sense bases disappear ?

[Spiny Norman]

Interesting point, which probably explains the different intepretations of DO, mental v. physical.

Moreover, being sankhata (fabricated) and dependent upon something else is what is central to paticcasamuppada... not mental vs physical. The mental vs physical classification is the Abhidhammic legacy of namas and rupas, retrospectively shoehorned back into paticcasamuppada.

I agree, it's not only a modern, but also an Abhidhammic tendency. But my comment was based on the impression that your interpretation of DO is that it only applies to psychological, mental, stuff, not to physical stuff, like birth (as in making babies), and so seems to be based on a mental/physical duality.


Mike

But that duality is present in the suttas, isn't it?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Though in SN12.2, the rupa aspect of nama-rupa has it's standard sutta definition, ie the four great elements ("physical") and the form derived from them ("mental").

Yes, and that's fine. The only issue is when the Abhidhamma definitions get written back over the top of the Sutta, plastering over the Sutta's own definitions.

Metta,
Paul.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

So if I'm looking at the ocean, what does "derived form" or "visible form" mean? Is it just light rays, is it colours and shapes moving, or what exactly?

Today we would call it H2O, electromagnetic radiation and baryonic matter.

I don't think so. In the suttas derived form seems equivalent to sense-objects, ie sights, sounds, odours, etc, what we're actually conscious of.
So with the ocean example, it would be a moving image which I recognise as "ocean". Light waves are just an abstraction, like the elements themselves, not directly experienced.

For what it's worth, I agree with you Spiny. Abhidhamma doesn't, however, which may be why Ceisiwr doesn't. Abhidhamma has its own pre-defined list of what derived form means.

Metta,
Paul.

[asahi]

But my comment was based on the impression that your interpretation of DO is that it only applies to psychological, mental, stuff, not to physical stuff, like birth (as in making babies), and so seems to be based on a mental/physical duality.

It seems if that is the case , we dont really need the Dhammas or teachings of the Buddha , it is optional . Probably modern psychology can be a substitute to dependent origination theories .

[mikenz66]

Moreover, being sankhata (fabricated) and dependent upon something else is what is central to paticcasamuppada... not mental vs physical. The mental vs physical classification is the Abhidhammic legacy of namas and rupas, retrospectively shoehorned back into paticcasamuppada.

I agree, it's not only a modern, but also an Abhidhammic tendency. But my comment was based on the impression that your interpretation of DO is that it only applies to psychological, mental, stuff, not to physical stuff, like birth (as in making babies), and so seems to be based on a mental/physical duality.


Mike

But that duality is present in the suttas, isn't it?

It is? At the very least the distinction is different from Cartesian Dualism. Is vedana just mental or just physical? Rupa can mean forms that are seen by the eyes or imagined.

In the Commentary/Abhidhamma they are, indeed, pulled apart and classified, but they cause each other (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Ācariya Anuruddha, VIII. Compendium of Conditionality).


Mike

[Coëmgenu]

Greetings Asahi,

This "womb" hubbub is a gratuitous insertion on the part of the translator - totally absent in the Pali. A more faithful, more accurate, and less puthujjana-ised translation is provided by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

It's far better as it speaks of acquisition, coming to be, and appearance, as well as groups of beings, per what I quoted above about how the word jati is actually used in India.

This is a good example of how translators often puthujjana-ise the Suttas, and in doing so, lead people into thinking puthujjana-ism is the Dhamma.

Metta,
Paul.

Unfortunately, the above is utterly untrue. This is coming to be something of a pattern. Here is another similarly untrue statement that was propagated earlier in this thread and is simply not true:

No. There is no "my" there in the Pali.

Even before that, we had a bizarre claim that the six faculties are actually only five faculties, and that a scripture talking about training in the six faculties was talking about the five faculties, all based around a bizarre thesis that "five" is the normal number of indriyas outlined in Buddhist literature. The false claim about the faculties was corrected, but not false claim about the presence of "my" or this newer false claim about the definition of "jati" in the Vibhaṅgasutta. There is a problem with missing context here, and it is producing these wrong statements about the contents of the Pali suttas.

There is no gratuitous hubbub puthujjana-ization in Venerable Bodhi's translation.

From the Concise Pali-English Dictionary:

okkanti : (f.) entry; coming to be; appearance.

This is fine, but does not tell us the context in which this word is actually used in the Pali scriptures. For this, we need a considerably more detailed and in-depth dictionary. From the "Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines:"

(in the mother's womb): okkanti “conception”.

[...]

'conception', lit. 'descent', designates the appearance of the embryo in the mother's womb, i.e. the beginning of the birth process (jāti, q.v.).

"Through the concurrence of 3 circumstances arises the embryo. When father and mother have united, ... and the mother has her time, and the 'genius' (metaphorically for the karma energy) is ready; under these 3 circumstances does the embryo appear" (M. 38).

...but I suppose that Venerable Ñāṇatiloka Mahāthera is, like Venerable Bodhi, just another generator of puthujjana-ized gratuitous insertions according to Retrofuturist...



When you don't trust those with more knowledge than you to be just what they are, persons more knowledgeable than you, then of course you will think that you are qualified to be able to tell a "puthujjana-ized" translation from a "non-puthujjana-ized" one. The truth of the matter is that, since you yourself are a puthujjana, you are not qualified to be able to tell whether a translation has been "puthujjana-ized" in such a way. That would require that you be a non-puthujjana, which you demonstrably are not, since you reject large swathes of the Buddhadharma as fairy tales and transmigratory religion. Āryans, non-puthujjanas, do not reject, belittle, and polemicize against the Dhamma of the Buddhas.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Coëmgenu,

This "womb" hubbub is a gratuitous insertion on the part of the translator - totally absent in the Pali.

Unfortunately, the above is utterly untrue.

Please point to the Pali word for "womb" in that tract of text.

Here is another similarly untrue statement that was propagated earlier in this thread and is simply not true

It has already been clarified that Ceisiwr and I were actually speaking to different tracts of text. We resolved the matter cordially, in good faith, with gentlemanly conduct, quoting from the discourses what we were each referring to, and observing the differences in language. It was an enjoyable exchange. You swanning in afterwards, trying to score points off the back of it is unhelpful and irrelevant.

Even before that, we had a bizarre claim that the six faculties are actually only five faculties

They're called the pañc'indriyāni. Pañc means five. I did not come up with this label - it is the Buddha's. Perhaps you may like to quarrel with him as to why he used this term.

and that a scripture talking about training in the six faculties was talking about the five faculties, all based around a bizarre thesis that "five" is the normal number of indriyas outlined in Buddhist literature.

Actually, no, that is blatant misrepresentation of what was said. Assuming you're talking about MN152, my explanation is explicitly affirmed by the PTS Dictionary, so take it up with them if you're feeling argumentative.

There is no gratuitous hubbub puthujjana-ization in Venerable Bodhi's translation.

Until you can point to the Pali word there that means "womb", then you are simply white knighting for Bhikkhu Bodhi... and your utilisation of commentarial definitions to affirm commentarial doctrine is literally begging the question. "Descent" is accurate, and is as was said.

but I suppose that Venerable Ñāṇatiloka Mahāthera is, like Venerable Bodhi, just another generator of puthujjana-ized gratuitous insertions according to Retrofuturist...

They're not quite the same. Ñāṇatiloka Mahāthera is very much of the Mahaviharan school of thought - straight down the line. Bhikkhu Bodhi is less wedded to that mindset, but has himself acknowledged white knighting for the three-lifetime model, in his rebuttal of Nanavira Thera. Both are translating to what they believe the Pali ought to mean, rather than what it says. In this instance, only Thanissaro is blameless, on account of not having molested the Pali to suit a personally held worldview.

It wasn't for no reason, or to hurt people's feelings that Nanavira Thera said the following non-puthujjana words...

These books of the Pali Canon correctly represent the Buddha's Teaching, and can be regarded as trustworthy throughout. (Vinayapitaka:) Suttavibhanga, Mahāvagga, Cūlavagga; (Suttapitaka:) Dīghanikāya, Majjhimanikāya, Samyuttanikāya, Anguttaranikāya, Suttanipāta, Dhammapada, Udāna, Itivuttaka, Theratherīgāthā. (The Jātaka verses may be authentic, but they do not come within the scope of these Notes.) No other Pali books whatsoever should be taken as authoritative; and ignorance of them (and particularly of the traditional Commentaries) may be counted a positive advantage, as leaving less to be unlearned.

When you don't trust those with more knowledge than you to be just what they are, persons more knowledgeable than you, then of course you will think that you are qualified to be able to tell a "puthujjana-ized" translation from a "non-puthujjana-ized" one. The truth of the matter is that, since you yourself are a puthujjana, you are not qualified to be able to tell whether a translation has been "puthujjana-ized" in such a way. That would require that you be a non-puthujjana, which you demonstrable are not, since you reject large swathes of the Buddhadharma as fairy tales and transmigratory religion. Āryans, non-puthujjanas, do not reject, belittle, and polemicize against the Dhamma of the Buddhas.

Interesting train of conceptual proliferation there. I take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha and I follow the standard of the Four Great References, per the Buddha's dying wish... It is not refuge in Pali translators, sectarians, boffins, or fairytale Mahayana Buddhas. You may choose your refuge, as you see fit, as is your prerogative.

All the best.

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

Both are translating to what they believe the Pali ought to mean, rather than what it says.

Saṃsāra

the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again

perpetuated by desire


From Wikipedia

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Both are translating to what they believe the Pali ought to mean, rather than what it says.

Saṃsāra

the beginningless cycle of repeated birth, mundane existence and dying again

Another good example, whether intended or otherwise. Thanks.

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

Another good example

Of what?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Of plastering a fully formed and elaborated world-view over the top of what is actually there...

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

Of supplanting a fully formed and elaborated world-view over what is actually there...

You are doing this

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Ok Cappuccino.



It actually means wandering around. Only when you puthujjana-ise it, fluff it out, and make it about a transmigratory self does it magically become what you quoted.

Metta,
Paul.

[Coëmgenu]

It has already been clarified that Ceisiwr and I were actually speaking to different tracts of text.

Earlier, you said words to the effect of "how do you even train the eye faculty?" This means that you rejected that the Indriyabhāvanāsutta was about the six sense faculties. If Ceisiwr managed to persuade you away from this error, I didn't see it. Perhaps I'll go reread the past few pages again to see if this supposed happening is actually anywhere there.

Even before that, we had a bizarre claim that the six faculties are actually only five faculties

They're called the pañc'indriyāni. Pañc means five. I did not come up with this label - it is the Buddha's. Perhaps you may like to quarrel with him as to why he used this term.

They are called "six" in the sutta that caused you to partially ammend a previous post. That you are still insisting upon "five" is very odd. Certainly, there are lists of five faculties given in the Pāli Canon. The set of six, suffice to say, is not called the pañcindriyāni, so to assert so is folly, especially after admitting the existence of the enumeration of them as sixfold.

and that a scripture talking about training in the six faculties was talking about the five faculties, all based around a bizarre thesis that "five" is the normal number of indriyas outlined in Buddhist literature.

Actually, no, that is blatant misrepresentation of what was said. Assuming you're talking about MN152, my explanation is explicitly affirmed by the PTS Dictionary, so take it up with them if you're feeling argumentative.

Now, instead of "I do not say, the Buddha says... take it up with him," now we get "I do not say, the dictionary says... that it up with them." No. The Buddha does not say so, the dictionary does not say so, you say so, and apparently continue to do so, insisting for instance that six be called five etc.

There is no gratuitous hubbub puthujjana-ization in Venerable Bodhi's translation.

Until you can point to the Pali word there that means "womb", then you are simply white knighting for Bhikkhu Bodhi... and your utilisation of commentarial definitions to affirm commentarial doctrine is literally begging the question. "Descent" is accurate.

Accurate semantically, but not a fulsome description of the contextual meaning of the "descent" we are talking about.

"Conception" in English can also be selectively-construed to not be about pregnancy too. That doesn't mean that a definition of the English word "conception" that centers around fertilized ova is hubbub.

As for this "point-scoring" nonsense, that is just you offering prapañca as to my motives in correcting false claims that you have proliferated.

[cappuccino]

It actually means wandering around.

yeah we should just sit