Which samyutta? 22.100 is from the khandhasamyutta, which deals with the khandhas. There doesn't seem to be a claim within that section to the effect that everything therein is restricted to the activity of consciousness. One might well believe that, of course, but as I said above it would have to come from elsewhere.Pulsar wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:49 pm Sam Vara wroteThe word may mean production of anything, but what happens if you take the context into account?"Produce" is how the translator has rendered abhinibbatteti, which is I think the causative of abhinibbattati. It means to bring something about, to cause it to come into existence or generate it. It doesn't seem to be restricted to activities of consciousness.
The Samyutta deals with the activity of consciousness, therefore this production is an activity of consciousness. Right?
Yes, no doubt it is a metaphor, but the salient point here is that when one talks about the metaphorical process, one is talking about a physical activity; that of rubbing sticks together to produce fire. The fact that abhinibattati is used here means that when talking about physical processes, abhinibattati is a verb that can be used. Therefore its use in SN 22.100 leaves open the question as to whether the process is physical or mental.Buddha is offering a metaphor here, he does mot mean it literally, that there is a stick in the eye that rubs against the image of a woman or man (another stick).
SN 12.62 does, but the sutta here - SN22.100 - does not.Does not the sutta belong in the Nidana Samyutta, a Samyutta that deals with dependent origination?
Yes, I believe one can. Unless, of course, one doubts every aspect of the Dhamma.Each person has to find an answer to the bigger question first. While a doubt is looming over one, can one proceed in the right direction?
I'm fortunate, then, that my doubt only extends as far as this rhetorical question of yours:Doubt is one of the five hindrances, that stops one from investigating Dhamma correctly.
I can't see that the above quote does place rupa in the category of mental event. Nor does the context you have provided do anything whatsoever to place it there. Although, to repeat, I do not doubt that there may be grounds elsewhere for regarding it so. I'd have to see those grounds in order to make a judgement. But that quote on its own...no.SN 22.100 wrote:
... So too, when the uninstructed worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling that he produces; only perception that he produces; only volitional formations that he produces; only consciousness that he produces....
Does not the above quote place rupa in the same produced category as, vedana, sanna etc. as a mental event?