the END of the "sabbe dhamma'anatta" debate
Presectarian_Buddhism
MN 1.228 Sabbe san'kha'ra' anicca', sabbe dhamma' anatta''
MN 1.230 sabbe dhamma' anatta''
SN 3.132 Sabbe san'kha'ra' anicca'; sabbe dhamma' anatta'". Sabbe
san'kha'ra' anicca'; sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
SN 3.133 Sabbe san'kha'ra' anicca' sabbe dhamma' anatta''". sabbe
dhamma' anatta'', sabbe dhamma' anatta''
AN 1.286 sabbe dhamma' anatta','sabbe dhamma' anatta''"
KN 1. 94 sabbe dhamma' anatta'
KN 1.185 "sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
KN 1.235 sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
KN 1.271 sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
KN 2.456 "sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
KN 2.509 "sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
Dhammapada 279. "Sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
KN Theraga'tha'pa'l.i 678. "Sabbe dhamma' anatta'
Phrase disected
Dhammapada 279. "Sabbe dhamma' anatta'"
sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15], direct object, in accusative. Sabba is
nominative, 'the all') The 'all' partakes of the Soul; however the
Soul does not partake of, is not IN, the 'all'. Sabbe Dharmas are not
the Soul (anatta).
dhamma' (proper noun, plural, subject, undeclined in nominative,
dharmas)
anatta' (adjective, modifying sabba. An [is not] atta' [attan: Soul]).
"A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone: Attan (atta): [Sanskrit
Atman], The self, the soul, as a permanent unchangeable, autonomous
entity; p.70, Pali Text Society. Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English
Dictionary; page 8: Atta' [attan]: soul.). All 275 occurrences of
anatta' in sutta are adjectival, never as a noun in standalone but
rather modifying a noun in negation to its correlation to being
identifiable with the Attan.
How Dhammapada commentary explains Dhammmapada #279
Tattha sabbe dhamma'ti pańcakkhandha' eva adhippeta'
Dhammapada Att. 3.407 "'Sabbe dharmas are the five aggregates in
meaning"
Sabba in standalone
This single passage below at Samyutta 4.28 shows that Dhamma is not
the crux of the infamous "sabbe dhamma' anatta", but rather sabba.
SN 4.28 "sabbam., bhikkhave, anatta" The 'the all', bhikkhus, are not
the Soul.
SN 4.21 "sabbam., bhikkhave, addhabhu'tam" Bhikkhus, the 'the all'
are afflictions.
SN 4.19 "sabbam., bhikkhave, a'dittam." Bhikkhus, the 'the all' are
ablaze.
Elaboration with proofs
SN 4.15-29 is the full explanation of the meaning of sabba. It is
abundantly clear without debate that sabba is indeed the
psychophysical phenomena or the 'the all'. The absurd notion that
sabba is an adjective modifying Dhamma is impossible. Firstly Dhamma
is in the nominative plural; secondly sabba is the standalone
accusative direct object in the cases directly above, namely SN 4.28,
which proves that Dhamma is not the direct object of anatta'.
Anatta is the adjective in this sentence as it must be in all 275
of its occurrences in the Nikayas. It is incorrect to say that "All
Dhammas are noself" or some other such sectarian concoction. Dhamma is
in the nominative plural in agreement with sabba, not in the
accusative, which would be "dhammam." or plural accusative "dhamme"
sabba (nominative) is the direct object of anatta' which is why it
occurs as sabbe (accusative plural). Dhamma is not the direct object
of this sentence but rather the subject. One cannot know the meaning
of this three-word phrase, which occurs 17 times in Sutta without
knowing sabba's meaning at Samyutta Nikaya book 4 verse 15. The
sectarian dogma that has grown around this three-word phrase is not
found nor can it be attributed to these passages based upon Sutta,
context, nor SN 4.15; but only on much later nihilistic slanted
commentary. Dhamma in this three word phrase, as Dhammapada #277 and
#278 show, is interchangeable with sankha'ra'.
Completely in line with the Sabbe sutta at SN 4.15, sabbe is
"'the all'". This is shown above and below at the Dhammapada that the
17 occurrences of "sabbe dhamma' anatta'" are occasioned by
san.kha'ra' (phenomena). Sabba's meaning is not "all" nor the
adjective of this phrase, that is reserved for anatta'. It has been
falsely believed by many that Dhamma is the direct object of the
sentence given its location of the middle in the phrase, but this is
incorrect since it is undeclined and sabba in its many other
occurrences above show in fact that sabba is the crux of what is
anatta, afflictions, and ablaze.
One might think Khandhas (skhandas), are the conventional term
for 'the all', but in actually khandhas means "mass" or "collection"
and do not always carry negative connotation in Sutta as it pertains
to the "five khadhas". The "five heaps" is a much more accurate
translation for khandha. Khandha is also used in context pertaining to
Gotama Buddhas' teachings as khandhas, or "collection/mass of
doctrine". Khandha implies "masses", whereas sabba implies "matter/
'the all'", especially sensory related matter; sabba: Lat. solidus &
soldus "solid". Both mass (khandha) and matter (sabba) are encompassed
by the term san.kha'ra' (phenomena).
Dhammapada
277. "Sabbe san.kha'ra' anicca'"ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha
nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'.
'The all' phenomena are impermanent; when this is seen by means of
wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of
clarity.
278. "Sabbe san.kha'ra' dukkha'"ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha
nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'.
'The all' phenomena are suffering; when this is seen by means of
wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of
clarity.
279. "Sabbe dhamma' anatta'"ti, yada' pan'n'a'ya passati; atha
nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiya'.
'The all' dharmas are not the Soul; when this is seen by means of
wisdom, one becomes disgusted with suffering. This is the path of
clarity.
The above three passages show certainly that Dhamma' is taking a
different meaning than standard implication of
"power/doctrine/Sa'sana" and is replaceable with sankha'ra' in this
context. It is even highly plausible that sankha'ra' was replaced with
dhamma' by the redactors to imply something Buddhism does not teach.
Other occurances of Sabba in Sutta
SN 2.125 sabbe saŞkha'ra' netam. mama nesohamasmi na meso atta'ti
'the all' phenomena are not me, are not who I am, are not my Soul.
SN 3.43 sabbe saŞkha'ra' anicca' dukkha' viparin.a'madhamma'ti
'the all' phenomena are not everlasting, suffering are dhammas in
flux.
AN 1.32 sabbe te dhamma' anit.t.ha'ya
'the all' dharmas are not fixed.
SN 4.15 Sabbasuttam.
Sa'vatthinida'nam.. "Sabbam. vo, bhikkhave, desessa'mi. Tam.
sun.a'tha. Kin'ca, bhikkhave, sabbam.? Cakkhun'ceva ru'pa' ca,
sotan'ca sadda' ca, gha'nan'ca gandha' ca, jivha' ca rasa'
ca, ka'yo ca phot.t.habba' ca, mano ca dhamma' ca- idam. vuccati,
bhikkhave, sabbam..
Yo, bhikkhave, evam. vadeyya- 'ahametam. sabbam.
paccakkha'ya an'n'am. sabbam. pan'n'a'pessa'mi''ti, tassa
va'ca'vatthukamevassa; put.t.ho ca na sampa'yeyya, uttarin'ca
vigha'tam. a'pajjeyya. Tam. kissa hetu? Yatha' tam., bhikkhave,
avisayasmin"ti. Pat.hamam.
The Sabba Sutta
At Savatthi. Bhikkhus, I will teach you on sabba ('the all')! Pray
listen closely.
And what, bhikkhus, is sabba? The eye and its corresponding forms, the
ear and its corresponding sounds, the nose and its corresponding
smells, the tongue and its corresponding tastes, the body and its
corresponding sensations, the intellect and its corresponding dhamma.
This, O' bhikkhus, is called sabba.
Whosoever, bhikkhus, should proclaim thusly: "Having abandoned these
'the all' (sabba), I shall manifest different set of 'the all'
(sabba)"-that surely would be only mere (foolish) presumption on his
part. If he were questioned on this matter he would only reap his own
vexation. How so? It would be utterly outside his abilities to talk
about this.
cup o' tea
orthodox...@earthlink.net (Presectarian_Buddhism) wrote in message news:<2c5ce9b6.02092...@posting.google.com>...
Ludwig
"cup o' tea" <red_te...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9faa2d55.02092...@posting.google.com...
> I thought it ended ages ago. Why are you still carrying on?
>
>
I think its a case of back from the dead
Ludwig
kojizen
might stay for a couple of years. Never can tell. Some college
student (in Canada they are called university students) might use this
stuff in a paper.
Layman
red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote in message news:<9faa2d55.02092...@posting.google.com>...
Osel Dorje
> I think he is trying plant this stuff in the Google system where it
> might stay for a couple of years. Never can tell. Some college
> student (in Canada they are called university students) might use this
> stuff in a paper.
>
> Layman
>
>
> red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote in message news:<9faa2d55.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> > I thought it ended ages ago. Why are you still carrying on?
> >
> > orthodox...@earthlink.net (Presectarian_Buddhism) wrote in message news:<2c5ce9b6.02092...@posting.google.com>...
Problem is Ardie, whatever univeristy student uses this neo-Hindu
revisionist drek to substaniate an argument is going to be selling
apples on the street-corner the following term.
Metta Jon
means 'all,' not 'the all.'
"Sabbe dhamma anatta'ti" means "All dhammas (phenomena) are non-self
(or void of self). This includes both the Unconditioned (Nibbana/
Nirvana), and the conditioned (everything else).
Whenever someone tries to 'prove' that the Buddha taught something
that is the exact opposite of what he really did teach--the doctrine
of anatta--such attempts quickly reveals a non-Buddhist agenda. Lots
of Hindus, Theosophists, and others--many with the best of intentions--
have attempted to remove anatta from Buddhism, but all have failed.
As an unnamed Bhikkhu once said, "No anatta--no Buddhism."
If one doesn't understand anatta, or disagrees with it, that's fine--
but one should be honest about it, in either case.
Next subject?
--Metta Jon
cup o' tea
>
Great way to get an F :-)
cup o' tea
> sabbe (noun [see SN 4.15], direct object, in accusative.
'Sabbe' there is not a direct object. There is no direct object,
because a direct object requires a TRANSITIVE VERB. There is no
transitive verb in that snippet. The only verb there is the (implied)
copula.
The word 'sabba' uses the PRONOMINAL DECLENSION. Hence 'sabbe' is
actually the nominative plural here. We have a sequence of THREE
COORDINATED NOMINATIVE PLURALS.
This error of yours is so basic, so simple, so fundamental, as to
destroy any credibility you might try to have as an interpreter of
Pali texts.
Ludwig
Some college
> student (in Canada they are called university students) might use this
> stuff in a paper.
>
Maybe one day, eh?
You guys are so ambitious ...
Brian Holly
do let us know. - Brian
AEholling
Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 5:56 PM
Message-id: <3ef55b2e.02102...@posting.google.com>
>>
Remember, India gave HHDL shelter. [wags finger at Lama-boy]
AE
Osel Dorje
Gee Ardie... Kojizen...AEhol , you're so ashamed of yourself, you're
posting in different names! Remind me to research some good
pychotherapists in Atlanta for you. They'll help you work that little
problem out.
But to get to the point, because you have decided to pour yourself
into a stiff dogmatic mould, you expect everyone else to do the same.
I have great respect for India and for many Hindu, Jain and Sikh
holymen and women. My only beef is with caste-driven, right-wing
neo-Hindus like you and Ken/Presectarian_Buddhist whose chief interest
is to attempt to assimilate all indigenous religious paths of
India--such as Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism-- under a one broad,
ill-conceived, nationalist neo-Hindu banner.
The fact that you and Kenny attempt to preach this mission
"undercover" only attests to your rabid dishonesty. The fact that the
both of you are so transparent only attests to your profound
ineptitude.
Fortunately, despite as vocal and abrasive as you and Kenny are, your
extremist kind are blessedly small in numbers.
(But keep charging those windmills, Ardie. You might hit one some
day!)
kojizen
> aeho...@aol.com (AEholling) wrote in message news:<20021025180652...@mb-fi.aol.com>...
> > From: yoke...@yahoo.com (Osel Dorje)
> > Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2002 5:56 PM
> > Message-id: <3ef55b2e.02102...@posting.google.com>
> >
> > blon...@aol.com (kojizen) wrote in message
> > news:<c7b6b7ad.02102...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I think he is trying plant this stuff in the Google system where it
> > > might stay for a couple of years. Never can tell. Some college
> > > student (in Canada they are called university students) might use this
> > > stuff in a paper.
> > >
> > > Layman
> > >
> > >
> > > red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote in message
> news:<9faa2d55.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > I thought it ended ages ago. Why are you still carrying on?
> > > >
> > > > orthodox...@earthlink.net (Presectarian_Buddhism) wrote in message
> news:<2c5ce9b6.02092...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > 17 occurrences total in....<blah, blah, blah... cut to spare everyone
> > else exposure to this terminal case of stupidity and boredom.>
> >
> > Problem is Ardie, whatever univeristy student uses this neo-Hindu
> > revisionist drek to substaniate an argument is going to be selling
> > apples on the street-corner the following term.
> >
> > >>
> >
> > Remember, India gave HHDL shelter. [wags finger at Lama-boy]
> >
> > AE
>
there is nothing left!]
I really can't see what your response has to do with the debate, Osel.
It is ad hominem, xenophobic, and smoke & mirrors. You're trying to
hide your inability to debate on the point of the issue. But let me
save you the trouble of appearing the rabid, all time, white boy, pus
gut, xenophobic. Scholars have already decided that Buddha was a
reformer of Brahmanism.
Layman
Osel Dorje
So, now, AE/Kojizen/Ardie, you are given to crass censorship of your
opponent instead of admitting the truth of your silly Hindutva agenda
---O, Father of Ad-Homenims?
The only "scholars" that dismiss the Buddha as a simplistic reformer
of caste-driven Brahmanism are a handful of neo-Hindus and their
wannabe-scholar symapthizers like you and Kenny.
Sorry, Uncle Ardie. People who are interested in Buddhism are usually
too smart to buy your revisionist tripe.
kojizen
Wow, more xenophobic nuanced language. You must be a member of
Dayamati's FWBO (FOR WHITE BUDDHISTS ONLY).
Layman
kojizen
Jon, maybe you need new batteries in your thinking helmet. The Buddha
is clear, "sabbe" ONLY pertains to the following:
"The eye forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue
and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental
phenomena." 祐a.laayatanasa.myutta
The likes of the Walpola Rahulas are dead wrong. The poor old
befuddled monk wasn't able to read Pali; or if he could read Pali, he
fudged his translations to fit with his sectarian heresies.
It is so amazing to see such a lack of logic among people who claim to
be Buddhists. Essentially t.r.b. Buddhists are saying there is no
absolute refuge; in other words this perishable body is your refuge;
when it goes the thing called "you" in annihilated預nnihilation being
synonymous with Nirvana.
Layman
Ludwig
>in other words this perishable body is your refuge;
> synonymous with Nirvana.
>
Nope. I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who subscribed to the view
you've put forward there. I'm assuming you are talking about the fate of an
arahant after death and
>annihilation being
> synonymous with Nirvana.
is specifically ruled out in several places in the Pali canon. Its the
nearest thing to a buddhist heresy to say this.
As for this bit
>such a lack of logic among people who claim to
>be Buddhists.
Logic doesnt come into it - didn't the buddha repeatedly say that the dhamma
was unobtainable by mere reasoning?
Osel Dorje
Missed one and scored one, Ardie.
"Xenophobic" is a miss. Does not apply. Can't even stretch that one.
Your "FWBO" is perhaps the first truly funny thing I've seen you utter
in modern times. I'd have to way back into the archives to find the
last. Fresh Prozac?
Rahula
Kojizen wrote:
> Jon, maybe you need new batteries in your thinking helmet. The Buddha is clear, "sabbe" ONLY pertains to the following:
"The eye forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue
and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental
phenomena." 祐a.laayatanasa.myutta<
Sabbe sankhara anicca;
sabbe sankhara dukkha;
sabbe dhamma anatta
Perhaps you could explain to us the difference(s) between "sabbe
sankhara" and "sabbe dhamma"?
Pat
> You must be a member of
> Dayamati's FWBO (FOR WHITE BUDDHISTS ONLY).
As far as I know, the ordained membership of the FWBO is approximately
25% Indian nationals, with a smattering of native Chinese, Maori,
African, and some others such as Japanese-American. That leaves about
70% of European stock.
As such, it is probably more ethnically diverse than many other
sanghas.
If you have more precise deomgraphics, please post them.
Thanks,
Patrick
Rahula
Sabbe sankhara anicca
sabbe sankhara dukkha
sabbe dhamma anatta
Layman,
All conditioned things are inconstant
All conditioned things are stressful
All dhammas are not-self
So, conditioned things are part of dhammas. So, what else is included
in dhammas other than conditioned things?
So, that thing and conditioned things are not-self right?
So, in the five aggregates, what else exist other than conditioned
things?
Please help me understand?
> when it goes the thing called "you" in annihilated—annihilation being
> synonymous with Nirvana.
There is nothing annihilated.
"....Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when
one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said
to be 'a being (satta)...." [Satta Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya {S iii 189;
CDB i 985} ]
When we realize anatta (not self), there is no more "a being" There is
"a being" when we cling to the aggregates. When there is no clinging,
there is no more "a being".
So, there never was "a being". There was "a being" because of
clinging.
Rahula
Layman wrote:
" annihilation being synonymous with Nirvana."
"There are, monks, some recluses and brahmans who charge me with being
an annihilationist, saying that the recluse Gotama teaches the
annihilation of an existent being. That is false misrepresentation.
What I teach, in the past as also now, is suffering and the cessation
of suffering" (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 22).
Gileht.com
"Rahula" <rahu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
4bf57b19.02103...@posting.google.com...
In other words:
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is obsessions and the great
equanimity"
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is ignorance and wisdom"
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is conventional truths and the
Ultimate Truth"
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is duality and the non-duality"
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is dependent origination and
emptiness"
"What I teach, in the past as also now, is conceptual-dharma and
non-conceptual-dharma"
etc.
Gileht
cup o' tea
> Jon, maybe you need new batteries in your thinking helmet. The Buddha
> is clear, "sabbe" ONLY pertains to the following:
>
> "The eye forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue
> and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental
> phenomena." 祐a.laayatanasa.myutta
You silly, silly man. The word 'sabbe' belongs to the Middle Indic
vocabulary first, and only secondly to specialized doctrine. It is
sometimes used with a technical meaning like you cite above. However
it often is used perfectly innocently, as a normal word for 'all'.
>
> The likes of the Walpola Rahulas are dead wrong. The poor old
> befuddled monk wasn't able to read Pali; or if he could read Pali, he
> fudged his translations to fit with his sectarian heresies.
>
You are making such an unbelievable clown of yourself, and the funny
thing is, you probably don't know it, and a few of your fans may not
know it either.
It's as if you were on the ground, struggling on a little balance
beam. Above you, on a rope tied between two highrises was a skilled
tightrope walker. And, as you fell for the umpteenth time you shouted
how that circus artiste was clumsy, shaky, unskilled in the art of
balance. Just so you, clumsy, shaky, unskilled in the art of reading
Pali, in the same post where you blunder, call the Ven. Walpola Rahula
'befuddled'.
> It is so amazing to see such a lack of logic among people who claim to
> be Buddhists. Essentially t.r.b. Buddhists are saying there is no
> absolute refuge; in other words this perishable body is your refuge;
> when it goes the thing called "you" in annihilated預nnihilation being
> synonymous with Nirvana.
'You' can't be annihilated if 'you' never really existed in the first
place. What is annihilated is the habit of thinking in terms of 'I'
and causing suffering thereby. You, sir, are suffering from severe
wrong view. It is a heavy karma to spread wrong view.
tadperry
news:QE8w9.15$SG2....@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "Rahula" <rahu...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 4bf57b19.02103...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > Layman wrote:
> >
> > " annihilation being synonymous with Nirvana."
> >
> > "There are, monks, some recluses and brahmans who charge me with being
> > an annihilationist, saying that the recluse Gotama teaches the
> > annihilation of an existent being. That is false misrepresentation.
> > What I teach, in the past as also now, is suffering and the cessation
> > of suffering" (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 22).
>
>
> > "What I teach, in the past as also now, is suffering and the cessation
of
> suffering"
>
> In other words:
>
No.
Not "In other words".
Let the Buddha speak for himself and let his own words stand on their own.
tvp
kojizen
If you're suggesting that the Buddha was irrational, I hardly agree.
Layman
kojizen
> When you are able to convince someone who actually knows Pali, please
> do let us know. - Brian
From somebody who claims to have a Ph.D. in philosophy, you're a dumbbell, Brian.
Layman
cup o' tea
> Perhaps you could explain to us the difference(s) between "sabbe
> sankhara" and "sabbe dhamma"?
It would be helpful if you could explain the difference to us.
Ludwig
"kojizen" <blon...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c7b6b7ad.02103...@posting.google.com...
Relax. I'm not suggesting that.
But I am saying that you're mistaken if you think that logic is all you need
to arrive at proper understanding of the Buddha's position on the fate of
the arahant after death.
Ludwig
Osel Dorje
> Layman:
> > You must be a member of
> > Dayamati's FWBO (FOR WHITE BUDDHISTS ONLY).
>
> As far as I know, the ordained membership of the FWBO is approximately
> 25% Indian nationals, with a smattering of native Chinese, Maori,
> African, and some others such as Japanese-American. That leaves about
> 70% of European stock.
>
> As such, it is probably more ethnically diverse than many other
> sanghas.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Patrick
You are correct, Patrick. Ardie (he prefers the more dignified
"Kojizen" or "Zenmar", his cult name) just found the opportunity to
exploit a cheap joke* to bolster his pitful attacks upon an
organization which has steadfastly supported a diverse Buddhist sangha
since its inception (reference to Ambedkar and the hundreds of
thousands of Buddhist conversions of the Dalit people, the Indian
minority called the "Untouchables" by the caste-driven "Hindu"
majority.)
Ardie is extremely jealous of successful leaders in the modern
Buddhism such as Sangharakshita and modern Buddhist scholars such as
Richard P. Hayes (Dayamati).
Ardie tried to start his own cult called "Dark Zen" on the internet
and it has been a dismal failure. So instead of tending to his own
creation (he hasn't updated his web site in months... most of it
hasn't been touched in couple of years), Ardie prefers to post
derogatory remarks about other's attainment. It makes him feel better.
So just give the old boy a biscuit, pat him on the head and tell him
to be on his way. BTW, I'm thinking about starting a nursing-home
fund for Ardie, for the inevitable time when he begins to lose all of
his teeth (he's been wearing them out on us here on usenet for years).
-O.
*(a "good" cheap joke based upon an acronym, mind you, but a wholly
inaccurate cheap shot at FWBO)
Rahula
cup o' tea) wrote
> > Perhaps you could explain to us the difference(s) between "sabbe
> > sankhara" and "sabbe dhamma"?
> It would be helpful if you could explain the difference to us.
Let me try. If it is other that conditioned, it must be unconditioned.
So, "sabbe dhamma" means "all conditioned and unconditioned things".
So, if sabbe means only the five khandhas, what is unconditioned among
the five khandhas? I think Layman can explain better.
Gileht.com
"tadperry" <tadp...@attbi.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
vWaw9.189787$%d2.66441@sccrnsc01...
So you are telling me you are attached to the words, not the meaning.
Well that is not what the Buddha said litterally.
So it looks like you are in fault both ways.
Gileht
Rahula
cup o' tea wrote
> It would be helpful if you could explain the difference to us.
I have tried but I would like to add a little bit more.
There is a phrase in Culatanhasankhaya Sutta (Majjhima NIkaya 37)
which says:
sabbe dhammaa naala.m abhinivesaayaa
It means "anything is not suitable to settle in", or "nothing
whatsoever should be clung to"
Now let see how wide the scope of "sabbe dhammaa".
We find in the Alagaddupama Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 22) the Parable of
the Raft.
".....Just so, bhikkhus, my teaching (dhamma) is comparable to a raft
for the purpose of crossing over and not for getting hold of. You
should give up even the Teaching that should be known, and what about
that which should not be known. . . "
So, we take refuge in the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings), but here it
says that even Dhamma should not be clung to.
How do you explain this?
Maybe, Presectarian Buddhism or Layman can explain this.
Rahula
cup o' tea
>
> cup o' tea) wrote
>
> > > Perhaps you could explain to us the difference(s) between "sabbe
> > > sankhara" and "sabbe dhamma"?
>
> > It would be helpful if you could explain the difference to us.
>
>
> Let me try. If it is other that conditioned, it must be unconditioned.
> So, "sabbe dhamma" means "all conditioned and unconditioned things".
Yes, this is one of the things I was wondering about: the import of
switching from sankhara to dhamma. Your suggestion makes sense, that
in the third statement the scope is widened. I was also wondering if
we can take the first two sentences as leading to the third as a
conclusion. I seem to remember reading discussions where the Buddha
asked whether something was impermanent and suffering. Getting a yes
answer, he would then ask whether an impermanent and suffering thing
could qualify as Atman. Getting a no answer he would then force his
interlocuter to concede that the thing in question was not Atman.
Perhaps this is a condensed statement of that argument, applied to all
things?
> So, if sabbe means only the five khandhas, what is unconditioned among
> the five khandhas? I think Layman can explain better.
I'll wait to see Layman's explanation.
cup o' tea
>
> So, we take refuge in the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings), but here it
> says that even Dhamma should not be clung to.
>
> How do you explain this?
>
I don't claim to have the final answer, but it seems likely that
'dhamma' in the sense of 'teachings' (as in dhammavinaaya) is
different than 'dhamma' in the sense of 'things' as in 'sabbe dhammaa
anattaa'.
Unless I am mistaken, the thrust of the "parable of the raft" is to
encourage people to give up wrong teachings and practices.
Rhetorically he's saying, "Since at the end you even give up wholesome
teachings, how much more should you give up unwholesome ones!" This
seems to me to be the message -- the importance of abandoning wrong
views -- but often people seem to put the emphasis on the abandoning
the raft part. I guess abandoning the raft would be premature for most
of us.
Rahula
> I guess abandoning the raft would be premature for most of us. <
Yes, premature. Only when the time comes. We need the dhamma to cross
to the other shore. We need the raft to cross to the other shore. But
when the time comes, we need to leave the raft behind. If not, we can
progress.
Similarly, for refuge in oneself.
Rahula
Sabbe dhammaa anattaa
Sabbe
Let me quote "A Pali Grammar" by Wilhelm Geiger, translated into
English by Batakrishna Ghosh, revised and edited by
K.R. Norman, PTS, 2000.
[Note: Geiger have been quoted by Layman (Kojizen) in one of
his message.]
Page 107 :
113. The following are pron. adjectives:
1. sabba 'all, whole, every" = Skt sarva. It is inflected
like relative pronoun. Cf. pl. nom. masc. sabbe Sn 179......
---
Sabbe : adjective, masculine, nominative, plural
dhammaa : noun, maaculine, nominative, plural
anattaa : adjective, nominative, plural
------
Therefore, "sabbe dhammaa anattaa" is translated as "all things (or
phenomena) are not-self"
Rahula
Presectarian_Buddhism wrote:
> "A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone: Attan (atta): [Sanskrit
Atman], The self, the soul, as a permanent unchangeable, autonomous
entity; p.70, Pali Text Society.<
I do not have this dictionary. But Margaret Cone told me personally
that the third meaning of attan in her dictionary says that it can be
translated as a relative pronoun.
The same thing goes for the PTS Dictionary.
>Buddhadatta Mahathera's Pali-English
Dictionary; page 8: Atta' [attan]: soul.). <
Again, you hide the evidence. Another meaning given is "onself".
The PTS Dictionary too says tha
What is you hidden motives in hiding the evidence? Or were you lying?
cup o' tea
> Presectarian_Buddhism wrote:
>
> > "A Dictionary of Pali" by Margaret Cone: Attan (atta): [Sanskrit
> Atman], The self, the soul, as a permanent unchangeable, autonomous
> entity; p.70, Pali Text Society.<
>
> I do not have this dictionary. But Margaret Cone told me personally
> that the third meaning of attan in her dictionary says that it can be
> translated as a relative pronoun.
>
I know Buddhists aren't supposed to gloat but, man, you showed him there! :-)
kojizen
Such quibbles are not evidential—and if they are, the warrant is not
strong enough. The claim, as I see it, believes that "all" is
inclusive of everything, even the absolute. But it doesn't hold
water. Sabbe, the "all", is explained at Samyutta-Nikaya, IV.15. You
should read it. Essentially the six senses comprise the "all" (= "The
eye forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odors, the tongue and
tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena.")
In addition, the aforementioned claim fails to explain "sabbe dhammāti
pańcakkhandhā" at the Dhammapada Atthakatha (3.406). Clearly this is
in reference to the "five aggregates"; not to nirvana or to the
absolute.
Layman
Rahula
Kojizen(Layman) wrote:
>> Such quibbles are not evidential—and if they are, the warrant
is not
strong enough. <<
"Sabba" is a pronominal adjectives. Go check any Pali Grammar book.
Until today, neither you nor Presectarian_Buddhism admits your
mistake. When you are willing to admit your mistake, then a real
debate can begin.
>>The claim, as I see it, believes that "all" is inclusive of
everything, even the absolute. But it doesn't hold water. <<
The Atthakatha said so. Remember, you and Presectarian_Buddhism hold
the Atthakatha in high regard.
Presectarian_Buddhism often quote them. You once wrote:
"....To your second standpoint, your claims against Atthakatha, which
means
"discourse on meaning," boils down to logomachy. It is ancient
Atthakatha logos versus the modern logos where we see the latter to be
chiefly the inspiration of bigoted occidentals...."
I hope you and Presectarian_Buddhism will not change your opinion!
>> In addition, the aforementioned claim fails to explain "sabbe
dhammāti
pańcakkhandhā" at the Dhammapada Atthakatha (3.406). Clearly this is
in reference to the "five aggregates"; not to nirvana or to the
absolute.<<
I was explaining "sabbe dhammaa anattaa" in this thread. This point
that you brought up gain have been dealt with in another post. Please
check the archive. It is to be found here: "SABBE DHARMAS(plural)
DESIGNATES THE 5 KHANDHA..." on 4 Nov 2002. It seems that either you
miss this message of mine or you ignore the evidence given and repeat
your claim.
I will repeat what I wrote in that post.
Hi,
I will reply the rest when I have the time but as for now....
Presectarian Buddhism wrote:
> sabbe dhammaati pańcakkhandhaa 3.406 Dhammapada Att.
SABBE DHARMAS(plural) DESIGNATES THE 5 KHANDHAS" <
The vies that sabbe dhammaa refer only to the five aggregates is
supported by Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand.
In the article "Is Nirvana 'Self'or 'Non-Self'? " Ven. Thanavuddho
Bhikkhu wrote:
"......Some commentaries include Nirvana amongst the 'phenomena' [6],
[7], others not [8]. In the latter the scope of 'phenomena' extends to
nothing more than the Five Aggregates but does not include Nirvana.
6. Khuddakanikaya Atthakatha Culanidesa (Mahachula Royal Institute
edition), p.8
7. Khuddakanikaya Atthakatha Mahanidesa (Mahachula Royal Institute
edition), p.219
8. Dhammapada Atthakatha (Mahamonkut Royal Institute edition) part 7,
p.62
Here is the url:
http://greenteams.hypermart.net/english/re_nirvana.html
See also Concentration-Insight Meditation [Dhammakaya Buddhist
Meditation Institute Thailand]
http://www.concentration.org/_insight.html
"...Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all
phenomena"
(both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to Lord
Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by the
original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
(Carter and Palihawadana 1987), the words sabbe dhamma , in this
context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects of
nature such as nibbana."
------
First, let see what "sabbe dhammaa anattaa" means.
Channa Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya III. 132 says:
"Sabbe sa"nkhaaraa aniccaa; sabbe dhammaa anattaa"
The commentary (Khandhavagga-atthakathaa 90 [ii 318] - Channa Sutta)
says:
"Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa
aniccaa.Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa."
"All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three
levels
are impermanent. 'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the
four levels are not self."
[Note: "Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined
material
(ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means
the
three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
(lokuttarabhuumi)]
------
When Section 279 in Dhammapada commentary said "Tattha sabbe dhammaati
pancakkhandhaa eva adhippetaa", we need to remember the context
indicated by the term "Tattha" (On that occasion, in that context).
The context on that occasion was that the Buddha was giving this
particular instruction (sabbe dhammaa anattaa, all things are
selfless)to those monks who had previously practised specializing in
the characteristic of selflessness of the five aggregates.
That is why the Dhammapada commentary on Section 279 has to say
that "On that occasion, all things means the five aggregates only".
Additional comment not in the previos post:
1. Kojizen and Presectarian_buddhism lied about Dhammapasa Atthakatha.
It actually says "Tattha sabbe dhammaati pancakkhandhaa eva
adhippetaa", but Kojizen and Presectarian Buddhism gave "sabbe
dhammaati pancakkhandhaa"
2.Tattha (on that occasion), sabbe (all), dhammaa (things),
pancakkhandhaa (five aggregates), eva (only) adhippetaa (means).
3. Presectarian_Bududhism mistranslate the sentence. He did not even
quote it in full. Let me quote Presectarian_Buddhism with a change in
the name. "Presectarian_Buddhism FUDGES SUTTA TRANSLATIONS".
Presectarian Buddhism "covers up" (his own words) tattha, eva,
adhippettaa, by not quoting them!
4. Think. Why did the Atthakattha used "On that occasion....only" It
simply proves two things. Firts, the commentary is honest. Second, the
commenatry knows that Nibbana is included in "sabbe dhammaa". That is
why it says, "on tha occassion....only"
5. Therefore Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand is also
wrong. But at least one of it's author is honest. Ven. Thanavuddho
wrote in Is Nrrvana 'Self'or 'Non-Self'? :
"......Some commentaries include Nirvana amongst the 'phenomena' [6],
[7], others not [8].
6. Khuddakanikaya Atthakatha Culanidesa (Mahachula Royal Institute
edition), p.8
7. Khuddakanikaya Atthakatha Mahanidesa (Mahachula Royal Institute
edition), p.219
8. Dhammapada Atthakatha (Mahamonkut Royal Institute edition) part 7,
p.62
Rahula
kojizen
I have never claimed that Nirvana is synonymous with annihilation as
my standpoint. Get real heretic. In fact, you're the one who has, in
so many words, made a case for a Buddhist version of annihilationism
following in the footsteps of Walpola Rahula who taught his followers
to keep the chicken shit and throw away the eggs.
Layman
NoMatterNoMind
so Layman/Ardent is still denouncing the right dharma view as heresy.
unfortunately his Nirvana is synonymous with the heresy 'other' than
Annihilationism, that is Eternalism. yawn.
kojizen
You haven't a clue as to the proper scriptural defintion of
"eternalism". You need to get back to your Communist cell, you silly
dialectical materialist. lol
Layman
Rahula
This is my understanding of anatta.
"No-self or Not-self?" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when
they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated
as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First,
the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist
teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no
self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second,
it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which
assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic
presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual
life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the
Pali Canon -- the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings --
you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the
Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he
refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either
that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme
forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice
impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what
his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we
first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked
and answered, and how to interpret his answers.
The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve
a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an
analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question;
those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the
questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last
class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of
suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a
question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and
then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say
yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the
person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then
determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said
that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who
draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn
from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's
teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta
doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to
qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied
the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to
give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should
be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in
the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems
safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer
to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences
where they shouldn't be drawn.
So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there
is a self -- interconnected or separate, eternal or not -- the Buddha
felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how
you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self
involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus
suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self,
which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one
identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It
also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of
alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the
quest for happiness -- one's own or that of others -- impossible. For
these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such
questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer
them, they lead to suffering and stress.
To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he
offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble
Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its
cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or
other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in
and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform
the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause
abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation
developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine
is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration,
and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state
to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that
occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but
rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular
phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but
not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit
straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress
and to chip away at the attachment and clinging -- the residual sense
of self-identification -- that cause it, until ultimately all traces
of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless
freedom.
In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a
not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause,
leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of
self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of
such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's
experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?
=========
See also:
"The Not-self Strategy" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html
Ludwig
Ludwig
"Rahula" <rahu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bf57b19.02112...@posting.google.com...
Rahula
Layman wrote:
> " annihilation being synonymous with Nirvana."
I replied:
> "There are, monks, some recluses and brahmans who charge me with being
an annihilationist, saying that the recluse Gotama teaches the
annihilation of an existent being. That is false misrepresentation.
What I teach, in the past as also now, is suffering and the cessation
of suffering" (Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 22).<
Layman replied:
> I have never claimed that Nirvana is synonymous with annihilation as
my standpoint. Get real heretic. In fact, you're the one who has, in
so many words, made a case for a Buddhist version of annihilationism
following in the footsteps of Walpola Rahula who taught his followers
to keep the chicken shit and throw away the eggs.<
I was aware of the context. And I know you never claimed that Nirvana
is synonymous with annihilation as your standpoint. There are two
reason why I quote the passage.
1. We never claimed Nirvana is synonymous with annihilation as our
standpoint either.
2. But you "charge us with being annihilation, saying that we teaches
the annihilation of an existent being" This is also what the Buddha is
accused of. An interesting question is why was he accused as such? The
reason is the same as why we are accused of being annihilationist by
you! That is why I quote that sutta!
"Evam vimuttacittam kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhum sa-Inda deva
sa-Brahmaka sa-Pajapatika anvesam nadhigacchanti: Idam nissitam
tathagatassa vinnanan ti. Tam kissa hetu? Ditthe vaham, bhikkhave,
dhamme tathagatam ananuvejjo ti vadami. Evamhvadim kho mam,
bhikkhave, evamakkhayim eke samanabrahmana asata tuccha musa abhutena
abbhacikkhanti: Venayiko samano Gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedam vinasam
vibhavam pannapetiti. Yatha vaham,
bhikkhave, na, yatha caham na vadami, tatha mam te bhonto
samanabrahmana.... abbhacikkhanti: Venayiko....vibhavam
pannapetiti. Pubbe caham, bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhan c'
eva pannapemi dukkhassa ca nirodham.
Concerning such a mentally emancipated bhikkhu, Brethren, not even
the highest of Angels can ascertain where resides the tathagata's
mind. And why? Because even in this present life, here and now,
the tathagata, as I affirm, is one who cannot be traced out. When
I say this, and when I affirm this, certain persons falsely assert
that I am a nihilist, and preach the extirpation, the
destruction, and the annihilation of an existent creature. I am
no nihilist; I do not preach such extirpation and annihilation.
As in the past, so now too, all that I expound is Suffering
and the Cessation of Suffering." (Majjhima Nikaya, i., 140)
Another translation:
Bhikkhus, if that released mind of the bhikkhu was to be searched by
Inda, Brahmaa, Pajaapati and their retinue, it would not be found;
thus unsupported is the consciousness of the Thus Gone One. What is
the reason: I say that the Thus Gone One cannot be found even here and
now. To me who says thus and preaches thus, certain recluses and
brahmins ingenuinely, untruthfully blame,the recluse Gotama the
discipliner, purposefully shows the annihilation, destruction, and non
evidence of beings. Bhikkhus, whatever I am not, that I do not
proclaim, as a result these good recluses and brahmins ingenuinely,
untruthfully blame, the recluse Gotama the discipliner purposefully
shows the annihilation, destruction and non-evidence of beings.
Earlier and now also I declare -Unpleasant and its cessation.
kojizen
Snips--
>
> 1. We never claimed Nirvana is synonymous with annihilation as our
> standpoint either.
I mentioned that your ilk "made a case for a Buddhist version of
annihilationism." I've never believed that you, at any point,
consciously intended to be a hardcore annihilationist (like Jabali of
the Ramayana) making it synonymous with Nirvana. Nevertheless, as I
read the arguments posted here and elsewhere anybody in their right
mind would conclude that your ilk has scurried into the hollow horn of
a "nothing beyond the skandhas theory" which by any other name smells
as putrid as annihilationism. (All this quibbling over "all things
are no-self" is a perfect illustration.) If there is nothing beyond
the five aggregates (khandhas) and the aggregates go to destruction,
it stands to reason that an existent being, comprised of the
aggregates, goes to destruction as well.
> 2. But you "charge us with being annihilation, saying that we teaches
> the annihilation of an existent being" This is also what the Buddha is
> accused of. An interesting question is why was he accused as such? The
> reason is the same as why we are accused of being annihilationist by
> you! That is why I quote that sutta!
You can't use the Buddha's denial of annihilationism for your defense.
Buddha says unambiguously *citta* (the freed Mind) is emancipated.
We are rightly to understand that *citta* is what is other than the
five aggregates; which is not really bound up with them; which can be
purified and attain absolute freedom in which no being is truly
destroyed. I should add too, that *citta* is also the soul (attâti
citta -- Sagathavagga Atthakatha 1.237) which, incidentally, is to be
spiritually distinguished from the five aggregates (khandhas). To sum
it up for now, your theory rings inconsistent. It still smells of a
Buddhist version of annihilationism.
Layman
kojizen
Your reasoning is totally lame brain (and goes against the Four Noble
Truths). Based on your theory, one couldn't even take up a namarupa
(pscyho-physical body) in the first place as there is nothing with
which to take it up! Yet, we are here in bodies, suffering.
You're listening too much to Theravadin hookah smoking caterpillars,
Alice. Get thee to a psychiatrist before your wheels really fall off.
Layman
Rahula
Layman wrote:
> Your reasoning is totally lame brain (and goes against the Four Noble
> Truths). Based on your theory, one couldn't even take up a namarupa
> (pscyho-physical body) in the first place as there is nothing with
> which to take it up! Yet, we are here in bodies, suffering.
>
> You're listening too much to Theravadin hookah smoking caterpillars,
> Alice. Get thee to a psychiatrist before your wheels really fall off.
It is based on this sutta.
Satta Sutta (SN XXIII.2) -- A Being {S iii 189; CDB i 985}
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha
went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat
to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A
being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be
'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is
caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a
being (satta).'
"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.'
----------
When there is no desire, passion, delight, or craving for body,
feeling, perception, ffabrication and consciousness,: when one is not
caught up there, not tied up there, how could one said to be 'a being?
---------
Anguttara Nikaya, Catukkanipata (Volume 2), Cakkavaggo (Chapter 4),
Dona Sutta
"Is not the Venerable One a god ?"
Brahmin, I am indeed not a god."
Is not the Venerable One then a Gandhabba ?
Brahmin, I am indeed not a Gandhabba."
Is not the Venerable One then a Yakkha ?
Brahmin, I am indeed not a Yakkha."
Is not the Venerable One then a man ?
Brahmin, I am indeed not a man."
(Then said the brahmin) " When Thou art thus questioned "Is not the
Venerable One a god ?' Thou sayest: Brahmin, I am indeed not a god.'
When thou art questioned " not the Venerable One then a Gandhabba ? '
Thou sayest "Brahmin, I am indeed not a Gandhabba.' When Thou art
questioned "Is not the Venerable One then a Yakkha ?' Thou sayest : `
Brahmin, I am indeed not a Yakkha.' When Thou art questioned "Is not
the Venerable One then a man ?' Thou sayest Brahmin, I am indeed not a
man.' ? Who then can the Venerable One be? "
"Brahmin, verily I was a god, a Gandhabba, a Yakkha, a man so long as
I had not purged myself of the intoxicants (asava). These very
intoxicants are now given up, with roots cut out like unto a
palm-tree, with its base destroyed and rendered unable to sprout
again, so that in future they do not come into existence. Brahmin,
just as a lotus or a water-lily born of the water, grown in the water,
risen out of the water, stands unstained by the water, even so,
brahmin, being born of the world, grown in the world, having overcome
the world I abide unstained by the world. Therefore, O brahrnin,
consider me as the Enlightened One. (awake / Buddha)
All I destroyed by me the taints are
Which could cause me to be born
As a deva or Gandhabba,
As a Yakkha or a bird,
As a man or egg-born creature
All destroyed and rooted out !
As a lotus fair and lovely
By the water is not fouled,
By the world I am not tainted,
Therefore am I Buddha (awake) called.
kojizen
how the core paraphrase goes dead against my response to cup o' tea's
idiotic logic?
rahu...@yahoo.com (Rahula) wrote in message news:<4bf57b19.02113...@posting.google.com>...
cup o' tea
> red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote:
> >
> > 'You' can't be annihilated if 'you' never really existed in the first
> > place. What is annihilated is the habit of thinking in terms of 'I'
> > and causing suffering thereby.
>
> Your reasoning is totally lame brain (and goes against the Four Noble
> Truths). Based on your theory, one couldn't even take up a namarupa
> (pscyho-physical body) in the first place as there is nothing with
> which to take it up! Yet, we are here in bodies, suffering.
Your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum begs the question. If you want
to prove A, you can't prove it by taking it as the 'obvious' which is
contradicted by the implications of an opponents reasoning. You might
as well say, everything in the Bible is true because the Bible says
everything in the Bible is true.
Your statement that I contradict the Four Noble Truths is not
supported by what you say. It's just a bald assertion.
Altogether you have no argument (in this post) worth the name. Hence
there is nothing to respond to.
kojizen
have done, minus supportive reasons or evidence, is the bald
assertion—not only that, you are begging us to assume what you say
from the start is true (an example of *begging the question*). For
all this, you deserve the Bald Assertion award.
I was simply doing what any good Madhyamika might do and that is
deduce a contradiction from your murky premises. Remember, you said
"'You' can't be annihilated if 'you' never really existed in the first
place." So under this absent, non-existent state (which I take it is
the same whether pre-mortem or post-mortem) 'you' can never be such as
to be under pain (duhkha) in the first place (pain, remember, is for
the subject, namely, ‘you').
It would follow from your reasoning (or the lack thereof) that the
Buddha was wasting his time on the subject of suffering (duhkha) since
nothing is there to sense it, requiring, in addition, emancipation.
One final note (Oh, I do love the coda), whether or not you are aware
of it, you're espousing annihilationism (vibhava).
Layman
red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote in message news:<9faa2d55.02120...@posting.google.com>...
cup o' tea
> It would follow from your reasoning (or the lack thereof) that the
> Buddha was wasting his time on the subject of suffering (duhkha) since
> nothing is there to sense it, requiring, in addition, emancipation.
There are sensations. There are experience-events. Enough of them in
proximity to each other can give the impression of a being. It's
rather like the way enough still images at the movies give the
impression of motion.
> One final note (Oh, I do love the coda), whether or not you are aware
> of it, you're espousing annihilationism (vibhava).
I am not espousing annihilationism. Because I do not believe that
there is a me to be annihilated.
kojizen
What do you mean there are sensations? You're just segueing the
problem to another form. If, for example, sensation were a tree in
the forest, minus any living creature with ears, would there be heard
its groan in the wind, followed by a sharp crack and its fall?
Probably not. Why then should there be pain for us given the complete
and total absence of sentiency? And why then speak of mind's
emancipation (which is synonymous with attā according to the
Atthakathas)?
Can I at least pin you down as being sympathetic with the doctrine of
Ajita Kesakambala, who espoused one of the six heresies (micchaditthi)
of which the Buddha condemned? Here is what he is reported to have
said:
"Ajita Kesakambala said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given,
nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of
good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother,
no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or
contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim
this world and the next after having directly known and realized it
for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At
death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the
(external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the
external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
death.'" (Digha-Nikaya Samannaphala-sutta 23-24. vol.I, pp.53-56)
BTW, of the six heretical teachers (Kassapa, Gosala, Kesakambali,
Kaccayana, Nathaputta, Belatthiputta) where is there mention of one
who espouses Attā (soul)?
At any rate, a sober, objective person would find it hard to separate
the views of a Kesakambali from the views of a latter-day Western
Buddhist. If not the son of Kesakambali, these Western Buddhists
might well be called his bastards.
Layman
Rahula
Layman wrote:
> Why don't you provide us with a paraphrase of the suttas.....<
And in another post:
>.... Remember, you said "'You' can't be annihilated if 'you' never
really existed in the first place." So under this.....<
I read the suttas as it is. The sutta is very clear, so I don't think
I need to paraphrase it.
The sutta (Satta Sutta) define "a being" as:
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form etc., Radha: when
one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said
to be 'a being (satta)."
Period.
Again, I have to repeat myself. So, on the other hand, when there is
no desire, passion, delight, or craving for form etc......how could
one is said to be "a being."?
In the next sutta (Dona Sutta) that I quoted, the Buddha denied that
he was a man (in other words, a being) but claimed to be awake (a Buddha).
It should be understood in this sense:
Let me quote "Thoughts Without a Thinke" by Mark Epstein, page 98:
"Selflessness is not a case of something that existed in the past becoming
nonexistent. Rather, this sort of "self" is something that never did exist.
What is needed is to identify as nonexistent something that always was
nonexistent.' It is not ego, in the Freudian sense, that is the actual
target of the Buddhist insight, it is, rather, the self-concept, the
representational component of the ego, the actual internal experience of
one's self that is targeted..."
Appicchata's review of "Self & Non-Self in Early Buddhism" by Joacquin
Perez-Ramon:
"....For example, he reasons enlightenment must liberate something (the self),
rather than recognizing that enlightenment is the dissolution of the
(mental construct of a) self...."
"A being" / "Suffering" is caused by "desire, passion, delight, or craving
for form etc." Without "desire, passion, delight, or craving
for form etc.", there is no being.
The Buddha was "charge with being an annihilationist" for the same reasons
you charge us as annihilationists.
In Majjhima Nikaya 22, the Buddha said:
"...I say that the Thus Gone One cannot be found even here and
now. To me who says thus and preaches thus, certain recluses and
brahmins ingenuinely, untruthfully blame,the recluse Gotama the
discipliner, purposefully shows the annihilation, destruction, and non
evidence of beings...."
What we are saying is the above. Those who "attained" nibbana " cannot be
found even here and now" because it does not fit into the definition of "a
being" anymore.
Next time, please quote sutta. I am not interested in your opinions.
Ludwig
> > > It would follow from your reasoning (or the lack thereof) that the
> > > Buddha was wasting his time on the subject of suffering (duhkha) since
> > > nothing is there to sense it, requiring, in addition, emancipation.
> >
> What do you mean there are sensations? You're just segueing the
> problem to another form. If, for example, sensation were a tree in
> the forest, minus any living creature with ears, would there be heard
> its groan in the wind, followed by a sharp crack and its fall?
Oh no! Not the tree in a forest cliche! And whats your position on this
dilemma?
> Probably not.
You could at least come down on one side or the other if you're going to
bring it up.
>Why then should there be pain for us given the complete
> and total absence of sentiency?
Who mentioned the complete absence of sentiency? Oh thats right it follows
from your earlier statement
that:
>Buddha was wasting his time on the subject of suffering (duhkha) since
> > > nothing is there to sense it
But I really don't think that this holds up.
Your reasoning appears to be as follows : without a metaphysical subject
there can be no sense impressions, no thoughts. In other words this is a
version of the Cartesian "cogito ergo sum."
But nearly every latter day thinker who addresses this agrees that " I think
therefore I am " is not proven. In other words Cartesian doubt did not
stretch far enough and a rigorous sceptic can only say " there are thoughts
."
There is no need to infer a metaphysical subject simply to account for
thoughts and there is, in our context, most certainly no need to infer a
soul that persists beyond death.
Ludwig
cup o' tea
> Why then should there be pain for us given the complete
> and total absence of sentiency?
I didn't say anything about any 'complete and total absence of
sentiency'
>
> Can I at least pin you down as being sympathetic with the doctrine of
> Ajita Kesakambala,
Absolutely not. Ajita Hairblanket denies karmaphala.
> BTW, of the six heretical teachers (Kassapa, Gosala, Kesakambali,
> Kaccayana, Nathaputta, Belatthiputta) where is there mention of one
> who espouses Attâ (soul)?
Just off the top of my head, it would be Nigantha Ñaataputta. But I
think there is _at least_ one more, the one who believes that
liberation comes to fools and wise alike after running the length of
their 'string', i.e. their predetermined length of time in samsara.
Actually, at least one more now that I think of it. The one who thinks
that liberation comes to fools and wise alike at the end of 62
Mahaakalpas. But I'd have to actually go and check to see who said
what. Also, various versions of that sutta differ as to who held which
doctrine.
>
> At any rate, a sober, objective person would find it hard to separate
> the views of a Kesakambali from the views of a latter-day Western
> Buddhist.
That's because sober, objective people still find it hard to
understand something that is very deep, profound and difficult, like
the Buddha's teaching.
Tang Huyen
is most perfectible), suffering and the ending of suffering are in the responsibility of each person to himself or
herself alone, and no absolution from suffering can be given by somebody else, especially on that somebody else's
whim.
At most, teachers can help point the way, which was discovered by the Buddha (if indeed the teachers transmit what
the Buddha taught and not something else that the Buddha rejected, like shamanism), but the way still needs to be
trodden by oneself and oneself alone. And teachers are not necessary, at most helpful (though some teachers can be
quite harmful).
Such is what the Buddhist doctrine of deed (karman) and its return comes down to, and it definitely imputes
responsibility to the person, in delusion as in awakening, in suffering as in ending of suffering.
As to what passes our perception, like past lives and future lives, and the involvement of deed and its return in
there, the Buddha stated in the Potthapada Sutta (DN 9) the criteria for admitting or not admitting them: if you
can't verify them, don't mention them, as they don't belong to the purview of your knowledge and therefore of your
concerns.
Furthermore, as to what passes our perception, like past lives and future lives, and the involvement of deed and its
return in there, as well as what occurs right in front of us and inside us, the Buddha taught one basic, fundamental,
universal attitude that applies to them all: do not mentate them.
Do not mentate past lives, do not mentate future lives, do not mentate deed and its return, do not mentate the world,
do not chase the past limit (past lives), do not chase the future limit (future lives), do not entertain doubt about
your present life, do not ruminate on your present existential states (atta-bhava). Quiesce your compositions (the
fourth aggregate, which includes thought and language), quiesce your composition of the self (the self is a mere
composition, a product of the fourth aggregate), that is the way to attain peace and happiness. Nirvana is the
calming of all the compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho).
The doctrine as quoted by you denied deed and its return, denied responsibility, denied past and future lives, denied
world-transcending knowledge, etc., but it denied them on the side of things (de rei).
The Buddha affirmed responsibility for oneself and world-transcending knowledge, but it is world-transcending
knowledge only because it has dropped attachment and the self and not because it can perceive super-natural phenomena
or whatever (though it can, but that part is purely optional and not necessary), even less because it goes to some
super-natural realm, such as advocated by you and your comrade-in-arm, Punnie. The Buddha taught the absence of
mentation in general and the absence of mentation with regard to what passes perception, like past lives and future
lives, so his denials are with regard to the mind (de intellectu). Past lives and future lives and the involvement of
deed and its return in there may perfectly be for real, but are not of concern to the Buddhist cultivator who wants
to end his suffering.
There are worlds of difference between such a view and the doctrine as quoted by you (though to the Buddhist
cultivator who has actually attained it and lived it, it is not a view but the way he lives in flesh and blood). The
two are largely incompatible.
Tang Huyen
kojizen wrote:
> Here is what he is reported to have said:
>
> "Ajita Kesakambala said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given,
> nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of
> good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother,
> no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or
> contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim
> this world and the next after having directly known and realized it
> for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At
> death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the
> (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the
> external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
> external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
> external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
> men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
> sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
> pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
> idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
> false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
> foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after
> death.'" (Digha-Nikaya Samannaphala-sutta 23-24. vol.I, pp.53-56)
>
> BTW, of the six heretical teachers (Kassapa, Gosala, Kesakambali,
> Kaccayana, Nathaputta, Belatthiputta) where is there mention of one
> who espouses Attâ (soul)?
Son of man
"Tang Huyen" <tang_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3DF21F9B...@yahoo.com...
> Ardie sweetie, I don't know what "latter-day Western Buddhist" you mean,
but in my understanding of the Buddha (which
> is most perfectible), suffering and the ending of suffering are in the
responsibility of each person to himself or
> herself alone, and no absolution from suffering can be given by somebody
else, especially on that somebody else's
> whim.
So Tang would have us believe that if we saw a hungry, starving person
begging for some food, there's nothing that we could give them, especially
on our whim, to end their suffering. The most we can do for that person is
point out the way to him of how to acquire some food for himself?
I hope Tang never has any children. They would all die of starvation.
William Tucker
----------
In article <3DF21F9B...@yahoo.com>, Tang Huyen <tang_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Ardie sweetie, I don't know what "latter-day Western Buddhist" you mean,
> but in my understanding of the Buddha (which
> is most perfectible), suffering and the ending of suffering are in the
> responsibility of each person to himself or
> herself alone, and no absolution from suffering can be given by somebody
> else, especially on that somebody else's
> whim.
>
> At most, teachers can help point the way, which was discovered by the
> Buddha (if indeed the teachers transmit what
> the Buddha taught and not something else that the Buddha rejected, like
> shamanism)
Anything that helps on th eway is the right way
ownership belongs to the self that determines...
crap like the buddha rejected shamanism is crap
if sitting in a tu b of jello and reciting hebrew phrases helps lead one to
enlightenment so be it....
some people would recieve enlightenment if this peculiar combination of
events led to freedom...that's the point
the dance of shiva, ganesh or a hoori....katsina magick...sky
walking...garudafanningherself...hummingbirdlighteningjudyingthe
skywithdiamonds
buffalo jelly
or as one of my favorite sufi parables go...
When the Master was asked "What is sufism"
he replied...
"What you call sufism is no more sufism than the tracks of a fox in the sand
are the sand" "What is written down merely marks the passage of a Master"
"Whatever brings one to enlightenment, _that_ is sufism"
"When a cloak does not keep you warm, it is no longer a cloak, as that is
it's purpose"
beeeblebeezubzub...beyoukeyzoozoop....
onwards and upwards!!!!!!!
Wm
kojizen
modern portrait of Buddhism. Gathered together these descriptive
"isms" of modern Buddhism might be summed up under the heading of
anti-religiousism and anti-foundationalism. In other words, modern
Buddhists are riding on the coattails of empiricism which as anybody
in philosophy 101 knows is exsanguinating. This empiricist read of
Buddhism doesn't go far enough for the human soul which is suffering.
It is not primordial enough, in other words. It's ignored whole
sectors of scripture in order to arrive at a dumbed-down
interpretation of what the Buddha taught as if to say in a nutshell,
"Just accept the finality of it all--and drop dead. Burial will come
30 or 40 years later."
That aside, your post goes, I think, to the heart of the matter, this
is to say, if religion is not in going to be salvific in a real and
vital sense (not just modern Buddhism's promise of the coma of
nirvana), what good is it? In other words, using your Sufi quote, if
as a cloak Buddhism can't keep us warm from the cold of alienating
duhkha (suffering), what good can it be? One would have to be mad to
follow Buddhism--their heart set on a doctrine of disintegration,
destruction, leading to the extirpation of one's sentient spirit
(sattva). But this is precisely the mantra being murmured by modern
Buddhists, especially on t.r.b., a doctrine which, incidentally, is
denied by the Buddha at Majjhima-Nikaya 1.140.
Layman
"William Tucker" <wmft...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<OfxI9.915$zS2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
kojizen
> ."
> There is no need to infer a metaphysical subject simply to account for
> thoughts and there is, in our context, most certainly no need to infer a
> soul that persists beyond death.
>
You're loading this. As I read your respose, you're recontextualizing
and misstating my philosophical implications. If you wish to make a
caricature of your anātman theory, be my guest Ludwig. Leave my
soteriological theory alone. Give it the right to speak for itself.
I am hoping that at some point in your ghastly, material life of
self-loathing you will realize that the Buddha did, in fact, go to the
Attā as his only refuge which, by any other name, is perdurable and is
not something which can be decomposed.
Layman
kojizen
Kesakambala " that this frees you from being, at some level,
commitmented to his views? Well, let me tell you something: it
doesn't free you at all from such heretical views. You can't have
your cake and eat it too (in other words, you can't smuggle in a
‘karmin' theory and be, at the same time, consistent with the denial a
foundation [âtman]).
Layman
red_te...@hotmail.com (cup o' tea) wrote in message news:<9faa2d55.02120...@posting.google.com>...
kojizen
Can I pin you down to where you will admit that the Buddha taught
unambiguous extinction? You've certainly implied this if one
critically looks at the red thread of your previous posts. But if
this makes your undies bunch up, please waffle. I enjoy the spectacle
of somebody using weasel words and becoming a laughingstock.
Layman
cup o' tea
> Do you believe that by saying, "I am not of the view of Ajita
> Kesakambala " that this frees you from being, at some level,
> commitmented to his views? Well, let me tell you something: it
> doesn't free you at all from such heretical views. You can't have
> your cake and eat it too (in other words, you can't smuggle in a
> ‘karmin' theory and be, at the same time, consistent with the denial a
> foundation [âtman]).
I do believe the world is knitted together and that karmaphala is an
important part of the process. But I don't see things as having a
monistic, mental, unchanging foundation that is both the origin of
manifestation and the soul of every individual. The latter is the sort
of view I think of when people discuss 'Self' in Indian Philosophical
contexts.
Robert Epstein
I hear it more from so-called zennists who have a penchant for scientific materialism.
If there is fault in Buddhist doctrine however it is in Theravada not the Tibetan branch,
however, where parinibbana is accepted as complete cessation of sentient experience,
despite some hints from Buddha that this is not the case, and that it is only cessation
of that which is illusory.
Tibetan Buddhism, with its Clear Light of Bliss and the non-dualist doctrine of dzogchen,
is surely not the branch that has retreated from spiritualism and a truly positive conclusion
to the quest for transcendence.
It is in neo-Theravadic materialism, generated by scholars rather than meditators,
that the fault lies in Western Buddhism.
The forest tradition and those who have sought the jhanas
and vipassana experience
has no such problems.
Robert
==========================
kojizen
rang stong is decisively anti-foundational. Lacking philosophical
sobriety, it has stumbled into a confused interpretation of the "three
turnings of the wheel" theory in which it has the negative coming as
the highest turning. Rather than see the negative as rightly the
second turning which is the negation of what is not Tathagatagarbha
(leading up to its positive realization), it carelessly and
unphilosophically makes a case for extinction (vibhava)--though
couched in different words. This theory rests, in addition, on a
bizarre assumption that Buddha taught us that the aggregates must be
purified (because there is no beyond)! In sum, from a slightly
different context, rang stong cannot differentiate between attribute
(the aggregates) and substance (svabhâva) going so far as to declare
there are only attributes; that there are just heaps, but nothing
heaped!
Layman
Robert Epstein <r.ep...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3DFAA877...@verizon.net>...
Robert Epstein
to understand all that you say below.
But i would just answer generally
that we should depend on practice
and those who attempt to see directly,
from all schools,
developing the capacities that the Buddha recommended,
rather than getting caught up in endless doctrinal disputes
of which there can be no end.
Practicing mindfulness
either in daily life
or through breathing meditation
with sincere consistency
and with a basic understanding of dukha, anicca and anatta as guides,
one will eventually realize the truth.
Robert
=========================
abilli...@gmail.com
> In almost every instance within the Pali Canon, the word 'sabbe' ('sabba')
> means 'all,' not 'the all.'
>
> "Sabbe dhamma anatta'ti" means "All dhammas (phenomena) are non-self
> (or void of self). This includes both the Unconditioned (Nibbana/
> Nirvana), and the conditioned (everything else).
>
> Whenever someone tries to 'prove' that the Buddha taught something
> that is the exact opposite of what he really did teach--the doctrine
> of anatta--such attempts quickly reveals a non-Buddhist agenda. Lots
> of Hindus, Theosophists, and others--many with the best of intentions--
> have attempted to remove anatta from Buddhism, but all have failed.
> As an unnamed Bhikkhu once said, "No anatta--no Buddhism."
>
> If one doesn't understand anatta, or disagrees with it, that's fine--
> but one should be honest about it, in either case.
>
> Next subject?
>
> --Metta Jon
That's nihilism. Good Luck!