that I find helpful. A great one is found MN 121 - this is uttered after a description of the gain of arahantship, “There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.” So there seems to be an aspect of experience that is ordinary, but it isn’t limited to that so it isn’t a problem for the arahant.
What Buddha is saying here is that, even though the Arahant is free of origination of mental suffering, he can get overwhelmed by physical suffering, depending on the level of pain.
He is not free of the biochemical whimsies of a living breathing body.
With love :candle:
May this exchange of views enable us to free our suffering bit by bit. Thank you for conducting the sutta study group, which is no easy task.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 10:18 am 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 think this is a good illustration of what the sage at peace finds upon reflection, pending that the best option was developed to the point where it was seen as precisely what led to the development.

Thanks for participating this week, nirodh27.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Spiny Norman wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:21 am I'm still not convinced about the idea of self-view and "I am" being continually "reborn".
I agree. It’s persisting because it has support that doesn’t waver - doesn’t waver because it isn’t known.

If water keeps getting into the basement of your home and you can’t keep it dry so it causes mold, what is the source of that problem? Is the problem that you don’t have a good enough method of keeping it dry? Of course not. The real problem is that water is making it there in the first place.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍The Sage at Peace is Not Born (Week of August 22, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Dan74 wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:01 am However, if that all there was to it, the phrasing strikes me as strange. "A sage at peace was never born..." or even better "a sage at peace does not conceive of himself as having been born..." would've made more sense, no? If present tense is truly the implied meaning, then it is about an ongoing process that no longer applies. That being born, as an entity, that we perpetuate.
That “we” is the source of perpetuation seems to be the depth from which the support is found, and it seems far more fruitful to keep that in mind than just on the perpetuation. Why is it assumed “we” is the source? What is the source of that assumption? Separate topic perhaps.

The Buddha was very clear about the difference between perceive and conceive, and it seems that the arahant would not be in a position where they would have to consider what the experience is indicating. The knowledge, as you say, looks to apply to the situation as it is, and the sage at peace is no longer supported by anything, let alone what used to support the mass of suffering. In that sense, the arahant has gone beyond those confines and what is implied in that cannot be said to have been born. Ignorance, volitional formations, name and form…birth, aging and death. None of those things apply to the sage.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Locked