🟧 Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Where we gather to focus on a single discourse or thematic collection from the Sutta Piṭaka (new selection every two weeks)
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

🟧 Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

:reading:

This week's selection explores the full extent of three sectarian principles - still very popular today - that are said to result in a person being unable to comprehend development. These descriptions pack quite a punch. They evoke notions of a person being mired, lost, and incapable of taking responsibility for misdeeds; culminating in a right view description that puts the onus in the center of experience; giving those willing to recognize it the opportunity to take up that responsibility and develop through it.

Enjoy. :smile:
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

:reading:


Aṅguttara Nikāya
Titthāyatanasutta (Sectarian) AN 3.61 (PTS 1.174–1.177)
Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi


  • Bhikkhus, there are these three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing. What are the three?

    (1) “There are, bhikkhus, some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by what was done in the past.’ (2) There are other ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by God’s creative activity.’ (3) And there are still other ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that occurs without a cause or condition.’

    (1) “Bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by past deeds,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to past deeds that you might destroy life, take what is not given, indulge in sexual activity, speak falsehood, utter divisive speech, speak harshly, indulge in idle chatter; that you might be full of longing, have a mind of ill will, and hold wrong view.’

    “Those who fall back on past deeds as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my first legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.

    (2) “Then, bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by God’s creative activity,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is due to God’s creative activity that you might destroy life … and hold wrong view.’

    “Those who fall back on God’s creative activity as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my second legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.

    (3) “Then, bhikkhus, I approached those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: ‘Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that occurs without a cause or condition,’ and I said to them: ‘Is it true that you venerable ones hold such a doctrine and view?’ When I ask them this, they affirm it. Then I say to them: ‘In such a case, it is without a cause or condition that you might destroy life … and hold wrong view.’

    “Those who fall back on absence of cause and condition as the essential truth have no desire to do what should be done and to avoid doing what should not be done, nor do they make an effort in this respect. Since they do not apprehend as true and valid anything that should be done or should not be done, they are muddle-minded, they do not guard themselves, and even the personal designation ‘ascetic’ could not be legitimately applied to them. This was my third legitimate refutation of those ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view.

    “These, bhikkhus, are the three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing.

    “But, bhikkhus, this Dhamma taught by me is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. And what is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins?

    “‘These are the six elements’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins. ‘These are the six bases for contact’ … ‘These are the eighteen mental examinations’ … ‘These are the four noble truths’: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins.

    “When it was said: ‘“These are the six elements”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ for what reason was this said? There are these six elements: the earth element, the water element, the fire element, the air element, the space element, and the consciousness element. When it was said: ‘“These are the six elements”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ it is because of this that this was said.

    “When it was said: ‘“These are the six bases for contact”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ for what reason was this said? There are these six bases for contact: the eye as a base for contact, the ear as a base for contact, the nose as a base for contact, the tongue as a base for contact, the body as a base for contact, and the mind as a base for contact. When it was said: ‘“These are the six bases for contact”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ it is because of this that this was said.

    “When it was said: ‘“These are the eighteen mental examinations”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ for what reason was this said? Having seen a form with the eye, one examines a form that is a basis for joy; one examines a form that is a basis for dejection; one examines a form that is a basis for equanimity. Having heard a sound with the ear … Having smelled an odor with the nose … Having tasted a taste with the tongue … Having felt a tactile object with the body … Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for joy; one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for dejection; one examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for equanimity. When it was said: ‘“These are the eighteen mental examinations”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ it is because of this that this was said.

    “When it was said: ‘“These are the four noble truths”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted … uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ for what reason was this said? In dependence on the six elements the descent of a future embryo occurs. When the descent takes place, there is name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, there is contact; with contact as condition, there is feeling. Now it is for one who feels that I proclaim: ‘This is suffering,’ and ‘This is the origin of suffering,’ and ‘This is the cessation of suffering,’ and ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’

    “And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish are suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. This is called the noble truth of suffering.

    “And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? With ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.

    “And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional activities; with the cessation of volitional activities, cessation of consciousness; with the cessation of consciousness, cessation of name-and-form; with the cessation of name-and-form, cessation of the six sense bases; with the cessation of the six sense bases, cessation of contact; with the cessation of contact, cessation of feeling; with the cessation of feeling, cessation of craving; with the cessation of craving, cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of existence; with the cessation of existence, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This is called the noble truth of the cessation of suffering.

    “And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering? It is just this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This is called the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.

    “When it was said: ‘“These are the four noble truths”: this, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma taught by me that is unrefuted, undefiled, irreproachable, and uncensured by wise ascetics and brahmins,’ it is because of this that this was said.”
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

:reading:

Thoughts?
  • Clearly one is still able to take action if they hold one of these wrong views, i.e. there is still "doing" in a general sense. So does it make sense to say that the resulting "non-doing" (akiriyā) described here in AN 3.61 applies more to an inability to accept responsibility for that liability to suffering - leaving them unable to choose to do anything about it? Unable to choose to develop freedom from it? (See AN 5.57 and MN 29: “I am prey to suffering.”)
  • The crux of these three tenets is the attempt to explain why experience happens. This view is the epitome of subjugation to a world; it is an external cause of one's suffering (no mention of craving as the origin of suffering). The refutation is fascinating. The Buddha shows that if one holds the view that "whatever one experiences" is caused by either past deeds, God, or has no cause at all, it would also imply that any action they take - specifically misconduct - is also caused by the corresponding view. In other words, they cannot hold the former tenet without accepting the latter implication. From that POV there is literally nothing they can do.
  • Between the elements, the internal and external sense bases, and these "examinations", is a person in a better position to accept responsibility for how they behave on account of what is experienced? If so, why? Why are the basis' for joy, rejection, and equanimity relevant? Does this simplify the experience and give space to alter that position as prey?
  • BB notes that this description of the four noble truths is rare - something similar appears in SN 12.43. We all know that the origin of suffering is craving (noted earlier that craving is completely absent from these three tenets as a reason for experience being a certain way), and in AN 3.61 sutta we have a description of DO/the mass of suffering as the origin of suffering, the second noble truth. Does DO sum up craving in a sense? Is that what this sutta is describing?

    Please compare with these descriptions of the second noble truth (note AN 3.61 is this week's selection):
    • AN 3.61: “And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? With ignorance as condition, volitional activities come to be; with volitional activities as condition, consciousness; with consciousness as condition, name-and-form; with name-and-form as condition, the six sense bases; with the six sense bases as condition, contact; with contact as condition, feeling; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.
    • SN 12.43: And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of suffering? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.

      “In dependence on the ear and sounds … In dependence on the nose and odours … In dependence on the tongue and tastes … In dependence on the body and tactile objects … In dependence on the mind and mental phenomena, mind-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving. This is the origin of suffering.
    • SN 56.11: Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.
    Note that SN 12.43 uses contact and feeling to show that support for craving and says nothing further. Why in AN 3.61 do we get the full description of DO?

Looking forward to hearing what people think of this remarkable sutta. :smile:
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by Sam Vara »

SDC wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:43 am :reading:

Thoughts?
  • Clearly one is still able to take action if they hold one of these wrong views, i.e. there is still "doing" in a general sense. So does it make sense to say that the resulting "non-doing" (akiriyā) described here in AN 3.61 applies more to an inability to accept responsibility for that liability to suffering - leaving them unable to choose to do anything about it? Unable to choose to develop freedom from it? (See AN 5.57 and MN 29: “I am prey to suffering.”)
  • The crux of these three tenets is the attempt to explain why experience happens. This view is the epitome of subjugation to a world; it is an external cause of one's suffering (no mention of craving as the origin of suffering). The refutation is fascinating. The Buddha shows that if one holds the view that "whatever one experiences" is caused by either past deeds, God, or has no cause at all, it would also imply that any action they take - specifically misconduct - is also caused by the corresponding view. In other words, they cannot hold the former tenet without accepting the latter implication. From that POV there is literally nothing they can do.
Many thanks for this presentation; it is, as you say, a remarkable sutta.

A lot depends on the term patisamvedeti. If we translate this as "feels" (I think I have seen it translated as such elsewhere) or "experiences", then as you say there are still volitional aspects to the mind, and rational goal-directed ones at that. It would be possible to believe that everything that one experiences, either in the external world or in the internal one of ideas, is caused by antecedent conditions, but still be capable of action which intends the cessation of suffering. To make the argument cogent, we would need to translate patisamvedeti broadly, so as to include mental events inclusive of volitions. He "undergoes". Then the positions do genuinely undercut themselves, as even the intentions are vitiated by being determined. We could never know whether an apparent escape-route was genuine.

This sutta always reminds me of Richard Gombrich's take on kamma and past experience. He supports the view that all feelings are caused by past actions, because he wants the Buddha's teachings to have a strong theodicy, with no misfortune for the apparently innocent left potentially unexplained. He explains the Sivaka Sutta (SN 36.21) https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html in terms of physical conditions being informed or caused by the old kamma which lies behind them. It's possible to make that work, but raises the question of why the Buddha doesn't treat this particular view any differently from the other two. They all seem equally unhelpful in terms of practice.

I like the idea of "subjugation to a world"; it seems to point towards ideas that I am currently pondering, but which are not particularly clear to me yet. I recently attended a retreat where my teacher referred frequently to the idea of our world of experience being completely false, completely created by ourselves as we pile up attempts to label experiences based on past experiences. In that context, our own actions, God's actions, and randomness form some kind of unholy trinity of abstractions; the most extreme generalisations we can make about the nature of our world and why it is essentially afflictive. I've no idea as yet where this line of thought will take me, but I'll try to incorporate this sutta into my attempts to make sense of things...
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by ToVincent »

SDC wrote: ... is a person in a better position to accept responsibility for how they behave on account of what is experienced?
YES! - That is exactly what is at stake — Right on spot!
SDC wrote:If so, why?
Because of the element of initiating (tive) —ārabbhadhātū — AN 6.38 / SA 459.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
REMARKS
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::

SN 12.43 does not have a parallel.
To make things a bit more complicated, SN 56.11 has a parallel in MA 204, that adresses somehow the issue in SN 12.43 — where the "dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" periscope, is called the Mara's nest; but not the origin of suffering.

SN 56.11 has no strict reference for its periscope, in SA 379, T 109, T1450.6, EA 19.2, MA 204.

So it is quite safe to say (afaik,) that only AN 3.61 and its parallel MA 13, should be considered the right definition of the origin of suffering.

-----------

On the side — note that on a purely historical etymology ground — (no grammatical point attached whatsoever) — paccaya does not mean "condition", but "feedback" (lit. "return to")*.
So the periscope "sabbaṃ taṃ ahetuappaccayā’ti" really means" all that occurs without a cause (hetu) and feedback (paccaya)".

*PACCAYA

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
Paccaya, [Ved.pratyaya]
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦

प्रत्यय pratyaya [act. pratī ].
- ground , basis , motive or cause of anything MBh. (no pre or contemporary Buddhist's reference; afaik).
- proof, ascertainment Mn. MBh. (again, not a pre-Buddhist reference, yet a bit closer).

¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
प्रती pratī [prati-√ इ i ]
¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
- to come back, return RV.
- Desid. [ pratīṣiṣati ], to wish or try to understand Pāṇ.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paccayā (instr. sing. of paccaya (m.))
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā
Saṅkhārā (nom. pl. m.) are the feedback (by means) of avijjā.

Saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ
Viññāṇaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of saṅkhāra.

Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṃ
Nāmarūpaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of viññāṇa.

Nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṃ
Saḷāyatanaṃ (nom. sing. nt.) is the feedback of nāmarūpa.

Saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso
Phasso (nom. sing. m.) is the feedback of saḷāyatana.

phassapaccayā vedanā (f.)
Vedanā (nom. sing. f.) is the feedback of phassa.

etc.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, (f.)
taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṃ, (nt.)
upādānapaccayā bhavo, (m.)
bhavapaccayā jāti, (f. )
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṃ (f. nt.)

.
.
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
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by equilibrium »

By believing in these wrong views, one bounds oneself from any progress towards escape from suffering…..hence non-doing.

On analysing and examination….. one can see that it can be transcended.
Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, one by examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for joy; …..
Which reveals the 4NT.
1. This is suffering.
2. This is the origin of suffering.
3. This is the cessation of suffering.
4. This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:07 am A lot depends on the term patisamvedeti. If we translate this as "feels" (I think I have seen it translated as such elsewhere) or "experiences", then as you say there are still volitional aspects to the mind, and rational goal-directed ones at that. It would be possible to believe that everything that one experiences, either in the external world or in the internal one of ideas, is caused by antecedent conditions, but still be capable of action which intends the cessation of suffering. To make the argument cogent, we would need to translate patisamvedeti broadly, so as to include mental events inclusive of volitions. He "undergoes". Then the positions do genuinely undercut themselves, as even the intentions are vitiated by being determined. We could never know whether an apparent escape-route was genuine.
That is beautifully precise. Indeed as broadly as things can go. In fact, so broad that a view reserves the right to be retroactively applied at will. From this POV, one can reason themselves out of anything, and will constantly face the pressure to do so. And without the idea of responsibility, they can’t ever find an opening for development.
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 7:07 am I like the idea of "subjugation to a world"; it seems to point towards ideas that I am currently pondering, but which are not particularly clear to me yet. I recently attended a retreat where my teacher referred frequently to the idea of our world of experience being completely false, completely created by ourselves as we pile up attempts to label experiences based on past experiences. In that context, our own actions, God's actions, and randomness form some kind of unholy trinity of abstractions; the most extreme generalisations we can make about the nature of our world and why it is essentially afflictive. I've no idea as yet where this line of thought will take me, but I'll try to incorporate this sutta into my attempts to make sense of things...
:thumbsup:

The way I look at it, a view of subjugation limits one to the body and the internal world assumed to exist within their own head. But between the elements, sense based and aggregates, one is beckoned to think outside of that picture and literally the whole world starts to be understood as dependent on the body (SN 35.116). To such an extent that everything starts to come together within that view, and it is starts to seem less and less likely that anything is actually separate, i.e. outside that picture.
“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: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

ToVincent wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:10 am SN 12.43 does not have a parallel.
To make things a bit more complicated, SN 56.11 has a parallel in MA 204, that adresses somehow the issue in SN 12.43 — where the "dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises" periscope, is called the Mara's nest; but not the origin of suffering.
I’m seeing SA 218 as a parallel for both SN 12.43 and SN 35.106. Is that correct?

Very interesting about MA 204.

The description in SN 12.43 is very reminiscent of SN 12.11 from last week. The classic description from SN 56.11 seems to focus on craving itself and the shape it takes in the experience as opposed to SN 12.43 where we get a better look at what serves as its basis.
“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: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by SDC »

equilibrium wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 4:28 pm By believing in these wrong views, one bounds oneself from any progress towards escape from suffering…..hence non-doing.

On analysing and examination….. one can see that it can be transcended.
Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, one by examines a mental phenomenon that is a basis for joy; …..
Which reveals the 4NT.
1. This is suffering.
2. This is the origin of suffering.
3. This is the cessation of suffering.
4. This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
:goodpost:
“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
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by ToVincent »

SDC wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 1:24 amI’m seeing SA 218 as a parallel for both SN 12.43 and SN 35.106. Is that correct?
Indeed SN 12.43 and SN 35.106 (both identical) have a parallel in SA 218 — I usually rely on the legacy.suttacentral's Akanuma classification - and I should be more aware of other possibilities.

Yet, SN 56.11 still seems to have no parallel for the periscope quoted.
Afaik.


----------

SN 12.43/SN 35.106 & AN 3.61:
---------------------------------------------------
This is interesting, because - once more - we do have both the "macro" (viññana nidāna), and the "micro" (sense- consciousness), sides of viññana.

AN 3.61 is the macro side:
Saṅkhārā are the feedback of avijjā (avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā) - Viññāṇaṃ is the feedback of saṅkhāra (Viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpa) ;
.....
birth is the feedback of existence.
AN 3.61


SN 12.43 is the micro side:
To be resorted to mano & dhamma - (also [implied,] to be obtained and understood through them) - mind-consciousness originates ( and become visible). The meeting of the three is contact.
manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.

Vedanā is the feedback of phassa.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;

Craving is the feedback of feeling.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.
SN 12.43



This part of SN 12.43 has generally been translated as:
Body consciousness arises dependent on the body and touches. …
kāyañca paṭicca phoṭṭhabbe ca …pe…

Mind consciousness arises dependent on the mind and thoughts. The meeting of the three is contact.
manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.

Contact is a condition for feeling.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;

Feeling is a condition for craving.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.
SN 12.43

But as said above, it is not taking account of the real meaning of paccaya and pratiya. ( for paccaya, see above).
As for paṭicca, this is what it should be:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paṭicca = pratītya
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pratītya is the future passive participle of "pratī".
Future passive participle are translated as "to be xxxxed" .
So let see what pratī means, in the pre and contemporary literature around Buddha's time.

प्रतीत्य pratītya [fpp. pratī]

प्रती pratī [prati-√ इ i ]
- to come back, return RV. ;
- to resort to RV. AV. ŚBr. ;
- known, understood Pāṇ.
- Desid. [ pratīṣiṣati ], to wish or try to understand Pāṇ.

So as a past passive participle, we would have such ("Sanskrito-English") translations as:

pratī(tya)
-----------------
- "to be returned (to)" RV.
- "to be resorted" RV. AV. ŚBr.
- "to be known, to be understood" Pāṇ.

For instance, the pratī's definition ("to be come back , to be returned" RV.), can be found in the following (as a karma retribution):
Today Sīha the general has slain a plump animal to prepare a meal for the ascetic Gotama! The ascetic Gotama knowingly uses meat obtained from an animal killed especially for his sake, a deed that will come back at him (viz. to be returned to him).
Ajja sīhena senāpatinā thūlaṃ pasuṃ vadhitvā samaṇassa gotamassa bhattaṃ kataṃ. Taṃ samaṇo gotamo jānaṃ uddissakataṃ maṃsaṃ paribhuñjati paṭiccakamman”ti.
AN 8.12


------

+ Uppajati:
--------------
Utpad [ ut-√ pad ] ( [ ud-√ pad ] )
- to arise , rise , originate , be born or produced ; to come forth , become visible , appear ŚBr.

_______

Therefore, the correct (Sanskrito-English") literal translation should be:
To be resorted to mano & dhamma - (also [implied,] to be obtained and understood through them) - mind-consciousness originates ( and become visible). The meeting of the three is contact.
manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.

Vedanā (nom. sing. f.) is the feedback of phassa.
Phassapaccayā vedanā;

Craving (f.) is the feedback of feeling.
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā.
Etc.
Note that in SN 12.11 Buddha doesn't use paccaya, but nidāna:
And what is that which binds down (and back) [nidāna] with craving - whence does craving come from - from whence craving descends from - and from what craving comes into being?
Taṇhā cāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kiṁnidānā kiṁsamudayā kiṁjātikā kiṁpabhavā?

Feeling is what binds down (and back) with craving - craving comes from feeling - craving descends from feeling - and craving comes into being from feeling.
Taṇhā vedanānidānā vedanāsamudayā vedanājātikā vedanāpabhavā.

And what is that which binds down ( and back) with feeling, origin, birthplace, and inception of feeling?
Vedanā cāyaṁ, bhikkhave, kiṁnidānā kiṁsamudayā kiṁjātikā kiṁpabhavā?

Contact is what binds down (and back) with feeling , feeling as its origin; it is born and produced from contact.
Vedanā phassanidānā phassasamudayā phassajātikā phassapabhavā.
Etc.
Nidāna (instr. nidā)
nidā (ni-√ dā)

ni = down , back
√ dā = to bind VS.

-------

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Samudaya (act. samudi — sam-ud-√i)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

ud-√ i :
- proceed RV. AV. VS. ;
- to come out or arise from RV. AV. ŚBr.

__________

All this to say that if AN 3.61 explains the all Paṭicca-Samuppāda (lit.
what springs together [flows out & perishes] (samuppāda/samutpāda), to (appear and) be understood (paṭicca/pratītya)) .
SN 12.43 does explain the part that starts when consciousness descends in the salayatana nidana to become sense- consciousness per se.

And both AN 3.61 and SN 12.43 resume the following downward steps (nidāna) — starting from "vedanā is the feedback (paccaya) of phassa (contact/ transference)".
Phassapaccayā vedanā; etc.

NOTE THAT it starts from there in SN 12.43.
It goes straight from:
manañca paṭicca dhamme ca uppajjati manoviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.
to
Phassapaccayā vedanā.

SN 12.43 is about sense-consciousness.
AN 3.61 is about paṭicca-Samuppāda, per se.

_______

It is in the feedback — that we find mostly in paccaya, but also in nidāna (viz. "what binds down (& back - viz. two ways)"); and also in paṭicca/pratītya (return to) — that the responsability is taken somehow.
Not feeding back the previous nidāna is one way (e. g. restraining the indriyā - or just ending with the nidāna itself; sending no feedback to the previous one).

But the element of initiating (tive) — (ārabbhadhātū — AN 6.38 / SA 459) — doesn't stop at that. It is also the end of craving that comes into play.

Responsability to end the maintenance and establishment of consciousness — As well as ending the avijja nidāna, through a set of feedbacks, that put an end to the chain of downward (two ways) bonds — This is what is at stake.
.
.
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
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by Sam Vara »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:25 pm
As for paṭicca, this is what it should be:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paṭicca = pratītya
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pratītya is the future passive participle of "pratī".
Not the absolutive of pacceti, then?
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by ToVincent »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:43 pm
ToVincent wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:25 pm
As for paṭicca, this is what it should be:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paṭicca = pratītya
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pratītya is the future passive participle of "pratī".
Not the absolutive of pacceti, then?
Sounds like AN 8.12 (quoted above) rebuts that a bit.
Didn't Ole Holten Pind said that: "this compound is somewhat peculiar — pa.ticca is an absolutive. Now absolutives do not normally occur as first member in compounds".

Has the grammatical issue ever been resolved, on that gerund stuff?

Anyway, would that change the fact that the real historical etymology of paṭicca, comes from prati-√ इ i, whose meanings are:
- to come back, return RV. ;
- to resort to RV. AV. ŚBr. ;
- known, understood Pāṇ.
- Desid. [ pratīṣiṣati ], to wish or try to understand Pāṇ.

_____

What imports first, nirukta (right etymology- meaning), or vyakarana (grammar)?
Which anga should be prioritized over?
.
.
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
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by Sam Vara »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:28 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:43 pm
ToVincent wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:25 pm
As for paṭicca, this is what it should be:

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Paṭicca = pratītya
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Pratītya is the future passive participle of "pratī".
Not the absolutive of pacceti, then?
Sounds like AN 8.12 (quoted above) rebuts that a bit.
I've briefly checked it out, and can't see why there is a rebuttal there.
Didn't Ole Holten Pind said that: "this compound is somewhat peculiar — pa.ticca is an absolutive. Now absolutives do not normally occur as first member in compounds".
I don't know - did he? Where?
What imports first, nirukta (right etymology- meaning), or vyakarana (grammar)?
Which anga should be prioritized over?
That sounds portentously professorial, but could you say in simple English why you think paticca is not the gerund of pacceti, as per the dictionary I have?
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by ToVincent »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:16 pm I don't know - did he? Where?
Do absolutives normally occur as first member in compounds?

Mara Vas (Light of Mara) wrote: That sounds portentously professorial...
Did you have a bad day? — Any problems? — Because I'm not your problem - am I ?
.
.
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
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13460
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: 📍Sectarian Tenets, AN 3.61 (Week of October 17, 2021)

Post by Sam Vara »

ToVincent wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:55 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:16 pm I don't know - did he? Where?
Do absolutives normally occur as first member in compounds?
I don't know. But that's a different question from the one about Ole Holten Pind, isn't it? Do you have a reference, or could you copy and paste a chunk of text?
Did you have a bad day? — Any problems?
No, a pretty good one, thanks! How about you?
Because I'm not your problem - am I ?
Of course not, ToVincent! You seem to evade straightforward questions by making up references and adopting an air of spurious erudition, but that's relatively minor stuff; what I'd term a waste of time rather than a problem.
Locked