FreeSangha - Buddhist Forum

Schools of Buddhism => Theravada => Topic started by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 18, 2017, 01:28:31 pm

Title: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 18, 2017, 01:28:31 pm
Dhamma faithful & students

Many good Buddhists chant the words: "Sabbe satta sukhita hontu: May all beings be happy".

In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Satta Sutta (SN 23.2) is translated as follows:


Quote
'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.


[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html[/url])


Even more non-conventional, SN 5.10 is translated as:

Quote
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.


[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html[/url])


So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas? 

:namaste:



Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 18, 2017, 01:43:17 pm
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.

The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.

The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.

The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.

The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 19, 2017, 01:15:55 am
So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas? 


Element, this seems like a rhetorical question, so maybe you should just tell what you think it means.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: stillpointdancer on June 19, 2017, 01:45:57 am
We used to chant "All beings.... situated throughout space" as part of our puja. I think it was to make sure that all beings meant all beings, whatever form we could imagine them to be. It tied into the reading of the Heart Sutra during the puja, and as a wish to help all beings reach enlightenment.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: AlwaysDayAfterYesterday on June 19, 2017, 07:13:32 am
I have a simple way to see this by arranging the very word you ask about into a construction of the 10 dimensions of Mind, Time and Space, which are all one.  Do a bit of contemplation on the fact that your first face before descending into Tamas is Sattva.  At birth, you are Tamas, then Rajas as you live and raise a family, then Sattva at the end as you contemplate your life.  Above this, each life you live is a progression between, ever rising back to Sattva, which is also defined as Truth.  Eventually, your birth here is Sattva from the beginning, which is parallel to the 10 powers of the Bodhi (Tree) Sattva sitting under his own tree.  Once, he was a branch.  Then, the fruit.  Once a worm is hanging from the tree, what does it become?  It first consumes the tree.  It then becomes the tree, the forest, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy and then the Multiversed being.  See into this by the Gunas.  Arrange them in order, then see the 10 directions. 

See the attached PDF below.  To read it, download and expand.  To understand, do the same. 

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 19, 2017, 03:51:28 pm
So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas? 


Element, this seems like a rhetorical question, so maybe you should just tell what you think it means.

A being is one in conduct with the aggregates, such as mental formation. Non-being is retreating into emptiness.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 19, 2017, 07:23:37 pm
Form is conduct in wind.

Sensation is conduct in water.

Perception is conduct in earth.

Mental formations is conduct in fire.

Consciousness is conduct in ether.

This is the integration of a being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 20, 2017, 05:30:53 am
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.

But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 20, 2017, 06:10:01 am
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.

But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.

Such is the integral parts of being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: AlwaysDayAfterYesterday on June 20, 2017, 06:24:58 am
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.

But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.

What are the aggregates clinging to?  This is the question to be answered.  No weapon can pierce the life that informs you.  No fire can burn it.  No water can drench it.  No wind can make it dry. 


https://youtu.be/_B4Z1PB97KY
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 20, 2017, 06:29:00 am
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.

But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.

What are the aggregates clinging to?  This is the question to be answered.  No weapon can pierce the life that informs you.  No fire can burn it.  No water can drench it.  No wind can make it dry. 


https://youtu.be/_B4Z1PB97KY

Being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: AlwaysDayAfterYesterday on June 20, 2017, 07:02:08 am
The one clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of mental formation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of perception is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of sensation is a being.
The one clinging to the aggregate of form is a being.

But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.

What are the aggregates clinging to?  This is the question to be answered.  No weapon can pierce the life that informs you.  No fire can burn it.  No water can drench it.  No wind can make it dry. 


https://youtu.be/_B4Z1PB97KY

Being.

Sattva!  Yes. 

Yes, and that being itself is all beings in relative as well.  The part contains the whole, the whole is in each part.  Absolute is not a house divided, nor is it ever idle.  Within the action of its members, the whole rests.  Both.  No contradiction.  No lost self in the identity of all in all. 

There is a point and intent for the essence of Absolute MU. This is why realization of both sides of relative require both guest and host; both self and other; both self and Absolute.  The goal is All in All, not a divided house, which is the essence of division into relative for the purpose of learning absolute from the parts, better known as Yoga (union with equality).  We reconcile this by recognizing the equal reality of prakrti and purusa as the expressions of the All-Self, yet the All-Self is one.  This includes the relative comprising the All-Self--you.  The one defect in the All-Self is there for a reason.  Intellect, Intelligence, Mind, Knowledge, Wisdom and the like are light invisible to the senses.  This renders the All-Self invisible to our perception, allowing us to freely live within its ever-watching eye.  Time / Space are also relative, not only to each other, but to the whole of reality.  Time and space are also impermanent, just as the self here will perish.  This in no way assumes the higher self can perish.  In fact, the relative nature of self and other ensures the eternal nature of both. 

I have a good outline of this in relation to the Triloka and Gunas.  Attached below, but you must download and view on a viewer to enlarge.  This is the latest revision.  Nearly every tradition in the world claims this reality will perish and be born again, revealing all of us in our true being and in a pure land of rebirth.  Just as a being dies and is reborn, the All-Self is our mirror for this process.  She is the last to remake the womb and start over, birthing us all out of this womb. 

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 20, 2017, 01:50:21 pm
But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.

This seems to be saying the aggregates cling, like when a small lost puppy dog clings to a human or when five different baby ducks cling to their mother.

What are the aggregates clinging to? 

How can the aggregates of form (matter), feeling, perception & consciousness cling?

SN 22.81 seems to explain only the sankhara aggregate (when under the influence of ignorance) can cling & this sankhara aggregate clings to itself & the other for aggregates as "self" or "a being". To quote:

Quote
There is the case where a person — who is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness to be a self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN 22.81


 :dharma:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Pixie on June 20, 2017, 02:41:35 pm
Quote
This seems to be saying the aggregates cling, like when a small lost puppy dog clings to a human or when five different baby ducks cling to their mother.]This seems to be saying the aggregates cling, like when a small lost puppy dog clings to a human or when five different baby ducks cling to their mother.

Quite so, Mr Raptor, - or may I call you Vissudhi ?  :namaste:

PS

Are those two recent "selfies" in your avatar?

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 20, 2017, 06:54:55 pm
Are those two recent "selfies" in your avatar?

  :foryou: My selfies  are <3 attractive  <3. ?   :focus:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 21, 2017, 12:15:41 am
Dhamma faithful & students

Many good Buddhists chant the words: "Sabbe satta sukhita hontu: May all beings be happy".

In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Satta Sutta (SN 23.2) is translated as follows:


Quote
'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.


[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html[/url])


Even more non-conventional, SN 5.10 is translated as:

Quote
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.


[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html[/url])


So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas? 

:namaste:


That which is is called 'a being'. There are conscious beings also called 'living beings' and non-conscious beings like stones.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Samana Johann on June 21, 2017, 01:10:02 am

Then be careful not to end up as "stone"... by "destroying" mind before having penetrated form, Ground and lead other to Jhanas like feed like foolish mountain cows (http://), getting then lost as "asaññasatta", being still a living being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 21, 2017, 01:11:18 am
But a "being" is really a bunch of clinging aggregates.


This seems to be saying the aggregates cling, like when a small lost puppy dog clings to a human or when five different baby ducks cling to their mother.


Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html)

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 21, 2017, 02:40:08 am
Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: [url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url])

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.


There is no such thing as "clinging-aggregates", which is a mistranslation. The aggregates do not inherently cling & only one aggregate clings.

As for 'self-view', it is a type of attachment rather than leads to attachment.

Regards  :dharma:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 21, 2017, 02:44:49 am
That which is is called 'a being'. There are conscious beings also called 'living beings' and non-conscious beings like stones.

In Pali, there are words for "living beings", such as "pāṇa­bhū­tesu". "Pāṇa­" means "breathing".

"Satta", in the suttas quoted in the original post, seems to not refer to "living beings" but to views & states of attachment.

Regards  :dharma:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 21, 2017, 02:58:49 am
Then be careful not to end up as "stone"... by "destroying" mind before having penetrated form, Ground and lead other to Jhanas like feed like foolish mountain cows (http://), getting then lost as "asaññasatta", being still a living being.


"Asaññasatta" seems to be one of nine types of "beings" ("satta") described in AN 9.24.

Importantly, based in the clear explanations found in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10, each "being" in AN 9.24 appears to not be a "living being" but a state of attachment (upadana), identity & delusion, which is why this is not to be respected & honored, in the same way puthujjana worship, respect & honor samsaric gods.

SN 5.10 states to believe "a being" is anything apart from a "view" (ditthi) is the view of Mara.


:dharma:

Quote
003.04.

Navayimenava, bhikkhave, sattāvāsā. Katame nava?

"Bhikkhus, these nine are clinging sojourns (a being abodes). What nine?

Bhikkhus, there are beings with various bodies and various perceptions. Like human beings who are sometimes like gods and sometimes like hellish beings. This is the first clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with various bodies and a single perception. Like recently born gods in the world of Brahma. This is the second clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with a single body and various perceptions. Like the radiant gods. This is the third clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with a single body and a single perception (asaññasattā). Like gods born in complete happiness. This is the fourth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings without perceptions and without feelings. Like god clinging to non-perception This is the fifth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all perceptions of matter, all perceptions of aversion, not attending to various perceptions with space is boundless, abide in the sphere of space. This is the sixth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all the sphere of space and with consciousness is boundless, abide in the sphere of consciousness. This is the seventh clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all the sphere of consciousness, with there is nothing abide in the sphere of no-thingness. This is the eighth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, ther are beings who having overcome all the sphere of no-thingness, abide in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the nineth clinging sojourn. Bhikkhus, these nine are the clinging sojourns.

AN 9.24: [url]http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara6/09-navakanipata/003-sattavasavaggo-e.html[/url] ([url]http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara6/09-navakanipata/003-sattavasavaggo-e.html[/url])

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 21, 2017, 03:04:02 am
That which is is called 'a being'. There are conscious beings also called 'living beings' and non-conscious beings like stones.

In Pali, there are words for "living beings", such as "pāṇa­bhū­tesu". "Pāṇa­" means "breathing".

"Satta", in the suttas quoted in the original post, seems to not refer to "living beings" but to views & states of attachment.

Regards  :dharma:

Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on SN23.2:
This reply hinges on a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent of Skt sattva, "a being", and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached"
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: AlwaysDayAfterYesterday on June 21, 2017, 05:48:38 am
Then be careful not to end up as "stone"... by "destroying" mind before having penetrated form, Ground and lead other to Jhanas like feed like foolish mountain cows (http://), getting then lost as "asaññasatta", being still a living being.


"Asaññasatta" seems to be one of nine types of "beings" ("satta") described in AN 9.24.

Importantly, based in the clear explanations found in SN 23.2 & SN 5.10, each "being" in AN 9.24 appears to not be a "living being" but a state of attachment (upadana), identity & delusion, which is why this is not to be respected & honored, in the same way puthujjana worship, respect & honor samsaric gods.

SN 5.10 states to believe "a being" is anything apart from a "view" (ditthi) is the view of Mara.


:dharma:

Quote
003.04.

Navayimenava, bhikkhave, sattāvāsā. Katame nava?

"Bhikkhus, these nine are clinging sojourns (a being abodes). What nine?

Bhikkhus, there are beings with various bodies and various perceptions. Like human beings who are sometimes like gods and sometimes like hellish beings. This is the first clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with various bodies and a single perception. Like recently born gods in the world of Brahma. This is the second clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with a single body and various perceptions. Like the radiant gods. This is the third clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings with a single body and a single perception (asaññasattā). Like gods born in complete happiness. This is the fourth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings without perceptions and without feelings. Like god clinging to non-perception This is the fifth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all perceptions of matter, all perceptions of aversion, not attending to various perceptions with space is boundless, abide in the sphere of space. This is the sixth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all the sphere of space and with consciousness is boundless, abide in the sphere of consciousness. This is the seventh clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, there are beings who have overcome all the sphere of consciousness, with there is nothing abide in the sphere of no-thingness. This is the eighth clinging sojourn.

Bhikkhus, ther are beings who having overcome all the sphere of no-thingness, abide in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. This is the nineth clinging sojourn. Bhikkhus, these nine are the clinging sojourns.

AN 9.24: [url]http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara6/09-navakanipata/003-sattavasavaggo-e.html[/url] ([url]http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara6/09-navakanipata/003-sattavasavaggo-e.html[/url])



I will plug those into my chart linked below.  This is just a simple chart.  In my larger chart, I have many more lists, but this list is one I have yet to add.  It fits nicely into the 9 dimensions.  If you compare to the conversation here, movement from Tamas to Rajas is outlined by the overall theme in Buddhism.  This chart makes it easy to compare, even going so far as outlining many of the clues in the Koans (such as the Three Buffalo). 
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 21, 2017, 01:37:49 pm
Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on SN23.2:
This reply hinges on a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent of Skt sattva, "a being", and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached"

BB might treat it as a 'pun' however, in my opinion, the meaning of the word 'satta' is extremely important because the definition of 'birth' ('jati') in dependent origination is about the 'birth' or 'production' of 'beings'. In other words, you either believe 'birth' is physical birth or, otherwise, discern it with insight as the mental birth of a view or idea of 'a being'.

Regards  :namaste:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 21, 2017, 10:37:06 pm
Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on SN23.2:
This reply hinges on a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent of Skt sattva, "a being", and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached"

BB might treat it as a 'pun' however, in my opinion, the meaning of the word 'satta' is extremely important because the definition of 'birth' ('jati') in dependent origination is about the 'birth' or 'production' of 'beings'. In other words, you either believe 'birth' is physical birth or, otherwise, discern it with insight as the mental birth of a view or idea of 'a being'.

Regards  :namaste:

Well there are countless opinions about every possible phenomenon  :wink1:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 21, 2017, 10:42:43 pm
Well there are countless opinions about every possible phenomenon  :wink1:

When it is verified in the mind-heart to truly end dukkha, it ceases to be an 'opinion' but is Dhamma. Best wishes.  <3
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 21, 2017, 10:48:39 pm
Well there are countless opinions about every possible phenomenon  :wink1:

When it is verified in the mind-heart to truly end dukkha, it ceases to be an 'opinion' but is Dhamma. Best wishes.  <3
Depends. From your perspective it may appear to be 'more' than an opinion where 'more' is indeterminate. From the perspective of others it still may appear as an opinion. And from the perspective of others what ends your dukkha does not necessarily end their dukkha.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 21, 2017, 11:02:59 pm
The Tathagata determines then dukkha, which ends in Dhamma, then seeing the Dhamma is no longer seeing dukkha, but seeing the Tathagata.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 22, 2017, 01:07:08 am
Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: [url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url])

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.


There is no such thing as "clinging-aggregates", which is a mistranslation. The aggregates do not inherently cling & only one aggregate clings.



The Khandha Sutta doesn't support your interpretation, since it clearly distinguishes between clinging and non-clinging aggregates.  The clinging aggregates are equivalent to dukkha ( first Noble Truth ) and they cease when dukkha ceases.

Saying that self-view is a fabrication is a red herring IMO.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 22, 2017, 01:21:05 am
Bhikkhu Bodhi comments on SN23.2:
This reply hinges on a pun between satta as the Pali equivalent of Skt sattva, "a being", and as the past participle of sajjati (= Skt sakta), "attached"


BB might treat it as a 'pun' however, in my opinion, the meaning of the word 'satta' is extremely important because the definition of 'birth' ('jati') in dependent origination is about the 'birth' or 'production' of 'beings'. In other words, you either believe 'birth' is physical birth or, otherwise, discern it with insight as the mental birth of a view or idea of 'a being'.

Regards  :namaste:


Your interpretation isn't supported by the suttas.  In the suttas birth and death are invariably described as physical events, rather than merely mental events, most obviously when described in dependent origination.

Here are the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2:

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 22, 2017, 01:23:59 am
Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: [url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url])

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.


There is no such thing as "clinging-aggregates", which is a mistranslation. The aggregates do not inherently cling & only one aggregate clings.



The Khandha Sutta doesn't support your interpretation, since it clearly distinguishes between clinging and non-clinging aggregates.  The clinging aggregates are equivalent to dukkha ( first Noble Truth ) and they cease when dukkha ceases.

...

Please be more precise. VisuddhiRaptor asserts: 1. "The aggregates do not inherently cling" and 2. "only one aggregate clings. "

Assertion 1 is supported by Khandha Sutta. Assertion 2 is not supported by Khandha Sutta.
If the aggregates would inherently cling then liberation would be impossible because they could never be transformed into non-clinging aggregates.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 22, 2017, 01:37:34 am
Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: [url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url])

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.


There is no such thing as "clinging-aggregates", which is a mistranslation. The aggregates do not inherently cling & only one aggregate clings.



The Khandha Sutta doesn't support your interpretation, since it clearly distinguishes between clinging and non-clinging aggregates.  The clinging aggregates are equivalent to dukkha ( first Noble Truth ) and they cease when dukkha ceases.

...

Please be more precise. VisuddhiRaptor asserts: 1. "The aggregates do not inherently cling" and 2. "only one aggregate clings. "

Assertion 1 is supported by Khandha Sutta. Assertion 2 is not supported by Khandha Sutta.
If the aggregates would inherently cling then liberation would be impossible because they could never be transformed into non-clinging aggregates.


I was disagreeing with the assertion that there is no such thing as "clinging aggregates", since these are clearly described in the Khandha Sutta, and elsewhere.  If it were "aggregates subject to clinging", there would be no need for the distinction which is made in the Khandha Sutta.

I don't think the Khandha Sutta is describing a transformation of aggregates from clinging to non-clinging types. I read it as saying that both types exist simultaneously, in other words there are some aspects of experience we cling to, and some that we don't.  Have a look at what the Khandha Suttas says about the form clinging aggregate - "whatever form.... is accompanied with mental fermentation", implying that not all form is accompanied with mental fermentation:

"And what are the five clinging-aggregates?
"Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the form clinging-aggregate."


We know from the First Noble Truth that clinging aggregates = dukkha, so logically the clinging aggregates would cease when dukkha ceases, just leaving the non-clinging aggregates.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 22, 2017, 01:42:50 am
Being is then not clinging to the views of one self, only then can one truly be one with being.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 22, 2017, 01:54:00 am
Element, I was referring to the distinction between clinging and non-clinging aggregates in the Khandha Sutta: [url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html[/url])

It seems that self-view leads to clinging.


There is no such thing as "clinging-aggregates", which is a mistranslation. The aggregates do not inherently cling & only one aggregate clings.



The Khandha Sutta doesn't support your interpretation, since it clearly distinguishes between clinging and non-clinging aggregates.  The clinging aggregates are equivalent to dukkha ( first Noble Truth ) and they cease when dukkha ceases.

...

Please be more precise. VisuddhiRaptor asserts: 1. "The aggregates do not inherently cling" and 2. "only one aggregate clings. "

Assertion 1 is supported by Khandha Sutta. Assertion 2 is not supported by Khandha Sutta.
If the aggregates would inherently cling then liberation would be impossible because they could never be transformed into non-clinging aggregates.


I was disagreeing with the assertion that there is no such thing as "clinging aggregates", since these are clearly describe in the Khandha Sutta. 

But his understanding clearly is that what he calls "clinging-aggregates" does  inherently cling. And he is right because such "clinging-aggregates" are not supported by the sutta.

I don't think the Khandha Sutta is describing a transformation of aggregates from clinging to non-clinging types. I read it as saying that both types exist simultaneously, in other words there are some aspects of experience we cling to, and some that we don't.  Have a look at what the Khandha Suttas says about the form clinging aggregate:

"And what are the five clinging-aggregates?
"Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the form clinging-aggregate."

We know from the First Noble Truth that clinging aggregates = dukkha, so logically the clinging aggregates would cease when dukkha ceases.

So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates. But if clinging would be inherently existing it could never cease and liberation would be impossible. That's the issue with your view.
Even if there are aggregates that cling and aggregates that do not cling at the same time it would be illogical to assume that its always the same types of aggregates that cling and always the same types of aggregates that does not cling. Why? Because aggregates change from moment to moment and while there is clinging at some moment there may be non-clinging in the next moment.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 22, 2017, 01:58:20 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html)
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 22, 2017, 02:00:10 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates. But if clinging would be inherently existing it could never cease and liberation would be impossible. That's the issue with your view.
Even if there are aggregates that cling and aggregates that do not cling at the same time it would be illogical to assume that its always the same types of aggregates that cling and always the same types of aggregates that does not cling. Why? Because aggregates change from moment to moment and while there is clinging at some moment there may be non-clinging in the next moment.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 22, 2017, 02:05:00 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


Actually your quote proves exactly the opposite of what you understand. Why? Because "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." proves that clinging-aggregates do not inherently cling.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 22, 2017, 03:43:19 am
A being passes through various forms of clingings, while the clinging passes through various forms of beings, by not seeing them as empty, impermance give rise to suffering.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 24, 2017, 01:14:28 am
Even if there are aggregates that cling and aggregates that do not cling at the same time it would be illogical to assume that its always the same types of aggregates that cling and always the same types of aggregates that does not cling. Why? Because aggregates change from moment to moment and while there is clinging at some moment there may be non-clinging in the next moment.

I'm not saying it's always the same type of aggregates that cling and don't cling.  I'm saying that these two types of aggregates exist simultaneously and that it's the clinging aggregates which cease when dukkha ceases.  As opposed to the idea that aggregates are all of the clinging type to begin with, and are then all "converted" to the non-clinging type.  This feels right to me from a practical point of view, the sense of things ceasing rather than things being "converted".  And cessation seems to be very much the theme of the Four Truths, dependent origination and so on.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 24, 2017, 01:29:51 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


Actually your quote proves exactly the opposite of what you understand. Why? Because "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." proves that clinging-aggregates do not inherently cling.


I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Samana Johann on June 24, 2017, 02:12:18 am
In the suttas birth and death are invariably described as physical events, rather than merely mental events, most obviously when described in dependent origination.

Sure? What keeps such a view alive and how could it possible end?
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 24, 2017, 03:29:05 am
Your interpretation isn't supported by the suttas.  In the suttas birth and death are invariably described as physical events, rather than merely mental events, most obviously when described in dependent origination.

Here are the nidana "definitions" in SN12.2:

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

"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."
[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html[/url])

I have not "interpreted" the suttas. My reading is literal.

Birth & death refer to the birth & death of a "satta" ("being"), which is a "view".

This is why Buddhas are not subject to "death" ("marana") in the suttas.

SN 5.10 clearly states it is Mara that believes "a being" is something other than "view".

"Death" ("marana") does not refer to the termination of mere aggregates but to the wrong view those physical rotting aggregates are "a being".

Quote
Long have you experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while roaming around & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

“Long have you  experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while wandering & wandering this long, long time—crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing—are greater than the water in the four great oceans.


Quote
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.


 :namaste:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 24, 2017, 03:38:31 am
I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.

It states clinging is not the same as the aggregates however clinging is also not something apart from the aggregates. This is because one of the aggregates (sankhara aggregate) clings. My explanation here is the same as BB's footnote 461 in his MN.

SN 22.85 describes the termination of life of an arahant as merely the ending of the aggregates. Obviously, there are aggregates totally free from clinging.

 :dharma:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 24, 2017, 04:58:41 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


Actually your quote proves exactly the opposite of what you understand. Why? Because "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." proves that clinging-aggregates do not inherently cling.


I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.

Neither separate nor identical. How can this mean 'inherent feature'?  :lmfao:

Sleeping-Spiny does inherently sleep. That is why there are two Spinys. One who sleeps and one who does not sleep.  :fu:  :teehee:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 25, 2017, 03:10:38 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


Actually your quote proves exactly the opposite of what you understand. Why? Because "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." proves that clinging-aggregates do not inherently cling.


I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.


Neither separate nor identical. How can this mean 'inherent feature'?  :lmfao:


The clinging aggregates are called that because clinging is an inherent feature of them.  It's very simple, and I really don't understand the problem you're having with this.

My approach is entirely consistent with the Khandha Sutta, which describes these two types of aggregate, ie clinging and non-clinging. 

It's also consistent with the First Noble Truth, ie dukkha being the same as the clinging aggregates.  Note that if dukkha were identical with the aggregates generally or the non-clinging aggregates, then cessation of dukkha wouldn't be possible.  Cessation of dukkha is possible because it is the clinging aggregates which cease.



Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Spiny Norman on June 25, 2017, 03:12:01 am
I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.

It states clinging is not the same as the aggregates however clinging is also not something apart from the aggregates. This is because one of the aggregates (sankhara aggregate) clings.

That isn't what the sutta says, it is specifically refering to clinging aggregates.  It is not referring to aggregates generally. 

Have you forgotten that the Khandha Sutta describes two types of aggregates, clinging and non-clinging?  Have you forgotten that clinging aggregates = dukkha in the First Noble Truth, which means that for dukkha to cease then clinging aggregates must cease?

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 25, 2017, 04:49:52 am
So your understanding is that the "clinging aggregates" do inherently cling. That is why your understanding requires two different sets of aggregates.



Yes. That is what the suttas describe. See for example MN109:

Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?"
"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html[/url])


Actually your quote proves exactly the opposite of what you understand. Why? Because "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." proves that clinging-aggregates do not inherently cling.


I disagree.  It says that clinging isn't separate from the five clinging aggregates, which means that clinging is an inherent feature of them.


Neither separate nor identical. How can this mean 'inherent feature'?  :lmfao:


The clinging aggregates are called that because clinging is an inherent feature of them.  It's very simple, and I really don't understand the problem you're having with this.

That the clinging aggregates are only called 'clinging aggregates' is evidence that there cannot exist clinging aggregates of which clinging is an inherent feature. It's very simple, and I really don't understand the problem you're having with this.
That sleeping Spiny is only called 'sleeping Spiny'  is evidence that there cannot exist a Spiny of which clinging is an inherent feature because that Spiny would have to be different from another Spiny of which not-sleeping is an inherent feature and 2 Spinys would have to exist.

My approach is entirely consistent with the Khandha Sutta, which describes these two types of aggregate, ie clinging and non-clinging. 

My approach is entirely consistent with the Khandha Sutta, which describes the generality 'the aggregates' which as  impermanent generality phenomenon consist of a variety of momentary aggregates that change from moment to moment so that a specific aggregate of moment t1 is never the same as a specific aggregate of moment t0 in the past moment so that when aggregate t0 has clung aggregate t1 may not cling or vv. And considering the generality phenomenon 'the aggregates' in every moment there are aggregates that cling and aggregates that do not cling but due to the momentariness the clinging and the non-clinging can never be the same aggregates in different moments and there cannot be a separation into two sets of which one would inherently cling.
Therefore there is only one generality phenomenon. And this is called 'the clinging aggregates' in case clinging occurs among them and this is called 'the aggregates' if clinging does no longer occur among them. Clinging is not an inherent feature of any of the aggregates.

It's also consistent with the First Noble Truth, ie dukkha being the same as the clinging aggregates.  Note that if dukkha were identical with the aggregates generally or the non-clinging aggregates, then cessation of dukkha wouldn't be possible.  Cessation of dukkha is possible because it is the clinging aggregates which cease.

Non-inherency of clinging is also consistent with the First Noble Truth, ie dukkha being the occurence of clinging among the generality phenomenon 'the aggregates'. Dukkha as clinging cannot be identical with one set of the aggregates because then dukkha would exist in one moment and cease to exist in the next moment and then arise again in the next moment etc etc. Why? Because aggregates are not permanent and change from moment to moment.
If clinging would be inherent in one set of aggregates this set of aggregates would have to be non-momentary and cessation of dukkha could only happen at death.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Ron-the-Elder on June 25, 2017, 07:38:14 am
Quote
VR:  "So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas"

From the Pali - English Dictionary:

The meaning highlighted in "red" seems to make the most sense to me.

Quote
Satta
Satta1 [pp. of sañj: sajjati] hanging, clinging or attached to Vin i.185; D ii.246; Nd1 23, 24; Dh 342; J i.376. Cp. āsatta1 & byāsatta.

Satta
Satta2 [cp, Vedic sattva living being, satvan "strong man, warrior," fr. sant] 1. (m.) a living being, creature, a sentient & rational being, a person D i.17, 34, 53, 82; ii.68; A i.35 sq., 55 sq.; S i.135; v.41; Vin i.5; Miln 273; Vism 310 (defn: "rūp'ādisu khandhesu chandarāgena sattā visattā ti sattā," thus=satta1); Nett 161; DA i.51, 161; VbhA 144. -- naraka˚ a being in purgatory (cp. niraya˚) Vism 500. -- 2. (nt.) soul (=jīvita or viññāṇa) Pv i.81 (gata˚=vigata -- jīvita PvA 40). <-> 3. (nt.) substance Vin i.287. nissatta non -- substantial, phenomenal DhsA 38.
   -- āvāsa abode of sentient beings (see nava1 2) D iii.263, 268; A v.53; Vism 552; VbhA 168. -- ussada (see ussada 4) teeming with life, full of people D i.87, 111, 131. -- loka the world of living creatures SnA 263, 442; Vism 205. See also sankhāra -- loka. -- vaṇijjā slave trade DA i.235=A iii.208 (C.: manussa -- vikkaya).

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 25, 2017, 01:54:58 pm
The clinging aggregates are called that because clinging is an inherent feature of them. 


They are called "clinging aggregates" by Thanissaro.

Upadana appears to be an adjective and not a verb: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.0.pali.1789506 (http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/contextualize.pl?p.0.pali.1789506)

The proper translation is "aggregates subject to clinging" or "clung to aggregates".

SN 22.1 shows aggregates subject to clinging and aggregates not subject to clinging.

With attachment
Quote
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

Without attachment
Quote
He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 25, 2017, 01:58:59 pm
Quote
VR:  "So what do we think the word "a being" ("satta") means here, according to these suttas"

From the Pali - English Dictionary:

The meaning highlighted in "red" seems to make the most sense to me.

Quote
Satta
Satta1 [pp. of sañj: sajjati] hanging, clinging or attached to Vin i.185; D ii.246; Nd1 23, 24; Dh 342; J i.376. Cp. āsatta1 & byāsatta.

Satta
Satta2 [cp, Vedic sattva living being, satvan "strong man, warrior," fr. sant] 1. (m.) a living being, creature, a sentient & rational being, a person D i.17, 34, 53, 82; ii.68; A i.35 sq., 55 sq.; S i.135; v.41; Vin i.5; Miln 273; Vism 310 (defn: "rūp'ādisu khandhesu chandarāgena sattā visattā ti sattā," thus=satta1); Nett 161; DA i.51, 161; VbhA 144. -- naraka˚ a being in purgatory (cp. niraya˚) Vism 500. -- 2. (nt.) soul (=jīvita or viññāṇa) Pv i.81 (gata˚=vigata -- jīvita PvA 40). <-> 3. (nt.) substance Vin i.287. nissatta non -- substantial, phenomenal DhsA 38.
   -- āvāsa abode of sentient beings (see nava1 2) D iii.263, 268; A v.53; Vism 552; VbhA 168. -- ussada (see ussada 4) teeming with life, full of people D i.87, 111, 131. -- loka the world of living creatures SnA 263, 442; Vism 205. See also sankhāra -- loka. -- vaṇijjā slave trade DA i.235=A iii.208 (C.: manussa -- vikkaya).

No Ron.

The Buddha defined 'satto' in SN 23.2, as I highlighted in red.

SN 5.10 literally states 'satta' is a 'view'.

Regards  :dharma:

Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 25, 2017, 02:11:20 pm
The clinging aggregates are called that because clinging is an inherent feature of them. 

"Clinging" is a verb (a doing word). If so, the Pali would be 'upādiyati', as follows:

Quote
paṭi­nissag­gā­nu­passī viharanto na kiñci loke upādiyati. Anupādiyaṃ na paritassati, aparitassaṃ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati:

Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling , he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.

As I posted before, 'upadana' appears to be an adjective (descriptive word), which is spelt in Pali the same as a noun; thus the Pali is 'upadana'.

Why don't you start a discussion about this for us on DW.

 :dharma:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Ron-the-Elder on June 26, 2017, 07:08:56 am
Quote
VR:  "No Ron.

The Buddha defined 'satto' in SN 23.2, as I highlighted in red.

SN 5.10 literally states 'satta' is a 'view'.

Regards  :dharma:"

If you say so.  Not sure why you would ask a question and then disagree with people's responses, without even acknowledging their effort to assist.  If you have already made up your mind, then why ask? :shrug:  :scratch:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 26, 2017, 01:27:06 pm
There is the case, where a monk sits on a rock and contemplates; by five-sense-faculties of perception, clings to the form aggregate by the arising of discernment that "this is a rock.". He clings to the form of a rock; being a rock.

There is the case, where the same monk contemplates; closing his eyes, clinging to sensation he discerns "this might, but not necessarily; be a rock.".

There is the case, where the same monk wanders off and contemplates; clinging to mental formation I discern the previous object as being a rock.

Further contemplating; if by clinging to object by form one discerns form to be rock; if by clinging to object by sensation one discerns sensation to be rock; if by clinging to object by perception one discerns perception to be rock; if by mental formation one discerns formation to be rock: Then rock can only be rock if one clings to the discernment that the object is a rock.

Then the monk further contemplates; by conscious activity, by conscious discernment, the rock comes into becoming a rock by clinging to the aggregate of consciousness.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on June 26, 2017, 03:01:35 pm
Not sure why you would ask a question and then disagree with people's responses, without even acknowledging their effort to assist.  If you have already made up your mind, then why ask? :shrug:  :scratch:

Why?

Either I have a "guru mania" :teehee: or I want to straighten out the wrong views of Haanze.  :teehee:
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 26, 2017, 10:34:34 pm
Not sure why you would ask a question and then disagree with people's responses, without even acknowledging their effort to assist.  If you have already made up your mind, then why ask? :shrug:  :scratch:

Why?

Either I have a "guru mania" :teehee: or I want to straighten out the wrong views of Haanze.  :teehee:

Now this is difficult, I was at a local Sangha and did visualization-meditation, Medicine Buddha recitation and Samatha meditation which took about 4 hours. Then I come home, take some I felt to be necessary medication and wrote the above. All while feeling like a purified Intellect in the emptiness between happiness and sadness.

Perhaps attachments to pre-existing conditioning of mania is still present. Interesting.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: ground on June 26, 2017, 10:49:42 pm
Solodris, your posting is off topic.
Title: Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
Post by: Solodris on June 26, 2017, 10:52:05 pm
Apologies.  :smack:
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal