sense bases disappear ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Yet, there's another sutta doing just that. Panc'indriya are not phenomena, salayatana are.

Nowhere in the suttas is this stated much less implied. It is entirely the product of your own system.

No, it's there in the quote of MN 43 that was shared with Alex and all. Panc'indriya are borne of vitality, not paticcasamuppada. And it makes perfect sense too. When you go to sleep, your faculties are in tact, remain in tact while you sleep, and remain in tact as you awake. None of that is dependent upon attention or the other constituents of nama.

Since MN 43 and MN 121 are talking about the same thing, they do have ignorance as a root condition.

We may agree they're equivalent, but we disagree on their root condition. You say ignorance, and I say vitality.

As for fire, your internal fire element did arise dependent upon ignorance. Your experience of trees, through your senses, also arose due to ignorance.

I'm not talking about experience of trees. I'm talking about trees, independent of observation... the same causality to their growth applies, regardless of whether or not they are seen growing, or heard falling in the forest.

External objects are not part of dependent origination.

Correct.

Only what is internal to us is, so this is a slight of hand on your part since the indriya we are talking about are internal to us.

I think you over-reach here in terms of what the scope of paticcasamuppada is... hence why cessation in this lifetime becomes problematic for you, and why you need to resort to claiming it's different things that cease, to that which rise. For mine, any cessation needs to be of what arose, and in the order depicted in the Suttas. If you were to do that, it would take your arahant who has eradicated avijja two more lifetimes until their journey is done.

Metta,
Paul.

[Pulsar]

Dear OP, it may help you to read  AN 4.173/ SA 249. Here is a synopsis, the content of the parallels is the same. Sutta's position is that

•  Arahant has gone beyond the Sense bases.

The questionnaire persits...
Sariputta finally explains:

• "But if one says that after the extinction of the six sense spheres of contact, 
  after the fading away of desire, .... 
  there is fading away of all meaningless argument and the attaining of nirvana, then this is the teaching of the Buddha"

Agama version ends so. 
The Pali version by BB ends like below.

Friend as far as the range of the six bases for contact extends,
just so far extends the range of mental proliferation. 
As far as the range of proliferation extends,
just so far extends the range of six bases for contact. With the remainderless fading away and cessation of the six bases for contact there is the cessation of proliferation, the subsiding of proliferation.

Thanks Asahi for highlighting Salayatana, a teaching that trips many, because many fail to understand DO as Buddha taught it. Is Alex the only one who understands, besides Retro? 
You initiated a wonderful thread, worth participating. Thanks.
With love

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Apart from the sutta being inconvenient for you, on what basis do you say the saḷāyatana in MN 121 is not the same as the saḷāyatana in dependent origination?

It's not about convenience, it's the admission right there in the Sutta that it's dependent upon vitality (or as you say, equivalent concepts thereof)... it is not dependent upon avijja. That which is in dependent origination is always dependent upon avijja.

Metta,
Paul.

[Pulsar]

Dearest Asahi:
For greater clarification check out  
SN 35.232/SA 250. 
Pali compilers for a reason I do not understand, placed SA 249 in the Anguttara Nikaya ie AN 4.173, and the agama sutta right below that SA 250 in Samyutta Nikaya. 
SN 35.232 https://suttacentral.net/sn35.232/en/su ... pt=latinIt

• The sutta refers to another way of explaining Salayatana.

An excerpt:

This too is a way to understand how this is so. 
The Buddha has an eye with which he sees a sight.  
But he has no desire and greed,  for his mind is well freed.
The Buddha has an ear …  nose …  tongue …  The Buddha has a body  with which he senses touch.  
But he has no desire and greed, for his mind is well freed.  
The Buddha has a mind with which he knows thought. 
But he has no desire and greed,  for his mind is well freed. 
This too is a way to understand
how the eye is not the fetter of sights, nor are sights the fetter of the eye.  The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them. 

•  The ear …  nose …  tongue …  body …  mind is not the fetter of thoughts, nor are thoughts the fetter of the mind.  The fetter there is the desire and greed that arises from the pair of them.”

Dear Asahi: how do you understand Salayatana, after reading this sutta,
Does the Arahant manifest Salayatana? 
With love 

[cappuccino]

That which is in dependent origination is always dependent upon avijja.

Ignorance of what?

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,

Apart from the sutta being inconvenient for you, on what basis do you say the saḷāyatana in MN 121 is not the same as the saḷāyatana in dependent origination?

It's not about convenience, it's the admission right there in the Sutta that it's dependent upon vitality (or as you say, equivalent concepts thereof)... it is not dependent upon avijja. That which is in dependent origination is always dependent upon avijja.

Metta,
Paul.

Vitality arises dependent upon ignorance. You can’t have birth, ageing and death without being alive As to the rest I will have to walk you through how you are wrong, again, not that I have much hope in you actually understanding it. Still, perhaps you might surprise me.

One question, in your scheme a thing which is a saṅkhāra has ignorance as a condition, yes?

[AlexBrains92]

Greetings,

Apart from the sutta being inconvenient for you, on what basis do you say the saḷāyatana in MN 121 is not the same as the saḷāyatana in dependent origination?

It's not about convenience, it's the admission right there in the Sutta that it's dependent upon vitality (or as you say, equivalent concepts thereof)... it is not dependent upon avijja. That which is in dependent origination is always dependent upon avijja.

Metta,
Paul.

Vitality arises dependent upon ignorance. You can’t have birth, ageing and death without being alive As to the rest I will have to walk you through how you are wrong, again, not that I have much hope in you actually understanding it. Still, perhaps you might surprise me.

You could be right here, but I think it's irrelevant. Even if vitality is derived from ignorance, it's not a nidana (or mentioned in a nidana). It's just related to the residue left: sense faculties. Vitality doesn't have to cease in order to realize nibbana, only parinibbana.

[Coëmgenu]

It's just related to the residue left: sense faculties.

If that "residue left," those "sense faculties," produce dukkha, how other than through contact and subsequent dukkha-type vedanā does that happen?

[AlexBrains92]

It's just related to the residue left: sense faculties.

If that "residue left," those "sense faculties," produce dukkha, how other than through contact and subsequent dukkha-type vedanā does that happen?

As I told Ceisiwr, I think that kind of dukkha is no more problematic, it's not the DO-related dukkha.

[Coëmgenu]

Certainly, an Arhat or other Āryan can deal with dukkha like no one else can, but it's still dukkha, whether experiencing it causes wounds from "two arrows" or not.

Also, why isn't it DO-related? It's dukkha. If some dukkha does not arise from DO, dependent cessation can never end that dukkha ever, no?

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings,


It's not about convenience, it's the admission right there in the Sutta that it's dependent upon vitality (or as you say, equivalent concepts thereof)... it is not dependent upon avijja. That which is in dependent origination is always dependent upon avijja.

Metta,
Paul.

Vitality arises dependent upon ignorance. You can’t have birth, ageing and death without being alive As to the rest I will have to walk you through how you are wrong, again, not that I have much hope in you actually understanding it. Still, perhaps you might surprise me.

You could be right here, but I think it's irrelevant. Even if vitality is derived from ignorance, it's not a nidana (or mentioned in a nidana). It's just related to the residue left: sense faculties. Vitality doesn't have to cease in order to realize nibbana, only parinibbana.

Vitakka & vicara are not mentioned in the standard 12-link scheme, but they are mentioned elsewhere in different formulations of dependent origination. According to Paul, this would mean that vitakka & vicara do not arise because of ignorance. I would say rather the Buddha taught dependent origination in different ways to different people. MN 121 is taking about the same thing, but from a different angle. It’s still the same sense bases as what we find in dependent origination, and the message is clear. Upon awakening the Buddhas and Arahants still experience the 6 sense bases, and all the dukkha that comes with them (without the added 2nd dart) because they arose with ignorance as a prior condition.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Vitality arises dependent upon ignorance.

Nope. The Buddha brought an end to avijja and merrily went on his way for decades without suddenly dying.

As to the rest I will have to walk you through how you are wrong, again, not that I have much hope in you actually understanding it. Still, perhaps you might surprise me.

As was explained earlier in this topic, I understand the basis for your ideas, I just disagree with them, as you do mine. No need to elaborate.

One question, in your scheme a thing which is a saṅkhāra has ignorance as a condition, yes?

Unless it is suddhaṃ saṅkhārasantatiṃ.

Metta,
Paul.

[AlexBrains92]

Certainly, an Arhat or other Āryan can deal with dukkha like no one else can, but it's still dukkha, whether experiencing it causes wounds from "two arrows" or not.

But that dukkha has no subject

[Coëmgenu]

The dukkha you experience now has no subject either though. How is it different? Not inasmuch as it has no subject.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

[According to Paul, this would mean that vitakka & vicara do not arise because of ignorance.

No, according to Paul they are sankharas.

Metta,
Paul.