Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by mjaviem »

Pulsar wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 12:31 am ...
Good point, My Dear mjaviem. Keep at it, perhaps your simpler way of stating things will carry the day.
Good Night :candle:
:anjali:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Galaxies and water-balloons originated from craving, yet no belief in actual rebirth! How strange the things we see put into the Buddha's mouth on the forum these days!
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:14 am Galaxies and water-balloons originated from craving, yet no belief in actual rebirth! How strange the things we see put into the Buddha's mouth on the forum these days!
It is strange isn’t it.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

mjaviem wrote
“Having seen a form with mindfulness muddled"
thanks for the teaching to Malunkyaputta. Form for the Buddha was
  • forms created by the mind, due to obsession. Form for the abhidhamma was physical
I have dealt with this difference on another thread. Coemgenu and Ceisiwr: since you fail to understand this fundamental difference, please remove yourselves from this discussion.
I want the discussion to move towards an analysis of Satipatthana as embedded within
  • "Sutra on Origination"
  • with the goal of finding out the flaws of Satipatthana sutta MN 10 created by Abhidhammikas.
Please do not disrupt the discussion by silly arguments. If you persist with your silliness, I will have to invoke the rules of DW to keep the two of you off the thread.
A friendly reminder. This is a discussion on the origination of suffering due to craving, as majaviem has continued to insist. Pl respect mjaviem's contributions to the thread and stay away from childish behavior.
AS mjaviem pointed out in Malunkyaputta.
“Having known an object with mindfulness muddled
For one who accumulates suffering thus
Nibbāna is said to be far away.
Again, the OP is about "Origination of suffering" not the origination of physical matter.
With love :candle:
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by mjaviem »

It's not strange that people who understand in terms of selves and beings, existence and non-existence, think that these topics are about the process of manufacturing latex, turning it into the shape of a bag and filling it with water. This is how they understand if someone tells them that a water balloon is dependently originated. Or they think in biological cells that split replicating forming sets known as organs and developing into a body such as the body of a frog or the human body. This is how they understand when someone tells them the body is dependently originated.

Better to go back on topic as Pulsar said.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

Pulsar wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:58 amIf you persist with your silliness, I will have to invoke the rules of DW to keep the two of you off the thread.
What you call "silliness" has been on-topic questioning of and engagement with your OP. Please cease with this constant rampant misrepresentation of me. There's no coincidence that I am one of the few here able to debunk your falsehoods about the agama parallels and that you also jump at the opportunity to try to ban me from threads where you are spreading falsehood about the parallels.

First, I questioned your incorrect assertion that "When Buddha used [...] the word body in relation to Dependent origination [...] (as in SN 47.42) [...] he meant the forms arising in the mind, due to the feeding of consciousness." Clearly this went far over your head, because you declined to engage with it in any serious manner, instead engaging in a session of clowning over the term "nutriment," incorrectly claiming that the nutriment of the body was consciousness. Then, I questioned Mjaviem's similarly-incoherent comment, namely that the stars and galaxies are arisen due to craving and cease with the cessation of craving, and then he simply trolled me in response, echoing all of my questions about his personal theory and answering none of those questions I posed about his personal theory.

We haven't even got into the most foolhardly and unsupported pet theory put forward in this thread as if it were part of the Dharma (it isn't), namely that all rupa is purely mental and that wicked Abhidharmikas changed the Dharma with regards to this. This is wrong.

All three of these theses are foolhardy, unestablished in the buddhavacana, and are not supported by leading scholars in the field of Buddhist studies, however much you may wish to falsely claim that these three theses are so established. Please do better next time and, instead of ordering posters who are posting on-topic material off your thread, actually support your own unestablished pet theories instead of censoring those who question them.

Also, with regards to the Chinese text you inquired about in your OP, it is identical to the Pali text with regards to the Dharma contained with it. None of this "consciousness is the food of the body" nonsense that you want to put into the Buddha's mouth. None of this "rupa is immaterial" nonsense. None of this "the sun and moon are originated due to craving" nonsense.

Furthermore, you increase in error, stating that "Form for the Buddha was [...] forms created by the mind, due to obsession." There are no suttas to support this. You are just making things up. Since you can't decided if we're banned from the thread or not, saying first to not comment at all and then saying that you will later invoke the TOS to try to ban us from posting in this thread if we're still "silly," I'll do you one better, and never speak to you again directly. Instead, I will simply deal with your posts as what they are: falsehood-filled personal fancies. I will continue to correct your false statements, but I will never again speak to you. Goodbye. When the knowledgeable are away, the fools will cook-up any theory and call it "right."
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote: Sat May 28, 2022 12:19 am MN 140 was clearly written by a monk influenced by abhidhamma, otherwise why would he write "If an Arahant feels ...." That is an oxymoron...
plenty of other suttas like that too.
https://suttacentral.net/sn36.6/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:If they feel a pleasant feeling, they feel it detached.
So sukhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, visaññutto naṁ vedayati.
..
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:And what things do they give up and not grasp?
Kiñca pajahati, na upādiyati?
They give up form and don’t grasp it.
Rūpaṁ pajahati, na upādiyati;
They give up feeling …
vedanaṁ …
what is giving up or putting down the burden,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
This is called a mendicant who neither gets rid of things nor accumulates them, but remains after getting rid of them. They neither give things up nor grasp them, but remain after giving them up. They neither discard things nor amass them, but remain after discarding them.
They neither dissipate things nor get clouded by them, but remain after dissipating them.
auto
Posts: 4584
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by auto »

Pulsar wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 4:31 pm So says Phena Sutta.
  • His central teaching was about laying down the burden of five aggregates
Bhara sutta
  • But later sutta writers implied that Arahants still held on to feelings, MN 140, even though in early suttas Buddha solidly taught, that Arahants are free of aggregates
Result is the Pali canon. As it exists today it is a mix of early buddhism, and Vibajjavadin buddhism (those who believed that Buddha taught Abhidhamma).
A reader might infer that Buddha taught an inferior truth, which had to be polished further by Abhidhamma.
Why discuss Abhidhamma? Perhaps Abhidhamma is the reason why people are reluctant to replace MN 10 with SN 47.42, or even bother to understand it?

Happy Day! :candle:
My thought on Phena Sutta
This consciousness*(it too is sakkaya) is the vipaka kamma,
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:In the same way, a mendicant sees and contemplates any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; near or far—examining it carefully. And it appears to them as completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. For what substance could there be in consciousness?
these here are clinging aggregates, sakkaya.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote:Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
Evaṁ passaṁ, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako rūpasmimpi nibbindati, vedanāyapi … saññāyapi … saṅkhāresupi … viññāṇasmimpi nibbindati.
freed from consciousness resulting in sakkaya,
wrote:Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
Nibbindaṁ virajjati; virāgā vimuccati. Vimuttasmiṁ vimuttamiti ñāṇaṁ hoti …pe…
They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’”
nāparaṁ itthattāyāti pajānāti”
*i thought on the idea like in this Sutta when said consciousness(pleasure, pain) doesn't arise in oneself(oneself prolly is sakkaya, identity)
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.25/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: There is no field, no ground, no scope, no basis, conditioned by which that pleasure and pain arise in oneself.”
hettaṁ taṁ na hoti …pe… vatthu taṁ na hoti …pe… āyatanaṁ taṁ na hoti …pe… adhikaraṇaṁ taṁ na hoti yaṁpaccayāssa taṁ uppajjati ajjhattaṁ sukhadukkhan”ti.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 9:58 am Coemgenu and Ceisiwr: since you fail to understand this fundamental difference, please remove yourselves from this discussion...Please do not disrupt the discussion by silly arguments. If you persist with your silliness, I will have to invoke the rules of DW to keep the two of you off the thread.
You don't get to tell us to stop posting in this thread.
with the goal of finding out the flaws of Satipatthana sutta MN 10 created by Abhidhammikas.
MN 10 wasn't created by Ābhidhammikas. MN 10 is a valid sutta, found amongst many diverse early schools. MN 10 has been expanded upon. You don't seem to understand the difference. It also remains to be seen if the expansion is necessarily a bad thing.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 10:12 am It's not strange that people who understand in terms of selves and beings, existence and non-existence, think that these topics are about the process of manufacturing latex, turning it into the shape of a bag and filling it with water. This is how they understand if someone tells them that a water balloon is dependently originated. Or they think in biological cells that split replicating forming sets known as organs and developing into a body such as the body of a frog or the human body. This is how they understand when someone tells them the body is dependently originated.

Better to go back on topic as Pulsar said.
I think you are confused between causality and conditionality.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by mjaviem »

Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:23 pm I think you are confused between causality and conditionality.
Be my guest and open a new thread where you expand on the topic and show us how it is that I am so confused about it.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

In accordance with ToS 2j, I formally request that Coemgenu and Ceisiwr no longer engage with me in this topic.
Moderators please take note.
Regards :candle:
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8151
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Coëmgenu »

As is typical of some posters on DhammaWheel, there is a lot of fluff and then silence when asked to substantiate the fluff with cogent direct citations from the Pāli suttas. This thread is full of hasty generalizations and untruths, such as that rūpa is purely mental, that the Buddha taught that the sun and stars, etc., are dependently originated, and that the Buddha taught that rūpa is born of mental obsession. There is no attempt by those various people who support these foolish theses to defend them. They simply acclaim them ex cathedra and then shut down in bad faith those who actually cogently read the suttas and contest their falsehoods as to the contents of those suttas.

Every time another falsehood is spread in this thread, it will be addressed, all without violating any element of the TOS.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:37 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:23 pm I think you are confused between causality and conditionality.
Be my guest and open a new thread where you expand on the topic and show us how it is that I am so confused about it.
I've tried previously, but if you really want an honest discussion about it I would be happy to go over it again with you if you wish to start said thread.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.

Post by Pulsar »

Those who see the Dhamma sees the Buddha.
Those who have seen the Dhamma would never think that the Buddha would resort to swearing, or even think Buddha would probably swear. Those who have not seen the Dhamma, would think that Buddha would probably swear, or that Buddha definitely swore. I would not glorify the words used by a user of the forum, by repeating them.
Why would the readers of the forum want to listen to such people when they insist that rupa of Nama-rupa of dependent origination, is a physical matter? For brahmins of Buddha's day it was so, but that was not Nama-rupa applicable to the Origination of Suffering, as Buddha taught. Context is critical.
  • Rupas of DO are created in the mind.
  • In fact the generation of suffering described in DO is limited to consciousness.
DO is not about suffering of a body part (chest pierced by an bullet).
Let us consider SN 22.100 with an agama parallel of SA 267.
Excerpt 1
Just as a painter fears that monster (yaksa) which he has painted on a scroll, so beings fear apaya (self created hell). Their own conceptual identification.
Hence one's world is mere conceptual identification. Formations are mere conceptual identification, dhammas are mere conceptual identification. Dhammas do not really exist, on their own merit.
In reality all dhammas are like a magic trick or like a partial blindness, a mirage. Foolish worldlings bring dhammas into existence via craving.
Excerpt 2
Suppose an artist or painter had some dye, red lac, turmeric, indigo, or rose madder. And on a polished plank or a wall or a canvas they’d create the image of a woman or a man, complete in all its various parts.
So too when the foolish worldling produces anything, it is only form that he produces, only feeling that he produces, ... only consciousness that he produces.
Does this not strike you as Buddha saying
  • "Form is a mind created thing?"
in the context of DO.
  • Due to craving mind brings desirable objects into existence.
SN 12.64 (agama parallels SA 374, SA 375, SA 376, SA 377, SA 378) repeats the above simile of a painter, (mind being the painter). Mind begins painting desirable object when there is lust for nutriment contact, or for the nutriment mental volition, or for the nutriment consciousness.
Wherever consciousness becomes established and comes to growth I say that is accompanied by by sorrow, anguish and despair.
With love :candle:
Post Reply