Atthakavagga, Formless, Consciousness and Namarupa

[auto]

when form disappears, contacts don’t strike.”
Rūpe vibhūte na phusanti phassā”.

..

15.3
But some of them, claiming to be experts, Niddesa treats samaya as “stilling” (sama), in the sense of the cessation of a sentient being. The normal meaning is “occasion”, which fits well here. Niddesa and commentary explain this second class of so-called experts as the annihilationists.
Tesaṁ paneke samayaṁ vadanti,
15.4
speak of a time when nothing remains.
Anupādisese kusalā vadānā.

16.1vns884
Knowing that these states are dependent,
Ete ca ñatvā upanissitāti,

similar to mn140

They know: ‘With the cessation of that contact to be experienced as neutral, the corresponding neutral feeling ceases and stops.’
There remains only equanimity, pure, bright, pliable, workable, and radiant.
..
They understand:
‘If I were to apply this equanimity, so pure and bright, to the dimension of infinite space, my mind would develop accordingly.
But that is conditioned.
saṅkhatametaṁ.
..

They neither make a choice nor form an intention to continue existence or to end existence.
Because of this, they don’t grasp at anything in the world.
Not grasping, they’re not anxious. Not being anxious, they personally become extinguished.
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.’

above last line(4 or so) should go with this below,

7.5
having uprooted consciousness, don’t continue in existence.
Panujja viññāṇaṁ bhave na tiṭṭhe.

[mjaviem]

There is a difference between understanding and realization. I admit I understand Dependent Origination as taught by Buddha. But the way I see it, that is only a baby step.
Practice pervading via every moment of the day is critical. When I say practice I mean the practice of Satipathhana linked with Origination of Suffering SN 47.42, and learn how

• not to feed my consciousness according to the sutta on Ahara, or Son's flesh.

So I do have a lo to learn. I hope I learn this, in my current lifetime.
I wish the same for you too.
You wrote

I thought I could see where the problem is with your understanding

you earnestly tried to help me based on your understanding. I truly appreciate it. You had the best of intentions.
...

Though your attitude is not the one of someone willing to teach nor the one of someone willing to learn.

"... But Buddhism is letting go of self. Those who are too clever will never learn. They must first get rid of their cleverness, first empty their “cup.”"
—Ajahn Chah

...
PS I am sure Retro would be better at explaining Salayatana. People cannot bother reading old threads. Perhaps you can initiate a new thread with a title such as "What exactly is Salayatana, why do some say 'Salayatana does not come into play in the Arahant"'

Would be an honour if he could explain to me these matters. However, I remember a discussion with Retro where he spoke of a "continuity of pure sankharas" (suddhaṃ saṅkhārasantatiṃ) but didn't expand on it, similar to your case.

I doubt you understand the concept of "suchness" or "thusness" (Tathatā). It's clear you speak on one side about things related to DO and mental aspects of reality and about things unrelated to DO like physical aspects on the other side. I can also see you don't (can't?) discuss whether the body, and the nose, and odours, etc. are sankharas in a discussion forum about these matters.

So thanks, I'm looking forward to hearing from Retro one day who explains better. Regards,

[Ceisiwr]

So thanks, I'm looking forward to hearing from Retro one day who explains better. Regards,

If you tag him or pm him I’m sure he would be happy to share his thoughts.

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

Though your attitude is not the one of someone willing to teach nor the one of someone willing to learn.

An interesting concept! Can you elaborate on that. Might I say "a rock is not willing to learn, neither is willing to teach". Would this be correct according to your concept. One might think so. Yet, there are instances in buddhist literature where rocks also teach by example.
You wrote

"... But Buddhism is letting go of self. Those who are too clever will never learn. They must first get rid of their cleverness, first empty their “cup.”"
—Ajahn Chah

In the Buddhism that Ajahn Chah is referring to, does he teach that rupa of Nama-rupa of Dependent Origination is physical or mental? I am not familiar with his teachings on Paticca samuppada.
Has he commented on Atthakavagga? Please enlighten me. I am willing to learn about Ajahn Chah, but I just don't have the time to read all his publications. Since you have understood him, this is a great plus on this thread, on Atthakavagga.
With love

[mjaviem]

An interesting concept! Can you elaborate on that. Might I say "a rock is not willing to learn, neither is willing to teach". Would this be correct according to your concept. One might think so. Yet, there are instances in buddhist literature where rocks also teach by example.
...

Not much further elaboration. Just what your attitude looks like to me.

...
In the Buddhism that Ajahn Chah is referring to, does he teach that rupa of Nama-rupa of Dependent Origination is physical or mental? I am not familiar with his teachings on Paticca samuppada.
Has he commented on Atthakavagga? Please enlighten me. I am willing to learn about Ajahn Chah, but I just don't have the time to read all his publications. Since you have understood him, this is a great plus on this thread, on Atthakavagga.
With love

He taught like this:

... We can learn Dhamma from trees...

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

Not much further elaboration. Just what your attitude looks like to me.

Have you read all my posts? I have all the translations of VBB of all the four nikayas. I have read all the suttas from beginning to end including the foot notes.
I have read the agama parallels available on Sutta Central, and got them translated, and compared the differences between original suttas and later recensions. Vibajjavadins have modified the content of some suttas to accommodate their abhidhamma. I wonder how many engage in such "in depth" studies.
Do I come across as a person not willing to learn? What is learning?
I have spent months contemplating on the content of many critical suttas, and I have shared what I have learned on Sutta Central in the past and on DW ongoing. Will a person not intent on learning resort to such a task. But let us leave that aside.
You wrote Ajahn Chah stated "We can learn Dhamma from trees" I don't deny that. We can learn Dhamma by watching the movement of ocean waves, gazing at water falls, falling snow, a river flow, soaring mountains. But none of these things really teach us "How suffering Originates"
Perhaps it is not a priority for many. Nature? It definitely teaches impermanence, but origination of dukkha and anatta? Can nature teach us the last two?
With love

[mjaviem]

If you tag him or pm him I’m sure he would be happy to share his thoughts.

Yes, I know he would. The issue isn't about retro participation, though. Main issue is claiming to be right but at the same time understanding, wrongly in my opinion, that "there's what is mental and there's what is physical and that dependent origination is only about the mental, sankharas are only mental not physical". In my opinion this is not understanding the mental nor the physical nor cessation of the physical. This kind of understanding looks like the claims of those bhramins who deny immaterial realms.

...
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There are definitely no immaterial realms.’
...

[Pulsar]

mjaviem wrote

"there's what is mental and there's what is physical and that dependent origination is only about the mental, sankharas are only mental not physical"

Indeed there is physical and the mental, as people always spoke of a mind and a physical body. No one says it is not so. But in dependent origination when Buddha says Nama-rupa, he is not referring mind and body as people commonly understand.
One does not have to be a buddhist to understand that people are made of a physical body and a mind.
Buddha in nama-rupa is not referring to that mind and body which the man on the street understands. By rupa he is referring to the mental aggregate of rupa (Fire Sermon)
Apparently sutta writers influenced by the vibajavadin were not able to make this distinction.
If you read the Majjima Nikaya, people walk away with the idea, that rupa is the physical body. So I can understand your confusion. Samyukta agama was translated (into Pali) only in the 5th century, in Sri Lanka.
Now if someone studies the doctrine in Samyutta Nikaya/Samyukta agama one comprehends that there is no physical body in Nama-rupa. Rupa in DO is collection of the mental aggregate (what is imagined by the deluded mind), due to craving.

Can you bring me an excerpt from Samyutta nikaya, where Buddha says he is dealing with a physical Samkhara (I imagine you think DO is about "origination of mountains" as does Celsiwir, or origination of physical things like sand dunes, mud slides etc) samhkhara means "a thing put together" but Buddha did not apply it to mountains, and mud slides.
With love

[auto]

pulsar is nuts(in a sense he will say it is upanishads or abhidhamma tamper), there is sn12.2 sutta about DO, where he can read about the rupa in namarupa. Also not sure why he tries to think rupa in namarupa is sankhara, it isn't. Rupa produced by sankahra is not the rupa in namarupa.

[Pulsar]

Auto repeats

Pulsar is nuts

Thanks. More the Abhidhamma group considers me "Nuts" more sane I feel. I must be on to something.
Would someone say Buddha was nuts or Abhidhamma's formulation of Dependent Origination was nuts?
Erich Frauwallner a brilliant scholar who studied Abhidhamma thinks Abidhamma formulation of DO is nuts.
The mediocre thinks

• "it is nuts to be brilliant"

Actually on Buddha's day Some wanderers thought "Buddha was nuts" Did Buddha care, and change the formulation of Dependent Origination to pacify them. Buddha stuck to his guns.
With love

PS I will address the issue with Pali translation of SN 12.2 when I find time. Some Pali translators of Samyukta agama, understood DO as vibajjavadins did. Explains why Dr, Alexander Wynn claimed, it will take several generations to correct the flaws in the Pali canon.
Dr Richard Gombrich suggested to Dr. Walpola Rahula that Pali canon should be rewritten. I am beginning to see why, because Auto based on the Pali canon has got the impression rupa of Nama-rupa of DO is physically solid, not a mental non-solid.

[auto]

PS I will address the issue with Pali translation of SN 12.2 when I find time.

you don't need. You have so many things already waiting you have promised to do but never do. Maybe notice that habit of yours.

[Pulsar]

Auto wrote

Maybe notice that habit of yours.

Thanks for paying attention to my habits. Surely if I promised you to correct my habits, I should give it a try...but as long as I do not get rid of pesky underlying tendencies which Abhidhamma chose to ignore,
habits cannot be corrected.
Can you explain the critical impact of underlying tendency in the operation of DO?
With kindness

[auto]

Can you explain the critical impact of underlying tendency in the operation of DO?

No i can't.

[auto]

by first search from abhidhamma
copy paste replaces letters, be mindful on it. vanna is vaṭṭa etc.

As the result of kilesa-vañña, kamma-vañña arises. As the result
of kamma-vañña, vipàka-vañña arises. And as the result of vipàkavañña,
kilesa-vañña arises again. So the rounds of vañña will keep on
rotating, and so does the wheel of Pañiccasamuppàda, for ever.

anusaya-kilesa - underlying tendencies become kilesa when sense bases are in contact with the sense-objects..

When
the six bases (saëàyatana) are in contact with the sense-objects
and phassa and vedanà arise, those anusaya-kilesàs arise as fullfledged
kilesàs. So we get kilesa-vañña again.

avijja, tanha, upadana come along with vinnana as anusaya-kilesa

Now because of kamma-formations (kamma-bhava and
saïkhàra) in the past, vipàka-vañña – viz., upapatti-bhava, vi¤¤àõa,
nàma-råpa, saëàyatana, phassa, vedanà, jàti, jarà-maraõa – arises in
the present life. At the same time avijjà, taõhà and upàdàna come
along with vi¤¤àõa as anusaya-kilesàs (latent defilements).

i learned a lot, thanks for pushing me to do the search.

adding this over the top good good info,

Explanation
Avijjà, taõhà, upàdàna are defilements (kilesà). So they are grouped
as kilesa-vañña.
Kamma-bhava and saïkhàra are kamma-formations. So they
are grouped as kamma-vañña.
Upapatti-bhava, vi¤¤àõa, nàma-råpa, saëàyatana, phassa, vedanà,
jàti, jarà-maraõa are the resultants (vipàka) of kamma-formations.
So they are grouped as vipàka-vañña.

[auto]

Pulsar, i hope you didn't start cry after this. If so i will try to be more family friendly in the future.