Hearing sounds in samādhi, jhāna

[silence]

@Sylvester

I never said that there’s a person with no clinging who’s not an arahant.

You did write

@Sylvester

I’ll say that the appearance of the non-agitation bits in the above are not at all problemmatic for all of the suttas you cite. Why? None of them, as far as I can tell use the stock phrase for Arahanta “anupādāya āsavehi”. It is just anupādiyaṃ, which does not seem to be identified with Arahanta.

Do I need to remind you that the quote from DN 15 in response to which you formulated the above reads:

na ca kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ na paritassati, aparitassaṃ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati

So, if your argument had any relevance at all to this discussion, it must have been applicable to the entire formula ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ’.

In other words, for you to make any sense, you must have claimed that ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ’ ‘does not seem to be identified with Arahanta’ or else you are just blatantly playing wordy smoke and mirrors.

Which does mean that you suggest, contrarily to what you just claimed above, that there is a person that satisfies the condition ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati’ and who ‘does not seem to be identified with [an] Arahant’.

@Sylvester

I was quite explicit that “without clinging” was poorly understood by you in relation to the absolutive “having not clung”. Which led to SN 24.1 which shows the Stream Winner not having clung to the Aggregates as the reason for the absence of a certain type of clinging. If SN 24.1 is obtuse, try the following sutta.

More irrelevant smoke and mirrors. We have already discussed this. You misunderstand SN 24.1, and no, I am not going to take your bait at trying to change the subject, so I am not willing to keep discussing this.

@Sylvester

The burden rests on you to prove that anupādiyaṃ is equivalent to anupādāya āsavehi. You were the one who cited it.

Actually, what I need to prove is that ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati’ is equivalent to arahantship. Which, as I have pointed out earlier already, dependent origination does.

I take this opportunity to remind you that the burden rests on you to prove that ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ’ ‘does not seem to be identified with Arahanta’. Because I can provide ample evidence to the contrary.

@Sylvester

As for the 9th and 10th links, you’re again assuming that the adjective anupādiyaṃ predicates only an Arahant. A simple example would show that this relation also works in part for Trainees. The Non-Returner has given up clinging to kaamaa. He transcends kaamabhava forever.

You keep conveniently addressing only the word ‘anupādiyaṃ’ in the expression ‘na ca kiñci loke upādiyati, anupādiyaṃ…’. Please change your rhetoric, it’s becoming indecent.

Dependent origination states:

no clinging to anything at all in the world > no bhava at all > no birth anywhere whatsoever

which means… the person is an arahant.