-1

The Abhidhamma acknowledges the Suttas define 'birth' ('jati') as follows:

  1. The Section Derived from the Discourses

1.11. Definition of Birth PTS cs 235 Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’

For the various beings (sattanam) in the various classes of beings (sattanikaye) (there is) birth, being born, appearing, arising, turning up, the manifestation of the constituents (of mind and bodily form), the acquisition of the sense spheres.

Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? 17.2Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho— 17.3ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti”.

https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs235

However, the Abhidhamma says it defines 'birth' ('jati') as follows:

  1. The Section Derived from the Abstract Teaching

Herein, what is ‘with continuation as condition: birth?’

That which for various things (dhammam) is birth, being born, return, turning up, manifestation: this is said to be ‘with continuation as condition: birth’.

Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ dhammānaṁ jāti sañjāti nibbatti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo— ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti”

https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs281

Are there any Suttas referring to the "jati" of "things" rather than the "jati" of "beings" in relation to dependent origination?

1
  • Not sure why this was downvoted, seems like a nice inquisitive question.
    – Andrei Volkov
    Jul 24 at 11:40
1

The formula of SN 26 is:

“Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of X is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death.

The cessation of X is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.”

If you read the whole of SN 26 (Uppada-samyutta), X refers to eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts, different types of consciousness, different types of contacts, different types of feelings, different types of perceptions, different types of intentions, different types of cravings, the six elements and the five aggregates.

This is just restating "sabbe sankhara dukkha" (Dhammapada 278) or "all conditioned things are suffering" in a longer and more elaborate way, where X = sankhara.

All these conditioned things arise (uppāda), continue (ṭhiti) and reborn (abhinibbatti).

The fact that they arise (uppāda), continue (ṭhiti) and are reborn (abhinibbatti), would be summarized as their manifestation (pātubhāvo).

Perhaps the Abhidhamma uses birth (jāti) as a synonym for arising (uppāda) in the context of things (dhammam).

2
  • sorry but the sutta does not include the word "rebirth". abhinibbatti does not mean 'rebirth'. how can the eye be reborn? the suttas say a person is reborn due to kamma. i marked this answer down. Jul 22 at 9:29
  • 1
    This is a perfectly fine answer. You insist that eyes can't be reborn, but views can? If 'birth' isn't referring to physical birth from a womb, then in what sense can 'eyes' not be born, but views can? One can quickly do a search and find many instances where you yourself have used the english word 'rebirth' to refer to pali word in sutta on this site. Jul 22 at 20:21
1

It's wrong translation.

  1. "tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ" is chatthi-vibhatti (of), not catutthi-vibhatti (for). So, it is "Yā (jāti) tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ (of the various beings)", it is not "Yā (jāti) tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ (for the various beings)". It's like "your birth" is not "for birth".

  2. The subject of the sentence is "Yā ... jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho". The subject is not satta. It means the Buddha is focusing on describing dhamma (things which assembled then called Satta) in this sentence as same as in AbhidhammaNaya.

  3. The Subjective Complement of "Yā" is "tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye". It means Yā-jāti-...-yā-āyatanānaṁ-paṭilābho of (what is called) satta who living surrounded by sattanikāya.

So the whole sentence in SuttantaNaya is the same in AbhidhammaNaya as...

What is the thing of the various beings (sattanam) who living surrounded by sattanikāya is called "bhavapaccayā jāti"? The thing is called "birth thing, being born thing, appearing thing, arising thing, turning up thing, the manifestation of the constituents thing (of mind and bodily form), the acquisition of the sense spheres thing" is what is called "bhavapaccayā jāti".

Tattha katamā bhavapaccayā jāti? 17.2Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti, khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo, āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho— 17.3ayaṁ vuccati “bhavapaccayā jāti”.

But because "tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye" is not the subject of the question because the question is about the thing. It is the question inside the dependent origination and suffering noble truth for the right view of eight noble path. It must be only thing, not Satta. So, "tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye" is not included in the question part, but it is The Subjective Complement of the answer part ot show "Satto is unreal. It is only thing arising and vanishing".

Are there any Suttas referring to the "jati" of "things" rather than the "jati" of "beings" in relation to dependent origination?

There are uncountable Suttas. For the example:

kenāyaṃ pakato satto kvaci 1- sattassa kārako

kvaci 2- satto samuppanno kvaci 3- satto nirujjhatīti.

...

kiṃ nu sattoti pacceti 4- māra diṭṭhigataṃ nu te

suddhasaṅkhārapuñjo yaṃ nayidha sattupalabbhati

yathā hi aṅgasambhārā hoti saddo ratho iti

evaṃ khandhesu santesu hoti sattoti sammati 5-

By whom has this being been created?

Where is the maker of the being?

Where has the being arisen?

Where does the being cease?

Why now do you assume 'a being'?

Mara, have you grasped a view?

...

This is a heap of sheer constructions:

Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,

The word 'chariot' is used,

So, when the aggregates are present,

There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,

Suffering that stands and falls away.

Nothing but suffering comes to be,

Nothing but suffering ceases.

Life is easy if we open our view to learn.

5
  • yes, we know the sutta is in 'genitive' case, meaning 'their birth, the manifestation of their aggregates, the acquisition of their sense objects'. this is irrelevant to the question and unnecessary for the answer Jul 22 at 9:13
  • no, the subject in sutta is satta. what is born in the birth is satta. the Buddha never said "things assembled are satta". the Buddha said satta is attachment (SN 23.2) and self-view arising (SN 5.10). Jul 22 at 9:17
  • Why you often distort everything? I never said "Buddha spoke Abidhamma", I usaully said like the commentary whether "Abhidhamma is Sariputta's literature". Bias is bias, whoever spoke Abhidhamma is nothing if Abhidhamma is advantage for wholesome meditation. Sutta is nothing if it is for craving clinging addict to fight to offense to argue.
    – Bonn
    Jul 22 at 9:48
  • A sentient being is 5 aggregates which a being is spoken of, not attachment or self-view in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 “Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of. When you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for feeling … perception … choices … consciousness, then a being is spoken of.
    – Bonn
    Jul 22 at 9:56
  • no. attachment to only one aggregate is a being. read the sutta Jul 22 at 10:00
0

Yes, even all Dhanmas, things:

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā Manasā ce paduṭṭhena bhāsati vā karoti vā Tato naṃ dukkhamanveti cakkaṃ'va vahato padaṃ.

Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā manoseṭṭhā manomayā Manasā ce pasannena bhāsati vā karoti vā Tato naṃ sukhamanveti chāyā'va anapāyinī.

See also deedmade body.

5
  • I think the OP is especially interested in the word jati -- he thinks it's used in the context of "birth of a being" and refers to "arising of a self-view" or something like that -- and so is surprised to see it being used also to refer to the "birth" of things, and asks whether it's ever used that way in the suttas.
    – ChrisW
    Jul 24 at 3:18
  • OPs have no interests, good householder, but good householders particulary jati here (taking a stand, view, inbetween) is understandable, has a cause. It's possible to understand the all, if in good association, not if not.
    – user21528
    Jul 24 at 4:54
  • It's clear from the nidana descriptions in SN12.2 that birth, ageing and death refer to "physical" events and processes, and not merely to views.
    – WillyWonka
    Jul 25 at 11:59
  • Saying that a being or a chariot is a view doesn't mean these things don't exist, it means they are made of parts. So to say that jati is arising of self-view is wrong view.
    – WillyWonka
    Jul 25 at 12:10
  • Two extrems does the Sublime Buddha avoid, abstains, not encourage to get caught on either: existing, non-existing, be or non-be. To argue whether thing exist or not, good householder, such goes straight toward animal talk. This path, this release and knowledge, is open for those who do it, not for those who don't. No way to gain it clinging first of all on raw house, stand, not willing to leave.
    – user21528
    Jul 25 at 21:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.