This thread had to be split from the original one because it was completely highjacked and sidetracked by two posters. In the future if you want to battle it out with just one poster, please use PMs to each other or make a new thread.
3 Likes
Thank you for creating a new thread. I apologize for the hijacking and will strive to remember your advice to either PM or create a new thread in the future. @Notez when I feel well enough I’ll attempt to answer your questions in a PM so as not to bother others any further. 
1 Like
Is the referent for this state of affairs something that holds up under deep and penetrative analysis?
In other words, does a referent that holds up under deep and penetrative analysis has yet to be found hold up under deep and penetrative analysis? If not, then why say so?
This actually seems quite similar to a question that has been troubling me for some time. I don’t yet have any answers, but I’ve been analyzing. My guess is that it actually doesn’t. If you want, we can chat about it and I’ll try and explain more in a PM.
As for why I said so, it is because I was asked sincerely. I didn’t see any reason to withhold.
All this verbose discussion as to whether saccato thetato might have a referent is quite mystifying and seems to be based on a completely false footing.
The only parts of speech that can have a referent (real or fictitious) are nouns, nominal phrases, pronouns and pronominal phrases. But saccato and thetato are none of these things.
Sacca and theta are adjectives, meaning “true” and “sure” respectively. Adding -to to them is like adding -ly to an English adjective. Its effect is to change them into adverbs, meaning “truly” and “surely”.
The function of an adverb is not to refer to a thing but to supply additional information about a verb or an adjective (in the case of saccato thetato it would be the verb upalabbhati). And so to enquire of an adverb, “Does it have a referent?” is to make a category mistake. It’s as nonsensical as asking, “Do hexagons have a sweet or salty taste?” or “Are clouds bachelors?”
To reply that saccato thetato does have a referent would be false.
To reply that it doesn’t have a referent, though not false, would be infelicitous, for one would thereby be conceding the legitimacy of the question. One’s reply would imply that there may be other adverbs that do have referents, when in fact, and by definition, there are none that do.
2 Likes
I think the verbose debate - which has now moved to private discussion so as not to bother others - is about whether any proper referent which is properly labeled (nouns, nominal phrases, pronouns, prominal phrases) can survive penetrative analysis and thereby be worthy of having the adjectives saccato and thetato attached to it. At least that is what the overwrought debate is about to my mind. I haven’t found any yet that can so survive. @Notez claims otherwise and gives ‘sensory impression’ as described in SN 36.10 as an example that survives analysis.
Greetings Bhante!
I wasn’t aware of the literal pali and was talking about nouns.
The discussion is quite long because it took a long time to work out where exactly our thinking diverged and how to talk about it.
It was not my intention for this private conversation to be posted here nor was I aware that it would be. I’m now done with this thread in public and private.
Namo Buddhaya!
When asked what is the referent of the term ‘the seen’ a person might want to say
'The referent of the word ‘the seen’ depends on what is seen, whether one sees ‘a dog’ or a ‘chariot’ matters, if a dog is seen then the referent is ‘a dog’, if chariot is seen then the referent is ‘chariot’.
However one should let the seen just be the seen
Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized.
Bāhiya Sutta: Bāhiya
The question ‘What is seen?’ doesn’t apply as we are concerned with the seen sensory impression rather than what is made of it.
"There are, O monks, these three feelings, rooted in sense-impression, caused by sense-impression, conditioned by sense-impression: pleasant, painful and neutral feelings.
Dependent on a sense-impression that is liable to be felt as pleasurable, there arises a pleasant feeling.
Phassamulaka Sutta: Rooted in Sense-impression
The terms denoting the conjoined aggregates are semantically rooted in sensory impression, are derived from sensory impression, and are not apart from it.
In regards to the words ‘feeling’, ‘perception’, & ‘consciousness’
These words are conjoined not disjoined so the referent would be the same
“Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them.” Mahavedalla Sutta: The Greater Set of Questions-and-Answers
‘The seen’ is also cognized because what one sees that one cognizes & feels. Hence consciousness is always implicated in contact from which feeling is born.
The referent doesn’t change, as that which is called sensory impression is liable to be felt, perceived & cognized.
Some person might ask
- Whether the referent of ‘sensory impression’ can be established as true & real when analyzed as is done in Anuradha sutta?
- Is it appropriate to simply assert that a referent is a truth and attach the adjectives ‘saccato’ or ‘thetato’?
- In regards to not being able to establish the referent of Taghagata as saccato thetato (as is done in Anuradha sutta) is it then appropriate to conclude that the referent ‘doesn’t exist’?
#1 the referent of the term ‘sensory impression’ is not something that needs to be established by that analysis because the referent of sensory impression is a requisite for there to be any kind of analysis & talk of analysis. This is exactly why the aggregates are being cross referenced in that text.
#2 The referent of ‘sensory impression’ is not a word, therefore no adjective can be attached to it. One can however attach the adjective to the noun ‘sensory impression’ which is a word representing the referent.
#3 I would not want to answer because the question is based on a misreading of the Anuradha sutta. To say ‘Tathagata cannot be pinned down as true & real’ and to say ‘the referent of the word ‘Tathagata’ cannot be pinned down as true & real’, these are two very different propositions. As it stands the question is wrongly worded because the text is not about the referent of the word Taghagata.