Author Topic: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?  (Read 899 times)

Offline Spiny Norman

  • Member
  • Posts: 5087
  • Cool baby yeah!
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #45 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?

« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 03:50:59 am by Spiny Norman »

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2123
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #46 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."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html


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.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 04:55:23 am by ground »

Offline Ron-the-Elder

  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May all beings live rightly and harmoniously.
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #47 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).

« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 07:41:39 am by Ron-the-Elder »
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #48 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

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.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 02:23:34 pm by VisuddhiRaptor »

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #49 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:

« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 02:01:27 pm by VisuddhiRaptor »

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #50 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:
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 02:24:25 pm by VisuddhiRaptor »

Offline Ron-the-Elder

  • Member
  • Posts: 4485
  • May all beings live rightly and harmoniously.
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #51 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:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

Offline Solodris

  • Member
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #52 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.

Offline VisuddhiRaptor

  • Member
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #53 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:

Offline Solodris

  • Member
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #54 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.

Offline ground

  • Member
  • Posts: 2123
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #55 on: June 26, 2017, 10:49:42 pm »
Solodris, your posting is off topic.

Offline Solodris

  • Member
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: SN 23.2: What exactly is "a being" ("satta")?
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2017, 10:52:05 pm »
Apologies.  :smack:

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal