Paññā and yoniso manasikāra

[AlexBrains92]

AlexBrains92 wrote

You keep replying with further questions. Maybe you should answer sometimes

I could not answer your question without understanding what you meant by dhamma in the enlightened/Arahant?
Anything arising in the Arahant will have to be unconditioned, based on my understanding. Do you think in the Arahant thoughts arise based on conditions? meaning that DO still persists?
you wrote

I mean remainderless after the body breaks up, not before. Don't you acknowledge the two nibbana elements?

No I do not acknowledge the two nibbanas as presented in some suttas, i.e. Itivuttaka??
I undertand the phrase "when the body breaks up" as when the salayatana or "Six sense bases disappear" Many of buddha's teaching are non-literal, but some take these literally.
I know that some in the tradition subscribe to the notion that there are two Nibbanas. I do not find this in the earliest suttas, and it does not make
sense to me.
Nibbana is achieved while living, as Richard Gombrich reiterates in "What the Buddha Thought"
Nibbana is the extinction of suffering that has been dependently originated. Arahant is already free of that suffering while living, he is nibbanized while living.

End of suffering due to dissipation of a physical body of an arahant? Does not the Arahant consider "This body is not mine" while living.
Does the death of a physical body impact his already achieved Nibbana? Some in the tradition appear to believe so.
You are not alone. But I cannot understand this, perhaps you can explain.
Regards

You seem to think that I believe suffering only ceases with death. I don't. I'm just saying the Arahant still has a remainder, which is no more conditioned by ignorance (DO is not a synonym of idappaccayata... DO is a specific ignorant process) and therefore no more a source of distress.

[Coëmgenu]

Arisen of ignorance. A "remainder" of things dependently originated. The constant presence of ignorance isn't required to keep the body standing. Life (i.e. the life-faculty of the vital airs) and heat (i.e. metabolism) and consciousness keep it standing, rhetorically speaking.

[AlexBrains92]

Arisen of ignorance. A "remainder" of things dependently originated. The constant presence of ignorance isn't required to keep the body standing. Life (i.e. the life-faculty of the vital airs) and heat (i.e. metabolism) and consciousness keep it standing, rhetorically speaking.

Yes, I wrote no more.

[Coëmgenu]

Arisen of ignorance. A "remainder" of things dependently originated. The constant presence of ignorance isn't required to keep the body standing. Life (i.e. the life-faculty of the vital airs) and heat (i.e. metabolism) and consciousness keep it standing, rhetorically speaking.

Yes, I wrote no more.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm adding to what has been presented. We do disagree concerning idappaccayatā though. I think that the internal linguistic evidence of the usage of the term in the Pāli Canon (and its lack of appearance in any parallels) reveals that it is a synonym of paṭiccasamuppāda that is unique to the Pāli Canon. Venerable Bodhi punctuates his English translation in such a manner as to stress this reading.

From Ven Bodhi's rendering of the Paccayasutta:

“And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? ‘With birth as condition, aging-and-death comes to be’: whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality.

We see, in the above, that the specific conditionality is the same as that which is the "fixed course of the Dhamma," its stableness, etc.

A Tathagata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With birth as condition, bhikkhus, aging-and-death.’

The "this" and the "it" refer to what was previously called "the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality."

The description of "the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality," comes after the colon that is used to mark a definition. "The stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality," in the pericope, after the colon, is directly stated to be dependent origination in a short-form, namely "With birth as condition, bhikkhus, aging-and-death."

[AlexBrains92]

Arisen of ignorance. A "remainder" of things dependently originated. The constant presence of ignorance isn't required to keep the body standing. Life (i.e. the life-faculty of the vital airs) and heat (i.e. metabolism) and consciousness keep it standing, rhetorically speaking.

Yes, I wrote no more.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm adding to what has been presented. We do disagree concerning idappaccayatā though. I think that the internal linguistic evidence of the usage of the term in the Pāli Canon (and its lack of appearance in any parallels) reveals that it is a synonym of paṭiccasamuppāda that is unique to the Pāli Canon. Venerable Bodhi punctuates his English translation in such a manner as to stress this reading.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you again (or maybe you are): do you think they are synonyms or not? I don't.

[Coëmgenu]

My arguments are in an edit in the post above your most recent one.

[AlexBrains92]

My arguments are in an edit in the post above your most recent one.

But your quote doesn't specifically involve ignorance, it's not paticcasamuppada. You are assuming that it is because it mentiones birth and death, but that's just idappaccayata.

[Coëmgenu]

That's because I didn't want to have to copy-and-paste and then analyse the entire sutta. The short-form rendering of DO is immediately followed by a longer exegesis. And then we have this:

[...] whether there is an arising of Tathagatas or no arising of Tathagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality. A Tathagata awakens to this and breaks through to it. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. And he says: ‘See! With ignorance as condition, bhikkhus, volitional formations.’

Surely the Paccayasutta is about DO, no?

[AlexBrains92]

That's because I didn't want to have to copy-and-paste and then analyse the entire sutta. The short-form rendering of DO is immediately followed by a longer exegesis.

Surely the Paccayasutta is about DO, no?

I had to read it, yes it is.
But you accept that or not?

[Coëmgenu]

That it's about DO and that it presents the term "idappaccayatā" as synonymous with DO itself and that Ven Bodhi punctuates accordingly? I accept that. What were you asking if I accepted?

[AlexBrains92]

That it's about DO and that it presents the term "idappaccayatā" as synonymous with DO itself? I accept that. What were you asking if I accepted?

The pali in contrast to other sources.

[Coëmgenu]

That it's about DO and that it presents the term "idappaccayatā" as synonymous with DO itself? I accept that. What were you asking if I accepted?

The pali in contrast to other sources.

I have no objection to the Pāli source having a different list of synonyms than what the āgamas have. The āgamas identify DO with the "suchness" of the dharmas and the "emptiness" of the dharmas. Both of these terms are absent from the Pāli version, and idappaccayatā is absent from the āgamas.

Also, "emptiness" showing up in the āgama version is likely a scribal error and was supposed to be "regularity" like the Pāli has. The term "dharmadhātu" also shows up in the āgama as a synonym for the dependently originated dharmas, at variance with the Pāli.

[AlexBrains92]

That it's about DO and that it presents the term "idappaccayatā" as synonymous with DO itself? I accept that. What were you asking if I accepted?

The pali in contrast to other sources.

I have no objection to the Pāli source having a different list of synonyms than what the āgamas have. The āgamas identify DO with the "suchness" of the dharmas and the "emptiness" of the dharmas. Both of these terms are absent from the Pāli version, and idappaccayatā is absent from the āgamas.

Oh, I didn't know the last thing!
Anyway, what I'd like to know is what you think personally. Is there conditioned arising also outside ignorance or not?

[Coëmgenu]

The pali in contrast to other sources.

I have no objection to the Pāli source having a different list of synonyms than what the āgamas have. The āgamas identify DO with the "suchness" of the dharmas and the "emptiness" of the dharmas. Both of these terms are absent from the Pāli version, and idappaccayatā is absent from the āgamas.

Oh, I didn't know the last thing!
Anyway, what I'd like to know is what you think personally. Is there conditioned arising also outside ignorance or not?

Yes, for reasons that would be considered particularly woo-woo and nonsensical on a Theravādin forum. Not for any of the reasons presented here in this thread though.

[AlexBrains92]

I have no objection to the Pāli source having a different list of synonyms than what the āgamas have. The āgamas identify DO with the "suchness" of the dharmas and the "emptiness" of the dharmas. Both of these terms are absent from the Pāli version, and idappaccayatā is absent from the āgamas.

Oh, I didn't know the last thing!
Anyway, what I'd like to know is what you think personally. Is there conditioned arising also outside ignorance or not?

Yes, for reasons that would be considered particularly woo-woo and nonsensical on a Theravādin forum. Not for any of the reasons presented here in this thread though.

We agree on this, then