What is a Being? Are we a Being?

[Green]

@Sunyo

I think it can become problematic when such playful definitions are taken as the highest expression of the dhamma, and taken to redefine every instance of the word ‘satta’ in the suttas. The Buddha used the term ‘being’ in a conventional way most of the time. This sutta is the exception to that.

Hi,

In very short, i believe, EBTs informs us that being a being is as a mental impression a result of conceiving the khandha’s to be Me and mine or my self. As such it is an addition and conditionally arises. It is a colouring of our understanding. It arises from activating anusaya. It leads to delusion.

I believe the Buddha represents this understanding that being a being is as very powerful impression something that arises always momentary. It is a very subtle and strong addition. It colours the understanding in a way that it will lead to suffering. It is not part of direct knowledge but of conceiving and conventional understanding of oneself and others.

[Clarity]

@Sunyo

It is of note that this question and answer relies on a play of words, and is not a hard definition of the word ‘sentient being’.

The word is satta, which has two meanings: being (as a noun) and stuck (as a past participle). A valid translation of the question could also be along the lines of: “They speak of ‘stuck’. To what extent is one ‘stuck’ (satta)?”

I think it can become problematic when such playful definitions are taken as the highest expression of the dhamma, and taken to redefine every instance of the word ‘satta’ in the suttas. The Buddha used the term ‘being’ in a conventional way most of the time. This sutta is the exception to that.

I understand you are saying from the note #244 of Ven. Bodhi’s translation of the Sattasutta SN 23.2

However, can we apply the same “pun” as an explanation for the immediately previous sutta SN 23.1 Mārasutta and immediately after sutta SN 23.3 Bhavanettisutta? In other words, can we see in Mārasutta the ‘Māro, māro’ti as any past participle or any “pun”? Or, can we see in Bhavanettisutta the ‘bhavanettinirodho, bhavanettinirodho’ti as any past participle or any “pun”?

I don’t say that such “pun” hypothesis is totally unfounded but it’s not very well convincing when putting in the context of the whole series SN 23.1 to - SN 23.3. Anyway, I am not a Pāḷi expert so maybe there are really some past participles that served as “pun” for those words.

(Ven. Bodhi has also put note #240 and #246, I am not too sure these notes can be interpreted as “pun”. But as I said, such “pun” hypothesis is not very convincing.)

@Sunyo

For example, in SN35.66 a different definition is found, one without a pun, where ‘a being’ is defined very similarly as ‘the world’ in the other text quoted in this topic, namely as the six senses.

In my opinion, it’s too dangerous when reducing what the Buddha said in the whole series SN 35.65 to SN 35.68 as “the six senses”. Instead, the Buddha explicitly said “eye, sights, eye consciousness, and phenomena to be known by eye consciousness, etc.” not just “six senses”

I understand that you must have in mind a broader context for your above statement. I am just noting here that it can be very hard for uninformed people like me to distinguish with later appeared Yogācāra, or modernly appeared Solipsism, or just Idealism, or ideas like “we are actually living in a dream or a simulation machine, all are just illusion/mere concepts/mind made reality” which can entail unwholesome consequences such as interaction with other people as just NPC (Non-playable character), or extreme statements like “no intrinsic meaning in anything”/“No person has ever seen a tree. Impossible”

[Clarity]

@Nickelii

What is the Pali word in the relevant sutta SN 23.2 for the translation of “sentient”?

In SN 23.2, we have the following phrase: ‘satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī”ti?

I am not a Pāḷi expert. The following is from dictionary:

The word “satto” can be interpreted in grammar as either 1) a noun in masculine nominative singular or 2) a declension in masculine nominative singular of a past participle. Both (1) and (2) for the word “satta”.

The word “satta” by itself have a few meanings: 1) noun: being, living being, creature 2) noun: bright principal 3) past participle of sajjati: clung to, stuck to, attached to 4) past participle (maybe of sapati): sworn, cursed

So, the word “sentient” is not there. Ven. Bodhi or Ven. Ṭhānissaro only translated as “being” instead of “sentient being”. There might be the case that beings without perception or feeling (appaṭisaṁvedino) in the non-percipient realm (devā asaññasattā in AN 9.24) which was still translated as “sentient beings” instead of just “being” but I am not too focus on that aspect.

[stephen]

These sorts of puns, or ‘playful meanings’ are fairly common in both the suttas and commentaries.

[Green]

What makes you ‘a being’?

Why do we spreak of ‘a being’ when there is no coarse nor fine body?

[Sunyo]

@Clarity

I don’t say that such “pun” hypothesis is totally unfounded but it’s not very well convincing when putting in the context of the whole series SN 23.1 to - SN 23.3.

Hiya

Well, these are different suttas, with a different context. The simple fact that they are sequential and start with similar questions says very little about how to interpret them.

Either way, the pun is explicit in the sutta whereas the other two suttas you mention don’t have an explicit pun. In Ven. Sujato’s translation:

Rādha, when you cling (satta), strongly cling (visatta), to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being (satta) is spoken of.

@Clarity

Instead, the Buddha explicitly said “eye, sights, eye consciousness, and phenomena to be known by eye consciousness, etc.” not just “six senses”

Agreed. I just find abbreviations like “the six sense bases” meaningless English and tried to summarize it in another way with the understanding that people can read the sutta for themselves. I didn’t have any further philosophy behind it.

[stephen]

It’s a very clever pun that’s impossible to render into English.
I’ve wondered if these types of word play were meant to be a bit humorous, or rather just a learned type of exposition, a type of niruktiḥ.

(Maybe a bit like, if you are to ‘be in’ samsara, you’re a be-in-g !)

[Green]

@Sunyo

I think it can become problematic when such playful definitions are taken as the highest expression of the dhamma, and taken to redefine every instance of the word ‘satta’ in the suttas. The Buddha used the term ‘being’ in a conventional way most of the time. This sutta is the exception to that.

I think in essence the teachings are: All is what it is: Rupa is just rupa, Vedana is just Vedana. Sankhara is just sankhara. Sanna is just Sanna. Vinnana is just Vinnana, Nibbana is just Nibbana. Any other understanding or knowledge of it is distorted, deluded and will always be a kind of conceiving.

Delusional understanding is very normal teaches Buddha, i believe. Because seldomly, almost never, we understand things as they are. This is due to additions which arise from our disposition.
Our understanding becomes defiled with longstanding habits to see things as me, mine, my self, ugly, nice, attractive, repulsive, an escape, something that will make us happy etc. Almost all the time there is some judgement and attitude arising towards what is sensed, and at that moment there is much more then only sensing. That is not really pure. I feel that it can be understood immeditiately that any attitude or judgement is not a pure kind of understanding.

I think many people will easily understand that judgements like nice, attractive, ugly are not really characteristics of what is sensed, it is subjective. But that it is possible to sense and be without me and mine making is, i think, not easy to believe, let alone, to realise.

Thinking about oneself as a being is, ofcourse, conventional, like thinking about body and vinnana as me, but this does not mean that this is some ultimate or fixed Truth about oneself or an enlightend perspective.

In buddhism, also EBTs, always the difference between this conventional understanding and the understanding of the purified mind is always somehow assumed to be made and known by the readers, i believe, just like there is a mundane Path and supra mundane Path. The Buddha represents the ultimate understanding but often expressed himself in conventional ways. Sometimes, i feel, we get a glimpse of his deeper understanding such as in SN23.2

[Green]

To give some more context:

I never ever said that i support wrong views like: there is no meaning in giving, no afterlife etc. I have never done this too. I have said earlier that i very much agree with the Buddha that mundane views shape our future. I can see this is true. They are even more important then intentions, because intention is based upon those views. Any suggestion that i support those wrong views is inappropriate.

When i have said there is no intrinsic meaning in anything, i have explained what i meant:

@Green

Especially meanings like me, mine, my self projected upon what is sensed, burden the mind. But also, things are not an sich ugly, beautiful, nice, repulsive, attractive. Such meaning also come from within and are not some inherent characteristics of something of someone.

I also said

@Green

There is a moment that what is felt, sensed, experienced has no meaning yet, no sign. No sign of me, ugliness, not me, beauty etc.

Also this way i explained what i meant. Is this pure danger of me? Dangerous views?

That one cannot see a tree refers to the issue of what eye-vinnana can cognize? I have learned it can cognise only colour, shape but not concepts. Concepts can only be cognised by mind-vinnana or mental vinnana. Therefor, one cannot see a tree.

That all is mind-made for me does not mean there are no external things or there is only me and my perceptions. I do not like that at all. For me it means that i cannot really denie that all i perceive and know is a mind-made reality. I cannot see this apart from mind. The colours, shapes, smells, tactile sensations, feeling, emotions, thoughts, plan, how i understand things etc. Even the colours i see are mind-made. It is an interpretation.

I do not believe that in the cognitive process all is created. I believe there are material structures out there. I once talked to a bhikkhu who has passed away now, who was very convinced that Buddha taught that there are no material structures too, and those who are there, are there because they are being observed by other beings. I find this hard to believe but i am not sure.