text:
Can Abhidhamma be reconciled with Sutta? Citta & vinnana
This question could comprise of many examples but here I will choose one and only four aspects of this one example. The Abhidhamma says:

Rūpakkhandho anārammaṇo. 530.2Cattāro khandhā sārammaṇā.
530.3Viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ. 530.4Cattāro khandhā no cittā. 530.5Tayo khandhā cetasikā. 530.6Dve khandhā acetasikā. 530.7Tayo khandhā
cittasampayuttā. 530.8Rūpakkhandho cittavippayutto.
530.9Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.10“cittena sampayutto”tipi, “cittena vippayutto”tipi. 530.11Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā.
530.12Rūpakkhandho cittavisaṁsaṭṭho. 530.13Viññāṇakkhandho na vattabbo— 530.14“cittena saṁsaṭṭho”tipi, “cittena visaṁsaṭṭho”tipi.
530.15Tayo khandhā cittasamuṭṭhānā. 530.16Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.17Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasamuṭṭhāno, siyā no
cittasamuṭṭhāno. 530.18Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno.
530.19Viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū. 530.20Rūpakkhandho siyā cittasahabhū, siyā no cittasahabhū. 530.21Tayo khandhā
cittānuparivattino. 530.22Viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti.
530.23Rūpakkhandho siyā cittānuparivatti, siyā no cittānuparivatti. 530.24Tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.25Dve khandhā no cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānā. 530.26Tayo khandhā
cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.27Dve khandhā no
cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānasahabhuno. 530.28Tayo khandhā
cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino. 530.29Dve khandhā no
cittasaṁsaṭṭhasamuṭṭhānānuparivattino.
531.1Viññāṇakkhandho ajjhattiko. 531.2Tayo khandhā bāhirā. 531.3Rūpakkhandho siyā ajjhattiko, siyā bāhiro.
The aggregate of form has no object. Four aggregates have objects. The
aggregate of consciousness is consciousness. Four aggregates are not
consciousness. Three aggregates are volitional activities. Two
aggregates are not volitional activities. Three aggregates are
associated with consciousness. The aggregate of form is not associated
with consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness should not be said
to be, associated with consciousness or not associated with
consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined with consciousness. The
aggregate of form is not conjoined with consciousness. The aggregate
of consciousness should not be said to be, conjoined with
consciousness or not conjoined with consciousness. Three aggregates
are generated by consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness is not
generated by consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes is
generated by consciousness; sometimes is not generated by
consciousness. Three aggregates are co-existent with consciousness.
The aggregate of consciousness is not co-existent with consciousness.
The aggregate of form sometimes is co-existent with consciousness;
sometimes is not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates
accompany consciousness. The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany consciousness. The aggregate of form sometimes accompanies
consciousness; sometimes does not accompany consciousness. Three
aggregates are conjoined with, generated by consciousness. Two
aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated by consciousness.
Three aggregates are conjoined with, generated by, co-existent with
consciousness. Two aggregates are not conjoined with, not generated
by, not co-existent with consciousness. Three aggregates are conjoined
with, generated by, accompany consciousness. Two aggregates are not
conjoined with, not generated by, do not accompany consciousness.
https://suttacentral.net/vb1/en/thittila

If we ignore the literal translation, the above appears to say:

Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ).

Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā).

Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū).

The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti).

Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Yes, there is support below and it's inferrable.

Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā).

"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." MN43

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. SN12

"And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications.SN22.57

"There are three fabrications, householder: bodily-fabrications, verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." SN41.6

Name, reverends, is one end. Form is the second end. Consciousness is the middle. And craving is the seamstress AN6.61

Form isn't conjoined with consciousness because form does not always accompany consciousness such as in formless perception where intellect is divorced from the five bodily sense faculties.

According to Collett Cox, Abhidhamma started as a systematic
elaboration of the teachings of the suttas, but later developed
independent doctrines.

They are however interpretations of the suttas

Although much of the Abhidharma mindset and something of its method
draw on the Āgamas/Nikāyas, i.e., the collections of sūtras (Pali,
suttas), the main body of its literature contains interpretations of
the Buddha’s discourses specific to each school of thought and
philosophical elaborations of selectively emphasized doctrinal issues.
These continued to be refined by subsequent generations of monks who
contributed to the consolidation of the two surviving Theravāda and
Sarvāstivāda schools.

There are, or at least were, many abhidharmas. So, saying that an abhidharma is inconsistent with the sutras, implies that your interpretation of the Buddha's words are correct and no-one else's is. I'm sure you know all this, and feel that the Buddha's words, as they appear in the Niakyas, are in no need of interpretation.

thanks for the up vote, whosever it is. I think the original quote says that consciousness is one thing, single and does not exist as many consciousness. I believe that's how the abh. in general analyses it (one consciousness of X then another of Y which we construct as a perception of Z). seems pretty sutta compatible to me!

Consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ).

Yes.

Three aggregates (feeling, perception and mental formations) are conjoined with citta (tayo khandhā cittasaṁsaṭṭhā).

No. Cittasaṁsaṭṭhā means arising together because it is described in the same canon "idaṃ sukhaṃ imāya pītiyā sahagataṃ hoti sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ". "sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ" in this context is called Vevacana in VevacanaHara.

Consciousness does not co-exist with citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū).

This is wrong translation. cittasahabhū is noun, but the translation translated it as verb.
"viññāṇakkhandho no cittasahabhū" means viññāṇakkhandho is not cittasahabhū (noun).
What is cittasahabhūno? It is the previous words "Tayo khandhā cittasahabhuno."
Or it can be translated like consciousness is not 3 aggregates.
3 nama khandha are cittasahabhū (arising together with citta).
The previous sentence already wrote "consciousness aggregate is citta (viññāṇakkhandho cittaṁ)", so it is impossible to translate like in the quote.

The aggregate of consciousness does not accompany citta (viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti).

This is wrong translation. cittānuparivatti is noun, but the translation translated it as verb.
"viññāṇakkhandho no cittānuparivatti" means viññāṇakkhandho is not cittānuparivatti (noun).
What is not cittānuparivattino? It is the previous words "Tayo khandhā cittānuparivattino."
Or it can be translated like consciousness is not 3 aggregates.

Are there any suttas that support the above Abhidhamma and also are there any suttas that refute the above Abhidhamma?

Ariyuppavada means blaming, distorting the noble one's words by the wrong view with wrong speech.
The comment can be with view or without. Something without view maybe like this...

Is this translation right? I think the context is conflicting each other. I don't think The Tipitaka Memorizer can confuse something very big confuse like this. As I have memorized Sutta myself, this conflict is impossible. It's like you remember your mom, then you describe everything around your mom wrong. So, I think there something wrong about the translation in gramma, right? Please help me. Thank you.

Why is it without view?
Because it is showing that the writer try to understand the cannon as it is by right view then he think about it with metta in an author first, right thinking, so he asks the question with caring about the book author's mind first, right speech, not care only what struck inside his view, DitthUpadana.
You can see my question is very taking care of the author minds. I see every real situation of the author. I remember every information of the author.
Why?
I see this text as it is, like when it is generating. How an author feeling? What's kind of his grammar? How does the tipitaka memorizer refer the words? etc. Caring is very important to prove the evident, both in worldly or dhamma situation.
This means the reality come inside my mind instead of my opinion or journeys' rumors about the author. I prove them by the raw information in the same situation, environment. I'm not just reading or addicting in some teachers.
And that's why the very simply wrong translation, very simple gramma, like this can't distort my view. It's not because I am a Pali professor, but it's because I see things as they are, I try to taking care every information around the truth to see the truth as it is, not see by the view. I read cannon as it is, no view, no opinion. Clinging in view is distort the cannon. Too much opinions waste the time to see the truth.

i marked this down because it is not an answer. it is not related to the question


text:
Abhidhamma: Is craving really the samudaya of suffering?
The Abhidhamma knowingly says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Sutta is:

Tattha katamaṁ dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ? Yāyaṁ taṇhā
ponobhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ—
kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.

Therein what is the Noble Truth of the samudaya of suffering? That craving leading to new existence, is accompanied by
passionate lust, is strong passion for this and that. For example:
craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence, craving for
non-existence.

https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila

The Abhidhamma then says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Abhidhamma is:

Tattha katamo dukkhasamudayo? Taṇhā— ayaṁ vuccati “dukkhasamudayo”
206 Therein what is the samudaya of suffering? Craving. This is called
the samudaya of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila#pts-cs206

My questions:

What is the meaning of the Pali word 'samudaya' according to Sutta?

Can craving alone be the 'samudaya' of suffering according to Sutta?

Questions not intended in good faith trying to relieve doubt about abhidhamma or what others think of abhidhamma, but rather intended to ridicule specific members of this site like Bonn?

A post that ridicules other users would be against the "rules" of this site and of SE in general -- the Code of Conduct includes, "Unacceptable Behavior: No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language" -- and there's a bit in the site's Moderation policies for Questions about "Hostile" questions.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

With respect to the second half of your question, item 2, craving is one of the steps in dependent origination, which has numerous steps. That is how it can be claimed that craving always leads to suffering. Not because it is the only link but because once the craving step happens, some suffering is inevitable. One of the steps, as alluded to above is “birth”, or creation, or “leading to new existence” as it says in the quote in your question. In this context it is birth of identification, birth of a me or a mine. (Technically this is broken down further into coming into existence and birth, beyond the scope of this context).
Importantly craving is the location for breaking the chain. That’s why the focus on it. In this region of the links we have: sense contact, feeling (which has a feeling tone), craving (more of a raw passion or desire, or aversion), clinging (thinking about it and making it a mental thing, even to the point of obsessing) and then birth. To break the chain there at craving we need to lose ignorance though and see the three marks in everything that arises so that craving doesn’t form due to our wisdom. There can still be contact and feeling and feeling tone, but we let it go there. If it stops there, then the last part, “sickness and death” of the me or mine that was developed for that craving (ie suffering) won’t come. Note that I’m only discussing dependent origination because it reflects on the question, and discussing it only enough to answer your question. There are other, earlier links I didnt mention.
That is the sense in which it can be claimed craving “causes” suffering. If we can break (or even weaken) the craving on a single run through dependent arisings, we reduce suffering. If we can stop craving from ever developing (end the “builder of the house himself”) then we can stop all suffering. So it reflects back to the four noble truths.

Thank you for your effort however it does not appear to answer the question because the word "samudaya", at least in the Sutta, does not appear to mean "cause". the controversy brewing on this question is a demonstrating of how certain members here are strongly attached to an unsubstantiated view based in common teachings of Buddhism based in Abhidhamma that the 2nd noble truth is about "the cause" of suffering. In other words, this question topic is similar to asking children: "does Santa Claus really exist?" In short, the 2nd Noble Truth in Sutta appears not about "the cause" of suffering

the sutta MN 148 appears to infer there can be the experience of craving without suffering.

What is the meaning of the Pali word 'samudaya' according to Sutta?
SN 56.11 says,

Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ

That's translated,

Now this is the noble truth of the origin of suffering.

It's also translated

arising of suffering

The PTS Dictionary gives it as ...

Samudaya Samudaya [saŋ+udaya]

rise, origin D i.17; ii.33, 308; iii.227; A i.263 (kamma˚); Vin i.10; Sn p. 135; It 16 (samuddaya metri causa) etc. dukkha˚ the origin of ill, the second ariya-sacca, e. g. D iii.136; A i.177; Vism 495 (where samudaya is expld in its parts as sam+ u+aya); VbhA 124.
bursting forth, effulgence (pabhā˚) J i.83.
produce, revenue D i.227.

... where udaya has a definition like

Udaya Udaya [fr. ud + i, cp. udeti] rise, growth; increment, increase; income, revenue, interest

Can craving alone be the 'samudaya' of suffering according to Sutta?
I think it says that the origin is craving -- not "craving alone".
But it also declares that the cessation of suffering (dukkhanirodha) is cessation of craving, in the third noble truth.

AN 3.61 says all twelve conditions are the origin of suffering. You seem to think the origin of some thing excludes the thing.

I don't understand the second sentence of your comment, i.e. your logic about what I seemed to be thinking.

The Abhidhamma knowingly says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Sutta is:
...
https://suttacentral.net/vb4/en/thittila

It's not  "Abhidhamma knowingly says" because this is from Sutta directly.

The Abhidhamma then says the 2nd Noble Truth according to Abhidhamma is:

It's not "the 2nd Noble Truth according to Abhidhamma" because according to the canon name "Vibhanga - Description of Sutta" meaning  "AbhidhammaNaya is describing Suttanta".
So, it's like "the 2nd Noble Truth in Suttanta should be described  in more (abhi) detail (dhamma).

What is the meaning of the Pali word 'samudaya' according to Sutta?

The meaning of Suttanta is described by all descriptions in AbhidhammaNaya, depending on each sutta's context. The tipitaka memorizer can see all of these meaning in difference sutta, but the reader can't.
So, these descriptions from AbhidhammaNaya is the answer of the first question.

Therein what is the cause of suffering? Craving. This is called the
cause of suffering.
Therein what is the cause of suffering? Craving and the remaining
corruptions. This is called the cause of suffering.
Therein what is the cause of suffering? Craving, the remaining
corruptions and the remaining unskilful dhammas. This is called the
cause of suffering.
Therein what is the cause of suffering? Craving, the remaining
corruptions, the remaining unskilful dhammas and the three skilful
roots that are objects of the defilements. This is called the cause of
suffering.
Therein what is the cause of suffering? Craving, the remaining
corruptions, the remaining unskilful dhammas, the three skilful roots
that are objects of the defilements, the remaining skilful dhammas
that are objects of the defilements. This is called the cause of
suffering.

Next.

Can craving alone be the 'samudaya' of suffering according to Sutta?

This kind of weird question occur when the reader never care the name of this canon "Vibhanga - Description of Sutta" which meaning "AbhidhammaNaya is describing Suttanta".
Wrong view reading is wrong view reading. Watchdog without the truth is wrong reading with wrong view.
What is Vibhanga?
Vibhanga means "Description of Sutta".
What angles which the reader should think of while reading SuttantaNaya is described in AbhidhammaNaya.
So, SuttantaNaya is same same as AbhidhammaNaya.
But the very weird question like this question will be created unlimited when the readers try to use the wrong view to distort SuttantaNaya  to be not same same as AbhidhammaNaya.
That's why when the name of this canon is "Description of Sutta", but many reader often think it's the conflict book between suttanta and abhidhamma.
Because they didn't read the canon follow the name "Description of Sutta", but the readers often read the canon follow their view "Abhidhamma must be  lacking with Sutta, others view such as 'abhidhamma is same as sutta' is wrong". And it is because the reader never care the name of this canon "Vibhanga - Description of Sutta" which meaning "AbhidhammaNaya is describing Suttanta".

the answer avoids the question

You question about Abhidhamma will let people see the truth. My answer will let people see the truth which they never thinking of. Thank you ^.^

SN 22.5 says:

And what, bhikkhus, is the origin (samudaya) of form? What is the origin of
feeling? What is the origin of perception? What is the origin of
volitional formations? What is the origin of consciousness? Here,
bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding.
Delight... is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition, existence
comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as
condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
suffering.

SN 56.11 says:

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination (samudaya)
of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied
by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving
for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

AN 3.61 says:

"And what is the noble truth of the origination (samudaya) of stress?
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From
fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From
name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From
the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From
contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a
requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then old
age & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
suffering.
"This is called the noble truth of the origination of stress.

MN 28 says:

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: “One who sees dependent
origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent
origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are
dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding
based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of
suffering.

SN 56.11 says:

In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful

It appears for suffering to originate (samudaya), there must be attachment or becoming because it is the attachment that is suffering.
Therefore, it appears craving (alone) cannot be the samudaya of suffering.
In other words, the Suttas teach "delight is the root of suffering" (MN 1) and "delight is attachment" (MN 38; SN 22.5). In short if there is no delight and no attachment, there can be no "arising" of suffering.

What is actually bad in 'controversy' is disrespect to other tradition..

so this comment appears to admit Abhidhamma is another tradition

It is "other" than yours, apparently -- you come across in writing as having (or as claiming to have) a marked hostility to it. See also what the Moderation policies for Questions says about "hostile questions".

It seems some people have a strong need to validate their own position by attempting to discredit other positions. There is invariably a lot of self-view and conceit behind these doctrinal crusades, somewhat ironic in a Buddhist context.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Abhidhamma cross-referenced with Sutta: Can nama arise without rupa? Is nama four aggregates?
Abhidhamma appears to say nama can arise without rupa in dependent origination, as follows:

PTS cs 243 With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional)
process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with
consciousness as condition: mind (nama), with mind as condition: the sixth
sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with
contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving,
with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition:
continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as
condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole
mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs243

The Abidhamma also appears to say nama is the four mental aggregates as follows:

Herein, what is ‘mind?’ (nama)
Except for contact, (it is) the feeling constituent, the perception
constituent, the (volitional) processes constituent, the consciousness
constituent: this is said to be ‘mind’.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs251

Are there any Suttas supporting the above ideas?

MN60

If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that I will be guaranteed rebirth among the gods who are formless and made of perception. Now, owing to form, bad things are seen: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and fights, accusations, divisive speech, and lies. But those things don’t exist where it is totally formless.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding forms.

i marked this down because the Buddha said the formless was one type of becoming (bhava) yet the Buddha did not change nama-rupa to nama. this is because a meditator that reaches the formless still has a body and this body is in a certain state. even though this body is not perceptible

Someone try to change everything to be like his view because he can't accept that he did many bad verbal karma by his view "no previous life, no next life". People who see next life and previous life don't worry like him because they already prepare everything for every possible cases which he never see and never protect for entire life.

Ive always suspected mind is used in two different ways in buddhist literature, although I haven’t researched enough to know that. I know it is used two different ways by teachers and even monks. Is the difference chit and nama? But this should mean that the second quote in the question would say: “Herein, what is ‘mind?’ (chit)” but it doesnt say that. Are we sure it is nama there?? Theres clearly a contradiction in definitions of mind even in those two quotes. Look carefully, the second includes more.

cittamanovinnana is something, it's called that which is mind, consciousness or intellect, arises as one thing & ceases as another, is conjoined with what is born of contact, is fabricated by what is born of contact, aggregated are past, present & future classes of consciousness. Form is sometimes generated, sometimes accompanies consciousness, sometimes is not generated, does not accompany consciousness. There can be contact at the mental base as a meeting of mind-consciousness, intellect & object of ideation. Non-percepient beings are only form aggregate, plants are like this.

Alive but not-percepient. Arupajhana are seen & felt by intellect divorced from 5 sense faculties (form), contact there is at the 6th manoayatana, mind base, at that time the object is seen with intellect, is not seen or felt with the body and the object of seeing is disconnected from the theme of form entirely & perception of form being stilled is how it is attained. Otherwise, whenever there is contact at any sense base, it is associated  & depends on contact at the mind base as well.

Perhaps Bonn has a different interpretation tho, this is my own understanding of Theravada and i don't approve of commentary very much.

@Letsbuddhism No, I have copied from the source directly. I didn't even understand the translation actually. My english is terrible, so many time I just copy and paste. And most of what I have translated are more Pali directly than you ever met because most of translations now are created without understanding the reference between the characters, words, phases, sentences, paragraphs, suttas, vagga, nikaya first. Why? some of the translators are not the Pali memorizer. However, we still should very appreciate to their translations because it's still useful even  it's not perfect.

Some of them just read think and imagine to translate by their opinion without checking in  the reference between the characters, words, phases, sentences, paragraphs, suttas, vagga, nikaya first. That's why many important references  between words, etc, have missed from their translations, which I often point them in my answers even I don't want to fight. Take a look in my answers whether how many simple mistake appear in present Sutta translations even just simple pali gramma. However, we still should very appreciate to their translations because it's still useful even  it's not perfect.

@AlBrown It's because the reader don't understand how oral traditions work. When the reciters are reciting, they are understanding what they reciting together immediately. The same meaning with the difference situations can make confusing to them and make them understanding late, such as citta as knower&vinnana as object in sn22.59, DN2, etc. The oral traditions fix this problem by using the difference words instead. So, it's readers' requiring skill for reading sutta to check  the reference between the characters, words, phases, sentences, paragraphs, suttas, vagga, nikaya in Sutta's first.

@AlBrown Or, just find the Pali memorizer such as PaAuk Tawya to describe it for faster answer, not for avoiding reciting and memorizing. No any noble one feel bad to recite and memorize Sutta in any form, pali, thai, english, even some little mistaken translations are OK (noble one has no wrong view, so they can fix the mistake translation after). Whatever form of Sutta are lovely to be memorized for all noble one because they are focusing on the wholesome meditation not the characters.

memorizing or remembering is a prerequisite to pondering & examining for the purpose of coming to agreement. A person who knows the proper expression in full or in short can be expected to get it and i think for proper learning one needs to learn the pali & analysis for words like khanda, nirodhanibbanadhatu, sannavedana, anatta, panna, sati, dukkha, because the translations are so diverse & inconsistent.

@Letsbuddhism Thanks I saw your comment. The arupajhana of percep-non-percep drops at least one of those relative to upekkha for instance, right? And there is also just raw citt under of before cittamanovinnana? In your understanding. One description of percep-non-percep is “taking mind itself as the object” which I have often thought is misleading because people may (and i think do) misunderstand that to be consciousness or intellect, or at least some idea of mind that shouldnt actually be present. Going from upekka to a deeper upekka jhana is then mistaken for transitioning to percep-non

You should make a new question and id appreciate if you explain everything to your best ability. There are several people here now that can answer most questions.

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

“Venerable, regarding feeling, recognition, and consciousness: are these phenomena separate or conjoined? Is it possible to distinguish these phenomena in order to describe what makes them different?”
“Venerable, regarding feeling, recognition, and consciousness: these phenomena are conjoined, not separate. It is not possible to distinguish these phenomena in order to describe what makes them different. Venerable, what one feels, one recognizes; what one recognizes, one cognizes. Therefore these phenomena are conjoined, not separate. It is not possible to distinguish these phenomena in order to describe what makes them different.” https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/suddhaso

Intention is defined as kamma because intending one acts, acting one performs mental, verbal & physical exertion, mental activity comes first as a giving of attention through which all elements come into being as they originate from contact.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." — AN 6.63

“‘Friends, (1) all things are rooted in desire. (2) They come into being through attention. (3) They originate from contact. (4) They converge upon feeling. (5) They are headed by concentration. (6) Mindfulness exercises authority over them. (7) Wisdom is their supervisor. (8) Liberation is their core. (9) They culminate in the deathless. (10) Their consummation is nibbāna.’ - an10.58

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

What Abhidhamma says is inferable from the above.

i marked this answer down because it appears merely to be a copy & paste of sutta quotes but i does not appear to answer the question

i can show you the inference, i can't make you understand it. If you don't see how these excerpts are relevant to your question of "Are there any Suttas supporting the above ideas?" then mark it down sure

your answer appears to show the Abhidhamma is different to Sutta. Sutta says nama is feeling, perception, intention, contact and attention but Abhidhamma contains the common view nama refers to the four mental aggregates.

i am sorry mate

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Abhidhamma vs Sutta: Did the Buddha teach about the birth of things?
The Abhidhamma acknowledges the Suttas define 'birth' ('jati') as follows:

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:

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?

Not sure why this was downvoted, seems like a nice inquisitive question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

It's wrong translation.

"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".

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

no. attachment to only one aggregate is a being. read the sutta


text:
Abhidhamma: can dependent origination arise without any sense bases?

Abhidhammabhājanīya says:

2.1. Paccayacatukka
27.1Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, nāmapaccayā chaṭṭhāyatanaṁ, chaṭṭhāyatanapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti, jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. 27.2Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti
With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.
28.1 Avijjāpaccayā saṅkhāro, saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ, viññāṇapaccayā nāmaṁ, nāmapaccayā phasso, phassapaccayā vedanā, vedanāpaccayā
taṇhā, taṇhāpaccayā upādānaṁ, upādānapaccayā bhavo, bhavapaccayā jāti,
jātipaccayā jarāmaraṇaṁ. 28.2Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa
samudayo hoti
With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, with consciousness as condition: mind, with mind as condition: contact, with contact as condition: feeling, with feeling as condition: craving, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/pli/ms#pts-cs251

What is the sense contact (phasso) occurring without a sense base or sense organ & sense object (āyatana)?

Mind is the sixth ayatana. Contact here would be contact with a mind object, like a thought. The OP question is poorly framed in suggesting there is no ayatana involved here, since it is clearly about the mano (mind) ayatana .

DO describes development of defiled subjective world, defiled mind and defiled sense of self.
"nama" is an idea of an object, a concept, a mental label. For example, when an infant sees the mother there's recognition: "it is She". The infant does not yet know how to speak, it has no words, but the recognizing consciousness (vijnana) begins to develop, and once it can recognize the mother there's a "nama" of mother, a notion of that particular object.
As the developing vijnana establishes more and more notions of visual objects, the idea of "seeing" begins to emerge. As the developing vijnana establishes more and more notions of audial objects, the idea of "hearing" begins to emerge. And so on for other senses. As the developing vijnana establishes more and more notions of mental objects, the idea of "thinking" begins to emerge. Until you see enough objects, you don't know you could see. Until you hear enough sounds, you don't know you could hear. Until you have enough thoughts, you don't know you could think.
Once these developments are complete and there's a fully developed recognizing consciousness, a notion of object, and a notion of seeing, hearing, thinking etc., - there can be established a notion of "contact" on a sensory modality.
Even though infant has "seen" the mother a million times before that, there's no contact until there's both a notion of mother and a notion of seeing. Once all of these are complete, there's a notion "I see mother". That's the contact. The infant cannot speak but it knows when it sees the mother, hears the mother, smells the mother.
Coming back to your question, that particular example explains development of the sixth modality, the modality of thinking, inner attention, inner representation, inner recognition. What we call mentation. In this modality our recognizing consciousness delineates inner objects such as "thoughts" and "memories", establishes their identities ("nama"), and once enough of these have been established there emerges a notion of "inner space", followed by the notion "I'm having this thought" or "I'm having this memory" - i.e. the mental contact.
As you can see, a particular instance of mental contact can occur without another sense organ being involved at all. But of course in the larger context we understand that in the human world a development of the sixth sense with its inner objects does not occur in the total absence of any external stimuli. After all, it is the visual consciousness and other sensory consciousnesses that provide food for the mental consciousness to chew on.
Nevertheless the point of that Abhidharma passage is to emphasize that the sixth sense or the mental modality undergoes its own development process - establishing its mental objects, its mental context, recognizing the contact with a mental object, pleasure or pain resulting from the contact with a mental object, craving for a contact with a mental object, sustaining an attitude towards a mental object, becoming the owner of an attitude towards a mental object, establishing a notion of self as the owner of a collection of certain attitudes.

Yes, the emphasis here is specifically on contact at the mind-base. The OP question is misleading in suggesting there is no ayatana involved here, since there clearly is.

In animal, human and normal Deva rebirth process, there are arsing&vanishing of ignorance in 4 noble truth about  animal, human and normal Deva rebirths,  3 (volitional) processes which wishing to reborn as  animal, human or normal Deva, 6 consciousnesses, 6 mind and 28 forms, 6 sense spheres, 6 contacts,6 feelings, 6 cravings, 6 attachments, 6 continuations,  births  ageings,  deaths.
In Form Brahmma Deva rebirth process (RupaJhana), there are arsing&vanishing of ignorance in 4 noble truth about  form Brahmma Deva rebirth,  1 (volitional) processes which wishing to reborn as  form Brahmma Deva, 3 consciousnesses, 3 mind and 23 forms, 3 sense spheres, 3 contacts,3 feelings, 3 cravings, 3 attachments, 3 continuations,  births ageings,  deaths.
In Formless Brahmma Deva rebirth process (ArupaJhana),  there are arsing&vanishing of ignorance in 4 noble truth about  formless Brahmma Deva rebirth,  1 (volitional) processes which wishing to reborn as  formless Brahmma Deva, 1 consciousness, 1 mind and no form, 1 sense sphere, 1 contact, 1 feeling, 1 craving, 1 attachment, 1 continuation,  births, ageings,  deaths.
See MN60.

If those ascetics and brahmins who say that there are totally formless meditations are correct, it is possible that I will be guaranteed rebirth among the gods who are formless and made of perception. Now, owing to form, bad things are seen: taking up the rod and the sword, quarrels, arguments, and fights, accusations, divisive speech, and lies. But those things don’t exist where it is totally formless.’ Reflecting like this, they simply practice for disillusionment, dispassion, and cessation regarding forms.

MN 41

A person of principled and moral conduct might wish: ‘If only, when my
body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of
well-to-do aristocrats!’ It’s possible that this might happen. Why is
that? Because they have principled and moral conduct.
A person of principled and moral conduct might wish: ‘If only, when my
body breaks up, after death, I would be reborn in the company of
well-to-do brahmins … well-to-do householders … the Gods of the Four
Great Kings … the Gods of the Thirty-Three … the Gods of Yama … the
Joyful Gods … the Gods Who Love to Create … the Gods Who Control the
Creations of Others … the Gods of Brahmā’s Host … the Radiant Gods …
the Gods of Limited Radiance … the Gods of Limitless Radiance … the
Gods of Streaming Radiance … the Gods of Limited Glory … the Gods of
Limitless Glory … the Gods Replete with Glory … the Gods of Abundant
Fruit … the Gods of Aviha … the Gods of Atappa … the Gods Fair to See
… the Fair Seeing Gods … the Gods of Akaniṭṭha … the gods of the
dimension of infinite space … the gods of the dimension of infinite
consciousness … the gods of the dimension of nothingness … the gods of
the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.’ It’s possible
that this might happen. Why is that? Because they have principled and
moral conduct.
A person of principled and moral conduct might wish: ‘If only I might
realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this
very life, and live having realized it with my own insight due to the
ending of defilements.’ It’s possible that this might happen. Why is
that? Because they have principled and moral conduct.”

Above rebirth is from the past life meditation in MN 8 below, so  rebirth in above Sutta has no form left.

It’s possible that some mendicant, going totally beyond perceptions of
form, with the ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on
perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’, might enter
and remain in the dimension of infinite space. They might think
they’re practicing self-effacement. But in the training of the Noble
One these are not called ‘self-effacement’; they’re called ‘peaceful
meditations’.


text:
Why does Abhidhamma exclude becoming, birth & death from 'mutuality'?
The Abhidhamma says:

2.4. The Mutuality Tetrad
PTS cs 246
With ignorance as condition there is a (volitional) process, also with a (volitional) process as condition there is ignorance, with a (volitional) process as condition: consciousness, also with consciousness as condition: a (volitional) process, with consciousness as condition: mind and bodily form, also with mind and bodily form as condition: consciousness, with mind and bodily form as condition: the sixth sense sphere, also with the sixth sense sphere as condition: mind and bodily form, with the sixth sense sphere as condition: contact, also with contact as condition: the sixth sense sphere, with contact as condition: feeling, also with feeling as condition: contact, with feeling as condition: craving, also with craving as condition: feeling, with craving as condition: attachment, with attachment as condition: craving, with attachment as condition: continuation, with continuation as condition: birth, with birth as condition: ageing, death, and so there is an origination of this whole mass of suffering.
https://suttacentral.net/vb6/en/anandajoti#pts-cs246

Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

Because SuttantaNaya in the question's quoted section is like a full length line of the plotted-uncounable-dots-graph, life. And the AbhidhammaNaya  in the question's quoted section  are describing SuttantaNaya like each smallest dot, trillion moments per sec, which plotting that full length line of the plotted-uncounable-dots-graph. And it's already showed on both section, SuttantaNaya used plural form of Sankhara as a full length life and the AbhidhammaNaya used singular form ,sankharo, of SuttantaNaya, sankhara, to show each dot in SuttantaNaya's plural form.
Each dot plot can construct it's life-line, good sankharo giving good resultant, bad sankharo giving bad resultant. The dot is plotting and switching rapidly only one moment per time, trillion times per sec.
A full length life has many "grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow and despair", but only some moment, dot, of it is "grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow and despair".
The AbhidhammaNaya separate a full length life to a moment. The "grief, lamentation pain, sorrow and despair" are members of unwholesome sangkharo cycle in the question's quoted canon (being in many positions such as sangkharo, becomming, feeling depending on what condition/effect each one is).
So, the AbhidhammaNaya  in the question's quoted section already included "ageing, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow and despair".
However, people usually study Abhidhamma by rumor of journeys or something like that, so this unexpect answer can't go to people minds who never listen to the canon name ""Vibhanga -- Description of SuttantaNaya (by AbhidhammaNaya[the way to get more(Abhi) sutta's detail(Dhamma)])".
".

Why does Abhidhamma exclude continuation (becoming), birth & death from its 'mutuality' above?

You usally ask like that because you don't think the canon you quoted are describing Suttanta by AbhidhammaNaya. You think they are difference from each other, so you usually try to let them fight each other even the name of your quoted canon is "Vibhanga -- Description of SuttantaNaya (by AbhidhammaNaya[the way to get more(Abhi) sutta's detail(Dhamma)])".
So, even it's saying more (Abhi) Sutta's descriptions in detail (Dhamma), you still think whether it's trying to compare the conflict of both canon.


text:
Does 'saṁsaṭṭha' mean "arise together"?
I read this statement in an answer:

Cittasaṁsaṭṭhā means arising together because it is described in the
same canon "idaṃ sukhaṃ imāya pītiyā sahagataṃ hoti sahajātaṃ
saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ". "sahajātaṃ saṃsaṭṭhaṃ sampayuttaṃ" in this
context is called Vevacana in VevacanaHara.

Generally, the word 'saṁsaṭṭha' is translated as 'co-joined' or 'mixed', as follows:

But when they’re separated from the Teacher or a spiritual companion
in a teacher’s role, they mix closely with monks, nuns, laymen, and
laywomen; with rulers and their ministers, and with teachers of other
paths and their followers.
Yato ca kho so vapakassateva satthārā, vapakassati garuṭṭhāniyehi
sabrahmacārīhi, so saṁsaṭṭho viharati bhikkhūhi bhikkhunīhi upāsakehi
upāsikāhi raññā rājamahāmattehi titthiyehi titthiyasāvakehi.
As they mix closely, they become intimate and loose, spending time
chatting, and so lust infects their mind.
Tassa saṁsaṭṭhassa vissatthassa pākatassa bhassamanuyuttassa viharato
rāgo cittaṁ anuddhaṁseti.
https://suttacentral.net/an6.60/en/sujato

These are the five drawbacks for a mendicant who visits families for
too long, mixing closely with them.”
Ime kho, bhikkhave, pañca ādīnavā kulūpakassa bhikkhuno ativelaṁ
kulesu saṁsaṭṭhassa viharato”ti.
https://suttacentral.net/an5.226/en/sujato

“Wisdom and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—
are these things mixed or separate?
ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā?
Feeling, perception, and consciousness—
“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ—
are these things mixed or separate?
ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā?
https://suttacentral.net/mn43/en/sujato

Does 'saṁsaṭṭha' mean "arise together"? How can the terms "arise together" & "mixed" be reconciled or, otherwise, differentiated?

It's depending on each context of Tipitaka.
The question's quote is from this topic, which quoting saṁsaṭṭha from Abhidhamma canon in the section which saṁsaṭṭha meaning "arise together", so it means arise together in that context.
It's depending on the canon author's mind while he was writing, not the reader's opinion. And the author's mind appear on the text's context, not reader's opinion.
If the reader craves on the only one word's meaning, he can't read even a word Buddha in Tipitaka because there are many same word with difference meaning there.  For the example, the word "buddha" also have many meaning in Tipitaka and some meaning is not enlightenment, such as SuppaBuddha which is only name gotten before his enlightenment, not refer to enlightenment.

Yes, the meaning of words can vary according to context. The mistake would be to fix on one meaning, and then try to force that meaning into other contexts. Translation requires a flexible approach.


text:
Sexual deviance (zoophilia, etc)
If homosexuality is okay because it is never explicitly stated in the canonical texts, then how about zoophilia, or necrophilia? Those aren't explicitly stated in the texts too, so are those 'okay'?

There's lots about sexuality in the Vinaya so by "canonical texts" I assume you mean "the suttas". I think that what you mean by "okay" is, given there's nothing explicit about homosexuality (see here and here), it's in the same kind of category as heterosexuality.

There is a verse in the Theragatha where a monk develops sexual feelings towards a dead human body, and that this was seen as a hindrance. Thus he corrected himself. Would you be interested in my providing an answer with that verse in mind?

Maybe this will help with your question...

I, a monk, gone to the charnel ground, saw a woman cast away,
discarded there in the cemetery.
Though some were disgusted, seeing her — dead, evil —             lust
appeared,
as if I were blind  to the oozings.
In less time than it takes for rice to cook, I got out of that place.
Mindful, alert, I sat down to one side. Then apt attention arose in
me, the drawbacks appeared,   disenchantment stood    at an even keel:
With that, my heart was released. See the Dhamma's true rightness! The
three knowledges have been attained; the Awakened One's bidding,
done.
Thag 5.1

Here is the background to this verse, with an additional instance of lust by a monk called Kulla, in which the Buddha felt it neccessary to step in and assist Kulla with his practice due to his lust being so persistent.

Religious Reflections on the Human Body - Page 86
From memory, I cannot think of any instances regarding lust towards animals. There was the case of Nanda, who suffered greatly with lust, and who was mentioned in the Jataka tales. I believe Nanada was a donkey and suffered the plight of lust in that form too. That's the nearest I can get to animals and lust. In any cases, in no way whatsoever would I consider zoophilia to be inline with Buddhist practice.

Thank you for your answer!

Thanks for sharing these stories. Rajadatta's story seems to be more about attachment to an individual, so strong that it persisted even when she was dead. Kulla seems to have been truly necrophiliac, but again, the issue presented is not that "sex with corpses is bad", but that arousal during meditation practice distracts from spiritual progress.

There is a story about queen Mallika in the comy to Dhammapada

One day, Mallika went into the bathroom to wash her face, hands and feet. Her pet dog also came in; as she was bending to wash her feet, the dog tried to have sex with her, and the queen appeared to be amused and somewhat pleased. The king saw this strange incident through the window from his bedroom. When the queen came in, he said angrily to the queen, "Oh, you wicked woman! What were you doing with that dog in the bathroom? Do not deny what I saw with my own eyes."
https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=151

She then denies what she had done & goes to hell for a rather short time but it wasn't due to her misbehaving with dog.

From that time, the queen was full of remorse for having lied to the king and for having brazenly accused him of misbehaving with a she-goat. Thus, even when she was approaching death, she forgot to think about the great unrivalled charities she had shared with her husband and only remembered that she had been unfair to him. As a result of this, when she died she was reborn in niraya. After her burial, the king intended to ask the Buddha where she was reborn. The Buddha wished to spare his feelings, and also did not want him to lose faith in the Dhamma. So he willed that this question should not be put to him, and King Pasenadi forgot to ask the Buddha.
However, after seven days in niraya, the queen was reborn in the
Tusita deva world.

He who asserts what is not true, goes to hell, as do those who deny what they have done. The lowly behaving pair becomes equal after death. - dhp 22 (chapter on hell).

Thank you for your answer!

I’m quite sure there is something about monks somewhere having sex with monkeys, and I’m positive there are texts forbidding it. Unfortunately all I could find on the topic is this audible podcast where the description says the same: https://www.audible.com/pd/Humans-Just-Want-To-Have-Sex-With-Monkeys-Podcast/B0949SHM3H
I agree that the lack of discussing something should not be assumed as condoning it nor as forbidding it.

"Monkey" is mentioned on page 32 of https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/Ebooks/BMC1&2_200826.pdf -- but it's every form of sexuality is forbidden to monks (in the vinaya -- except perhaps while dreaming, page 141).


text:
What are the prescription regarding a bhikkhu or a monastery having a lay-attendant?
I am curious about vinaya regulations & accounts otherwise relevant to a householder's attending to the bhikkhusangha.
Of interest are lay attendants in particular, how far one can go in being useful, what makes a good lay-attendant as to ideal & minimal qualification.
Not particularly interested in the circumstance of an anagarika or a novice's circumstance, although i would appreciate a delineation of differences very much.
References & general thoughts on the matter are welcome.

Go on as a formal assistant to monks, even better as novice or monk, good householder, as it is good if you have ways to associate with the Venerables. The rest is all a matter of individual deeds (kamma). Do not waste one moment when kusala citta arises, as defilements are quick to return.
As for formal assistants: Community Officials:

All Community officials must be free of four types of bias: bias based on desire, bias based on aversion, bias based on delusion, and bias based on fear.

A Theravada Buddhist lay attendant or steward is called a kappiyakāraka or Kappiya in short.
According to the PTS Pali-English dictionary entry on Kappiya:

Kappiyakāraka "one who makes it befitting," i. e. who by offering
anything to a Bhikkhu, makes it legally acceptable Vin i.206;

Basically, the lay attendant or steward, a kappiyakāraka, is the enabler who makes things allowable for monks.
"The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Ven. Ariyesako provides info on lay attendants or stewards. Please search the page for "attendant" and "steward". Also please search Pli Tv Kd 6 for "kappiyakara".
The lay attendant is expected to receive and manage donations (money, robes, things, raw food ingredients, medicines etc.), buy things with donated money and distribute things to monks. The lay attendant can also cook food for monks (who are not allowed to cook), make fruits with seed allowable for monks and drive monks around in cars (since monks are generally not allowed to own or drive vehicles).
Both full monks (bhikkhu) and novice monks (samanera) are not allowed to handle money or make financial transactions. This has to be done by lay attendants. A novice monk cannot handle money because he observes the ten precepts.
I expect that a lay attendant must observe the five precepts, have taken the threefold refuge, be trustworthy, be well-versed with what is explained in "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" and have an abundant spirit of volunteerism.
An anagarika ("homeless one") is somewhere between a novice monk and a lay person. He is a lay person who observes the eight precepts. A person who wants to practise full time like a monk but does not want to observe all the monastic rules, may choose to become an anagarika.
The anagarika can handle money, so he can also act as a lay attendant (kappiyakāraka).
The Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia, which belongs to the Thai Forest Tradition, requires a person to be an anagarika for a certain duration of time before he is allowed to become a novice, and later a full-fledged monk.
According to this page, the duties and responsibilities of the anagarika at the Bodhinyana Monastery is described as follows:

The men with shaven heads and wearing white, while keeping the eight
precepts, are called Anagarikas. It is their intention to become a 10
precept novice monk in the near future.
There is quite a lot of work involved, supporting the monks and doing
various jobs around the monastery. This includes:

Working in the kitchen – cooking, cleaning and washing up.
Driving – there are many trips each week into Perth and the surrounding areas.
Weeding, digging and gardening jobs.
Construction of various projects.
Sweeping around the monastery grounds and generally keeping the place tidy and presentable.

From the above, we can see that the anagarika is expected to cook or drive monks around, hence he could function as a lay attendant too.
Anagarikas at the Bodhinyana Monastery will also receive lessons in the Dhamma (in the form of Dhamma talks), Vinaya, Pali suttas and optionally, the Pali language.


text:
What are Pali terms (and sutta references) for the 3 opposites, 3 doors, and 3 gifts, which are associated with the 3 characteristics of existence?

perceptions
opposites
doors
gifts

aniccā (impermanence)
___ (stability)
___ (signless)
___ (beginner's mind)

dukkhā (unsatisfactoriness)
sukha (reliability)
___ (wishless)
___ (aspiration)

anattā (not self)
___ (self confidence)
suññatā (emptiness)
karuṇā (compassion)

I find this series of dharma talks by Gil Fronsdal on the 3 perceptions/characteristics/marks to be very interesting

2015-06-07: annica
2015-06-14: dukkha
2015-07-05: anatta

and would like more information on the

3 opposites to be cultivated
3 doors to liberation
3 gifts

Specifically, I would like to know

What pali terms are used to represent these concepts? (see blank spaces in the table above)
What suttas are these discussed in?

In Pali, the prefix "a-" is itself the opposite. so the opposite of anicca is simply "nicca"

MN146:6.1: “What do you think, sisters?
MN146:6.2: cakkhu niccaṁ vā aniccaṁ vā”ti?
MN146:6.2: Is the eye permanent or impermanent?”
MN146:6.3: “Aniccaṁ, bhante”.
MN146:6.3: “Impermanent, sir.”

Unfortunately, considering opposites gets us immediately stuck in mud. Unhappy with impermanence, should we consider permanence and chase after continued existence? Ouch, that would just be more suffering.
Well what lies beyond this struggle with duality? Should we consider "adukkhamasukka", that which is neither unpleasant or pleasant? Erm, maybe not--here the Buddha points out a difficulty with even the neutral feeling:

MN146:9.12: But the feeling—whether pleasant, painful, or neutral—that I experience due to these six interior sense fields is permanent, lasting, eternal, and imperishable.’
MN146:9.13: sammā nu kho so, bhaginiyo, vadamāno vadeyyā”ti?
MN146:9.13: Would they be speaking rightly?”
MN146:9.14: “No hetaṁ, bhante”.
MN146:9.14: “No, sir.

Tables are wonderful forms that carve up the world into nice little pieces so that we can grab onto them and consume them, bit-by-bit. In the suttas themselves, tables are mnemonic devices for remembering the teachings. Indeed, Ven. Sariputta himself constructs a rather large 10x10 table in DN34.
But constructing our own tables can lead to difficulties. Tables are forms, and forms are ultimately unsatisfactory:

DN34:1.4.27: Renunciation is the escape from sensual pleasures. The formless is the escape from form. Cessation is the escape from whatever is created, conditioned, and dependently originated.

Stepping back from our own tables for a bit, lets just consider the three terms in the first column. And in DN34, we find them in the context of perceptions as called out in the first column of the table.

DN34:1.8.45: aniccasaññā, anattasaññā, asubhasaññā, ādīnavasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā, nirodhasaññā.
DN34:1.8.45: the perception of impermanence, the perception of not-self, the perception of ugliness, the perception of drawbacks, the perception of giving up, the perception of fading away, and the perception of cessation.
DN34:2.2.64: asubhasaññā, maraṇasaññā, āhārepaṭikūlasaññā, sabbalokeanabhiratisaññā, aniccasaññā, anicce dukkhasaññā, dukkhe anattasaññā, pahānasaññā, virāgasaññā.
DN34:2.2.64: the perceptions of ugliness, death, repulsiveness in food, dissatisfaction with the whole world, impermanence, suffering in impermanence, not-self in suffering, giving up, and fading away.

So in Sariputta's own very large table, we see simply that these wonderful perceptions that we should produce lead eventually to the cessation of suffering. The table itself therefore collapses into nibbana and disappears without opposites, without doors, without gifts.

Thank you for this very interesting answer. 1 question: "Tables are forms, and forms are ultimately unsatisfactory". Do I understand correctly that the meaning you are giving to the word "form" (i.e. "rupa") is something like "a predictive model of reality"? Not to be confused with "actual reality"? i.e. "All models are wrong. Some models are useful."

Regarding models, we can defer to a master of form: “Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.”
― Richard P. Feynman

I was waiting for someone to answer this question. What a wonderful answer!


text:
How do we forgive ourselves?
When we make a mistake, how do we forgive ourselves? I know that bhikkhus must confess in front of the Sangha if they break a certain Vinaya (monastic rule). But what about lay people? Do we have to do some kind of confession in front of other people too?

This question has been closed as a duplicate of existing questions. Please check and see if the answers to the linked questions answer your question too. If you feel that your question is different from the linked questions or if you want to change your question such that it will be different, please write to me in the comments.

Thank you, I will delete this question

Dhamma sukha (i edited it) buddhism on youtube has good self-forgiveness and forgiveness meditations

@Dhamma sukha Thank you!

@ruben2020, it seems like I can't delete this question, sorry (the 'delete question' button won't budge when I clicked on it)

It's ok. We can just leave it closed.


text:
Should meditation be practiced without a goal?
I've been meditating for some time now and consistently everyday for about six months but I don't have a definite goal or intent - I do it because I like sitting down for 30 minutes or so without reacting to my thoughts. I sometimes wonder about whether I am progressing or what is that towards which I am progressing. What in your experience should be the goal and the associated metrics so to speak?

If we are truly sincere with ourselves, there isn't a goal, but that takes quite an exceptional individual to understand this at the outset.

I do it because I like sitting down for 30 minutes or so without reacting to my thoughts.

This is quite telling. In fact, I know practising Buddhist who have been banging away at this for decades who have still not reached this ability. The fact is, there are people out there who can capture this straight off the bat.
In any case, there will be a reaction to your thoughts on some level, but what I wanted to highlight is that there is natural progression towards a particular practice, and if we're astute and receptive we can hone right in on that and match it with a relevant context. There are some teachers who, knowing the minds of their students, can assess them in such a way. Or, we can do it ourselves!

I sometimes wonder about whether I am progressing or what is that towards which I am progressing.

The mind has a tendency to find patterns in things. This is how it is able to keep the six-sense consciousness ticking over, which in turn leads to all sorts of calamitous thinking, feeling and problematic behaviour.
You don't need to answer this question, it will be answered for you. However, for many practitioners, they need the ability to recognize patterns - it's comforting for them. Those patterns come in the form of various theories, interpretations and opinions about all things related to Buddhism. The thing is, they are only a temporary placeholder to help quench the ego mind, similar to giving a baby a dummy to shut them up until they are old enough to manage their own angst, or, in this case, until you become wise enough that you won't need to cling to those various theories and interpretations surrounding Buddhism.
Where am I going with this?
Beginners mind - Shoshin. Zen at its purest!
I will suggest two books that may help you with:

getting caught in the bureaucratic academics of Buddhism.
realizing your true path-automny.

Cultivating the Empty Field: The Silent Illumination of Zen Master Hongzhi - free PDF
Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - free PDF
Best wishes

Allow me to point out the possibly obvious... If you sit because you 'like' it, then you have a goal: 30 minutes or so enjoying yourself. It may not be a particularly high-minded goal, but it's still a goal.
Just sayin'...
Meditation is a practice; we practice putting the thinking mind down. The thinking mind is a tool for dealing with dukkha (discontentment, displeasure, suffering, etc.). Sometimes it takes dukkha as a problem to be solved, fussing away until it finds a resolution; sometimes it takes dukkha as an annoyance to be avoided, seeking out entertainments, pleasures, distractions, and such; sometimes it gets frustrated and creates a fantasy world, one where this dukkha doesn't exist and 'reality' is the way the mind wants it to be. But the Buddhist insight is that the thinking mind is also the source of dukkha. We are so habituated to using the thinking mind that we don't realize we wouldn't be experiencing dukkha if the thinking mind weren't holding up some alternate possibility that compares favorably to reality.
If we sit because we enjoy it, that's bordering on escapism. We're not putting the mind down, but allowing the mind to use the meditation period as a way to avoid reality for a while. That's fine if that's all one wants from meditation (at this point in one's development). But if not, there are a number of ways of working with the issue:

Meditate longer: stay on the cushion until the thinking mind starts to get bored and frustrated with merely enjoying itself, and see what happens
Use body-scan techniques: concentrate on the minutia of physical sensations, which keeps the mind from getting lost in purely mental experience
Try mindfulness: sit back and watch the mind enjoy itself without participating; see that sense of pleasure rise and fall, rise and fall...

There's others too. Different things to try...

I started meditating observing the breath & relaxing thoughts because i heard that it's good from friends and did it to improve concentration & mental faculties. I also liked it even tho nothing spectacular happened.
I did it for 3 years, eventually i became willing to focus on that training more, started to learn buddhist texts, cleared up views and tried to see how far i could take it.
I am 10 years in now and the goal of developing mental faculties has not changed but i understood many things & it's still sinking in. Have a lot of work to do and i know how to do it.
General goals are comfort & happiness and i am still training for calm & stilling but in more so various senses of the words.
If you do decide to train hard & learn a lot, then you can expect more extraordinary experiences in meditation based on the development of mental faculties.
More calm, pleasurable feelings, lights & visions, immaterial percipience and up to the supramundane attainments associated with the dustruction of taints & a culmination of the faculties leading to perfected behavior, mastery of thoughts & knowledge.
There is a lot to learn & experimentation is needed to settle one's doubts & restlessness if one wants to set oneself up properly.

For basic insight meditation (vipassana) based on the mindfulness of breathing, you can consider starting with Ven. Yuttadhammo's "How To Meditate" series for beginners, which is available as a YouTube video playlist and as an online book.
This meditation is based on the four foundations of mindfulness (satipatthana). It comes in the varieties of sitting and walking meditation.
After you have mastered this, you can proceed to "How to Meditate II" by the same teacher.

I think it's worth distinguishing between the method of meditation, and the purpose of meditation.
So for example, "just sitting" is a method, while developing shamata is a purpose. The ultimate purpose of these methods is liberation, of course.


text:
What's the karmic cause for homosexuality?
Is being homosexual a result of poor karma? Or is it because of the person's habit in his/her past life? Or perhaps it's because the person likes and supports same-sex couple in his/her past life?

I didn't know there's already a question related to this, thank you!

Just put the relevant keywords in the search bar, and you'll see related questions. Also, as you type your question the server will list possible related questions. ;-)


text:
Can I save my meditation practice or should I abandon it?
I'm having a really hard time. Not just in my meditation practice, but in my life in general.
I've established a habit of 20 minutes of meditation first thing in the morning, then another 15 minutes in the early afternoon. I also try to take mindful breaks, I regularly take mindful walks, and I will meditate when I need a break or I'm feeling very stressed. I started meditating probably 3 years ago, and my routine has been pretty strong for the past 2 years. I usually use headspace meditations, and sometimes I just meditate on my own in quiet. I've read a few books about meditation, zen, etc, but I've never gone to a meditation retreat or anything hardcore like that - and given my work and young kids, I don't consider that an option.
I think I started meditating in a healthy way. I wasn't trying to solve any specific problems, I just wanted to be more mindful in my daily life. But I did think regular meditation would be a healthy habit to adopt, and that it would be a safeguard of sorts against other ills. However, I now find myself really frustrated because I've actually started to get more anxious, and I've barely slept for the past month.
I've tried to mindfully just accept my anxiety, not fight it, and I think that's generally fine, but the insomnia is debilitating. There is no major life event that I can think of that's causing this, I don't understand it, but I'm very disappointed that my meditation practice hasn't helped more. I've tried to increase my meditation recently to see if it would help, but I just keep getting worse.
I'm very frustrated and I can't help but think what's the point of spending all this time meditating? Could I be doing anything wrong? Has anyone had any similar experiences? Any advice?

Id suggest trying the 6R’s style of metta in your case. At least check it out online.

From within the practice of meditation, it can be hard to tell whether "it's working" or not. I've been a meditator for more than 30 years and my experience is that it is mostly a very slow process, and only by looking back on it from a long way away do I begin to clearly see the benefits.
Life itself has plenty of ups and downs. Meditation may affect those ups and downs, or maybe that's not what's at the base of your insomnia at the moment (myself: I recommend heart-thumping exercise at least every other day as a cure for inability to sleep well). But for me, mindfulness, meditation and -- in particular -- increasing understanding of Buddhism -- has helped a lot in coping with life.
It often amazes me how hard it can be to figure out, in the moment, where stress is coming from. Our first instincts about the causes too often turn out to be misleading. Meditation practice can help with that but, as I said, it can take a while to get the insights. Just try to be patient with yourself. Compassion begins with kindness to yourself.

thanks for your understanding and feedback. A general understanding of Buddhism is a growth point for me.  I really appreciate your time and help on this matter.  It means a lot.  I'll upvote this answer if I can (reputation prereq).

Welcome to the site.
These anxieties are your own psychological issues. They bubble up to the surface as a result of meditation.
Meditation initially sounds all nice and pleasant with frilly bits and squishy things - although that is how it is generally delivered in the many brochures - but many don't realize what meditation can actually do. It is about the cold, hard reality of facing yourself, and sometimes what we see is gruesome and disturbing. It can be very uncomfortable, but once all that stuff is out, it leads to a great liberation.
Just be aware that if you decide to continue, it may have ramifications upon your life and family. Some people are just not ready to enter into that part of their psyche. That's for you to work out.

thank you for taking the time to share your insights with me.  I don't have anybody in my personal life that practices meditation so it means more than you know to have this feedback.  If I gain the prerequisite reputation to upvote your answer, I absolutely will.

I'm no expert, but I've been meditating consistently for several years & have been on retreat etc. so I have some experience of what you have gone through.
I strongly recommend finding a meditation teacher. Its hard to tell what's going on based on an internet post because there are so many factors; when you 'meditate', what are you actually doing, what are you doing in your day to day life, how is your sila (morality), are you on any medication etc. An experienced teacher will be able to pinpoint things in your practice you might not have been aware of and will be much more helpful than any advice you can get from internet strangers.

However, I now find myself really frustrated because I've actually started to get more anxious, and I've barely slept for the past month.

If this is a big issue for you, I think you should cease your practice for a while, at least just to see if it gets better. Its hard to tell without knowing more information, but it could be caused by you meditating 'wrongly'; i.e. following the anxious thought train & reinforcing the thought loops/ having wrong sila, or it could just be how your mind was all along, just that meditation made you aware of it. Only a teacher can guide you on this. All the best

In general you can stop what you are doing if you think it's causing you anxiety.
Although im not familiar with headspace, meditation usually fails as being ineffective rather than harmful. There are however ways in which one's training would cause anxiety & restlessness but i think it's unlikely here because i think it would be more obvious.
Imho, more likely than not & based on the info in op, you seem to have many duties and the meditation is not improving the quality of your life which probably makes you anxious about the training, questioning whether it's worth it.
Id try to drop it until you feel like doing it again or learn more so that it becomes worthwhile.

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of[1] his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that curry. Today my master likes mainly sour curry... Today my master likes mainly bitter curry... mainly peppery curry... mainly sweet curry... alkaline curry... non-alkaline curry... salty curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.
"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in & of itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements[2] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact.[3] He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.[4] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html

There is a time for practice and there is a time for learning.

Nice pull on the story.  I think there is a lot of truth in it.  Thank you for sharing your wisdom.  I'm learning a lot from these answers, many thanks and hopefully I can upvote your answer soon.

Insomnia can develop due to excessive persistence in work, working tirelessly, being good at arousing wakefulness. Working after a trip, working when hungry, working after eating, maintaining body suitable for work, waking up quickly, not indulging in pleasures of lazy stretching & nodding off, etc etc

It's the opposite of becoming used to sleeping all day. Ideally one would use that energy for meditative development, otherwise it can become very tiresome if there is no healthy outlet. In general sleeping little is a good thing but if wakefulness is merely to solve problems & ruminate then it's going to be burdensome like oversleeping. One should either develop a healthy dose of lazyness out of compassion for oneself or better yet maintain devotion to wakefulness & learn meditative stilling but that would require a comprehensive plan.

Meditation, if done properly, is the super skill that amplifies every mental and physical skill you do in life. It would be stupid to stop meditation. The only question is whether you're doing meditation properly, skillfully, correctly, etc. You've got a great daily habit established, 20min in morning and one in latter half of the day, and regularly small meditation sessions all through the day.
Clearly the insomnia is the problem you need to take care of. If you don't have adequate nutrition and physical health, then meditation is less likely to have obvious immediate benefits.
Whatever you need to do to fix your health problems, take care of that first, and maybe with your time constraints you might have to suspend meditation temporarily.

thank you for the response.  I think part of my frustration is that I keep hearing and reading about meditation being a super skill, and I'm just disheartened that this purported super skill hasn't given me the help that I need when I need it.  Maybe it will though, I think I'll try to stick with it.  I'll try to upvote your answer if I get the reputation.  Thank you!


text:
Where is the sutta passage for the following citation of the description of a kalpa?
Can someone provide me a reference to the passage in the canon where the Buddha describes the length of a kalpa?
In the English Wikipedia article there is this quote which is allegedly by the Buddha:

"Were a man to take a piece of cloth of this most delicate texture [of
fine cotton], and therewith to touch in the slightest possible manner,
once in a hundred years, a solid rock, free from earth, a yojana [~14
miles] high, and as much broad, the time would come when it would be
worn down, by this imperceptible trituration, to the size of a mung or
undu seed. This period would be immense in its duration; but it has
been declared by Buddha that it would not be equal to a Maha Kalpa."

I would like to find that exact passage but alas no luck. I don't know where this could be. In the wiki article the sutta nipata is mentioned but I couldn't find anything in there.
Thank you.

This seems to be from SN 15.5. You can find similar similes in other suttas of SN 15. SN is samyutta nikaya, in this case, not sutta nipata.

Then a mendicant went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side,
and asked him, “Sir, how long is an eon?”
“Mendicant, an eon is long. It’s not easy to calculate how many years,
how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of years it
lasts.”
“But sir, is it possible to give a simile?”
“It’s possible,” said the Buddha.
“Suppose there was a huge stone mountain, a league long, a league
wide, and a league high, with no cracks or holes, one solid mass. And
as each century passed someone would stroke it with a fine cloth from
Kāsī. By this means the huge stone mountain would be worn away before
the eon comes to an end. That’s how long an eon is. And we’ve
transmigrated through many such eons, many hundreds, many thousands,
many hundreds of thousands.
Why is that? Transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite
enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed
regarding all conditions.”
SN 15.5

Thank you very much!

Try contemplating this while meditating :

“Bhikkhus, there are these three feelings. What three? Pleasant
feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These
are the three feelings.”
Whether it be pleasant or painful Along with the
neither-painful-nor-pleasant, Both the internal and the external,
Whatever kind of feeling there is: Having known, “This is suffering,
Perishable, disintegrating,” Having touched and touched them, seeing
their fall, Thus one loses one’s passion for them