Hi. SN 47.42 revolves around the words samudaya & atthaṅgama. These two words are most clearly used in SN 22.5:
And what is the origin of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?
Ko ca, bhikkhave, rūpassa samudayo, ko vedanāya samudayo, ko saññāya samudayo, ko saṅkhārānaṁ samudayo, ko viññāṇassa samudayo?
It’s when a mendicant approves, welcomes, and keeps clinging.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya tiṭṭhati.
And what is the ending of form, feeling,
Ko ca, bhikkhave, rūpassa atthaṅgamo, ko vedanāya …
ko saññāya …
ko saṅkhārānaṁ …
ko viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo?
It’s when a mendicant doesn’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging.
Idha, bhikkhave, nābhinandati nābhivadati nājjhosāya tiṭṭhati.
Stock phrases in many suttas, such as MN 38, say the four nutrients originate (samudaya) from craving. Therefore, the following verse from SN 47.42 seems obviously inherently unwholesome:
And what is the origin of the body?
Ko ca, bhikkhave, kāyassa samudayo?
The body originates from food.
Āhārasamudayā kāyassa samudayo;
Since SN 22.5 says samudaya is “when a mendicant approves, welcomes and keeps clinging”, it seems the body originates from food (nutriment) when a mendicant keeps clinging to food.
To the contrary, when a mendicant stops clinging to food, the body “settles down” (“atthaṅgamo”).
Similarly, when there is welcoming &/or clinging towards contact & namarupa, various feelings & unwholesome states of citta (such as greed, hatred & delusion) will arise.
Based on the above, which Thanissaro also concludes in his 2nd footnote, the “attention” referred to must be inappropriate attention.
Therefore the opening phrase in SN 47.42, if taken literally (rather than coming to the conclusions about “objects” both Bodhi & Thanissaro claimed were “obvious” despite such later-day ideas not existing during the Buddha’s time) seems to be saying: “What happens when Satipatthana practise goes wrong; and what happens when Satipatthana practise goes right?”
Note: SN 22.5 uses the word “ajjhosāya” as follows:
approves, welcomes, and keeps clinging.
abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosāya
doesn’t approve, welcome, or keep clinging.
nābhinandati nābhivadati nājjhosāya .
Note: Satipatthana uses the word “abhijjhā” as follows:
keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and aversion for the world.
ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
Are these two words related?
hanging on, cleaving to, being bent on,
cp. Sk. adhyavasita, from adhi + ava + sā ;
grasps, clings to; relishes
adhi + ava + sayati, sā , to bind, pp. sita
- longing for; covetousness
fr. abhi + dhyā (jhāyati1), cp. Sk. abhidhyāna
No. These two words do not seem related.
However, I disagree with the Opening Post, Bodhi & Thanissaro. Contrary to the Opening Post, Bodhi & Thanissaro: 1. satipaṭṭhānānaṃ atthaṅgama seems something positive (wholesome/skillful) and 2. satipaṭṭhānānaṃ samudaya seems something negative (unwholesome/unskillful).
My personal interim view, at this time, is MN 10, DN 22, SN 47.42, AN 8.53 & AN 10.58 are a late genre of suttas; not spoken by the Buddha. They all use the word ‘samudaya’ in a way that is not inherently unwholesome, which seems contrary to the bulk of the suttas.
AN 8.53 & AN 10.58 say strange things such as “freedom is their core; they culminate in the deathless”. If this is true then this can only apply to wholesome dhammas. If this is true then it seems ‘samudaya’ in AN 10.58 cannot apply to wholesome dhammas. For example, SN 45.57–62 uses the word “uppāda” for the “arising” of the Noble Path.
My basic (inconclusive) impression is samudaya and sambhava are more or less synonymous; because I have mostly read them in unwholesome contexts. AN 10.105, which is about Right Knowledge, interestingly uses the word “pahoti” for how right view gives rise to right intention, etc, and how wrong view gives rise to wrong intentions. But in AN 10.106 and the suttas following it, the word “sambhavanti” is used for how exclusively wrong dhammas give rise to other wrong dhammas. Similarly, and rarely discussed, causing confusion for at least one famous Oxford scholar, at the start of MN 38, which is about samsara, the Buddha refers to the “sambhava” of consciousness that can only be “dependently originated”, which then most readers & scholars immediately & probably erroneously correlate with the next discussion about the six-fold “uppajjati” of consciousness. My personal view is the “sambhava” of consciousness in the 1st part of MN 38 does not mean the “uppajjati” of consciousness in the 2nd part of MN 38. The 1st part is about how the “sabhava” of consciousness contributes to samsara and the 2nd part is simply about how consciousness up-rises due to the sense bases. In general, I have read “sabhava” used so many times for the production of unwholesome dhammas.
Note: I would be happy to read suttas that refer to the “sambhava” of wholesome Path factors but so far I have not read any, apart from AN 8.53 and AN 10.58.