Потребление алкоголя

Если нет неведения, то откуда возьмется ум и материя? Последовательность ПС: неведение -> самскары -> сознание -> нама-рупа.

СлаваА, а может быть так, что КИ Вам представляет "Активный Абсолют"?
Так называемая "Апратиштхита-нирвана", склееная из чистой (без притока аффектов") самкриты.

просто абстрактный термин

Поддержка движение

это то, чего нет в Арупье

Кстати, как и небуддийская Пракрити - явления сознания, четасики там - тоже Пракрити (ее модификации).

"небесный чертог с дэвами" - это или небеса Камалоки или Рупа-лока. Subtle matter

Нет вообще такой вещи как «материя» в буддизме.

схватываемое пятью панчендриями и отражаемое в пяти материальных виджнянах

это то, чего нет в Арупье

Или - есть. Потому что «а» - это еще и «отличное от…» Дискуссия есть в АКБ и вопрос, что имел ввиду Будда не решен.
Если это локи-общности, то как вы общность без тел и вообще без ничего определяете?

Hypothesis based on logical reasoning: material form as material sense-faculties
exists in the realm of immateriality; F 136–37
If you attribute the material sense-faculties (rūpīndriya) to the sentient beings in the realm of
immateriality, how can you say that material form (rūpa) of Ārūpya is subtle? <137>
[Opponent:] – Because their dimensions are very small (parimāṇālpatvāt); the sentient beings there
are therefore of a very slight material form (īṣadrūpa), the sentient beings there are thus “without
material form” (ārūpya).
[Reply:] – But, to reason thus, the tiny and invisible aquatic animals (of which the Vinaya speaks)
would also be “without material form.”50
[Opponent:] – The material form of Ārūpya is transparent (accha; ii, F 130).
[Reply:] – But the intermediate sentient beings and the sentient beings of the realm of fine-materiality
also possess a transparent material form.51
[Opponent:] – The material form of Ārūpya is more transparent and it alone merits the name of “nonmaterial-
form.”
[Reply:] – Then you should reserve the name of Ārūpya for the highest stage of Ārūpya, because the
bodies will be all the more transparent the more distinguished the meditative attainment of the stage to
which they belong (samāpattivad upapattiviśeṣāt).52
Furthermore, the material form of the births of the realm of fine-materiality (or of meditation
[dhyāna]) cannot be perceived by the eye of a lower stage, being too transparent. How does this
material form differ from the material form that you attribute to the Ārūpya?
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by Vasubandhu – Chapter Eight: Exposition of the Meditative Attainments
8
[Opponent:] – The name of the first two realms (dhātu) corresponds to its object (anvarthasaṃjñā),53
but that it is not the same with the name of Ārūpya.
[Reply:] – That is an unwarranted affirmation here.
Hypothesis based on scriptural authority: material form exists in the realm of
immateriality because of four arguments from scripture; F 137–40
[Opponent:] – We maintain that material form (rūpa) exists in Ārūpya based on four arguments [from
scripture]:
1. it is said that life-force [āyus] and heat [ūṣman] are mingled or closely related (saṃsṛṣṭa);54
2. it is said that name (nāman; i.e., the four immaterial aggregates) and material form (rūpa) lean
on one another like two bundles of reeds;55 <138>
3. it is said that dependent on consciousness (vijñāna), name-and-form (nāmarūpa) comes into
being;56
4. it is said that consciousness (vijñāna) does not come and go independently of material form
(rūpa), sensation [vedanā], ideation [saṃjñā], formations (saṃskāra).57
[Reply:] – These texts [4 a] are not decisive, for there is reason to interpret them (saṃpradhāryatvāt):
1. The Sūtra says that the life-force (āyus) is associated with heat [ūṣman], which is material
form (rūpa): but does this refer to any type of life-force or just to the life-force of the sphere
of desire?58
2. The Sūtra says that name (nāman) and material form (rūpa) lean on one another: but does this
refer to all realms or just to the realm of desire and the realm of fine-materiality? <139>
3. The Sūtra says: “dependent on consciousness, name-and-form comes into being”
(vijñānapratyayaṃ nāmarūpam):59 but does this text teach that any consciousness (vijñāna)—
whether it is a consciousness caused by the karma-formations (saṃskāra) of the realm of
desire or the realm of fine-materiality or a consciousness caused by the karma-formations of
the realm of immateriality (i.e., a consciousness caused by actions ripened by an existence of
the realm of desire…)—comes into being dependent on name-and-form (nāmarūpa)? Rather,
it teaches that any name-and-form is dependent on consciousness.60
4. The Sūtra denies that consciousness (vijñāna) comes (āgati) or goes (gati) independently of
the four stations of consciousness (vijñānasthiti; iii. 7), i.e., independently of material form
(rūpa), sensation (vedanā), ideation (saṃjñā), and formations (saṃskāra): but should the
Sūtra be understood to mean: “independent of all these stations (sthiti) together”?
[Opponent:] – Since, [in these cases,] the Sūtra expresses itself without making a special distinction
(aviśeṣavacanāt), we should not interpret it (na saṃpradhāryam etat), we do not have the right to
think that it considers the realm of desire, etc.
[Reply:] – This does not hold; for to take the Sūtra literally would lead to absurd consequences:
1. the life-force would necessarily accompany heat, even if the latter were external heat;
2. external material form (rūpa) would depend on name (nāman);61
3. external material form would be dependent on consciousness;
4. there would be material food [kāvaḍīkara āhāra] in the realm of fine-materiality and the
realm of immateriality, for the Sūtra says, without making a special distinction, that there are
Chapter Eight: Exposition of the Meditative Attainments (Samāpattinirdeśa)
9
four types of sustenance (iii. 40), just as it says, without making a special distinction, that
there are four “stations of consciousness”: from this you conclude that the “station of material
form” exists in the realm of immateriality.
[Opponent:] – No, for the Sūtra, while expressing itself entirely without making a special distinction
in regard to the four sustenances, formulates exceptions to the rule:62 it speaks of a sentient being
“who surpasses the gods who nourish themselves with material food”;63 it speaks of sentient beings
“who nourish themselves with joy” (iii. 98).64 <140>
BBB.2.3.2.ab. Two arguments stating that material form does not exist in the realm of
immateriality; F 140–41
BBB.2.3.2.aba. First argument based on three scriptures; F 140–41
Very well, but does the Sūtra not also, and categorically, say that material form (rūpa) is absent in
Ārūpya? It says:
1. “Through the formless meditative attainments (ārūpya) one becomes liberated from the
material forms”;65
2. “These states of peaceful liberation, above material forms, namely, the formless
meditative attainments…”;66
3. “There are births without material form, by passing absolutely beyond the ideations of
material form”:67
but if material form would exist in the births or in the meditative attainments of Ārūpya, sentient
beings who are there would have a ideation of their material form. The Sūtra would not say that the
practitioners obtain these births and meditative attainments by passing beyond the ideations of
material form.68
[Opponent:] – In these various passages, the Sūtra intends to speak, not of material form in general,
but of coarse material form of a lower stage.
[Reply:] – In this hypothesis,
1. one should understand, in the same sense, the text relating to material food, which will then
exist—subtly—in the realm of fine-materiality and the realm of immateriality;
2. one should say that the practitioners become liberated from the material forms through the
meditations (dhyāna), and that the meditations belong to the realm of immateriality: for the
meditations are beyond the coarse material forms of the lower stage, the realm of desire;
3. one should say that, through the formless meditative attainments (ārūpya), the practitioners
become liberated from sensation (vedanā), etc.: for the formless meditative attainments are
beyond the sensation of the lower stages; and one should call them “without sensation,” etc.
The Sūtra does not express itself in this way. Thus we take it as settled that the formless meditative
attainments are beyond any material form, whatever it may be. <141>
Objection. – How can the formless meditative attainments [possibly] be the “escape” (niḥsaraṇa) from
material forms? The Fortunate One, indeed, denies that existence (bhava) can be the escape from
existence:
I say that one cannot become liberated from existence (bhava) through existence.69
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya by Vasubandhu – Chapter Eight: Exposition of the Meditative Attainments
10
[Answer:] – The Fortunate One expresses himself in this way with good reason, for, (1) on the one
hand, one cannot become liberated from a certain existence (or mode of existence [bhava]) through
this same existence, and, (2) on the other hand, through whatever existence it is, one cannot become
liberated from all existences (asarvaniḥsaraṇa), nor can one definitively become liberated from any
existence (anatyantaniḥsaraṇa).
BBB.2.3.2.abb. Second argument based on one scripture; F 141
Finally, the Fortunate One says that, in the meditations (dhyāna), there is material form (rūpa),
sensation (vedanā), ideation (saṃjñā), formations (saṃskāra), consciousness (vijñāna); that, in the
formless meditative attainments (ārūpya), there is sensation … consciousness. If there really were
material form in the formless meditative attainments, why would the Fortunate One not say [5 a] that
there is material form in them, as he does for the meditations?
Thus, as we have said:
[3c.] There is no material form in the Ārūpyas.70
From the two arguments given above, it results that there is no material form (rūpa) in the realm of
immateriality. The scholars who maintain the existence of material form in the realm of immateriality
maintain a false thesis that contradicts reason.

[Śāriputra:] O Venerable ones [āyuṣmant]! There are bhikṣus [in this world (tatra)] who,
having perfected [saṃpanna] morality [śīla], concentration [samādhi], understanding
[prajñā], are able to enter and emerge from [the cessation of ideation and sensation
[saṃjñāveditanirodha], i.e.,] the attainment of cessation, repeatedly; [it is true that] this is
possible. If they are unable to attain ājñā [i.e., the faculty of final and perfect knowledge]736
either in this present life or at the moment of death when their present body is broken up, they
will surpass the gods who eat material food [kavaḍīkāra] to be reborn in a divine body
produced by the mind (manomayakāya).737 [7 a] Having been reborn there, they will again
repeatedly enter and emerge from [the attainment of the cessation of ideation and sensation,
i.e., the attainment of cessation; [it is true that] this is possible.
This passage shows in fact that one can retrogress from the attainment of cessation
(nirodhasamāpatti). [This is so, because,] on the one hand, Lord Buddha has explained that the “divine
body produced by the mind” of which Śāriputra speaks (in this passage) is in the sphere of
fine-materiality.738 On the other hand, the attainment of cessation of ideation and sensation is located
only in bhavāgra, the highest stage of the realm of immateriality. If bhikṣus who have attained this
attainment (tāllābhin), would not retrogress from it, if they would not lose it, they would not be able to
be reborn into the realm of fine-materiality.

The Tāmraparṇīyas, the scholars of Taprobane, imagine (kalpayanti) a material sense-faculty, the
heart (hṛdayavastu), a basis of the mental consciousness. This heart exists also in the realm of
immateriality, the nonmaterial sphere: these scholars assert, in fact, the existence of matter in this
sphere (viii. 3c); they explain the prefix ā in the sense of “a little,” as in āpiṅgala, “a little red.”
The Paṭṭhāna (cited in Compendium of Philosophy, p. 278) assigns a material basis (rūpa) to the
mental consciousness, without giving to this basis the name heart, whereas it calls eye the basis of the
visual consciousness. But the later Abhidhamma (Visuddhimagga; Abhidhammasaṅgaha) considers
the heart as the sense-faculty of thought.
The teaching of the Vibhaṅga, p. 88, is less clear: “From the consciousness of the eye, ear, … body
that has just perished arises the mind, the manas, the mental faculty (mānasa = manas), the heart (=
the mind), the manas, the manas sense-faculty…” (Atthasālinī, 343).
...
This Sūtra was taught by Śāriputra: it bears the name Udāyin, because the adversary of
Śāriputra is Udāyin. – The Sanskrit edition is very close to the Pāli text. – Madhyamāgama, 5, 4 and
Aṅguttara, iii. 192.
śrāvastyāṃ nidānam | tatrāyuṣmān śāriputro bhikṣūn āmantrayate sma | ih’ āyuṣmanto bhikṣuḥ
śīlasaṃpannaś ca bhavati samādhisaṃpannaś ca prajñāsaṃpannaś ca | so ’bhīkṣṇaṃ
saṃjñāveditanirodhaṃ samāpadyate ca vyuttiṣṭhate ca | asti caitat sthānam iti yathābhūtaṃ prajānāmi
| sa nehaiva dṛṣṭa eva dharme pratipattyaivājñām ārāgayati nāpi maraṇasamaye bhedāc ca
kāyasyātikramya devān kavaḍīkārabhakṣān anyatamasmin divye manomaye kāya upapadyate | sa
tatropapanno… [WOG.164.12ff.]
Vyākhyā: pratipattyaiva = pūrvam eva.
This Sūtra is discussed viii. 3c (thesis of the existence of material form [rūpa] in the realm of
immateriality). – Compare Dīgha, i. 195; AKB viii, F 140; Siddhi, 407.

One calls it manomaya, produced by the mind or mental, because it arises independently
from the elements of generation; but this does not mean to say that it is a body produced by ideations
(saṃjñāmaya) (Dīgha, i. 195), and belonging to the realm of immateriality, as Udāyin thinks.

1. The gods with a mental body of whom the Sūtra speaks, are (i) of the realm of fine-materiality,
for the Sarvāstivādin (same opinion, Dīgha, i. 195); (ii) of the realm of fine-materiality and of the
realm of immateriality, for the Sautrāntika, (iii) the gods without ideation (Asaṃjñisattva), for Udāyin.
2. Retrogressing from the attainment of cessation, according to the Sarvāstivādin; no retrogressing,
according to the Sautrāntika and Udāyin.
But according to the Vyākhyā, the Sautrāntika admits the retrogressing from attainment; the
Sautrāntika denies, however, that the noble ones retrogress from the noble path (āryamārga) (contra
the Sarvāstivādin), from difficulties arise that the Vyākhyā resolves.
...
In his Hasting article MAHĀVASTU (p. 329), LVP comments: “[The Mahāvastu] says that [the
Buddha’s] body is manomaya, ‘mind-made.’ This expression has been discussed by E. Senart and A.
Barth (see art. BODHISATTVA). According to the Abhidharmakośa, it means, not ‘mental body,’ ‘body
formed of mind,’ but ‘body created by the mind,’ without intervention of seed and blood. Such is the
body of the creatures called aupapāduka, ‘apparitional,’ one of whose characteristics is that, on dying,
they leave no trace.”

1. Intermediate beings are called those produced by the mind (manomaya)579 (i) because they are
produced by the mental faculty (manas) alone, (ii) because they are formed (bhāvāt) without relying
(anupādāya) on any exterior element, semen, blood, flower, etc.