https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/16uyvi5/anyone_know_the_vinaya_rules_for_fruit_juice/

anyone know the vinaya rules for fruit juice cider (1% to 5% alochol content)

Question

I picked a bunch of grapes from my friend's vineyard, making lots of grape juice.

I'll boil some of it and can some of it, but there's still a lot of grape juice in the fridge to drink.

At some point, some of it may start fermenting and becoming cider.

When it's just starting to turn, I don't think there's high enough alcohol % to get drunk or affect your mental capacity, but I wonder what the official ruling on it for vinaya rules for monastics, and people keeping 5 and 8 precepts (no intoxicants such as alcohol).

https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/16uyvua/comment/k2qx18i/?context=3

Spirited_Ad8737·1 day ago·edited 1 day ago


According to a senior monk in a Q&A, if you can't taste or smell the alcohol then it's ok (for the 5 or 8 precept layperson who asked).


lucid24-frankkOP·23 hr. ago


the thing about fruit juice just starting to turn to cider, is you notice the carbonation bubbles, but you don't really taste the alcohol, but from science you know the fermentation process carbon dioxide (cider bubbles) and alcohol are the outputs.

so I can't taste the alcohol clearly yet, but from science I know there must be some alcohol.

Another borderline case, sometimes modern fruit, which is picked way underripe for longer shelf life and so forth, often doesn't ripen properly. For example, living in the USA eating imported mangoes from Mexio, sometimes when the mango ripens parts of it still taste raw, other parts taste too ripe and too sweet , and occasionally some of the overripe part is a little fermented and slight taste of alcohol.


Spirited_Ad8737·23 hr. ago·edited 23 hr. ago


Interesting, I didn't know any of that. The questioner was asking about off-the-shelf products which may be a bit more clear-cut. Tricky question.

Using the sniff test I go ahead and sometimes drink a glass of 0.5% "non-alcoholic" beer with a meal, but do not drink 2% light beer. I believe this is consistent with the monk's instruction I paraphrased above, and with keeping the fifth precept. The main non alcoholic beer I buy claims to be 0.0%, though I don't know if I believe it. My total consumption is something like two 33cl bottles a month.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/16uyvi5/anyone_know_the_vinaya_rules_for_fruit_juice/

CCCBMMR·1 day ago


If the juice isn't perceptibly alcoholic, it should be fine. Basically as long as one can't taste or feel the effects of alcohol, it is acceptable to consume. All juice contains some level of alcohol, and it is fine for monks to drink, because it is not perceptible. The same goes for things like bread and kombucha.

If it turns alcoholic, it would be considered fine to cook with it.

Look at the non-offense clause of pacittiya 51




CCCBMMR·1 day ago


The rule essentially applies to perceptibly alcoholic substances. It is saying don't drink something that is perceptibly alcoholic. Bread contains alcohol, but the alcohol is not perceptible nor intoxicating, so it is acceptable to consume.



lucid24-frankkOP·23 hr. ago


fruit juice just turning into cider still tastes very sweet, with carbonated bubbles, and alcohol not so perceptible. so is it more like the bread case?



CCCBMMR·23 hr. ago


You are going to have to use your own discernment as to when the juice has gone too far.

There is another monastic rule about when the acceptability of an action is in doubt one needs to refrain from the action.

If you are not confident in the contours of the rule, it is just better to act in a way you know is safe. If I had the doubt in my mind about the alcoholic content of what I was wanting to consume, I simply would not consume it.

Why Chinese meditation masters (Buddhism and Taoism) tell you to touch tongue to roof and teeth don't touch

 I figured this out recently.

There's two things they tell you to do with your mouth area.

1. touch the tongue to the roof of your mouth during meditation

2. upper teeth and lower teeth don't touch, jaws are not clenched shut.

#1 becomes pretty obvious even after just a couple years of serious meditation.

When you touch the tongue to the roof of the mouth, you get a solid, energetic connection. 

At times, it can like you just touched your tongue to a nine volt battery and get an electric shock when the tongue connects to roof. 

Or just mild tingling vibrations.

It all depends on how saturated your jhāna battery is. 

If you have a big battery (from many years of dedicated meditation) and you're very charged up at the time, it won't feel much difference between touching the roof with your tongue or not.

It's like a free way with 10 lanes, if you open up an extra lane (touching tongue to roof), it won't affect the flow of traffic much.

But for a beginner meditator, whose energy channels are completely blocked, or clogged with lots of energetic gunk, their freeway only has one lane, and if you open up a second lane suddenly traffic flow can increase greatly.

#2 puzzled me for a long time. Why isn't it ok to touch the upper and lower teeth?

I just ignored those instructions all these years, since I never had any (negative) issues or could tell the difference if my upper and lower teeth were touching each other or not.

But recently I figured out why the masters gave that instruction.

It's because most meditators, will feel big energetic blockages in the chest, head, mouth areas.

And when you meditate with sufficient passaddhi (pacification/ relaxation), jhānic force will start clearing out blockages in the jhāna highway. 

You feel that as vibrations, force, feelings of tightness, compression, expansion, for many people discomfort and various degrees of pain.

Some (or maybe many) meditators will unconsciously clench their teeth in response to jhānic force trying to clear out the jhāna highway (loops of energy running through the body).

I've even read about some meditators who've had teeth fall out, from the forces experienced on their mouth and teeth.

I personally never had issues with unconsciously clenching my teeth, but I've definitely had stages where I feel strong forces pushing on the teeth from the roots, as if the teeth wanted to come out.

In conclusion, a better instruction from the Chinese meditation masters for #2, would be this:

Keep your mouth relaxed, tongue relaxed, teeth relaxed.

If you feel involuntary clenching of teeth, try not to close your jaw all the way, keep a little space so the teeth aren't touching.

If you don't have any tension in your mouth, teeth are completely relaxed, then touching upper and lower teeth and having jaw completely closed is not a problem.

So the error they made was not clearly explaining why they have that rule.

It all comes to the 7 awakening factors, especially the one on passaddhi (pacification/ relaxation).

Most meditators will feel pain in various parts of the body as jhānic force surges and tries to clear out and dissolve problems in the body. 

And most people will consciously and unconsciously respond to pain and discomfort by tensing up various parts of the body.

Even if they feel back pain, clenching their teeth or furrowing their brows and making angry faces doesn't help.

Tensing up those parts just blocks and hinders the passaddhi awakening factor, and slows the work of jhānic force healing your body.

I know it's hard, but you have to try to stay relaxed in every part of the body even when it hurts, if you want to progress the fastest way possible.

If pain becomes too hard to tolerate, doing accupressure, yoga, stretching, walking, dynamic stretching exercises, taiji and qigong type of exercises will help dissolve blockages faster than just sitting or standing in static meditation postures.

This is why step 3 of breath meditation (16🌬️😤‍ ) is so important to translate and interpret correctly.

You can't relax what you don't even realize is tense and not relaxed.

So learning to be sensitive to the entire physical body, every cell, every tooth, every body part, is how you discover where you're tense and blocking and hindering kāya-passaddhi (pacification) awakening factor. 

If you can feel/sense it, you can learn to relax it, whether it's teeth clenching, mouth tensing, etc.

And when you can feel the jhānic force dissolve tension and blockages, then you learn how to relax even more, both body and mind, to amp up the force and current flow. 

 

wouldn't you expect ariya-sāvaka by default, to be a disciple OF The Noble One(s) [The Buddha(s)]

The number in parenthesis is the number of occurrences in the suttas and vinaya using that term

If Buddha-sāvaka is a disciple OF the Buddha

buddha-sāvake (1)
buddha-sāvakehī-ti (5)
buddha-sāvako (2)

sammā-sam-buddha-sāvakaṃ (2)

sammāsambuddhasāvakanti (1)

sammāsambuddhasāvakā (1)

sammāsambuddhasāvako (7)

sammāsambuddhasāvakoti (1)

and if nigaṇṭha-sāvaka is a disciple OF Nigantha (leader of Jain religion)

nigaṇṭhasāvakaṃ (3)

nigaṇṭhasāvakānaṃ (1)

nigaṇṭhasāvakena (2)

nigaṇṭhasāvako (7)

and if tathāgata-sāvaka is a disciple OF the Tathāgata (the Buddha)

tathāgatasāvakaṃ (10)

tathāgatasāvakasaṅgho (4)

tathāgatasāvakassa (8)

tathāgatasāvakā (2)

tathāgatasāvakānaṃ (1)

tathāgatasāvake (7)

tathāgatasāvakena (10)

tathāgatasāvako (20)

and if gotama-sāvako is a disciple OF Gotama (clan name of The Buddha)

gotamasāvakā (9)

gotamasāvakāse (1)

gotamasāvakena (1)

gotamasāvako (1)

then wouldn't you expect ariya-sāvaka by default, to be a disciple OF The Noble One(s) [The Buddha(s)]

ariyasāvakassa (131)

ariyasāvakā (3)

ariyasāvakena (5)

ariyasāvako (591)

ariyasāvakopi (2)

related

http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2022/12/why-isnt-samma-sam-buddha-savako.html

12ps dependent origination question: why phassa is meeting of three, not just "when eye contacts visible object, eye-consciousness arises"

Question

There is this line:
"Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact."
Why did the Buddha describe this process in this way? Why didn't he say "When there is contact between eye and form, eye-consciousness arises"? Is there any subtle difference?
I do understand that the eye must be capable of seeing (e.g. not blindfolded) for it to see forms.

Answer

Because an internal sense faculty contacting an external  sense object doesn't mean a moment of sense-consciousness will definitely arise.

Even very ordinary scenarios, say a mosquito bites you at the same moment you see something and hear a sound, you don't necessarily register all 3 sense base consciousness.

Maybe just the ear consciousness registered with ear contact, and you didn't notice the sight of a road sign you were looking for. 

Similar question about requisite conditions

The question is also similar to a common one with 12ps, it seems to say if there is vedana, then tanha (craving) will arise. 

The thing we have to remember about the suttas, it's an oral tradition, and often the formulas memorized are very terse outlines, or part of a matrix, not meant to be interpreted with strict logic or grammar rules. There are often implied assumptions we have to incorporate, extra information not in the bare sutta words.

What the 12ps formula says, is that for craving to arise, 

there must have been vedana that arose previously for the craving to be based on.

Vedana is a requisite condition for tanha to arise.

It doesn't mean that if there is vedana, then tanha will definitely arise right after.

Or if there is tanha, that upadana will definitely arise right after.

MN 18 must vedana precede sañña?

Interesting question a friend asked me:

I have a question. In MN 18 there is this formula:
eye + forms + consciousness → contact → feel → perceive → think → proliferate
But does this apply to all perceptions? For example, I see a red car on the street. Will there be any feeling that leads to the perception "This is a red car"?
If the perception is "This is a beautiful/ugly car" however, then I see why there is feeling first. Well, not sure. This matter is complex for me.

(6aya. Eye base)

Cakkhuñc-āvuso, paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhu-viññāṇaṃ,	Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights.
tiṇṇaṃ saṅgati phasso,	The meeting of the three is contact.
phassa-paccayā vedanā,	Contact is a condition for feeling.
yaṃ vedeti taṃ sañjānāti,	What you feel, you perceive.
yaṃ sañjānāti taṃ vitakketi,	What you perceive, you think about.
yaṃ vitakketi taṃ papañceti,	What you think about, you proliferate.
yaṃ papañceti tato-nidānaṃ	What you proliferate about is the source
purisaṃ papañca-saññā-saṅkhā samudācaranti	from which a person is beset by concepts of identity that emerge from the proliferation of perceptions.
atīt-ānāgata-paccuppannesu cakkhu-viññeyyesu rūpesu.	This occurs with respect to sights known by the eye in the past, future, and present.

frankk response:

concsciousness is knowing at a raw sensory data level, 

vedana and perception happen after contact (phassa) whereas consciousness precedes contact, 

so vedana and sañña involve the 'knowing' from consciousness but with some thing extra added, such as memory associations, labeling, discrimination, etc.

There are suttas where it states phassa as the proximate cause for vedana and sañña indvidually, so I don't think vedana must precede sañña as MN 18 implies.

I think what the hierarchy from MN 18 is showing is that perception, to do its job, has more stuff added and processing to do its job, compared to vedana which adds less stuff to the cognized knowing to perform it's job. 

For your question example with the red car, I would argue that perception and feeling both are operating at the same hierarchy level, both adding information to basic cognition before contact.

You would have to perceive and understand the value of a red car to generate feelings of like or aversion, otherwise why would a hunk of red metal shaped like a car make you feel anything?

verb forms of consciousness, feeling, perception, wisdom

vijānāti 1
pr. (+acc) comprehends; understands; recognises; distinguishes; is aware (of) [vi + √ñā + nā + ti] ✓

vedeti 1
pr. (+acc) feels; experiences; senses; notices [√vid + *e + ti] ✓
grammarexamplesconjugationroot familyfrequencyfeedback
vedeti 2
pr. (+acc) knows; understands; learns about [√vid + *e + ti] ✓

sañjānāti
pr. (+acc) knows; knows as; perceives; conceives; recognizes [saṃ + √ñā + nā + ti] ✓

pajānāti

pr. (+acc) knows; knows clearly; understands; distinguishes [pa + √ñā + nā + ti] ✓

Notice they all have the same root √ñā, except vedana has √vid

Roots

√vid 1

root. √vid･8 e, aya (know, sense, feel) 66

ñā

root. (gram) √ñā (know) [√ñā + ā] ✓

MN 43 probably gives the closest to an answer

43.2 - (Viññāṇa: Consciousness)

43.2.1 – (defined in terms of cognizing 3 types of vedana)

“‘Viññāṇaṁ viññāṇan’ti, āvuso, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, viññāṇanti vuccatī”ti?	“They speak of ‘consciousness’. How is consciousness defined?”
“‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccati. Kiñca vijānāti? Sukhantipi vijānāti, dukkhantipi vijānāti, adukkhamasukhantipi vijānāti. ‘Vijānāti vijānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā viññāṇanti vuccatī”ti.	“It’s called consciousness because it cognizes. And what does it cognize? It cognizes ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ and ‘neutral’. It’s called consciousness because it cognizes.”

43.2.2 – (viññāṇa can not be separated from pañña)

“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā? Labbhā ca panimesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetun”ti? Variant: vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā → vinibbhujjitvā vinibbhujjitvā (mr)

“Wisdom and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?”

“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā. Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetuṁ. Yaṁ hāvuso, pajānāti taṁ vijānāti, yaṁ vijānāti taṁ pajānāti. Variant: Yaṁ hāvuso → yañcāvuso (bj, mr); yañca āvuso (sya-all, km)Tasmā ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā. Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetun”ti.

“Wisdom and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you understand what you cognize, and you cognize what you understand. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”

43.2.3 – (viññāña should be known, pañña developed)

“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— imesaṁ dhammānaṁ saṁsaṭṭhānaṁ no visaṁsaṭṭhānaṁ kiṁ nānākaraṇan”ti?	“Wisdom and consciousness—what is the difference between these things that are mixed, not separate?”
“Yā cāvuso, paññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— imesaṁ dhammānaṁ saṁsaṭṭhānaṁ no visaṁsaṭṭhānaṁ paññā bhāvetabbā, viññāṇaṁ pariññeyyaṁ. Idaṁ nesaṁ nānākaraṇan”ti.	“The difference between these things is that wisdom should be developed, while consciousness should be completely understood.”

43.3 - (vedana: sensation. Senses sukha, dukkha, neither)

“‘Vedanā vedanā’ti, āvuso, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, vedanāti vuccatī”ti?	“They speak of this thing called ‘feeling’. How is feeling defined?”
“‘Vedeti vedetī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā vedanāti vuccati. Kiñca vedeti? Sukhampi vedeti, dukkhampi vedeti, adukkhamasukhampi vedeti. ‘Vedeti vedetī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā vedanāti vuccatī”ti.	“It’s called feeling because it feels. And what does it feel? It feels pleasure, pain, and neutral. It’s called feeling because it feels.”

43.4 - (sañña: Perception)

43.4.1 – (perceives 5 colors)

“‘Saññā saññā’ti, āvuso, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, āvuso, saññāti vuccatī”ti?	“They speak of this thing called ‘perception’. How is perception defined?”
“‘Sañjānāti sañjānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā saññāti vuccati. Kiñca sañjānāti? Nīlakampi sañjānāti, pītakampi sañjānāti, lohitakampi sañjānāti, odātampi sañjānāti. ‘Sañjānāti sañjānātī’ti kho, āvuso, tasmā saññāti vuccatī”ti.	“It’s called perception because it perceives. And what does it perceive? It perceives blue, yellow, red, and white. It’s called perception because it perceives.”

43.4.2 – (sañña can not be separted from vedana)

“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā udāhu visaṁsaṭṭhā? Labbhā ca panimesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetun”ti?

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—are these things mixed or separate? And can we completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them?”

“Yā cāvuso, vedanā yā ca saññā yañca viññāṇaṁ— ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā, no visaṁsaṭṭhā. Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetuṁ. Yaṁ hāvuso, vedeti taṁ sañjānāti, yaṁ sañjānāti taṁ vijānāti. Variant: Yaṁ hāvuso → yaṁ cāvuso (sya-all, km); yañcāvuso (mr)Tasmā ime dhammā saṁsaṭṭhā no visaṁsaṭṭhā. Na ca labbhā imesaṁ dhammānaṁ vinibbhujitvā vinibbhujitvā nānākaraṇaṁ paññāpetun”ti.

“Feeling, perception, and consciousness—these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them. For you perceive what you feel, and you cognize what you perceive. That’s why these things are mixed, not separate. And you can never completely dissect them so as to describe the difference between them.”

Forum discussion

https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/16p6vqw/comment/k2dsm9k/?context=3
level 1

Substantial-Deal3567·8 hr. ago

we have MN 148 which details the mental process from the sense bases contact to the underlying tendencies to greed, hatred and delusion. These tendencies lead to proliferated perception (SN 35.94).

SN 35.93 describes the activities that follow contact. It seems they happen at the same time.
Contacted, one feels. Contacted, one intends. Contacted, one perceives.

Aniccaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, paccayaṃ paṭicca uppanno cakkhusamphasso kuto nicco bhavissati.	But since eye contact has arisen dependent on conditions that are impermanent, how could it be permanent?
Phuṭṭho, bhikkhave, vedeti, phuṭṭho ceteti, phuṭṭho sañjānāti.	Contacted, one feels, intends, and perceives.
Itthetepi dhammā calā ceva byathā ca aniccā vipariṇāmino aññathābhāvino … pe …	So these things are tottering and toppling; they’re impermanent, perishing, and changing.

DWTD: Don't wag the Dhamma

 A collection of articles showing where the tail is wagging the dog,

or the dhamma is wagging The Dhamma.

Or people seeing a tree and missing the forest.

or a foot soldier is giving orders to the General.

The Dhamma is the General.

dhamma are soldiers, cannon fodder.

The Dhamma gives orders to the dhamma.

The dhamma is not qualified to tell Dhamma what to do.

DWTD: Don't wag the Dhamma

wagging the Dhamma: KN Ud 1.10 Bāhiya sutta is the same as the satipaṭṭhāna formula

wagging the Dhamma: KN Ud 1.10 Bāhiya sutta is the same as the satipaṭṭhāna formula

from a discussion here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theravada/comments/16miil2/comment/k1jt8ct/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

The famous "in the seen, there will only be the seen", is actually used in several other places throughout the suttas, especially the satipatthāna formula (which most people don't translate and interpret correctly).

KN Ud 1.10 Bāhiya: With Bāhiya

“Tasmātiha te, bāhiya, evaṁ sikkhitabbaṁ: ‘diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṁ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṁ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṁ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṁ bhavissatī’ti. Evañhi te, bāhiya, sikkhitabbaṁ. Yato kho te, bāhiya, diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṁ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṁ bhavissati, mute mutamattaṁ bhavissati, viññāte viññātamattaṁ bhavissati, tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tena; yato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tena tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tattha; yato tvaṁ, bāhiya, na tattha, tato tvaṁ, bāhiya, nevidha na huraṁ na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassā”ti.	“In that case, Bāhiya, you should train like this: ‘In the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.’ That’s how you should train. When you have trained in this way, you won’t be ‘by that’. When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two. Just this is the end of suffering.”
Atha kho bāhiyassa dārucīriyassa bhagavato imāya saṅkhittāya dhammadesanāya tāvadeva anupādāya āsavehi cittaṁ vimucci.	Then, due to this brief Dhamma teaching of the Buddha, Bāhiya’s mind was right away freed from defilements by not grasping.

 SN 47.2 defines 'sati' (mindfulness ) as doing this all the time (24/7 samādhi ):

kāye kāyā-(a)nu-passī viharati	He lives continuously seeing the body as a body [as it truly is].
vedanāsu vedanā-(a)nu-passī viharati	He lives continuously seeing sensations as sensations [as it truly is].
citte cittā-(a)nu-passī viharati	He lives continuously seeing a mind as a mind [as it truly is].
dhammesu dhammā-(a)nu-passī viharati	He lives continuously seeing ☸Dharma as ☸Dharma [as it truly is].
(… elided refrain from each way…)	[in each of the 4 ways of remembering]:
ātāpī sampajāno satimā,	he is ardent 🏹, he has lucid discerning 👁, he remembers 🐘 [to apply relevant ☸Dharma].
vineyya loke abhijjhā-do-manassaṃ;	he should remove greed and distress regarding the world.

MN 1

1.1.1 - (perceives [sañjānāti] form as form, conceives wrong ideas and identity around form)

“Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto—	“Take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the good persons.
pathaviṃ pathavito sañjānāti;	They perceive earth as earth.
pathaviṃ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṃ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṃ meti maññati, pathaviṃ abhinandati.	But then they conceive earth, they conceive regarding earth, they conceive as earth, they conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth.

1.1.2 - (why? Because they don’t completely understand [A-pariññātaṃ] form)

Taṃ kissa hetu?	Why is that?
‘Apariññātaṃ tassā’ti vadāmi. (1)	Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.
Āpaṃ āpato sañjānāti;	They perceive water as water.
āpaṃ āpato saññatvā āpaṃ maññati, āpasmiṃ maññati, āpato maññati, āpaṃ meti maññati, āpaṃ abhinandati.	But then they conceive water …

(earth is part of rūpa), MN 1 covers all 4 elements, all samādhi attainments, etc.

again, just satipatthana formula stated in slightly different way.

SN 56.1 Samādhi

Undistractible-Lucidity

1. Samādhisutta	1. undistractible-lucidity
Sāvatthi-nidānaṃ.	At Sāvatthī. (this) originates
… pe …	…
“Samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha.	“undistractible-lucidity, monks: (you) must-develop (that).
Samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu	{for a monk} (who has become)-undistractible-&-lucid,
yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti.	[reality] as-it-actually-has-become, (he) discerns.
Kiñ-ca yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti?	And-what (is the) [reality] as-it-actually-has-become, (which he) discerns?

(Without samādhi, you can’t fully penetrate 4nt noble truths)

‘Idaṃ dukkhan’ti	(4nt #1) ‘This is pain-&-suffering’
yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti,	as-it-actually-has-become; (he) discerns (that).
‘ayaṃ dukkha-samudayo’ti	(4nt #2) ‘This is pain-&-suffering's-- origination’
yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti,	as-it-actually-has-become; (he) discerns (that).
‘ayaṃ dukkha-nirodho’ti	(4nt #3) ‘This is pain-&-suffering's-- cessation’
yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti,	as-it-actually-has-become; (he) discerns (that).
‘ayaṃ dukkha-nirodha-gāminī paṭipadā’ti	(4nt #4) ‘This is pain-&-suffering's--cessation-way-of-practice’
yathā-bhūtaṃ pajānāti.	as-it-actually-has-become; (he) discerns (that).

Again, same as satipatthana formula, just in terms of dukkha instead of "body, sensations,..." which is also part of 5uk aggregates.