PDA

View Full Version : Realising Ultimate Reality



Aloka
08 Nov 10, 10:30
Realising Ultimate Reality

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=6,9646,0,0,1,0


I was wondering if anyone had any comments in relation to this transcript of a talk given by Prof. David Loy at the World Buddhist Conference.

Cloud
13 Feb 11, 18:46
I can't say that I have any thoughts, unless there's a specific question, but here are some quotes I liked or found to be relevant to truth/practice:

"Since this sense of self is not real, we become preoccupied with trying to make something real which is not real."

Sow a thought, and reap an action.
Sow an action, and reap a habit.
Sow a habit, and reap character.
Sow character, and reap a destiny.

from Thich Nhat Hanh:

There are two dimensions to life, and we should be able to touch both. One is like a wave, and we call it the ultimate dimension, or nirvana. We usually touch just the wave, but when we discover how to touch the water, we receive the highest fruit that meditation can offer. [.....] A wave has a beginning and an end, but we cannot ascribe these characteristics to water. In the world of water, there is no birth and death, no being or nonbeing, no beginning or end. When we touch the water, we touch reality in its ultimate dimension and are liberated from all of these concepts.

Rael
05 May 11, 16:35
Ultimate Reality is seeing things for what they really are,and not being deceived by the delusions that try to hide the truth from us.Everything we see in our conscious state cannot always be the truth,and the only way is to go beyond our consciousness to realise a real mind.

stuka
07 May 11, 13:56
I don't see anything in that transcript that really addresses any sort of "reality", ultimate or not.

The Buddha did not speak of any notion of "ultimate reality", nor did he teach "non-dualism". These are later contrivances.

Rael
07 May 11, 18:53
We all see reality in our lives, something that exists independently of ideas concerning it,even the Buddha.Some people see the Ultimate reality as god,others as the hidden truth of all things.Buddhist look for the truth and what is really real.

stuka
07 May 11, 20:25
Everything in the world is independent of our ideas concerning it. Except, of course, for our ideas. The Buddha wasn't advocating looking for "the truth and what is really real". The Buddha did not advocate chasing "hidden truths". The Buddha advocated seeing "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self.".

fojiao2
08 May 11, 01:52
Everything in the world is independent of our ideas concerning it. Except, of course, for our ideas. The Buddha wasn't advocating looking for "the truth and what is really real". The Buddha did not advocate chasing "hidden truths". The Buddha advocated seeing "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self.".

Whether The Buddha can be said to have sent people looking for 'hidden truths' depends on what you mean by hidden. The real state of things exists in plain view, but we do not see it because of our attachment to "me" and "mine", therefore, the ultimate reality of things is hidden -- hidden in plain view! So people mediatate and so forth in order to clear away those things that block the experience of 'ultimate reality'.

My understanding is that the term 'ultimate reality' refers to the ever changing nature of phenomena, which is different from the sort of solidified notion of things that people cling to, such as "me" and "mine" and also with regard to external phenomena which appear to be solid and unchanging but are in fact constantly in some state of decay. This also includes seeing the transitory nature of thoughts and emotions which arise in the mind.

The realization of 'ultimate reality' refers to the direct experience, not just an academic understanding, of the ever-changing nature of conditioned things. Buddha may not have used the term 'ultimate reality' specifically, but his teachings point directly to that which has been given this label. It is not a reference to some other reality, such as another dimension.

In the link provided in the beginning of this thread, there is this: "...It's rather the letting go of our selves to realize the nondual nature of reality."
So, I think conclusions are being drawn. If, as Buddha proposes, there is no "me" and "mine" , then what naturally follows here is that in the 'ultimate reality' of things, there is no separation between self and other, because by definition, "me" and "mine" is a conditional view that can only arise in the context of another object, as in "I see my chair". The entire sensation, or experience of a "me" that we cling to is wholly dependent on some exterior reference point. "me" is experienced becuse there is an object that "me" experiences, and "me" is experienced as the experiencer of that thing. "I heard a loud noise and it startled me".

In actual application, the experience of 'ultimate reality' is referred to in contrast with this ordinary dual experience of self and other. So, for example, you can say "I see the chair" if in fact, you are looking at a chair. This is an ordinary approach. But of couse, if there is no "me" or "mine", meaning that ultimately no (unconditioned arising) self can be said to exist, then there is no ultimate "me' to see the chair. And, ultimtely there is no chair. It is only the temporary coming together of the events of conditions (things) which, until they rot away, appear as what we would call a chair.

Element
08 May 11, 02:22
The Buddha did not speak of any notion of "ultimate reality".
Is Dhamma-Niyama ultimate reality?


"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

Dhamma-niyama Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html)

;D

stuka
08 May 11, 03:34
Sure, fokiao2, but what you are describing isn't "god", and that isn't this ontological "hidden truth of all things". Calling it "Ultimate Reality" makes things out to be way more complicated than they are, and the term get a lot of abuse in the Buddhist world, especially when it is combined with advaitaist notions of nonduality and even more when combined with later misrepresentations of the Dhamma that claim that it is metaphysical and concerns "the supernatural".

stuka
08 May 11, 03:36
Is Dhamma-Niyama ultimate reality?

;D

It is not nearly so complicated as notions of "Ultimate Reality". No ontology, no metaphysics, no "supernatural" speculations. It is simply an objective analysis of the way things are.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 03:38
Sure, fokiao2, but what you are describing isn't "god", and that isn't this ontological "hidden truth of all things". Calling it "Ultimate Reality" makes things out to be way more complicated than they are, and the term get a lot of abuse in the Buddhist world, especially when it is combined with advaitaist notions of nonduality and even more when combined with later misrepresentations of the Dhamma that claim that it is metaphysical and concerns "the supernatural".

Oh, when did all this happen? And who said anything about a god?

fojiao2
08 May 11, 04:03
I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine".

When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?"

From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely.

"Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" .

For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings.

stuka
08 May 11, 04:10
Oh, when did all this happen? And who said anything about a god?

Rael did:


We all see reality in our lives, something that exists independently of ideas concerning it,even the Buddha.Some people see the Ultimate reality as god,others as the hidden truth of all things.Buddhist look for the truth and what is really real.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 04:25
Oh yes, you are right. I think that many people see the connectedness of things and whatever and call it God. They personify phenomena. To me, this doesn't matter very much. We call rain clouds "Cumulonimbus" but the Souix tribe may have called them the rain spirit. The words express different things, but both terms have the same result.

Many years ago, a friend of mine visiting from Taiwan asked me why was it, of all the United States presidents, that Abraham Lincoln was the only one to which people had built a temple. At first I wasn't sure what he meant. He was referring to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. which, if you've grown up in a country full of Buddhist and Taoist temples, looks like a big temple. Also, people put flowers there, make 'pilgrimages' to it, go there for inspiration and sometimes talk to the giant seated Lincoln. So, in fact, he was right.

People who do not study Buddhist teachings will probably not understand the Buddhist concept of 'no self' and so they might call 'ultimate reality' God, but that doesn't make it a bad term.

It is not the rug's fault if somebody walks on it with muddy shoes.

stuka
08 May 11, 04:34
I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine".

When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?"

But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind.




From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely.

The Buddha takes a simpler approach: "this is impermanent, this is not my self, this can lead to suffering."



"Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" .

And all the advaitaist/nondualist head-tripping isn't really necessary with the Buddha's approach. And we can see the Buddha speaking of self and other precisely in such teachings as the Veludvareyya Sutta: "...what is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too". And while some conditions arise interdependently (namarupa and vinnanam come to mind), not all do -- which is what makes paticcasamuppada work at all. Without the arising of upadna, there is no arising of bhava, and no jati and no dukkha. But again we see the difference between a metaphysical interpretation of paticcasamuppada (which the Buddha did not teach), and the practical approach to alleviating suffering that he taught.



For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings.

That is how the phrase is used widely in the Buddhist world. I don't use the phrase at all in connection with the Dhamma, precisely because it is loaded up with extraneous metaphysical and "supernatural" assumptions.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 04:37
For that matter, we personify Buddha by saying he was a person.

If "there is nothing that can be called 'me' or 'mine'" then who said it?

stuka
08 May 11, 04:42
People who do not study Buddhist teachings will probably not understand the Buddhist concept of 'no self' and so they might call 'ultimate reality' God, but that doesn't make it a bad term.


The allusion was probably to the Vedic assumptions that preceded the Buddha (and largely infiltrated Buddhism after his death) of Brahma (their version of philosophy's "God") being the Ultimate Reality, and that the goal of the holy life was to seek "union with the Brahmin". Brahmins exerted a great deal of influence on Buddhist doctrine after the Buddha's death (for example, in the case of Buddhaghosa), and I think this notion of an "Ultimate Reality" crept in with that influence. When the Buddha spoke of "the way things are", he tended toward the word "tathana", rather than some notion of "Ultimate (vs. conventional, mind you) Reality".

stuka
08 May 11, 04:43
For that matter, we personify Buddha by saying he was a person.

If "there is nothing that can be called 'me' or 'mine'" then who said it?

It is pretty clear that he was a person.

Element
08 May 11, 05:39
It is not nearly so complicated as notions of "Ultimate Reality". No ontology, no metaphysics, no "supernatural" speculations. It is simply an objective analysis of the way things are.
Well explained. Thanks

;D

Element
08 May 11, 05:44
But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind.
Well explained. Thanks

You know, your post reminded me of this sutta, here, that I just read: Khemaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html)

I thought this was a really lovely, poignant & honest sutta.

With metta

;D

andyrobyn
08 May 11, 09:03
For that matter, we personify Buddha by saying he was a person.

If "there is nothing that can be called 'me' or 'mine'" then who said it?


It is pretty clear that he was a person.


As I have found myself discussing often online, in my work as a psychiatric nurse I meet many people with mental illness who experience symptoms of acute, extreme anxiety - such as the phenomona of depersonalisation and derealisation, as well as the more disabling psychotic conditions in which individuals experience various types of hallucinations, and other types of altered perceptions which interefere with the ability to maintain a stable sense of identity and self in a conventional sense. This does not aid the ending of suffering in any way.

Rael
08 May 11, 12:08
'Ulimate Reality is nothing but a transcendent truth which governs the universe and
human life'

Philosophy or Metaphysics is not the answer to this Stuka,but rational thinking.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 13:35
You see, I have never seen "ultimate reality" used in the context of which you speak, in terms of union with Brahman, only as an expression of that which is experienced when the mind is not clinging to notions of "me" and "mine".

fojiao2
08 May 11, 13:39
It is pretty clear that he was a person.

My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma.

stuka
08 May 11, 14:06
'Ulimate Reality is nothing but a transcendent truth which governs the universe and
human life'

Philosophy or Metaphysics is not the answer to this Stuka,but rational thinking.

The notion of an "Ultimate Reality" is inherently philosophical (ontology) and/or metaphysical.

The unattributed quote you cite is an unsupported assertion, at best a fallacious appeal to misplaced authority.

stuka
08 May 11, 14:10
You see, I have never seen "ultimate reality" used in the context of which you speak, in terms of union with Brahman, only as an expression of that which is experienced when the mond is not clinging to notions of "me" and "mine".

I have, but not as a Buddhist idea. As an expression of the mind not clinging, it is at best confusing and misleading. Non-clinging is not an alternate reality from a reality in which one clings to phenomena (i.e., "provisional/etc reality" vs. "Ultimate Reality"), it is the same reality and what has changed is our reaction. Very simple and no need to cloud the matter with vague terms.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 14:19
If Buddha asserts that "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." what does that mean?

My understanding is that there is nothing that can be truly called a 'self', yet mistakenly clinging to such notions is what people tend to do, and this is what results in suffering.

Conventionally, "me" and "mine" is what we experience.
"I" am typing this on "my" computer.
But ultimately, as Buddha says, "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self."

This is what I understand to be the distinction made between relative reality and ultimate reality, or sometimes called relative truth and ultimate truth. It's not that two separate realities exist, rather that two views of the same reality exist, one that is based on clinging to a self, and one that isn't.

stuka
08 May 11, 14:24
My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma.


You see? You have turned the Buddha's teaching of non-self into an ontology: "There is no 'me', therefore there was no such person as the Buddha". Anatta is not an ontology: "there is no me". It is a phenomenological method of breaking free of self-centered thinking.

"No 'me' or 'mine' is inherently existent" is an ontological statement. The notion of "inherent existence" is an ontological question. The very act of putting it into terms of "inherent existence" is a speculative distraction. The Buddha refused to address such questions because they are speculative. The Buddha did not speak of "ultimate reality" or "inherent existence"; instead he recommended that we examine phenomena and see "this is not me, this is not mine" and thus detach ourselves from it. Ontology doesn't enter into the equation: what is important is our detachment, the letting go of clinging to things as "me" and "mine".

fojiao2
08 May 11, 14:33
I have, but not as a Buddhist idea. As an expression of the mind not clinging, it is at best confusing and misleading. Non-clinging is not an alternate reality from a reality in which one clings to phenomena (i.e., "provisional/etc reality" vs. "Ultimate Reality"), it is the same reality and what has changed is our reaction. Very simple and no need to cloud the matter with vague terms.

The fact that non-buddhists use the term 'ultimate reality' to refer to something else doesn't have anything to do with how Buddhists use it. It is only misleading to the person who associates it with other meanings. the fact that I use water to satisfy my thirst is not influenced by the fact that others use water to bathe in.

stuka
08 May 11, 15:30
The fact that non-buddhists use the term 'ultimate reality' to refer to something else doesn't have anything to do with how Buddhists use it. It is only misleading to the person who associates it with other meanings. the fact that I use water to satisfy my thirst is not influenced by the fact that others use water to bathe in.

But, as you can see, Buddhists are also giving it other meanings -- including you.

Esho
08 May 11, 15:38
It is pretty clear that he was a person.

Fortunately he was and this simple fact is paramount for the teachings of the Buddha. Those teachings were not given by a superhero, a intergalactic redeemer, a God, or a metaphysical entity suitable just for advanced connoisseurs.

;)

stuka
08 May 11, 16:03
When the Buddha says we should see, "This is not me, mine,self, etc", it is just one of several devices he suggests that we can use to detach with, to cease clinging to things.

What you say about how we originally tend to see the world vs how the Buddha suggests we view it in order to let go is in accordance with the Dhamma, but calling it "conventional" and "ultimate reality" complicates it unnecessarily and opens the door for the sort of misinterpretations we see in several sects that claim tthat this teaching *is* about alternate realities.

fojiao2
08 May 11, 16:46
But, as you can see, Buddhists are also giving it other meanings -- including you.

Please explain my incorrect usage

Aloka
08 May 11, 17:17
Ajahn Amaro mentions "Ultimate Reality" in the first sentence of the quote below:




"The Buddha, in the Theravada tradition, is always pulling away from creating a metaphysical description of Nibbana, the Beyond, Ultimate Reality.

Instead he always comes right back to the focus of: “If there is suffering, it’s because there is clinging to something. An identity is being created.”

That’s all we need to know. The rest is whipped cream. Over and over again such abstruse philosophical questions were put to the Buddha, and over and over again he would bring it back to: “I teach only dukkha and the ending of dukkha.”


It’s not a matter of creating the perfect philosophical model (and then getting lost in it) but looking at how we feel now, what’s happening within our heart right now.

As we recognize that, as we see dukkha being created, we trace it back. We realize there’s been some clinging; the clinging came from craving; the craving came from feeling; and the feeling came from that contact.

We realize, “Aha! It was that thought that triggered this.” We see that and let it go. This is dukkha-nirodha, the ending of suffering.


The ending of suffering is not some kind of Armageddon, a cosmic healing at the ending of time. The ending of suffering occurs at exactly the place where the suffering is generated.

When we trace back some particular event of dukkha, when we see where it has arisen from and let go of it right there, then there is no suffering."


Source : "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell"

http://www.forestsangha.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=159:theravada-buddhism-in-a-nutshell&catid=9:talks-by-ajahn-amaro


:hands:

Esho
08 May 11, 17:32
Ajahn Amaro mentions "Ultimate Reality" in the first sentence of the quote below:

Thanks Dazz...

When I read this kind of quotes, some sort of liberation and clear understanding is felt... the other way, hidden meanings, "ultimate realities", philosophical amusements, and heavenly refuges have never led me into awareness but just into metaphysical speculative entanglements leading into restlessness.

;)

stuka
08 May 11, 17:48
Please explain my incorrect usage

Post#24

fojiao2
08 May 11, 19:37
Thank you for this information. I have never heard of these kinds of speculations being made before. I would like to know what Buddhist schools actually teach such things. You may be surprised to know that these words from this Theravada teacher match perfectly with the Vajrayana schools of Mahamudra and Dzogchen, which teaches to let the mind relax in its original state without any kinds of fabrications or elaborations, but instead emphasizes the inseparability of nirvana (nibbana) and samsara. As I said before, 'ultimate reality' is not a different reality, it is the everyday world seen with a mind free from attachment to 'me' and 'mine'.

Aloka
08 May 11, 19:53
You may be surprised to know that these words from this Theravada teacher match perfectly with the Vajrayana schools of Mahamudra and Dzogchen

Not much of a surprise to me that you should think that, having originally been a Vajrayana practitioner myself and familiar with those practices you mention, before transfering to this particular Theravada Thai Forest tradition. I feel it is much more relevant to my practice and understanding at this point in time and cuts through any pointless add-ons.

Does one really need to speculate about 'the inseperability of nirvana and samsara' if ones mind has knowledge of samadhi/emptiness/ stillness/clarity /wisdom and awareness ? I doubt it, because maybe it all just becomes unnecessary terminlogy and mental proliferation distracting one from the immediacy of here and now.

Anyway, sorry, back to topic !

Element
08 May 11, 22:14
The notion of an "Ultimate Reality" is inherently philosophical (ontology) and/or metaphysical.
Stuka

What exactly is ontology?

Could you kindly explain the reasons why the following stock phrase found in the Pali suttas does not accord with notions of ontology?

:confused:

Thanks


Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it plain:

Esho
08 May 11, 22:50
Does one really need to speculate about 'the inseperability of nirvana and samsara' [...]

Absolutely not. That speculative "need" happens if, and only if, mind is disturbed, full of worldly concerns, restlessness, chattering with in, fabrications, etc., Once the mind is not peaceful, not aware... the bunch of speculative metaphysical entanglements settles in.

stuka
08 May 11, 23:44
Stuka

What exactly is ontology?

Could you kindly explain the reasons why the following stock phrase found in the Pali suttas does not accord with notions of ontology?

:confused:

Thanks



Ontology (WIKI):


Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: "of that which is", and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality as such, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

The Buddha is proclaiming the universality of the Dhamma. The Buddha is no longer here, no longer alive, and craving and clinging still give rise to suffering, no?

stuka
09 May 11, 00:01
Thank you for this information. I have never heard of these kinds of speculations being made before. I would like to know what Buddhist schools actually teach such things. You may be surprised to know that these words from this Theravada teacher match perfectly with the Vajrayana schools of Mahamudra and Dzogchen,...

I would indeed be surprised if that were true.



...which teaches to let the mind relax in its original state

The mind's original state is a self-view-centered mess. The Buddha spoke of this state when he referred to one who has not heard the Dhamma as "an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma". This is the "original mind", the "original state", from which the Dhamma frees us.



without any kinds of fabrications or elaborations, but instead emphasizes the inseparability of nirvana (nibbana) and samsara.

Samsara for the Buddha is being trapped in habitual patterns of harmful behavior through craving and clinging. This is quite different from Nibbana, and quite different from what Ajahn Amaro describes.



As I said before, 'ultimate reality' is not a different reality, it is the everyday world seen with a mind free from attachment to 'me' and 'mine'.

Then it is just reality, and all that has changed has been our reaction to it. So why muddy it up with all the hocus-pocus? It is not "samsara =nibbana", it is just what is happening. It is neither samsara nor nibbana -- these are merely our own mental states and reactions to what is happening. Impressing our mental states onto reality as if the reality itself changes just muddies the water and leads to confusion (and a lot of ignorant dogmatism based in that confusion as well).

fojiao2
09 May 11, 00:33
Absolutely not. That speculative "need" happens if, and only if, mind is disturbed, full of worldly concerns, restlessness, chattering with in, fabrications, etc., Once the mind is not peaceful, not aware... the bunch of speculative metaphysical entanglements settles in.

Well, the same can be said for logging onto an internet forum. But sometimes you learn something.

Esho
09 May 11, 00:44
But sometimes you learn something.

Sure fojiao... indeed it has happend that in this forum I accepted the challenge to give a honest try for the Pali Dhamma. And just the Pali Dhamma. Believe it or not, it has given me a complete different scope of what has to be done in terms of what the Buddha taught, not in terms of a given tradition. Now the tradition I chose has become just a momentary aid for what the Buddha taught and not otherwise. The main issue has been clearly taught by the Buddha. There is no need for more. It is up to us to go for them as they are or keep doing a mess out of them.

;)

fojiao2
09 May 11, 02:12
(exerpted)
The mind's original state is a self-view-centered mess... This is the "original mind", the "original state", from which the Dhamma frees us.

Perhaps here is where there is a disagreement. There is a story in which the Buddha sees that some water in a pond, when stirred, has become cloudy from the silt at the bottom but when allowed to settle returns to its original clear state, and from this is drawn an analogy to the original state of mind being clear. If the original or 'true' state of mind is not fundamentally clear, fundamentally enlightened, then dhamma practice is pointless because then enlightenment is merely something conditionally constructed...added on. My understanding is that practising the dharma, calming the mind and so forth, removes the patterns which obscure mind's original clear nature. When attachment and clinging and so forth is removed, what remains is enlightenment.


(exerpted)
It is not "samsara =nibbana", it is just what is happening.

"the inseparability of samsara and nirvana (nibbana)" does not mean "samsara =nibbana". But I think this is a concept that is based on sunyata (emptiness) and so if you are not familiar with this, as it is a mahayana thing, then I retract my reference to it, because it does not apply to your method.

Aloka
09 May 11, 05:07
"the inseparability of samsara and nirvana (nibbana)" does not mean "samsara =nibbana". But I think this is a concept that is based on sunyata (emptiness) and so if you are not familiar with this, as it is a mahayana thing, then I retract my reference to it, because it does not apply to your method.

The term sunnata (emptiness) is also used in Theravada -and there's a Sunna Sutta (SN 35.85), Cula-Sunnata Sutta (MN121), and Maha-Sunnata Sutta (MN 122) as well as other suttas connected with emptiness.

I am leaving a quote and a reference for non-Vajrayana practitioners to read more about
"the inseparability of samsara and nirvana".



So what is the view, conduct, and result of mahamudra? Mahamudra speaks about calm abiding and insight. Its explanation of insight is especially profound. It explains how to transform afflictive emotions into wisdom.

In one of his songs Milarepa explained to Megom Repa about mahamudra. The inseparable nature of samsara and nirvana is mahamudra.

In this inseparable nature there is no duality. There is neither samsara nor nirvana. Whenever you realize the nature of samsara, that itself is nirvana.

All appearance has emptiness as its inseparable nature. Since emptiness is there, compassion is there. And since compassion is there the true nature of emptiness is there. Conceptual thought is inseparable from the mind. It comes from the energy of the mind. So that is my understanding.


source:

http://www.lamagursam.org/mahamudra.html


:flower:

Element
09 May 11, 05:27
Ontology (WIKI):

The Buddha is proclaiming the universality of the Dhamma.
Sure.

But what I am saying is, to me, the quote below seems to say all conditioned things are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self, even if not one living conscious human being realises this.

Is this not ontology?; that the characteristics of things exist even though human beings being are not aware they exist?


Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it plain:

fojiao2
09 May 11, 11:33
Thanks for supplying that reference. I thought sunnata was also in the pali tradition but I wasn't sure. I think ultimately all these methods lead to the same place. For some, one method may seem complicated, for others another method may seem too rigid. So much depends on how one ends up defining the meanings of terms.

Aliarchus
09 May 11, 11:46
Thanks for supplying that reference. I thought sunnata was also in the pali tradition but I wasn't sure. I think ultimately all these methods lead to the same place. For some, one method may seem complicated, for others another method may seem too rigid. So much depends on how one ends up defining the meanings of terms.

Yes fojiao2,
I think we all need to just get on with it.

A

Aloka
09 May 11, 12:57
There's an article here by Bhikkhu Bodhi : "Dhamma and Non-Duality" and in it he says:



"The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous.

This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.

The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."




more at the link:

http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php

.

fojiao2
09 May 11, 13:46
That's a good quote, summed up in the line: "This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana" --but I would emphasize the word 'ultimate'.

Relatively speaking, of course there is an ocean of difference, because a relative point of view is based upon the subjective perceptions of "me". But when the mind is not attached to "me" and "mine" (As Buddha suggests), the mahayanist position is that the conditions which cause that relative point of view to arise no longer exist. Isn't this also the Theravada position?

The Mahayanist says that outside of the workings of the mind, all notions of samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment do not exist. That is what is meant by, "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

I do not think that Bhikkhu Bodhi's the statement: "The validity of conventional dualities is denied " is accurate. But that depends on what we mean by "validity". Mahayanists do not deny that from a conventional standpoint Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment are opposites. There is no denying that beings wallow in ignorance and suffering. Mahayanaists do not say that this is the same as being enlightened.

What the mahayanist says, to quote a famous zen writing, is "to set up what you like against what you dislike, this is the disease of the mind" which means that its the attachments we form in our minds to these dualities, which blocks realization.
(http://www.mendosa.com/way3.htm)
Actually, this poem really sums up the whole mahayana position quite well.

I think he is definitely right, however, from the Theravada point of view, this view borders on the outrageous.

Aloka
09 May 11, 14:02
What the mahayanist says, to quote a famous zen writing, is "to set up what you like against what you dislike, this is the disease of the mind"


excerpt from 'Still, Flowing Water' by Ajahn Chah ......





Actually, in practicing the Dhamma, whatever happens, you have to start from the mind. Do you know what this mind is? What is the mind like? What is it? Where is it? Nobody knows.

All we know is that we want to go over here or over there, we want this and we want that, the mind feels happy or sad, but the mind itself we can’t know. What is the mind? The mind isn’t “is” anything. We’ve come up with the supposition that whatever receives impressions, both good and bad, we call “heart” or “mind.” Like the owner of a house.

Whoever receives the guests is the owner of the house. The guests can’t receive the owner. The owner stays put at home. When guests come to see him, he has to receive them. Who receives sense impressions? Who lets go of sense impressions? That’s what we call “mind.” But we don’t understand it, so we think around in circles: “What is the mind? What is the heart?” Don’t confuse the issue like this.

What is it that receives impressions? Some impressions it likes and some it doesn’t. Who is that? Is there something that likes and dislikes? Sure there is, but we don’t know what it’s like. That’s what we call “mind.” Understand? Don’t go looking far away.

~

People these days keep studying, looking to understand what’s right and what’s wrong, what’s good and evil, but they don’t know neither-rightness-nor-wrong-ness. All they’re looking to know is what’s right and wrong: “I’m going to take only what’s right. I won’t take what’s wrong. Why should I?”

If you try to take only what’s right, in a short time it’ll go wrong. It’s right for the sake of wrong. People keep searching for what’s right and wrong, but they don’t try to find what’s neither-rightness-nor wrong-ness. They study about good and bad, they search for merit and evil, but they don’t study the point where there’s neither merit nor evil. They study issues of long and short, but the issue of neither long nor short they don’t study.

This knife has a blade, a back, and a handle. When you pick it up, can you lift only the blade? Can you lift only the back of the blade, or the handle? The handle is the handle of the knife; the back, the back of the knife; the blade, the blade of the knife. When you pick up the knife, you pick up all three parts together.

In the same way, if you pick up what’s good, what’s bad must follow. People search for what’s good and try to throw away what’s bad, but they don’t study what’s neither good nor bad. If you don’t study this, things never come to an end. If you pick up goodness, badness comes along with it. It follows right along. If you pick up happiness, suffering follows you. They’re connected.

The practice of clinging to what’s good and rejecting what’s bad is the Dhamma of children, Dhamma for children to toy around with. Sure, if you want, you can take just this much, but if you grab onto what’s good, what’s bad will follow. The end of this path gets all cluttered up. So it’s not so good.




Source:

http://mettarefuge.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/still-flowing-water-dharma-nuggets-from-ajahn-chah/

fojiao2
09 May 11, 14:20
Brilliant!

I think sometimes comparing Theravada with Mahayana is like comparing alternating current with direct current when it comes to electricity. But as long as it makes the light go on, that is what really matters.

stuka
09 May 11, 14:39
Sure.

But what I am saying is, to me, the quote below seems to say all conditioned things are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self, even if not one living conscious human being realises this.

Is this not ontology?; that the characteristics of things exist even though human beings being are not aware they exist?

Is gravity an ontology? Or a characteristic of natural processes?


One thing I have pointed out before is that the Three Characteristics are not so much characteristics of phenomena, but rather mirrors of our expectations for them. We tend to expect or desire that things be permanent, self-standing, and satisfying. Anicca and Anatta would not hold any significance in the universe if there were no sentient beings (all the way down to amoeba and viruses, etc). But as for your question concerning dukkha, if there were nothing sentient in the universe, there would be no dukkha at all.

stuka
09 May 11, 15:09
Perhaps here is where there is a disagreement. There is a story in which the Buddha sees that some water in a pond, when stirred, has become cloudy from the silt at the bottom but when allowed to settle returns to its original clear state, and from this is drawn an analogy to the original state of mind being clear.

Lots of people have made up their own stories about the Buddha to suit their own proclivities and ends.



If the original or 'true' state of mind is not fundamentally clear, fundamentally enlightened, then dhamma practice is pointless because then enlightenment is merely something conditionally constructed...added on.

Is this your logic, or the logic of your teachers? Either way, it is fundamentally flawed and ridiculously pedantic. This sort of dogmatic description is based upon a pedantic interpretation of an equivocation of the idea of conditioning.

Nibbana is the absence of the conditioning that causes us to crave, cling, and grasp at experience. Because of this the Buddha pointed out that it is unconditioned. It is not a conditioned state because it is the absence of the conditioning that causes dukkha. Practising the dhamma is how one arrives at this state of no conditioning that causes dukkha. Rejecting the dhamma and calling it "pointless" over pedantic adherence to an equivocation seems like cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.



My understanding is that practising the dharma, calming the mind and so forth, removes the patterns which obscure mind's original clear nature. When attachment and clinging and so forth is removed, what remains is enlightenment.

Calming the mind is just the beginning in the Buddha's Dhamma. Removing patterns, attachment and clinging is an intermediary step. They tend to come back. One arrives at Nibbana by removing the very causes and conditions from which attachment and clinging arise.




"the inseparability of samsara and nirvana (nibbana)" does not mean "samsara =nibbana".

Depends on who you ask.



But I think this is a concept that is based on sunyata (emptiness) and so if you are not familiar with this, as it is a mahayana thing, then I retract my reference to it, because it does not apply to your method.

Why would I not know anything of sunnata? No, it is not "a mahayana thing", it is just that mahayanists have redefined it to suit their own proclivities.

I wonder why mahayanists and vajrayanists seem to always expect folks to be familiar with (and agreeable to) their interpretations and their dogmas, but do not see any reason to bother to take the time to examine the Buddha's own teachings?

stuka
09 May 11, 15:27
Thanks for supplying that reference. I thought sunnata was also in the pali tradition but I wasn't sure. I think ultimately all these methods lead to the same place. For some, one method may seem complicated, for others another method may seem too rigid. So much depends on how one ends up defining the meanings of terms.

The Buddha uses the word and it is an important term, but mahayanists use it in an entirely different way. If we are Buddhists supposedly practicing the Buddha's dhamma, then whose definition would be most likely to carry the most weight?

stuka
09 May 11, 15:38
Brilliant!

I think sometimes comparing Theravada with Mahayana is like comparing alternating current with direct current when it comes to electricity. But as long as it makes the light go on, that is what really matters.


But you just said: "If the original or 'true' state of mind is not fundamentally clear, fundamentally enlightened, then dhamma practice is pointless because then enlightenment is merely something conditionally constructed...added on."

EDIT: In case you haven't picked up on it, you just said that practising the Buddha's Dhamma, which is based on exactly that premise, is pointless. Which is fine, but then why call oneself a Buddhist?



Every religion and philosophy claims to "make the light go on". Are they all the same? Need the Buddha have even bothered teaching his own doctrine and devising his own practices? Why would he bother to advocate the practice of his own techniques, if all roads lead to the same place?

stuka
09 May 11, 15:55
Yes fojiao2,
I think we all need to just get on with it.

A

Sure, and we do, but when we pause to discuss the Dhamma and what it means to us, saying "I think we all need to just get on with it" when controversy or disagreement arises seems to dodge the issues. They don't go away. The question arises, "Get on with what?"

Shall we just charge on in whatever direction strikes our fancies of the moment: "Ready, Fire, Aim!!!"...?

When Brahmins and Jains questioned the Buddha's teachings, did he say, "we all need to just get on with it"...?

Aloka
09 May 11, 16:29
I think we all need to just get on with it.

A

We certainly all need to get on with our practice, which also includes examining our methods and our motivation in general, Aliarchus.

However, this is a debating forum where we have an opportunity to share and discuss Dhamma and make online friends with other Buddhists from all traditions.

:hands:

fojiao2
09 May 11, 17:14
Okay, Stuka, whatever you want. Whatever makes you happy is what I am all for.

stuka
09 May 11, 19:28
Okay, Stuka, whatever you want. Whatever makes you happy is what I am all for.


That is a dodge.

fojiao2
09 May 11, 21:04
That is a dodge.

It's whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be. So, consider yourself right on this.

My comments were originally made in relation to a transcript of a talk given by Prof. David Loy at the World Buddhist Conference, which appeared at the beginning of this thread.

Since then, I feel the conversation is being led into a sort of "who is right?" sparring match, and, with respect to the Code of Conduct for this forum, it is not my intention to indulge in that.

stuka
09 May 11, 21:32
It's whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be. So, consider yourself right on this.


If you don't want to discuss this, then just say so and quit projecting your own wish to avoid these issues on me with patronizing, loaded dodges.

Element
09 May 11, 22:02
One thing I have pointed out before is that the Three Characteristics are not so much characteristics of phenomena, but rather mirrors of our expectations for them. We tend to expect or desire that things be permanent, self-standing, and satisfying. Anicca and Anatta would not hold any significance in the universe if there were no sentient beings (all the way down to amoeba and viruses, etc). But as for your question concerning dukkha, if there were nothing sentient in the universe, there would be no dukkha at all.
We must disgree here.

As for your explanation of dukkhata, it accords with that of Retrofuturist, which was previously posted on this forum.

The suttas state: "What is impermanent is dukkha (unsatisfactory); what is unsatisfactory is not-self". (SN 22.15)

These three characteristics are inseparable.

Imo, this is not related to sentience.

Of the three usages of dukkha, my understanding is only those of the Noble Truths and dukkha vedana are related to sentience.

With metta

;D


C. Dukkham as "Uglily Void, Wickedly Empty": By separating the components of dukkham and taking
du to mean "ugly" and kham to mean "void, empty," we arrive at the meaning "uglily void." The condition
we call "wickedly empty" refers to the fact that all sankharas have nothing but impermanence, namely,
swiftly flowing, endless spirals of change. We can go so far as to say that in these sankharas there is only
impermanence and change, that is, the flow of change is itself these things. Besides this, we can't find any
abiding substance within them. Consequently, all sankharas have only this condition of being "uglily
empty." However, such a meaning of dukkham as this broadens to include anatta. Therefore, we will
consider it in detail in connection with the fact that when impermanence is seen, then anatta must be seen.
(To be discussed subsequently.) Here, we simply intend to point out that even this third meaning of
dukkham is included in the word "impermanence," because impermanence is thoroughly void. There is
only this change which stops for nothing.

Thus, within impermanence there are three conditions: the state of suffering, the state of "once seen, it
is ugly" and the state of "uglily void." These are gathered together fully in the same place and at the same
moment. In order to realize impermanence genuinely, one must clearly and unavoidably see these three
conditions within it. Therefore, we ought to say that when we see impermanence, we without a doubt see
dukkham, also. This explains why the Buddha spoke only of impermanence, and not dukkham, in this
fourth tetrad of Anapanasati. The reason is that dukkham is included within impermanence in such a way
that the two cannot be separated.

Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Buddhadasa_Anapanasati-Fourth_Tetra.pdf)

stuka
09 May 11, 23:12
We must disgree here.

.....The suttas state: "What is impermanent is dukkha (unsatisfactory); what is unsatisfactory is not-self". (SN 22.15)

These three characteristics are inseparable.

Imo, this is not related to sentience.


Does a rock feel or experience dukkha, sukkha, Nibbana...?

fojiao2
10 May 11, 00:24
If you don't want to discuss this, then just say so and quit projecting your own wish to avoid these issues on me with patronizing, loaded dodges.

If that's what you think I'm saying, there's not much I can do about that. So, it's okay.

stuka
10 May 11, 01:01
That's what I *see* you are *doing*.

stuka
10 May 11, 03:18
It's whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be. So, consider yourself right on this.

My comments were originally made in relation to a transcript of a talk given by Prof. David Loy at the World Buddhist Conference, which appeared at the beginning of this thread.

Since then, I feel the conversation is being led into a sort of "who is right?" sparring match, and, with respect to the Code of Conduct for this forum, it is not my intention to indulge in that.


I see that you have substantially altered the content and meaning of your post, which originally read only "It's whatever you think it is, whatever you want it to be. So, consider yourself right on this" before I previously replied to it.

Any sense of steering toward a "who is right?" sparring match is your own projection. If you do not wish to debate the questions at hand, fine. But it is underhanded to project your avoidance of the issue on me and insinuate that I am making into "who is right".


My concern is the question, "what is the Buddhadhamma?". The Buddha's own recommendation to test what is and is not the Dhamma was to compare what is being claimed to his own words in the doctrine and discipline.

Element
10 May 11, 06:49
Does a rock feel or experience dukkha, sukkha, Nibbana...?
No. As I said, the 4NTs and dukkha vedana do not apply to a rock.

But a rock itself is unsatisfactory, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness.

This characteristic is the nature of the rock. It is not related to the sentient experiencer of the rock.

Regards

;D

stuka
10 May 11, 07:08
I understand what you are saying, but if no being is around to be dissatisfied with the rock, it cannot be unsatisfactory. For an object to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, it must be satisfactory or unsatisfactory to something or someone:

"A rock itself is unsatisfactory to a person, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness to a person (or being)".

A rock is not unsatisfactory to, say, another rock.

retrofuturist
10 May 11, 11:05
Greetings,

I concur with Stuka, in relation to the matter of rocks and dukkha.

If there was no sentience, the anicca and anatta nature of things such as rocks would have no bearing on dukkha and nirodha, and therefore, no bearing on the Dhamma.

All formations (sankhara, which are all dukkha) are a product of ignorance... not a product of "the physical world".

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
10 May 11, 11:18
One thing I have pointed out before is that the Three Characteristics are not so much characteristics of phenomena, but rather mirrors of our expectations for them. We tend to expect or desire that things be permanent, self-standing, and satisfying.
Hi Stuka

I am trying to respond to your posts so I will return to the start and begin with the above.

That a drop of rain is impermanent once the sun comes out is not related to our expectations.

That our bodies grow from child birth and then tend towards aging, death & decay is not related to our expectations.

The Pali suttas say:


277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
Contrary to what is quoted above, you are subjectifying what is not subjective. The excerpt above states all conditioned things are dukkha, which is something to be seen with wisdom or objective insight.

The excerpt above states when the dukkha characteristic is seen, the sentient dukka you are referring to ceases.

There are two meanings of dukkha in this one sentence but you seem to be only using the word dukkha in one way.

One meaning of dukkha is always there whilst the other meaning of dukkha ceases in the awakened mind.


Anicca and Anatta would not hold any significance in the universe if there were no sentient beings (all the way down to amoeba and viruses, etc). But as for your question concerning dukkha, if there were nothing sentient in the universe, there would be no dukkha at all.
The Pali suttas do not separate the Three Characteristics. For example:


"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

Below, as before, I quote the Buddha, where it is said even if the Three Characteristics are not discerned, they still characterise all phenomena.


"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are unsatisfactory.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html

;D

Element
10 May 11, 11:23
I understand what you are saying, but if no being is around to be dissatisfied with the rock, it cannot be unsatisfactory. For an object to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, it must be satisfactory or unsatisfactory to something or someone. "A rock itself is unsatisfactory to a person, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness to a person (or being)". A rock is not unsatisfactory to, say, another rock.
It is difficult to find words that imply "usefulness" or "utility" that are separate from human experience however, to begin with this line of inquiry, I think it is fair to assert nature has certain self-sustaining "purposes".

For example, the earth orbits around the sun in a certain order which can sustain life. For this purpose of maintaining life, the gravitational forces (whatever) that maintain the orbit, at least temporarily, satisfy the purpose. But other things, such as a drop of water, cannot satisfy the purpose of maintaining the earths orbit. Water inherently is unsatisfactory for this gravitational purpose.

Similarly, where I live, there are many granite boulders stacked upon eachother and upon the earth. Due to the erosion of one rock, another rock will fall & smash in many pieces, losing its "rockness". Although the rock is not sentient, one rock is unsatisfactory to another rock.

Similarly, the soils are very coarse & loose. When there is heavy rain, the soils give way and the rocks come tumbling down, smashing to pieces on other rocks. The coarse & loose soils are unsatisfactory for sustaining rocks.

;D

Element
10 May 11, 11:48
For an object to be satisfactory or unsatisfactory, it must be satisfactory or unsatisfactory to something or someone. "A rock itself is unsatisfactory to a person, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness to a person (or being)".
So, the end this evening, the following discourse may be worthy of consideration:


"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further.

Suppose there were a householder or householder's son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: 'It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?'

"So he would go to the householder or householder's son and say, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord.' With that, the householder or householder's son would take the man on as a servant.

"Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder's son would come to regard him as a friend & companion and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, 'This householder or householder's son trusts me,' then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

"Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder's son and said, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord': wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

"Yes, my friend."

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He does not discern unsatisfactory form, as it actually is present, as 'unsatisfactory form.' He does not discern unsatisfactory feeling... He does not discern unsatisfactory perception... He does not discern unsatisfactory fabrications... He does not discern unsatisfactory consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'unsatisfactory consciousness.'

"He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.085.than.html

;D

Element
10 May 11, 12:19
All formations (sankhara, which are all dukkha) are a product of ignorance... not a product of "the physical world".
Retrofuturist

The word 'sankhara' is probably the most broad in the Pali language. It does not simply mean "mental concocting".

For example, the 2nd link of Dependent Origination includes the kaya sankhara, that is, the breathing in & out. This is not a mental formation. It is something physical. The kaya sankhara is not the product of ignorance however it is stirred up or agitated by ignorance.

Or MN 43 uses the term 'aayu sankhara', which means 'vitality fabrications' or 'the life force'. Its usage in the passage is something physical.

Regards

;D


"Friend, are vitality-fabrications (aayu sankhara) the same thing as feeling-states? Or are vitality-fabrications one thing, and feeling-states another?"

"Vitality-fabrications are not the same thing as feeling-states, friend. If vitality-fabrications were the same thing as feeling-states, the emergence of a monk from the attainment of the cessation of feeling & perception would not be discerned. It's because vitality-fabrications are one thing and feeling-states another that the emergence of a monk from the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling is discerned."

"When this body lacks how many qualities does it lie discarded & forsaken, like a senseless log?"

"When this body lacks these three qualities — vitality, heat, & consciousness — it lies discarded & forsaken like a senseless log."

"What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"

"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided, & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided, & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html#fnt-2

Element
10 May 11, 12:26
All formations (sankhara, which are all dukkha) are a product of ignorance... not a product of "the physical world".
The following sutta seems to not concur with your view:


"And what is form? The four great existents and the form derived from them: this is called form. From the origination of nutriment comes the origination of form. From the cessation of nutriment comes the cessation of form. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of form, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

"And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling. From the origination of contact comes the origination of feeling. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of feeling...

"And what is perception? These six classes of perception — perception of form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of taste, perception of tactile sensation, perception of ideas: this is called perception. From the origination of contact comes the origination of perception. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of perception. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of perception...

"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. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of fabrications...

"And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness — eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness: this is called consciousness. From the origination of name-&-form comes the origination of consciousness. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of consciousness, i.e., right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.056.than.html

stuka
10 May 11, 15:49
Hi Stuka

I am trying to respond to your posts so I will return to the start and begin with the above.

That a drop of rain is impermanent once the sun comes out is not related to our expectations.

Right, and that's my point.




That our bodies grow from child birth and then tend towards aging, death & decay is not related to our expectations.




Not unless our expectations are unreasonable. "Expectations" might not be the best term. We certainly go through a lot of wishful thinking or hopes that we won't get sick, grow old, or die. And this is what I am pointing at here, and that the Buddha's teachings are designed to address our experience and are phenomenological and experiential in nature, rather than addressig philosophical/"metaphysical" questions that demand the sort of speculations he refused to imbibe in, and which entangle most religions/spiritual practices in speculative view, like "what is all this?" and "how did all this come to be?".

Esho
10 May 11, 16:27
the Buddha's teachings are designed to address our experience and are phenomenological and experiential in nature, rather than addressing philosophical/"metaphysical" questions that demand the sort of speculations he refused to imbibe in, and which entangle most religions/spiritual practices in speculative view, like "what is all this?" and "how did all this come to be?".

Yes, I can follow this. The teachings of the Buddha compels us to develop them through direct experience. In the short time I have started to get into the Pali Dhamma, I have not found any kind of teaching pointing into philosophical questions and even less to religious superstitious thought. The later developments of the teachings are. And I think that is why are so attractive to many people saying that they have Buddhism as a religion when it was never intended to give a "religious experience" but a real one. The real one is hard to accept. The religious one is very comfortable.

I have come to see that some of the Pali teachings I have been through, are about instructions. Like the instructions given by a Handbook of Genetics Engineering or a Handbook for fieldwork in anthropology. The Pali is about the How's not the whys as in science. When a scientist is deluded by philosophy, or worse, by religious thought, the outcome is trash science suitable for New Age paperback books. When science is about to describe how things work the output is outstanding and many practical developments are given. If you need a cure to an illness you need a medicine and not a metaphysical fabrication about the true nature of illness. The first one is about the Buddha teachings, the later is about convenient mental fabrications so to postpone the real issue.

For example, when the Buddha is telling clearly about gratification, danger and escape (in MN 13) when it comes to sensual pleasures... it is bringing you to the awareness of an experience; to actualize that experience. If someone asks... what did the Buddha mean? He mean that... gratification, danger and escape. There is no need to make complex elaborations but just accept the direct experience and be aware of gratification, danger and escape. He mean to be aware of the danger of sensual pleasures because of their temporal and unsatisfactory gratification. This is not a theory or mysterious elaboration. This is just given through direct experience and there is no need to escape neither into religious thoughts nor into philosophical entanglements.

;)

clw_uk
10 May 11, 19:21
No. As I said, the 4NTs and dukkha vedana do not apply to a rock.

But a rock itself is unsatisfactory, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness.

This characteristic is the nature of the rock. It is not related to the sentient experiencer of the rock.

Regards

;D

The appearance of the rock is unsatisfactory but, i feel, you are without warrant to say that the external rock, if it exists, is unsatisfactory

metta

Esho
10 May 11, 19:29
But a rock itself is unsatisfactory, due to its impermanence. A rock does not have the characteristic of being able to bring lasting happiness.

This characteristic is the nature of the rock. It is not related to the sentient experiencer of the rock.


Right, the "problem" is not at the rock side but with the sentient experiencer who seeks permanent gratification in something impermanent because of its own unawareness.

clw_uk
10 May 11, 19:30
"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.


"All processes are inconstant."

How do we know that?

fojiao2
10 May 11, 21:14
Having spent the last two weeks digging soil and preparing a vegetable garden, I can verify first hand that in many cases, depending on the size of the rock and where it is located, the experiencer might be happier if the rock were less permanent.

clw_uk
10 May 11, 21:18
Having spent the last two weeks digging soil and preparing a vegetable garden, I can verify first hand that in many cases, depending on the size of the rock and where it is located, the experiencer might be happier if the rock were less permanent.

Wouldnt that be wanting appearances to be different, and so leads to dukkha?

Element
10 May 11, 21:26
All formations (sankhara, which are all dukkha) are a product of ignorance... not a product of "the physical world".

To continue, an example is the 2nd and 3rd jhana. In the 2nd and 3rd jhana, thought (sankhara) fabrications (vitakka & vicara) have ceased. Yet the mind experiences vedana (feeling) and the physical body. Thus, your Hindu views that phenomena are created by the sankhara of naming ("nama") appear to be both tenuous & idiosycratic here. Well, idiosycratic to Buddhism but not to Hinduism.

Regards

;D


Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, Sariputta entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance.

Furthermore, with the fading of rapture, Sariputta — remaining in equanimity, mindful & alert and physically sensitive to pleasure — entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.'

Furthermore, with the complete transcending of perceptions of [physical] form, with the disappearance of perceptions of resistance, and not heeding perceptions of diversity, [perceiving,] 'Infinite space,' Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of space.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html

Element
10 May 11, 21:36
We certainly go through a lot of wishful thinking or hopes that we won't get sick, grow old, or die. And this is what I am pointing at here, and that the Buddha's teachings are designed to address our experience...
Hi Stuka

I am not sure I fully concur here because to me the approach is two fold, namely:

(1) to mitigate our expections, as taught in the Four Noble Truths; and

(2) to see all things as they actually are, as taught in the Three Characteristics

For example, when Kitsagotami lost her child and the Buddha instructed her to find one mustard seed, his goal was not for Kitsagotami to abandon her expectations using the instruction in the Four Noble Truths. His goal was for Kitsagotami to realise the true nature of all things.

Regards

;D

clw_uk
10 May 11, 21:41
(2) to see all things as they actually are, as taught in the Three Characteristics

As they are or as they appear?

metta

daverupa
10 May 11, 21:46
As they are or as they appear?

metta

This is, quite frankly, an unhelpful distinction. That phenomena appear at all is a brute phenomenological fact. Trying to tease out an ontology is papanca.

clw_uk
10 May 11, 21:55
This is, quite frankly, an unhelpful distinction. That phenomena appear at all is a brute phenomenological fact. Trying to tease out an ontology is papanca.

I agree that they appear phenomenologically (to me). Saying "as they are" implies that you "know" them and is ontological, which is open to argument and counter argument which then devolves into metaphysics and speculation and effects peace of mind :) IMO

Element
10 May 11, 22:10
If there was no sentience, the anicca and anatta nature of things such as rocks would have no bearing on dukkha and nirodha, and therefore, no bearing on the Dhamma.
If we let go of rigid theory, we can explore other meanings or nuances of dukkha.

Almost exclusively, dukkha is regarded as something negative, such as "suffering" or "unsatisfactoriness" rather than something lacking in happiness, such as "not-happiness".

In Pali, there is the term "anatta", which means "not-self" but in Pali there is not the term "an-sukkha" or "not-happiness".

So another perspective is when it is said the five aggregates are dukkha, the meaning here is they are "not happiness".

For example, in the Anupada Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html), Sariputta did not regard/see/discern the pleasure of jhana as "happiness". Instead, Sariputta discerned/sensed that 'there is a further escape', namely, Nibbana.

In the Dhammapada, in the Sukhavagga, the Buddha in conventional language states: "Nibbana is the highest happiness". But in Dhamma language, it is more fit to say: "Nibbana is true happiness or true not-dukkha", as said in MN 140:

His release, being founded on truth, does not fluctuate, for whatever is deceptive is false; Unbinding (Nibbana) — the undeceptive — is true. Thus a monk so endowed is endowed with the highest determination for truth, for this — Unbinding, the undeceptive — is the highest noble truth.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html
Ordinarily, if a human being is asked the question: "What is happiness?", they will say it is pleasure or pleasant feeling. The ordinary person will associate happiness with one aggregate, namely, vedana khanda.

But the practitioner that has attained supramundane jhana, such as Sariputta, will discern the pleasurable feelings of jhana as dukkha or "not-happiness". The enlightened practitioner will discern there is no such thing as "happiness" to be be found in or as any khanda.

This is the difference between supramundane jhana and mundane jhana. Mundane jhana is when the practitioner considers jhana to be happiness.

To end, the quotes below seem to show the meaning of dukkha as "not-happiness".

Regards

;D


To him — seeing it, observing it & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance. (SN 22.95)

The Blessed One said: "Monks, sensuality is inconstant, hollow, vain, deceptive. It is illusory, the babble of fools. Whatever is inconstant is not worth relishing, is not worth welcoming, is not worth remaining fastened to." (MN 106)

He sees those phenomena as impermanent, dukkha, a disease, a tumor, a barb, a calamity, an affliction, alien, disintegrating, empty, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena and directs it towards the deathless element thus: “This is peaceful, this is sublime; that is, the samatha of all activities, the relinquishment of all belongings, the evaporation of craving, fading away, cessation, Nibbåna.” (MN 64)

"Well spoken, monk, well spoken! While three feelings have been taught by me, the pleasant, the painful and the neutral, yet I have also said that whatever is felt is within suffering. This, however, was stated by me with reference to the impermanence of (all) conditioned phenomena. I have said it because conditioned phenomena are liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation and to change. It is with reference to this that I have stated: 'Whatever is felt is within suffering.'

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=7876&p=125207&hilit=worthless#p125207

Element
10 May 11, 22:24
As they are or as they appear?
The Pali suttas state "as they are".


I will give you an analogy for the sake of taking your understanding of this point even further.

Suppose there were a householder or householder's son — rich, wealthy, with many possessions — who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him. The thought would occur to this man: 'It would not be easy to kill this person by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?'

"So he would go to the householder or householder's son and say, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord.' With that, the householder or householder's son would take the man on as a servant.

"Having been taken on as a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or householder's son would come to regard him as a friend & companion and would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, 'This householder or householder's son trusts me,' then encountering him in a solitary place, he would kill him with a sharp knife.

"Now what do you think, my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder's son and said, 'May you take me on as a servant, lord': wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when, taken on as a servant, he would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please him, speaking politely to him: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.' And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with a sharp knife: wasn't he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder's son did not know him as 'my murderer.'"

"Yes, my friend."

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

"He does not discern unsatisfactory form, as it actually is present, as 'unsatisfactory form.' He does not discern unsatisfactory feeling... He does not discern unsatisfactory perception... He does not discern unsatisfactory fabrications... He does not discern unsatisfactory consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'unsatisfactory consciousness.'

"He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

"He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

"He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....085.than.html

clw_uk
10 May 11, 22:27
The suttas state "as they are".

infallibility of scripture isnt really an argument

If you make a universal claim such as the above then, it seems to me, you wander into the thicket of views...

Element
10 May 11, 22:34
This is, quite frankly, an unhelpful distinction. That phenomena appear at all is a brute phenomenological fact. Trying to tease out an ontology is papanca.
Naturally, I disagree and find the distinction above equally unhelpful.

The Buddha-Dhamma is not founded on phenomenology. Otherwise, it would have no basis for a foundation doctrine. Instead, it would be like the path of Krishnamurti, of each practitioner groping in the darkness, hoping to discover "truth".

The Buddha was "brutul" in asserting his ontology in the suttas. When a monk held the view of permanence or self, the Buddha was "brutul" in correcting that monk. The Buddha did not say: "It's OK my dear, your view of permanence or self is your phenomenological experience".

Regards

;D

Element
10 May 11, 22:35
infallibility of scripture isnt really an argument

If you make a universal claim such as the above then, it seems to me, you wander into the thicket of views...
Whatever. Each to his own.

;D


"Here, Ananda, a monk understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as permanent - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as permanent - there is such a possibility.'

He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as pleasurable - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as pleasurable - there is such a possibility.'

He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something as self - there is such a possibility.'

http://www.dhammasukha.org/Study/Talks/Transcripts/MN-115-SUM03-TS.htm

clw_uk
10 May 11, 22:46
"Here, Ananda, a monk understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as permanent - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as permanent - there is such a possibility.'

He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as pleasurable - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as pleasurable - there is such a possibility.'

He understands: 'It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self - there is no such possibility.' And he understands: 'It is possible that an ordinary person might treat something as self - there is such a possibility.'


I agree that this applies to as they appear. However to say "as they are" or "as they all are" is too far and leads one into never ending speculation and so effects peace of mind

Element
10 May 11, 22:50
I disagree. Otherwise "right" view becomes something subjective, according to doctrine rather than reality.

"Right view" is not right view according to Buddha or Buddhism. It is right view according to the way things actually are.

For example, that our body & mind is subject to birth, aging, illness & death (impermanence) is right view according to the nature of the body & mind.

Regards

;D

clw_uk
10 May 11, 22:59
I disagree. Otherwise "right" view becomes something subjective, according to doctrine rather than reality.

"Right view" is not right view according to Buddha or Buddhism. It is right view according to the way things actually are.

For example, that our body & mind is subject to birth, aging, illness & death (impermanence) is right view according to the nature of the body & mind.

Regards

;D


Well as you know I respect you a lot Element but in this regard I must disagree

If I am honest I can only say how things appear to me subjectively. If I venture out and make claims about the external world and proclaim how things really "are" or how they "appear" to other people, I step out of bounds since I cannot prove or know it

Following from this, If I did this then I would open myself up to non ending metaphysical/ontological argumentation and so peace of mind would be disturbed, which to me Is what the Buddha was getting at when he said "thicket of views"


Instead I stick with how they appear to "me", which agrees with Buddhadhamma

fojiao2
10 May 11, 23:06
Wouldnt that be wanting appearances to be different, and so leads to dukkha?
I don't know. Right now, most of the dukkha I am experiencing is in my lower back.

clw_uk
10 May 11, 23:10
I don't know. Right now, most of the dukkha I am experiencing is in my lower back.


Is the Dukkha the pain or the mental aversion. I cannot say only suggest :)

Aloka
11 May 11, 05:22
Right now, most of the dukkha I am experiencing is in my lower back.

A different topic about bad backs and / or gardening is very welcome in the Tea Room, I'll join in myself !


:hands:

Cloud
11 May 11, 06:39
fojiou2's comment was actually profound though, intimating that dukkha as an aspect of self-ascribed experience obviously has no hold on an empty mind ;)

retrofuturist
11 May 11, 08:51
Greetings Element,


The Buddha-Dhamma is not founded on phenomenology.

Conversely, I thought Stuka was correct when he said the following....

the Buddha's teachings are designed to address our experience and are phenomenological and experiential in nature, rather than addressig philosophical/"metaphysical" questions that demand the sort of speculations he refused to imbibe in, and which entangle most religions/spiritual practices in speculative view
Metta,
Retro. ;D

BuckyG
11 May 11, 12:19
I concur with Stuka, in relation to the matter of rocks and dukkha. I concur w/this concurrence.

BuckyG
11 May 11, 12:25
This [clw_uk's "As they are or as they appear?"]is, quite frankly, an unhelpful distinction. Some might even call it an abuse of the distinction between appearance and reality.

Element
11 May 11, 21:45
Greetings Element,

Conversely, I thought Stuka was correct when he said the following....
Greetings Retro

I previously stated you agreed with Stuka and Stuka agreed with your Hindu views about reality being Brahma's or the mind's subjective or phenomenological creation. My view is both your good self and Stuka are caught up in monkey chatter, with words such as "phenomenology", " philosophical/"metaphysical", "ontological", etc.

:papanca:

The doctrines of Buddhism are not based in the subjective experiences of Siddhartha Gotama.

The doctrines of Buddhism objectively describe the actual characteristics or attributes of phenomena, just as science seeks to describe the characteristics or attributes of phenomena.

Contrary to what Stuka asserted, the Buddha's teachings are not designed to address "our experience". Stuka is sounding rather New Age here, similar to Oprah Winfrey, Dr Phil or Ellen DeGeneres.

The Buddha's teachings expound the laws and characteristics of natural truth and are designed for us to reconcile our experience with these natural truths.

The Buddha's ontological teachings are only an entanglement of speculative views for puthujjana.

All the best

;D


The organized systems of insight training, which were not taught by the Buddha but were developed by later teachers. This kind of practice is suitable for people at a fairly undeveloped stage, who still cannot perceive the unsatisfactoriness of worldly existence with their own eyes, naturally.

Buddhism" means "the Teaching of the Enlightened One." A Buddha is an enlightened individual, one who knows the truth about all things, one who knows just what is what and so is capable of behaving appropriately with respect to all things.

Buddhism is a system designed to bring a technical knowledge inseparable from its technique of practice, an organized practical understanding of the true nature of things or what is what. If you keep this definition in mind, you should have no difficulty understanding Buddhism.

Essentially the Buddha's teaching as we have it in the Tipitaka is nothing but the knowledge of what is what or the true nature of things--just that. Do keep to this definition.

We shall now demonstrate the validity of this definition by considering as an example the Four Noble Truths. The First Noble Truth, which points out that all things are suffering, tells us precisely what things are like. But we fail to realize that all things are a source of suffering and so we desire those things.

The aim of Buddhism is nothing other this perfection of knowledge of what is what or the true nature of things. Another important Buddhist teaching is that of the Three Characteristics, namely impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactoriness or suffering (dukkha) and non - selfhood (anatta). Not to know this teaching is not to know Buddhism. It points out to us that all things are impermanent (anicca), all things are unsatisfactory(dukkha), and all things are not selves (anatta). This teaching tells us what things are like in terms of the Three Characteristics. Clearly Buddhism is simply an organized practical system designed to show what is what. We have seen that we have to know the nature of things. We also have to know how to practice in order to fit in with the nature of things.

Summing up, Buddhism is an organized practical system designed to reveal to us the "what is what." Once we have seen things as they really are, we no longer need anyone to teach or guide us.

The Handbook for Mankind - Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa5.htm)


You have heard that the Lord Buddha, in his Enlightenment, discovered the Dharma. I would like to talk about that Dharma, that which the Buddha discovered at his Enlightenment. That Dharma may be called the Law of Idappaccayatā. It is the Law of Nature or the Natural Law of Cause and Effect.

The term “law” in English is roughly equivalent to the Thai term gote. Thus, in Thai we say gote Idappaccayatā. However, the Thai term gote means more than just “law.” Nevertheless, we must use the term “law,” as it is the commonly accepted translation. This Law of Idappaccayatā is the Supreme Thing. It can be called “God.” The Lord Buddha was enlightened about this Law.

This Natural Law is comprised of six qualifications that all people regard as the qualifications of God, namely, the qualifications of being the Creator, the Controller and the Destroyer; of being Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient. Anyone having these six qualifications is called “God.” We Buddhists have this Natural Law as God; we look at this Law as the God that has, in reality, these six qualifications.

This is the only God acceptable by modern scientists. It is a Natural Law that cannot be established by anyone. If there is anyone or anything who establishes something, that thing is not a Law, not a gote in the Thai sense and especially not the gote Idappaccayatā. While this is only one Law, it includes all other laws — all other natural laws, not man-made laws. This Law inheres in all the atoms that together compose our universe, or universes, both physical and mental.

The ABCs of Buddhism - Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_ABC_of_Buddhism.pdf)

:up2:

fojiao2
11 May 11, 23:14
(portions removed)


The doctrines of Buddhism are not based in the subjective experiences of Siddhartha Gotama.

The doctrines of Buddhism objectively describe the actual characteristics or attributes of phenomena, just as science seeks to describe the characteristics or attributes of phenomena.




Question: Would it be accurate to say that the truths explained by the Buddha would still be true whether or not he was specifically the person who explained them?

Esho
12 May 11, 01:15
The Buddha was "brutul" in asserting his ontology in the suttas.

Hi Element,

I was roaming around this statement and the rest of the post from where I quoted it. My thoughts around the subject are:

It seems to me that the concern of the Buddha was not about doing ontologies as, for example, the Greeks philosophers liked so much to do, making a kind of "living for ontology" and not "an ontology for living"... and...

The teachings of the Buddha, "understanding and cessation of Dukkha", happend to be framed in an ontological understanding of things and happend that this ontology is a kind of "ultimate one" in terms of experiencing unsatisfactoriness because of a property of all things that it can not be ignored, unless, experiencing dukkha endlessly.

First was the understanding of unsatisfactory nature of things [Dukkha] and then came the ontology because of that deep [Right] view.

;D

stuka
12 May 11, 01:54
I previously stated you agreed with Stuka and Stuka agreed with your Hindu views about reality being Brahma's or the mind's subjective or phenomenological creation.

I have not said or implied anything about "reality being Brahma's or the mind's subjective or phenomenological creation. This is a straw man.



Contrary to what Stuka asserted, the Buddha's teachings are not designed to address "our experience". Stuka is sounding rather New Age here, similar to Oprah Winfrey, Dr Phil or Ellen DeGeneres.

I have not stated this as you are portraying it, either. Please do not put words in my mouth.




The Buddha's teachings expound the laws and characteristics of natural truth and are designed for us to reconcile our experience with these natural truths.

Unless you are saying that the above statement (which essentially restates what I have said) is exactly the same as that which you are comparing me to Ellen over.

Element
12 May 11, 03:57
It seems to me that the concern of the Buddha was not about doing ontologies as, for example, the Greeks philosophers liked so much to do, making a kind of "living for ontology" and not "an ontology for living"... and...

The teachings of the Buddha, "understanding and cessation of Dukkha", happend to be framed in an ontological understanding of things and happend that this ontology is a kind of "ultimate one" in terms of experiencing unsatisfactoriness because of a property of all things that it can not be ignored, unless, experiencing dukkha endlessly.

First was the understanding of unsatisfactory nature of things [Dukkha] and then came the ontology because of that deep [Right] view.
Thank you for your reply Kaarine but, if a knew what the word "ontology" actual meant, I might be able to understand your post.

Kind regards

:flower:

Element
12 May 11, 04:00
...the same as that which you are comparing me to Ellen over.
:hug:

Element
12 May 11, 04:03
Question: Would it be accurate to say that the truths explained by the Buddha would still be true whether or not he was specifically the person who explained them?
Absolutely.

This is why he said:


"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma:

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it & makes it plain:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....134.than.html

BuckyG
12 May 11, 04:20
if [I] knew what the word "ontology" actual meant, I might be able to understand your post."
:flower:

Ontology is the "western" discipline based upon Aristotle's Metaphysics.

Esho
12 May 11, 04:33
Thank you for your reply Kaarine but, if a knew what the word "ontology" actual meant, I might be able to understand your post.


Well, I am not into philosophy but ontology is the philosophical speculation about the fundamental characteristics or categories of "being" or things that exist and make them to be.

Hope this can help to have your opinion.

;D

Element
12 May 11, 05:09
Thanks

If so, the Buddha taught about fundamental characteristics & categories of "being".

The characteristics of "being" are ignorance, craving, attachment & becoming.

The categories of "being" are human, hungry ghost, hell, animal and godly.

:flower:


To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html

BuckyG
12 May 11, 06:20
...ontology is the philosophical speculation about the fundamental characteristics or categories of "being"....

This is only true Pre-Heidegger, and even then, it's debatable.:hands:

srivijaya
12 May 11, 07:56
The categories of "being" are human, hungry ghost, hell, animal and godly.
And Rock! Don't forget the rock;)

Although the rock is not sentient, one rock is unsatisfactory to another rock.
Exactly!:hug:

I've enjoyed reading this thread, although I don't quite get all the big words. Insomuch as I think I kind of understand what's been written, I sort of believe I'm with the esteemed Brahmin Stuka and the other Hindus on this.

Time to re-brand the site? H.W.B. anyone? :lol:

BuckyG
12 May 11, 08:10
Time to re-brand the site? H.W.B. anyone? :lol:
Har! Good luck with that. LOL.

Aloka
12 May 11, 08:29
And Rock! Don't forget the rock


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/eye_rocks.png

Element
12 May 11, 09:20
I am glad we see the lighter side

:lol:

Element
14 May 11, 05:56
All formations (sankhara, which are all dukkha) are a product of ignorance... not a product of "the physical world".
Greetings Retrofuturist

Was the Buddha's experience of pain below the result of ignorance?

:confused:


But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html

Cloud
14 May 11, 06:49
"Unperturbed". There was pain, but it was not "his" pain, simply an experience... there was the "knowing" of bodily pain. As I understand it that is the awakened mind... the body can still be pained as is completely natural (but the body is not part of an "I" any longer), but the mind is not in any way pained itself or caused discomfort. Or was there some other point?

retrofuturist
14 May 11, 09:23
Greetings Element,

No, it wasn't... but the pain wasn't a sankhata dhamma (formed thing) either.

Cloud is correct.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
14 May 11, 19:39
but the pain wasn't a sankhata dhamma (formed thing) either.

Cloud is correct.
Greetings Retofuturust

For my purposes, Cloud's response, despite it representing the verse accurately, did not have relevence to my question, as per my intention for asking it. Cloud explained the mind of non-attachment but did not explain pain itself as a conditioned thing or sankhata dhatu.

Similarly, to me, your explanation does not accord with Cloud's response.

But your reply is certainly a direct and thus is pertinent response to my question.

MN 115 lists the sankhata dhamma & the unsankhata dhamma.

Pain, like all conditioned dhammas, is considered a sankhata dhamma.

I am not sure of what is influencing you to form such views but they do not accord with the Pali suttas as I read them.

My questions are not intended to debate you. I simply cannot comprehend what you are attempting to impart.

Regards

;D


Bhikkhus, feeling is impermanent. The cause & condition for the arising of feeling is also impermanent. As feeling has originated from what is impermanent, how could it be permanent?

SN 22.18


6. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these six elements: the pleasure element, the pain element, the joy element, the grief element, the equanimity element, and the ignorance element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

9. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

http://www.dhammasukha.org/Study/Talks/Transcripts/MN-115-SUM03-TS.htm


At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.03.irel.html


277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
The last quote above is about objects of insight for the enlightened mind. Feelings are included in the phrase "all conditioned things" (sankhara). The phrase "all things" includes all conditioned things plus Nibbana.

Ajahn Dhammanando has unambiguously explained seeing all conditioned things are unsatisfactory occurs together with the turning away from suffering. This occurs simultaneously or concurrently rather than separately. The arahant sees the dukkha of conditioned things.


...whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_Culatanhasankhaya_Sutta.htm


Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

As I previously said, your views appear to be following the Hindu meaning of 'nama' and other advaita doctrines such as Taoism.

Regards, again

Dhatu

;D


The Tao that can be told is not the
eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the
eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of
heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten
thousand things.

http://www.thebigview.com/download/tao-te-ching-illustrated.pdf


"Name-and-form". The compound was of pre-Buddhistic origins and is used in the Upanisads to denote the differentiated manifestation of brahman, the non-dual reality. For the sages of the Upanishads, namarupa is the manifestation of brahman as multiplicity, apprehended by the senses as diversified names or concepts...

p. 47-48, The Samyutta Nikaya, by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Element
14 May 11, 20:21
... But the pain wasn't a sankhata dhamma (formed thing) either.


i would like to take this opportunity to discuss all the meanings of the term "sankhara." this is a very common and important word in the pali scriptures, but many people have problems with it due to its different uses and meanings. Languages are like that, uncertain and seemingly unreliable.

The single word "sankhara" can mean "conditioner," the cause that conditions; it can mean "condition," the result of the action of conditioning; and it can mean "'conditioning," the activity or process of conditioning. We use the same word for the subject of the conditioning, "the concocter," as well as the object, "the concoction." we even use it for the activity, "the concocting," itself.

This may be a bit confusing for you, so please remember that "sankhara" has three meanings. The correct meaning depends on the context. This knowledge will be valuable in your further studies.

Study the three meanings of sankhara in this body of ours. There is no need to study it in books or in a theoretical way. The body itself is a sankhara. It has been conditioned by a variety of causes and by the many things of which it is formed. Thus, it is a sankhara in the meaning of "condition." once this body exists, it causes the arising of other things, such as thoughts, feelings and actions. Without the body these thoughts and actions could never happen. Thus, it is a "conditioner" because it causes other actions. Lastly, in this flesh-body sankhara of ours, there is the process of conditioning going on constantly. We can discover all three aspects of the word sankhara within this very body.

Study the meaning of sankhara in this comprehensive way. Then you will find it easy and convenient to realize more and more profound dhamma as you go on.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/books3/bhikkhu_buddhadasa_anapanasati_mindfulness_with_br eathing.htm


saṅkhāra: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished.

(I) To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term 'formation' may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both.

1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paṭiccasamuppāda, q.v.), saṅkhāra has the active aspect, 'forming,...

2. The aforementioned three terms, kāya-, vacī- and citta-s. are sometimes used in quite a different sense, namely as (1) bodily function, i.e. in-and-out-breathing (e.g. M. 10), (2) verbal function, i.e. thought-conception and discursive thinking, (3) mental-function, i.e. feeling and perception (e.g. M. 44). See nirodhasamāpatti.

3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (saṅkhārakkhandha), and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to 'kammically forming' consciousness or not. See khandha, Tab. II. and S. XXII, 56, 79.

4. It occurs further in the sense of anything formed (saṅkhata, q.v.) and conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well-known passage, "All formations are impermanent... subject to suffering" (sabbe saṅkhāra aniccā ... dukkhā). In that context, however, s. is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term dhamma (thing); for dhamma includes also the Unformed or Unconditioned Element (asaṅkhata-dhātu), i.e. Nibbāna (e.g. in sabbe dhammā anattā, "all things are without a self").

http://www.viet.net/anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm


...

stuka
15 May 11, 03:02
That's a good quote, summed up in the line: "This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana" --but I would emphasize the word 'ultimate'.

And again, we see the notion I cited earlier "samsara = nirvana" in action. This idea of "relative vs ultimate" is dogmatic speculation that is outside of, and irrelevant to, the Buddha's teachings.



Relatively speaking, of course there is an ocean of difference, because a relative point of view is based upon the subjective perceptions of "me".

Discernment, which the Buddhadhamma is based entirely in and upon, is not "a relative point of view based upon subjective perceptions of "me". The "perception of 'me'" you are imparting on this process is a straw man.



But when the mind is not attached to "me" and "mine" (As Buddha suggests), the mahayanist position is that the conditions which cause that relative point of view to arise no longer exist. Isn't this also the Theravada position?

Not at all, and Bhikkhu Bodhi clearly illustrates this in his essay.



The Mahayanist says that outside of the workings of the mind, all notions of samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment do not exist. That is what is meant by, "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

And this blurring of the lines between antithetical ideas leads to the "crazy wisdom" of folks like Chogyam Trungpa, and the rationalization of morally outrageous behavior as enlightened actions that we are simply too caught up in our "relativistic view" to see the ultimate perfection of.



I do not think that Bhikkhu Bodhi's the statement: "The validity of conventional dualities is denied " is accurate.

Sure it is.



But that depends on what we mean by "validity".

....and here comes the equivocal pitch......



Mahayanists do not deny that from a conventional standpoint Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment are opposites. There is no denying that beings wallow in ignorance and suffering. Mahayanaists do not say that this is the same as being enlightened.

.....but this "conventional standpoint" is given no credence, it is cast aside in favor of this idea of an "ultimate truth", which is the one that, for a mahayanist, supposedly is all that matters.




What the mahayanist says, to quote a famous zen writing, is "to set up what you like against what you dislike, this is the disease of the mind" which means that its the attachments we form in our minds to these dualities, which blocks realization.
()
Actually, this poem really sums up the whole mahayana position quite well.

And that is a meaningless and fallacious Appeal to Authority. So what if this zen person claims that discerning between good and evil, etc., is a "disease of the mind"? As Bodhi elucidates in his essay, he sets himself apart from the Buddha's teachings and methods. Which is OK for him, but then why bother to call oneself a "Buddhist"?



I think he is definitely right, however, from the Theravada point of view, this view borders on the outrageous.

And this is not just from the "Theravada point of view". Anyone who compares this wallowing in nondualist speculative fantasy with the Buddha's own liberative teachings can clearly see just how outrageous it is.

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 04:06
Greetings Element,

What you quoted here is pertinent. Do you think there is mutual exclusiveness between the two parts I have bolded for an arahant?


6. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these six elements: the pleasure element, the pain element, the joy element, the grief element, the equanimity element, and the ignorance element. When he knows and sees these six elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.

9. "But venerable sir, might there be another way in which a monk can be called skilled in the elements?"

"There might be, Ananda. There are, Ananda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element. When he knows and sees these two elements, a monk can be called skilled in the elements.
I don't. In other words, the pain element is known and seen, but the qualitative experience of it for an arahant is not fashioned/conditioned by avijja. Therefore the arahant does not experience any fashioned/conditioned/concocted/formed "thing".

As for Nyanatiloka's definitions, these are rooted in Mahavihara interpretations, intended to uphold the 3-life-doctrine of Buddhaghosa and his cohorts, who needed to patch up the inconsistencies in their speculative theories.

To see a definition not derived from the commentarial literature, see Nanavira Thera's "A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA" from paragraph 5 onwards.

http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=62

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
15 May 11, 05:30
As for Nyanatiloka's definitions, these are rooted in Mahavihara interpretations, intended to uphold the 3-life-doctrine of Buddhaghosa and his cohorts, who needed to patch up the inconsistencies in their speculative theories.
Nyanatiloka's views accord with those of Buddhadasa despite Buddhadasa not upholding the 3-life-doctrine .

Your dismissal is just an ad-homien.

As for the rebirther Nanavira, best you point out exactly what you are referring to because my reading has the troppo rebirther Nanavira refuting your viewpoint, given Nanavira states the breathing in & out, a physical thing, is a sankhara.

Regards

;D


Now the traditional interpretation says that sankhārā in the paticcasamuppāda context are kamma, being cetanā. Are we therefore obliged to understand in-&-out-breaths, thinking-&-pondering, and perception and feeling, respectively, as bodily, verbal, and mental kamma (or cetanā)? Is my present existence the result of my breathing in the preceding existence? Is thinking-&-pondering verbal action? Must we regard perception and feeling as intention, when the Suttas distinguish between them

Element
15 May 11, 05:38
Do you think there is mutual exclusiveness between the two parts I have bolded for an arahant? I don't.
Dude.

Physical pain is a conditioned (iddapaccayatta) thing. It exists due to causes & conditions, such as the nervous system, decay of the body, etc. It is not the unconditioned Nibbana.

:whiteflag:

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 05:41
Greetings Element,

Is that to say the Buddha suffered then, is it? (Since sabbe sankhara dukkha)

I understood that the Buddha abandoned suffering.

If you accept that "sabbe sankhara dukkha", you must feel the Buddha suffered with every physical breath.

Physical breath is obviously not what is intended by Ayya Dhammadinna, because she depicts its cessation (does the meditator in deep jhana literally stop breathing only to recommence breathing afterwards?)

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
15 May 11, 05:51
I already provided my opinion on this, just as Dhammanando explained the verse in the Maggavagga.

Best to ask Dhammanando.

But yes, imo, the Buddha and the arahants constantly observed or experienced the 2nd characteristic.

:whiteflag:

BuckyG
15 May 11, 09:05
Greetings retrofuturist:

I understood that the Buddha abandoned suffering.

Abandoning, then, means not experiencing?

Metta,
BuckyG;D

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 09:14
Greetings Bucky,

Yes, that's how I would understand it.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

BuckyG
15 May 11, 09:41
Howdy,

Ayya Dhammadinna...sorry, I can't find the original reference to this/her in this thread.
Metta
Bucky

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 09:47
Greetings Bucky,

MN 44: Culavedalla Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html

And the relevant section is...


"Now, lady, what are fabrications?"

"These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications."

"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"

"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."

"Now, lady, how does the attainment of the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"

"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to attain the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am attaining the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have attained the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."

"But when a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, which things cease first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is attaining the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, verbal fabrications cease first, then bodily fabrications, then mental fabrications."[1]

"Now, lady, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"

"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."

"But when a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, which things arise first: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, or mental fabrications?"

"When a monk is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, friend Visakha, mental fabrications arise first, then bodily fabrications, then verbal fabrications."

Footnote #1 relates to... "[1] Verbal fabrication grows still on attaining the second jhana; bodily fabrication grows still on attaining the fourth jhana; mental fabrication grows still on attaining the cessation of perception & feeling."

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
15 May 11, 10:07
The fitting translation is "fabricators", as demonstrated in the following sentence:


Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabricators.

;D

Again, perceptions & feelings are mind (citta) fabricators (sankhara):


What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

BuckyG
15 May 11, 10:11
Retro Sir:
Thanks. I'm probably missing something, but abandoning (cessation) in that sutta is about experiences during jhana. Did the Buddha abandoned all suffering outside of jhana?
Metta, ;)
bucky

Element
15 May 11, 10:14
Footnote #1 relates to... "[1] Verbal fabrication stills on attaining the second jhana; bodily fabrication stills on attaining the fourth jhana; mental fabrication stills on attaining the cessation of perception & feeling."
But these stillings are concentration/tranquility (samadhi/samatha) rather than realising ultimate reality (vipassana).

;D

Element
15 May 11, 10:20
Is that to say the Buddha suffered then, is it? (Since sabbe sankhara dukkha)

I understood that the Buddha abandoned suffering.
Back to topic and away from Hindu views that jhana or Brahman is the cessation of suffering.

Have you understood the Buddha abandoned impermanence? Have you understood the Buddha abandoned not-self?

;D


The perception of inconstancy, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end.

The perception of dukkha in what is inconstant, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end.

The perception of not-self in what is dukkha, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html


What, Ananda, is contemplation of disadvantage (danger)? Herein, Ananda, a monk having gone to the forest, or to the foot of a tree, or to a lonely place, contemplates thus: 'Many are the sufferings, many are the disadvantages (dangers) of this body since diverse diseases are engendered in this body, such as the following: Eye-disease, ear-disease, nose-disease, tongue-disease, body-disease, headache, mumps, mouth-disease, tooth-ache, cough, asthma, catarrh, heart-burn, fever, stomach ailment, fainting, dysentry, swelling, gripes, leprosy, boils, scrofula, consumption, epilepsy, ringworm, itch, eruption, tetter, pustule, plethora, diabetes, piles, cancer, fistula, and diseases originating from bile, from phlegm, from wind, from conflict of the humors, from changes of weather, from adverse condition (faulty deportment), from devices (practiced by others), from kamma-vipaka (results of kamma); and cold, heat, hunger, thirst, excrement, and urine.' Thus he dwells contemplating disadvantage (danger) in this body. This Ananda, is called contemplation of disadvantage (danger).

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.piya.html


Further, Meghiya, a monk possesses wisdom; he is equipped with the wisdom that perceives the rise and fall (of conditioned things), which is noble and penetrating and leads to the complete destruction of suffering. This is the fifth thing making the immature mind mature for liberation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel238.html#book-9


In seeing six rewards, it's enough motivation for a monk to establish the perception of inconstancy with regard to all fabrications without exception. Which six? 'All fabrications will appear as unstable. My mind will not delight in any world. My mind will rise above every world. My heart will be inclined to Unbinding. My fetters will go to their abandoning. I'll be endowed with the foremost qualities of the contemplative life.

In seeing six rewards, it's enough motivation for a monk to establish the perception of dukkha with regard to all fabrications without exception. Which six? 'The perception of disenchantment will be established within me with regard to all fabrications, like a murderer with a drawn sword. My mind will rise above every world. I'll become one who sees peace in Unbinding. My obsession (anusaya) will go to their destruction. I'll be one who has completed his task. The Teacher will have been served with good will.

In seeing six rewards, it's enough motivation for a monk to establish the perception of not-self with regard to all phenomena without exception. Which six? 'I won't be fashioned in connection with any world. My I-making will be stopped. My my-making will be stopped. I'll be endowed with uncommon knowledge. I'll become one who rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated phenomena.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.103.than.html

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 10:34
Greetings Element,

Back to topic and away from Hindu views that jhana or Brahman is the cessation of suffering.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yhbOEDI3vqc/SoWL1rgbsYI/AAAAAAAAAMI/-AdukoegKSk/s400/Strawman+%28light%29.jpg

Metta,
Retro. ;D

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 10:37
Greetings Bucky,


.... Did the Buddha abandoned all suffering outside of jhana?

Yes. It is detailed in the suttas (e.g. SN 12.15) as follows...

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

Jhana brings about a temporary cessation of sankharas in accordance with the above sutta, but the cessation of avijja needs to be remainderless in order to bring about the remainderless cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
15 May 11, 10:46
Greetings Bucky,

Yes. It is detailed in the suttas (e.g. SN 12.15) as follows...

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
Retro

The suttas state the arahant continues to experience feelings and continues to breathe, calling Anapanasati the "dwelling of the Tathagata".

The suttas state the arahant continues to remain conscious.

It seems you are misunderstand teachings but taking English translations literally.

"Cessation" or "nirodha" means ignorance & the defilements are extinguished in the fabricators (sankhara).

;D


If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.053.than.html


...a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

retrofuturist
15 May 11, 10:50
Greetings Element,

The arahant's faculties are not fabricated by avijja.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
15 May 11, 10:55
Yes and no.

The 2nd link of DO is the fabricators, namely, the breathing in & out, thought function and perception & feeling.

All of these things are not fabricated/stirred up/tainted/conditioned (paccaya) by avijja.

There is a sutta in the SN, with double sankhara, where the term sankhara is used in the place of paccaya.

The translation states X fabricates a fabrication.

But sankhara (generates) here appears to mean fabricated via thought. (Thus it is not necessarily the same a 'paccaya').

Similarly, the Chewed Up Sutta asks what is sankhara (khanda) and answers: It fabricates fabrications.

Sankhara is used in many ways.

;D


Kiñca , bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html

"And why do you call it the 'fabricator'? Because it fabricates fabrications, thus it is called the 'fabricator'.


‘‘Avijjāgato yaṃ, bhikkhave, purisapuggalo puññaṃ ce saṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti, puññūpagaṃ hoti viññāṇaṃ.

SN 12.51

A person immersed in ignorance generates (sankhara) a meritorious formation (sankhara), consciousness fares on to the meritorious

cont:...but when has abandoned ignorance...he does not generate (sankhara) a meritorious formation (sankhara)....attains Nibbana.

Element
15 May 11, 11:17
The arahant's faculties are not fabricated by avijja.
Your reasoning seems to have rendered the term 'paccaya' redundant.

The Pali states avicca paccaya sankhara; sankhara paccaya vinnana but you appear to be saying 'avicca sankhara vinnana'.

;D

BuckyG
16 May 11, 06:59
Greetings Pali Knowers/Retro/Element:
Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but I just want to clarify: in this thread, "cessation" is nirodha & "abondonment" is paṭinissaggānupassanā, correct?
Metta :)
bucky

retrofuturist
16 May 11, 08:32
Greetings Element,

I am comfortable with sankhara designating both the fabricator and the resultant fabrication... though I'm usually inclined to use the term sankhata dhamma (formed thing) to signify the latter.

My reasoning only renders paccaya redundant in the instance of the arahant for whom there is no avijja, whereas a sekha may have intermittent avijja and a puthujjana always has avijja. Thus, the arahant is independent (of avijja, and thereby of fabrication).

When avijja is brought to its remainderless cessation, dependent origination no longer has any bearing on the arahant's experience. Sure, the arahant still has his/her faculties in tact, but dependent origination no longer serves as an appropriate model by which to explain the arahant's experience of those faculties. Hence my comment, "The arahant's faculties are not fabricated by avijja."

Metta,
Retro. ;D

retrofuturist
16 May 11, 08:36
Greetings Bucky,

Greetings Pali Knowers/Retro/Element:
Forgive me if this seems ignorant, but I just want to clarify: in this thread, "cessation" is nirodha & "abondonment" is paṭinissaggānupassanā, correct?
Metta :)
bucky
Sorry, your question is too de-contextualised for me to provide a meaningful answer.

If anything, adandonment is the cause and cessation is the effect.

Consider the Upanisa Sutta - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html

"Just as, monks, when rain descends heavily upon some mountaintop, the water flows down along with the slope, and fills the clefts, gullies, and creeks; these being filled fill up the pools; these being filled fill up the ponds; these being filled fill up the streams; these being filled fill up the rivers; and the rivers being filled fill up the great ocean — in the same way, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)."

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
16 May 11, 09:27
When avijja is brought to its remainderless cessation..."The arahant's faculties are not fabricated by avijja."
Dear Retrofuturist

I have not disagreed with your statement an arahant's faculties are not fabricated by avijja. However, you have appeared to assert this fabricating is the 2nd link rather than paccaya.

There is more than just the arahant's faculties that are not fabricated by avijja. Everything of/in/about the arahant is not fabricated by avijja, including, for example, their in & out breathing.

Thus if the arahant must walk or work with physical exertion, their kaya sankhara (in & out breathing) will no longer be stilled as when in the 4th jhana. However, their kaya sankhara (in & out breathing) will remain not fabricated by avijja.

This simple example refutes your use of Pali verses about "stilling" or "calming" the 3 sankharas synonymously with the "nirodha" or "cessation (quenching)" of the 3 sankharas.

Similar to the Upaya Sutta, which was quoted, the 3rd Noble Truth has defined the salient meaning of 'nirodha' to be the cessation or extinguishing of craving rather than 'cessation' per se.

Yet you appear to be following the reasoning of Buddhaghosa in asserting the 3 sankharas, consciousness and the body/mind literally cease for the arahant.

Although you have wriggled out of declaring the faculties do not literally "cease", you continue to assert the 3 sankharas literally "cease" or "vanish".

If the 3 sankharas at the 2nd link literally "cease" or "vanish", then the links such as consciousness, mind-body and sense-bases must also "cease" and "vanish", if one were to remain consistent with your reasoning.

DO simply describes what is stirred up & influenced by ignorance. The Buddha describes how the body & mind are stirred up by ignorance, so this can be affirmed in meditation when one practises "calming the kaya sankhara, citta sankhara, etc" as prescribed in the Anapanasati Sutta.

The very purpose of the Satipatthana is to examine the nama-rupa included in DO & how the kaya, vaci and citta sankharas effect (condition) the name-rupa. This is why the Buddha replaced the Hindu "name-form" with the Buddhist "materiality-mentality".

DO needs to be examined via meditation and not via book learning.

Also, you continue to not answer many questions put to you and continue to makes declarations such as an arahant does not experience the 2nd characteristic (which is inseperable from experiencing the 1st and 3rd characteristics).

You have not provided any evidence of acknowledging the many of the Blessed One's discourses put to you, including acknowledging perception & feeling are not the mental formation but, rather, are the mind fabricator (citta sankhara).

Pleasant perception & feeling fabricate greed; unpleasant perception & feeling fabricate anger; greed & anger fabricate papancha, etc.

I suggest you consider Patrick Kearney's literal translation of Dependent Origination, apart from "formations".

With metta

;D


So, bhikkhus, ignorance conditions formations [fabricators]; formations condition consciousness; consciousness
conditions name-&-form; name-&-form conditions six sense fields; six sense fields condition contact;
contact conditions feeling; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging
conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/albums/asst/ebook/03_mahatanhasankhaya.pdf

Element
16 May 11, 09:50
"cessation" is nirodha & "abondonment" is paṭinissaggānupassanā
Hi Bucky

This is becoming a Pali frenzy.

Unlike "stilling", the two terms above have a very close relationship and important for understanding the essence of 'nirodha'.

Regards

;D


Katamañcāvuso, dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ? Yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo, idaṃ vuccatāvuso .

"And what, friends, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release & letting go of that very craving.

Element
16 May 11, 09:59
Greetings Bucky,

Sorry, your question is too de-contextualised for me to provide a meaningful answer.

If anything, adandonment is the cause and cessation is the effect.

Consider the Upanisa Sutta - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html

"Just as, monks, when rain descends heavily upon some mountaintop, the water flows down along with the slope, and fills the clefts, gullies, and creeks; these being filled fill up the pools; these being filled fill up the ponds; these being filled fill up the streams; these being filled fill up the rivers; and the rivers being filled fill up the great ocean — in the same way, monks, ignorance is the supporting condition for kamma formations, kamma formations are the supporting condition for consciousness, consciousness is the supporting condition for mentality-materiality, mentality-materiality is the supporting condition for the sixfold sense base, the sixfold sense base is the supporting condition for contact, contact is the supporting condition for feeling, feeling is the supporting condition for craving, craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering, suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)."
Retrofuturist,

Paṭinissaggānupassanā is not found in the above quote, which is irrelevent.

Bucky is referring to the last four stages of Anapanasati, which are related to this thead, given paṭinissaggānupassanā results from realising the ultimate reality, an ultimate reality (of anicca, dukkha & anatta) you continually assert an arahant does not experience due to the cessation of sabbe sankhara.

And yes, paṭinissaggānupassī occurs after nirodhānupassī.

It is only logical that when craving & attachment quenches/ceases (nirodha), relinquishment/abandonment (paṭinissaggā) will occur.

Kind regards

;D


Aniccānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘aniccānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;

‘virāgānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘virāgānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;

‘nirodhānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘nirodhānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati;

‘paṭinissaggānupassī assasissāmī’ti sikkhati, ‘paṭinissaggānupassī passasissāmī’ti sikkhati.

"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.'

[14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.'

[15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.'

[16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'

retrofuturist
16 May 11, 10:34
Greetings Element,

If the 3 sankharas at the 2nd link literally "cease" or "vanish", then the links such as consciousness, mind-body and sense-bases must also "cease" and "vanish", if one were to remain consistent with your reasoning.
Indeed.... that's what SN 12.15 says...

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
16 May 11, 11:34
RetroF

where does SN 12.15 say what you are asserting?

your point of view merely parrots or blindly adheres to a translation

SN 12.15 clearly states:

He knows without doubt or hesitation that whatever arises is merely dukkha that what passes away is merely dukkha and such knowledge is his own, not depending on anyone else. This, Kaccaayana, is what constitutes right view.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html

further, you are still wriggling about the arahant not experiencing anicca, dukkha & anatta


Sāvatthiyaṃ viharati. Atha kho āyasmā kaccānagotto yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho āyasmā kaccānagotto bhagavantaṃ etadavoca – ‘‘‘sammādiṭṭhi sammādiṭṭhī’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sammādiṭṭhi hotī’’ti?

‘‘Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena – atthitañceva natthitañca. Lokasamudayaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke natthitā sā na hoti. Lokanirodhaṃ kho, kaccāna, yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passato yā loke atthitā sā na hoti. Upayupādānābhinivesavinibandho khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena. Tañcāyaṃ upayupādānaṃ cetaso adhiṭṭhānaṃ abhinivesānusayaṃ na upeti na upādiyati nādhiṭṭhāti – ‘attā me’ti. ‘Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṃ uppajjati, dukkhaṃ nirujjhamānaṃ nirujjhatī’ti na kaṅkhati na vicikicchati aparapaccayā ñāṇamevassa ettha hoti. Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.

‘‘‘Sabbaṃ atthī’ti kho, kaccāna, ayameko anto. ‘Sabbaṃ natthī’ti ayaṃ dutiyo anto. Ete te, kaccāna, ubho ante anupagamma majjhena tathāgato dhammaṃ deseti – ‘avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā; saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṃ…pe… evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti. Avijjāya tveva asesavirāganirodhā saṅkhāranirodho; saṅkhāranirodhā viññāṇanirodho…pe… evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hotī’’’ti. Pañcamaṃ.

Element
16 May 11, 12:10
Greetings Element,

Indeed.... that's what SN 12.15 says...
Retro

SN 12.15 does not say what you are saying. The Buddha did not teach a disembodied Brahma realm.

I suggest taking to heart the following discourse. Please note, all teachings have the same essence or heartwood.

Regards

;D


"For him — uninfatuated, unattached, unconfused, remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five aggregates, objects of clinging, head toward future diminution. The craving that leads to new becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — is abandoned by him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances are abandoned. His bodily torments & mental torments are abandoned. His bodily distresses & mental distresses are abandoned. He is sensitive both to ease of body & ease of mind.

"Any view belonging to one who has come to be like this is his right view. Any resolve, his right resolve. Any effort, his right effort. Any mindfulness, his right mindfulness. Any concentration, his right concentration: just as earlier his actions, speech, & livelihood were already well-purified. Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path, the four frames of reference go to the culmination of their development. The four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for Awakening go to the culmination of their development. [And] for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.

"He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge.

"And what dhammas are to be comprehended through direct knowledge? 'The five aggregates, objects of clinging,' should be the reply. Which five? Form as an object of clinging... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as an object of clinging. These are the dhammas that are to be comprehended through direct knowledge.

"And what dhammas are to be abandoned through direct knowledge? Ignorance & craving for becoming: these are the dhammas that are to be abandoned through direct knowledge.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.149.than.html
Only ignorance, craving & attachment need to cease. Every "cessation" in DO is just the cessation of ignorance, craving & attachment and any other "dukkha dhammas".

Consciousness, mind, body, sense organs, etc, are freed from ignorance, craving & attachment. The fires of greed, hatred & delusion are extinguished.

This is the meaning of 'nirodha'.

Regards, again

;D


"If a monk abandon]s passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocted, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

BuckyG
16 May 11, 14:48
Sirs Element & Retro:
My question has been thoroughly answered. Thank you. Please, continue.
:popcorn:
Warm wishes,
bucky

stuka
16 May 11, 18:11
I suggest you consider Patrick Kearney's literal translation of Dependent Origination, apart from "formations".


So, bhikkhus, ignorance conditions formations [fabricators]; formations condition consciousness; consciousness
conditions name-&-form; name-&-form conditions six sense fields; six sense fields condition contact;
contact conditions feeling; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging
conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing-&-death; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief and despair come to be. Thus is the arising of this entire mass of suffering.

http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/a...hasankhaya.pdf




While I appreciate Kearney's literal translation, I find his Hindu-style analysis of the Buddha's teaching to be a mess of Buddhaghosabrahmin equivocation.

Element
16 May 11, 20:34
While I appreciate Kearney's literal translation, I find his Hindu-style analysis of the Buddha's teaching to be a mess of Buddhaghosabrahmin equivocation.
hi Stuka

Where exactly do you read this?

Thanks

;D

stuka
16 May 11, 23:14
hi Stuka

Where exactly do you read this?

Thanks

Here:


Bhikkhu Sàti is clearly influenced by the Buddha’s teaching of rebirth.

and


But it does not make sense to the Buddha, who declares, “have I not stated in many discourses
that consciousness is dependently arisen (pañiccasamupanna vi¤¤àõa), since without a condition
(paccaya) consciousness does not come into being?” It is not “this same consciousness” that runs
and wanders at all, for at any moment - at this moment - the consciousness which we experience,
and with which we identify, has arisen because of a condition, and it ceases because of a
condition. This consciousness experienced now is not the same consciousness experienced when I
began reading this sentence. That consciousness arose and ceased because of conditions; as did the
consciousness that read the end of the last sentence; and the beginning of this one; and so on.
There is a continuity of consciousness - a “stream” of consciousness (vinnàna-sota) - that flows
from the past through the present to the future; but this stream consists of many dhammas of
consciousness that arise and cease in dependence upon conditions. There is no “same”
consciousness that flows. And so the discourse begins with an examination of the conditionality of
consciousness.


Kearney is equivocating a "stream of consciousness" that "runs and wanders", rather than an individual "consciousness". His use of "consciousness" still postulates a continuing, unbroken process. This is not how the Buddha describes it, which is that when one closes one's eyes eye-consciousness ceases altogether, until ones eyes are again open and a visual object comes into its range. This idea of individual instants of consciousness within a stream is simply a red herring; the Buddha did not teach it this way. When reading this sentence, eye-consciousness and mind-consciousness of the thoughts that it conveys arise, change, and eventually fade, but it is not put into these irrelevant terms of billions of instances of consciousness, which is merely a work-around that aims to circumvent the Buddha's refutation of the notion of a consciousness that survives death in this sutta and re-establishing the idea of a type of consciousness that survives death for the purposes of a karma-and-reincarnation strategy. Kearney is pushing a Buddhaghosabrahmin "stream of consciousness" that acts exactly as Sati postulates, but under a different name, while the Buddha defines an instance of consciousness as occasions of awareness arising, changing, and passing within each of the sensory systems.

Element
17 May 11, 01:34
OK...fair comment...thanks

the term 'vinnàna-sota' is found in only one obscure sutta ( DN 28 ) attributed to Sariputta

however, being in the DN points to it being composed after the death of Sariputta, who passed away before the Buddha

Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca paraloke patiṭṭhitañca.

Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appatiṭṭhitañca paraloke appatiṭṭhitañca.

pajānāti (pa +ñā + nā) = knows clearly.

appatiṭṭha = without a footing or help

ubhayathā = in both ways


;D

OK, I found a translation:


Though the term ‘stream of consciousness’ (viññāṇasotaṃ) belongs more properly to the later literature, it does appear in the Pāli texts in D III 105: “He understands a man’s stream of viññāṇa which is uninterrupted at both ends is established in both this world and the next.” (purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti ubhayato abbocchinnam idhaloke paṭṭhitañ ca paraloke paṭṭhitañ ca.)

http://www.gampoabbey.org/translations2/Waldron%20HIIA-revised-b.pdf

another:

Furthermore, he pondered on the stream of consciousness (vinnana-sota) man who can continue to take place in this world and in the next world. This is the achievement of the third view.

http://www.indonesiaindonesia.com/en/f/34964-sampasadaniya-sutta/

but I am not convinced

:green:

another:


And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken
stream of consciousness as both unestablished in this world and unestablished in the next.
This is the fourth attainment of vision.

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/14.14-Sampasadaniya-S-d28-piya.pdf

stuka
17 May 11, 02:59
Where in 28, and what is the basic gist of the verse? I have Walshe's translation (Wisdom Pub) of the Digha...not in Kindle yet, so I couldn't do a quick search of it, but I do have the hard copy...

stuka
17 May 11, 03:18
Ah, here. The context is in a paragraph in which Sariputta has started off:



"Also unsurpassed is the Blessed Lord's way of teaching Dhamma in regard to the attainment of vision (note 864), in four ways. Here, some ascetic or Brahmin, by means of ardour, endeavour, application, vigilance and due attention, reaches such a level of concentration that he considers just this body -- upwards from the soles of the feet nd downwards from the crown of the head, enclosed by skin, and full of mainifold impurities: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, [etc.] (as Sutta 22, verse 5). That is th efirst attainment of vision. Again, having done this and gone further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next. (note 865). That is the third attainment. Again, having done this and gone still further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next (note 866). This is the unsurpassed teaching in regard to the attainments of vision...

And the accompanying notes:



864: Dassana-samapatti. The first of these two aproximate to the contemplation described in VM 6.

865: Vinnana-sota. a rare expression which seems to equate with bhavanga, the (mainly) commentarial term for the "life-continuum" (Nanamoli). See BDic and EB under Bhavanga. In this case both worldlings (puthujjana: n 16) and "learners" (sekha: n 542).

866: Arahants.

Element
17 May 11, 04:11
Following the Great Standards, is not DN 28 is to be rejected just as DN 15 because both contain one-off principles not found in the body of the discourses?

:green:

retrofuturist
17 May 11, 09:29
Greetings,

DN 28 should certainly be viewed with suspicion. Anything worthwhile in the DN invariably appears already within the MN or SN.

Recent scholarship (from Bhikkhu Bodhi, of all people) suggests that a distinguishing trait of the Digha Nikaya may be that it was "intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion."

Metta,
Retro ;D

Element
17 May 11, 10:23
Again, having done this and gone further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness as established both in this world and in the next. (note 865). That is the third attainment. Again, having done this and gone still further, he comes to know the unbroken stream of human consciousness that is not established either in this world or in the next (note 866). This is the unsurpassed teaching in regard to the attainments of vision...


Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke patiṭṭhitañca paraloke patiṭṭhitañca.

Purisassa ca viññāṇasotaṃ pajānāti, ubhayato abbocchinnaṃ idha loke appatiṭṭhitañca paraloke appatiṭṭhitañca.

pajānāti (pa +ñā + nā) = knows clearly.

appatiṭṭha = without a footing or help

ubhayathā = in both ways

Abbokiṇṇa [= abbhokiṇṇa, abhi + ava + kiṇṇa, cp. abhikiṇṇa] 1.filled M i.387 (paripuṇṇa +); DhA iv.182 (pañca jātisatāni a.). -- 2. [seems to be misunderstood for abbocchinna, a + vi + ava + chinna] uninterrupted, constant, as ˚ŋ adv. in combn. with satataŋ samitaŋ A iv.13 = 145; Kvu 401 (v. l. abbhokiṇṇa), cp. also Kvu trsl. 231 n. 1 (abbokiṇṇa undiluted?); Vbh 320. -- 3. doubtful spelling at Vin iii.271 (Bdhgh on Pārāj. iii.1, 3).

Although not being learned in Pali, my sense of the Pali is as follows:

"he [the Buddha], knows clearly with his uninterrupted stream of consciousness both those people established in this world and in the other"

"he [the Buddha], knows clearly with his uninterrupted stream of consciousness both those people unestablished in this world nor in the other"

this verse is about the Buddha's "dassana" or psychic power and my sense of it is the viññāṇasotaṃ refers to the Buddha's stream of consciousness

possibly a topic for the DW Pali forum

regards

;D

retrofuturist
17 May 11, 10:49
Greetings,


possibly a topic for the DW Pali forum
Perhaps Zebanoni might post it there for us.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

stuka
17 May 11, 17:42
Following the Great Standards, is not DN 28 is to be rejected just as DN 15 because both contain one-off principles not found in the body of the discourses?

:green:


The reference to a "stream of consciousness", and especially this "uninterrupted at both ends" business, seems quite out of place to me.

stuka
17 May 11, 17:43
possibly a topic for the DW Pali forum


That might muddy things up good...

BuckyG
18 May 11, 01:34
I REALIZED , "Realizing Ultimate Reality" is a tautology, which in turn reminded me of the hilarious play, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With. Here's an excerpt:

CUT TO:

Mercator map of the world.

NARRATOR (voice over) The trajectory of human history can be stated in four simple words -- Fast Westward, Fast Forward. Those with neophobic imprints -- "Oh, Mommy, take me home" -- stay in one place, where they were born.

A dot appears over Thailand.

NARRATOR: Those with neophilic imprints -- "It's fun to explore" -- keep moving Westward, against the spin of Earth, creating new ideas as they travel. Consider the order of the discovery of the chemical elements -- which is one trajectory of the direction and acceleration of human progress...

Each element is represented by a dot lighting up and flashing on the map. They move steadily in an East-to-West direction.

http://www.rawilson.com/reality.html

retrofuturist
18 May 11, 01:42
Greetings,

Further to Element's query above, a related topic in the DW Pali forum - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=8419

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Element
18 May 11, 04:23
Thanks Retro ;D

http://i53.tinypic.com/sbmvlt.png

BuckyG
18 May 11, 04:49
Greetings Ven. Retro:

...the pain element is known and seen, but the qualitative experience of it for an arahant is not fashioned/conditioned by avijja. Therefore the arahant does not experience any fashioned/conditioned/concocted/formed "thing".

Ajahn Pasanno has noted in his talk on Visakha Puja that:
"People often think, 'Ah, here is a great spiritual master. He probably doesn't experience any pain, his feelings are not like mine.' That's not true. Our aspiration is not to be rid of feelings. We should not think that if we didn't have certain feelings or if we had other feelings, then we could become enlightened. Instead, the path to enlightenment is to pay attention to the ordinary qualities of our likes and dislikes, our loves and attachments. How do these things work and how do they affect us? How do they obstruct us and bind us? How can we be free from them? It's through questioning and seeing clearly that we find our way through. This is the path of knowing " (http://www.viet.net/anson/ebud/ebdha287.htm).

It looks to me like you and Ven. Pasanno are is disagreement here, or is that just my avijja?

Metta:hands:
bg

retrofuturist
18 May 11, 06:55
Greetings Bucky,

That would depend on whether Ajahn Pasanno was claiming to be an arahant or not.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

BuckyG
19 May 11, 12:30
Greetings Bucky,

That would depend on whether Ajahn Pasanno was claiming to be an arahant or not.

Metta,
Retro. ;D
he wasn't, but he was, imo, implying Ajahn Chah was...but idk if Aj. C ever claimed this...do u?

BuckyG
20 May 11, 10:11
Greetings Bucky,

Yes, that's how I would understand it.

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Greetings Highly Respectable Retrofuturist:

I think MN 140 supports the idea that suffering (pain) is still experienced by an arahant:

Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pain... Sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns that it is fleeting, not grasped at, not relished. Sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain...http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html
With Cheer,
bucky

retrofuturist
20 May 11, 10:14
Greetings Bucky,

Yes, arahants can feel pain. The assumption that this is dukkha to them would be merely that... an assumption.

Do you suffer every time you feel what might be deemed an unpleasant sensation? If not you, then what does about an arhant?

Metta,
Retro. ;D

andyrobyn
20 May 11, 10:22
Seeking to find and focusing on the distinctions between individual's experience is only useful if it can lead to a change for the individual seeker - even if it were possible to ascertain if someone were a arahant, how would this assist : finding an alive teacher, someone who has the capacity and skill to teach us and aid us in our development, yes, I can understand the benefit in seeking this out - an arahant, may or may not have such a teaching capacity.

BuckyG
20 May 11, 10:23
Greetings Bucky,

Yes, arahants can feel pain. The assumption that this is dukkha to them would be merely that... an assumption.

Do you suffer every time you feel what might be deemed an unpleasant sensation? If not you, then what does about an arhant?

Metta,
Retro. ;D

Highly Respectable Retrofuturist:
Thanks for the clarification. And that is why you're Highly Respectable.
Warmly,:hands:
bucky

Element
20 May 11, 10:26
Yes, arahants can feel pain. The assumption that this is dukkha to them would be merely that... an assumption.
Greetings Retrofuturist

I do not read anyone here assuming what you are asserting.

Contrary to your views, there is the view the five aggregates do not arise from papanca and sankhara (naming).

When the mind is free from papanca the aggregates are fully comprehended or come to life (rather than the contrary).

Comprehending the aggregates is called satipatthana.

When the arahants were dying of cancer and used the knife, the excruciating debilitating pain their minds experienced did not have sankhara as its cause & condition.

I trust you are aware of the Khanda Sutta, where the Buddha advised there are two kinds of khandas.

;D


At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates?

"Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate.

"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate.

"Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the perception aggregate.

"Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: Those are called the fabrications aggregate.

"Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the consciousness aggregate.

"These are called the five aggregates.

"And what are the five clinging-aggregates?

"Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the form clinging-aggregate.

"Whatever feeling — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the feeling clinging-aggregate.

"Whatever perception — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the perception clinging-aggregate.

"Whatever (mental) fabrications — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: Those are called the fabrications clinging-aggregate.

"Whatever consciousness — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the consciousness clinging-aggregate.

"These are called the five clinging-aggregates."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html

Element
20 May 11, 10:36
Yes, arahants can feel pain. The assumption that this is dukkha to them would be merely that... an assumption.

However, for the arahant, this pain possesses the characteristic of dukkha lakana (2nd characteristic) and dukkha vedana.

;D

http://i52.tinypic.com/121fre9.png


Tisso imā, āvuso, dukkhatā. Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā , vipariṇāmadukkhatā – imā kho, āvuso, tisso dukkhatā’’ti

There are these three forms of dukkha, my friend: the dukkha of pain, the dukkha of fabricating (sankhara), the dukkha of change. These are the three forms of dukkha.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn38/sn38.014.than.html


Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain (sukhadukkhaṃ paṭisaṃvedeti). It is the extinction of attachment, hate and delusion in him that is the Nibbana-element

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044


dukkha, dukkha. suffering, misery, unsatisfactoriness. pain: literally, "hard to endure, difficult to bear." In its limited sense, dukkha is the quality of experience which results when the mind is conditioned by avijja into craving, attachment, egoism, and selfishness. This feeling takes on forms like disappointment, dissatisfaction, frustration, agitation, anguish, disease, despair from the crudest to the most subtle levels.

In its universal sense, dukkham is the inherent [ontological] condition of unsatisfactoriness, ugliness, and misery in all impermanent, conditioned things (sankhara). This second fundamental characteristic is a result of aniccam, impermanent things cannot satisfy our wants and desires no matter how hard we try (and cry).

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Anapanasati_Mindfulness_with_Br eathing.htm

Aloka
28 May 11, 07:26
I found this Ajahn Sumedho talk "Ultimate Truth and Reality" and thought I'd add it to the end of this thread.

http://www.dhammatalks.org.uk/index.php?id=40&file_id=1515


He says "ultimate reality" is where changing conditions no longer delude us.

and:

"The Buddhist teaching is for awakening individuals to the ultimate truth"

:hands: