Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote
"In the formless realms themselves there is no nāmarūpa, only nāma"
Are you kidding me?
You appear to be very confused about the teachings of the Buddha.
In which sutta does Buddha say in formless consciousness there is "nama?"
Do you even know what nama means in nama-rupa?
  • Nama means naming or identification of form.
Where there is no form, does identification serve a purpose?
One could come up with an entirely new outlook based on your understanding. That outlook should be called
  • Pure Nonsense
This surely is what happens when folks are clueless about how consciousness grows, according to the Buddha.
Can you explain how consciousness grows?
With love :candle:
Lester
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:56 am

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Lester »

The consciousness itself is considered a delusion in 3rd arupa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Mon May 01, 2023 2:30 am Ceisiwr wrote
"In the formless realms themselves there is no nāmarūpa, only nāma"
Are you kidding me?
You appear to be very confused about the teachings of the Buddha.
In which sutta does Buddha say in formless consciousness there is "nama?"
Do you even know what nama means in nama-rupa?
  • Nama means naming or identification of form.
Where there is no form, does identification serve a purpose?
One could come up with an entirely new outlook based on your understanding. That outlook should be called
  • Pure Nonsense
This surely is what happens when folks are clueless about how consciousness grows, according to the Buddha.
Can you explain how consciousness grows?
With love :candle:
Well arūpa means "no form", so yes there can only be nāma in the formless attainments. There is no form there in terms of a mental image either. All there is are abstract ideas such as "Infinite Space", "Infinite Consciousness" or "Nothingness". The last attainment is a bit different, since its a meditation without any object at all. Whilst we do experience mental forms, that isn't all there is to our mental life. We are also aware of abstract notions, feelings and so on in the mind. I have already answered you regarding consciousness.
“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: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Lester wrote
The consciousness itself is considered a delusion in 3rd arupa.
What consciousness are you referring to, that of the dull-witted puthujjana or the Arahant. Surely the Arahant cannot be deluded. If you think so, you have turned the teaching upside down.
How did Buddha define consciousness?
Be well!
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Ceisiwr wrote
Well arūpa means "no form", so yes there can only be nāma in the formless attainments.
Is this your teaching or Buddha's teaching? In this post I am addressing three teachings that Vibajjavadins misinterpreted.
  • Atthkavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa.
I have highlighted Kalahavivada of the Atthakavagga. I am not done discussing Sn 4.11 yet.
Do you too understand Sn 4.11 as Niddesa did? Abhidhmma could not figure out what Buddha was referring to in Sn 4.11, because they had already come up with the theory that Rupa of namarupa was not a image of the mind. So Niddesa decided that Kalahavivada is a teaching on Arupa samapatthis. What a SNAFU!
You seem to be too immature to figure out the negative repercussions this had on the tradition. You keep on repeating that there is no difference in Buddha's meditations and meditation that prevailed in India before the Teacher of Gods and Men arrived on the scene.
This post was my attempt to straighten things out, mentioned in the title.
As usual, you enter the discussion without understanding what the OP is trying to do.
I asked you once "How does consciousness grow?"
If you answered this before, as you claim you did, can you please copy and paste that answer. Instead of answering, you asked me whether I am an Arahant.
I will answer that question soon enough, so you can figure it out for yourself whether Pulsar is an Arahant or not.
With Love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

To respond to Ceisiwr's question
"Is Pulsar an Arahant?"
let me fetch a remarkable sutta from Samyutta Nikaya SN 22. 55. Now SN 22.95? Its message is repeated in AN 7.55.
I use the VBB translation of AN 7.55, to come up with an answer.
A bhikkhu practices "It might not be,
it might not be mine
It will not be, it will not be mine,
I am abandoning what exists, what has come to be,
Focussing or bent on this he obtains equanimity
He is not attached to existence
He is not attached to origination.
He sees with correct wisdom
...
My dearest Ceisiwr: How do you understand the above verse? Sutta refers to what Exists.
What is it that exists?
Does Buddha teach us how to get rid of what exists? Is the Arahant free of what exists? Is the Arahant free of origination? What does "not attached to Origination "mean?"
  • Which brief sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya describes the disruption of Origination concisely
Will continue with the rest of the sutta in my next comment.
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

To answer Ceisiwr's question
"Is Pulsar an Arahant?"
and I mentioned earlier that the current sutta will enable you to figure it out for yourself.
Regarding the non-Arahant let me remind you "One size does not fit all" For some non-Arahants think Buddha's meditation is no different from the meditations that prevailed in India before Buddha's Awakening. Pulsar says it is absolutely not so.
Continuing with  AN 7.55,
A bhikkhu practices "It might not be, it might not be mineIt will not be, it will not be mine,I am abandoning what exists, what has come to be,Focussing or bent on this he obtains equanimityHe is not attached to existence He is not attached to origination. He sees with correct wisdom...

Sutta further reads: 
There is a higher state 
That is peaceful
 
Yet he has not totally realized that state;
He has not totally abandoned the underlying tendency to conceit
He has not totally abandoned the craving (lust) for existence,
has not totally abandoned ignorance.
My dear Ceisiwr,
how do you understand the second part of AN 7.55?
As for me, although I have not totally got rid of conceit, I have the ability to figure out the first part of the sutta.
Did you figure it out? I have not heard from you, so apparently you are still struggling with it?
I clearly see the drawbacks of "Origination", do you?
I know that if I cling to the 6 different mental forms/rupas that arise in my mind, I am screwed.
I am aware of the higher state.
I understand what underlying tendency means, which Vibajjavadins swept under the rug, in coming up with their elaborate scholasticism, it deviates from
Buddha's teaching.
There are other Buddhist traditions which took the Underlying tendency very seriously.
This is commendable. Sutta Pitaka itself takes it very seriously.
But Vibajjavadins failed to see the critical importance of Underlying tendency, which Buddha clearly stressed.
Maybe we will touch upon these matters later as we proceed.
Scripture says
"The arahant has got rid of the underlying tendency to conceit, thirst, and ignorance totally"
I cannot say that I have got rid of conceit, thirst and ignorance totally. But every day I manage to get rid of these to small extents. I follow the sutta on Adze SN 22.101 diligently.
Do you?  instead it seems every day you try to bring the Buddha down to the Vibajjavadin level?
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

To continue with AN 7.55  or SN 22.55. They contain the same teaching.
VBB clarifies the meaning behind this teaching. Pay attention to the statement regarding the five aggregates.
"The five aggregates can be terminated
The world presented by them can be terminated
I will so strive that the five aggregates will be
terminated

and the world presented by them vanishes"
How do others interpret this intriguing teaching?
Suttas like MN 140 imply that Arahant still owns the aggregates?
Suttas in the Sutta Nipata clearly say otherwise.
  • Bhara sutta, also says an Arahant has unloaded the burden of the aggregates
Why did compilers of suttas such as MN 140 think otherwise?
Can someone explain? An arahant is free of Salayatana, can aggregates arise in this case?
The appearance of aggregates is a clear indication of an underlying craving.
To conclude my response to Ceisiwr, Pulsar is not an Arahant, since Pulsar is still burdened by the heaviness of aggregates.
My burden however is lighter than that of the many folks who still think rupa of nama-rupa of dependent origination has nothing to do with the mind's craving.
  • The weight of the world presented by the aggregates has vanished for Arahants
With love :candle:
PS I will return to a discussion on Atthakavagga soon enough.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

mjaviem wrote
In formless there's still mental-base viññana.
the term mental-base, is that found in the suttas? If so, which sutta are you referring to? What is this mental base composed of? Can you elaborate on the term mental-base? Is that not an invention of Abhidhamma?
You wrote
In formless there's still vedana due to mind contacts.
What does the formless mind contact, if there is no form to contact?
With love :candle:
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by mjaviem »

Pulsar wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:32 pm the term mental-base, is that found in the suttas? If so, which sutta are you referring to? What is this mental base composed of? Can you elaborate on the term mental-base? Is that not an invention of Abhidhamma?
...
I mean Manāyatana.

In the same way odours can affect ignorant people with a nose, I mean those who don't understand odours nor the nose, it seems mental stuff affects the ignorants with a "mind base", I mean those who don't understand "mental stuff" nor this "mind base" (manāyatana).

From SN 12.2 Vibhaṅgasutta there is:
  • Manoviññāṇaṁ (mind-consciousness)
  • Dhammas
  • Manāyatanaṁ (Mind base)
  • Manosamphasso (mind-contact)
  • Manosamphassajā vedanā (mind-contact feeling)
Pulsar wrote: Fri May 12, 2023 5:32 pm ...
What does the formless mind contact, if there is no form to contact?
With love :candle:
You tell me, I already explained I'm confused. What kind of contacts are there in arupa realms?
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Ceisiwr »

Pulsar wrote: Tue May 02, 2023 9:36 pm
I have highlighted Kalahavivada of the Atthakavagga. I am not done discussing Sn 4.11 yet.
Do you too understand Sn 4.11 as Niddesa did? Abhidhmma could not figure out what Buddha was referring to in Sn 4.11, because they had already come up with the theory that Rupa of namarupa was not a image of the mind. So Niddesa decided that Kalahavivada is a teaching on Arupa samapatthis. What a SNAFU!
You seem to be too immature to figure out the negative repercussions this had on the tradition. You keep on repeating that there is no difference in Buddha's meditations and meditation that prevailed in India before the Teacher of Gods and Men arrived on the scene.
This post was my attempt to straighten things out, mentioned in the title.
As usual, you enter the discussion without understanding what the OP is trying to do.
I asked you once "How does consciousness grow?"
If you answered this before, as you claim you did, can you please copy and paste that answer. Instead of answering, you asked me whether I am an Arahant.
I will answer that question soon enough, so you can figure it out for yourself whether Pulsar is an Arahant or not.
Snp 4.11 is about the origination of views and disputes and letting all that go through nibbāna. Is there a specific part of it you wanted to discuss? When you say that form is a mental image, what do you mean by that exactly? On consciousness growing, it does so because of craving.
Let me fetch a remarkable sutta from Samyutta Nikaya SN 22. 55. Now SN 22.95? Its message is repeated in AN 7.55.
I use the VBB translation of AN 7.55, to come up with an answer.
A bhikkhu practices "It might not be,
it might not be mine
It will not be, it will not be mine,
I am abandoning what exists, what has come to be,
Focussing or bent on this he obtains equanimity
He is not attached to existence
He is not attached to origination.
He sees with correct wisdom...

My dearest Ceisiwr: How do you understand the above verse? Sutta refers to what Exists.
What is it that exists?
Does Buddha teach us how to get rid of what exists? Is the Arahant free of what exists? Is the Arahant free of origination? What does "not attached to Origination "mean?"
Which brief sutta in the Samyutta Nikaya describes the disruption of Origination concisely
Will continue with the rest of the sutta in my next comment.
The Buddha is modifying that annihilationist mantra, re-purposing it as a means to let go. This is no different to what he did with Jhānas, which other ascetics mistook as the final goal. The "what exists, what has come to be" are conditioned dhammas. I understand "exists" here in a conventional sense, since dhammas cannot be said to exist in an ultimate sense. The Arahant is free of what exists, by giving up the notions of existence and non-existence. By seeing origination the Arahant sees no origination.
I cannot say that I have got rid of conceit, thirst and ignorance totally. But every day I manage to get rid of these to small extents.
I'm very happy to hear that.
As for me, although I have not totally got rid of conceit, I have the ability to figure out the first part of the sutta.
Did you figure it out? I have not heard from you, so apparently you are still struggling with it?
I clearly see the drawbacks of "Origination", do you?
Given your attachment to your view and subsequent hostility to those who think differently (Vibhajyavādins, Ābhidhammikas, me) I can very much believe that you have no gotten rid of conceit, and doubt you see the drawbacks of origination.
“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: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Dear mjaviem: when I asked you to elaborate on the
mind base
you wrote
I mean Manāyatana.

In the same way odours can affect ignorant people with a nose, I mean those who don't understand odours nor the nose, it seems mental stuff affects the ignorants with a "mind base", I mean those who don't understand "mental stuff" nor this "mind base" (manāyatana).
Ok, I see manayatana would be the field of the mind (field of mental consciousness), just as Salayatana is the field of the 6 senses? According to Buddha 6 consciousness arise due to the entry of data at the six sense bases, due to craving. Manayatana would be a component of Salayatana, right?. For one without craving, Salayatana would be absent.
Hope you understand this.
Then you wrote
"in the same way odors can affect ignorant people with a nose"
I am trying to make sense of your comparison. Help me out please.
Ignorant or not everyone has a nose, right? When you refer to non-ignorance, are you referring to the Arahants who have got rid of ignorance? I will address the issue with SN 12.2 later.
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Dear Ceisiwr: You aksed me a question about Kalahavivads Sn 4.11. This was a sutta chanted by the monks during Buddha's time. Do you agree?
Now in my opening statement I wrote
Niddesa misinterpreted "without form" in Sn 4.11 with endless negative repercussions.
Did you understand that opening statement? How did Niddesa misinterpret Sn 4.11?
Niddesa's interpretation would belong in the field of Abhidhamma that emerged 200-300 years after Buddha's decease.
Do you think the Buddha is presenting a teaching on Arupa Samapatthis in the Octads? If some scriptures Niddesa says that Kalaha Vivada is a teaching on formless states (practiced by two wanderers Alara Kalama and Ramaputtha) would that not shock you?
Why does the OP say that the teachings in Niddesa created endless negative repercussions?
Between Buddha's formless and
Formless
of prebuddhist
meditators, do you not see a world of difference? Why has not more scholars pointed this out? I can point out several that did, but they are less than the ten fingers on my hands? Maybe more? Should not Niddesa be held responsible for this egregious misinterpretation?
With love :candle:
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by Pulsar »

Pulsar wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 1:32 pm
...
What does the formless mind contact, if there is no form to contact?
With love :candle:
mjaviem replied
You tell me, I already explained I'm confused. What kind of contacts are there in arupa realms?
I am not surprised that you are confused, since many buddhists when they hear the term "formless'" immediately think of Arupa realms. But this idea of Arupa realms that prevailed before Buddha, had nothing to do with Buddha's foundational teaching, of Dependent Origination.
Words used carelessly can create havoc in the Founder's teaching. Teachings that Buddha never dreamt of have been imported into the canon, thanks to some compilers, who were influenced by latter day Abhidhamma.
Formless to Buddha was when when you subtract FORM/Rupa from the equation
Nama-rupa---->consciousness, as taught in Kalaha Vivada.
  • Form in this context means the images that arise in the mind due to eye consciousness, a sound that arise in the mind due to ear consciousness etc, things previously seen, or heard.
Forms arise in the mind due to craving. Arahants have no craving, therefore things seen in the past, or heard leave no such imprints in their underlying consciousness. They have purified their underlying consciousness, is one way of expressing it.
My dearest mjaviem: Tell me what happens when you think of your daughter or wife who are not in your presence now. Can't you picture them in your mind? In fact Buddha has taught that mind can paint pictures. Mind or consciousness of the puthujjana is a magician (foam sutta).
So when the images appear in your mind due to what is craved for (recollection), your mind names them (Nama-rupa) and that denomination (either my wife or my daughter) gives rise to a consciousness related to the labelling.
If that consciousness relates to a sadness such as "I miss them" then you pursue it ....a feeling arisen giving rise to intention and so forth.
This is best explained in Ditthi Samyutta.
Do you get my drift? Rupa of Nama-rupa of Dependent origination taught by Buddha is an image in the mind that gets labelled (named). However rupa of Nama-rupa according to Abhidhamma is the physical object (your wife) that gets named.
Pulsar is following Buddha's teaching, and can only offer answers based on Tathagata's teaching.
Are you with me so far? Please ask again if it is not clear.
Be careful when you read the canon, some suttas are infused by the teachings of Abhidhamma. Eventually when I discuss SN 4.11 perhaps these thoughts will become clearer to you.
Good night! not sure where you are, perhaps it a good morning to you!
With love :candle:
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

Post by mjaviem »

Pulsar wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 5:17 pm ... Manayatana would be a component of Salayatana, right?...
Right
Pulsar wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 5:17 pm ...
Then you wrote
"in the same way odors can affect ignorant people with a nose"
I am trying to make sense of your comparison. Help me out please...
You've cut it off. What I said was: "In the same way odours can affect ignorant people with a nose, I mean those who don't understand odours nor the nose"
Pulsar wrote: Wed May 17, 2023 5:17 pm ... Ignorant or not everyone has a nose, right? When you refer to non-ignorance, are you referring to the Arahants who have got rid of ignorance?...
One gets a nose because of not understanding (avijja). What does it mean "to get a nose"? It means to not understand the nose. If someone gets rid of ignorance, an Arahant, it means they get rid of the nose, because now they fully understand the nose.
Pulsar wrote: Thu May 18, 2023 1:15 am ... Words used carelessly can create havoc in the Founder's teaching. Teachings that Buddha never dreamt of have been imported into the canon, thanks to some compilers...
Oh! You mean "arūpa" means "not"-form. Thank you dear Pulsar! Thank you very much. So there's indeed nama-rupa in arupa realms. How can there be not? It's only the rupa which is part of contact of the five sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, "tactile body") that is not present (You call this "physical object") but there's stil rupa which is part of contact of the sixth sense base ("mano") that is indeed present (you call this "images due to recollection"). So, similar to atta meaning not-self rather than no-self, we have here not-form rather than no-form. Thank you again! :bow: :candle:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Post Reply