Difference between Citta and Brahma?

[tiltbillings]

"What, venerable sir, is the purpose of seeng rightly?"
"The purpose of seeng rightly, Radha, is revultion"
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of revultion?"
"The purpose of revultion, Radha, is dispassion"
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of dispassion?"
"The purpose of dispassion, Radha, is liberation."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of liberation?"
"The purpose of liberation, Radha, is Nibbana."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of Nibbana?"
"You have gone beyond the range of questioning, Radha. You weren't able to gasp the limit to questioning. For, Radha, the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana as its destination, Nibbana at its final goal."

How you can see Lord Buddha to is agree with me and my similies, and this kamma lead us (you and me), to the response on your doubts about it.

Agrees with you? Not at all. I realize that English is not your first language, which would then require that you take especial care in reading what is written. This text is not saying that nibbana is -- as you are suggesting -- some sort of buddhanature type ground upon which all "all sankharas and dhammas are based.' If that were the case, that notion would be common and fundamental throughout the suttas. It is not. You might want to give some thought as to what "ground" here means. Context is everything.

[DAWN]

Agrees with you? Not at all. I realize that English is not your first language, which would then require that you take especial care in reading what is written. This text is not saying that nibbana is -- as you are suggesting -- some sort of buddhanature type ground upon which all "all sankharas and dhammas are based.' If that were the case, that notion would be common and fundamental throughout the suttas. It is not. You might want to give some thought as to what "ground" here means. Context is everything.

It's my third language, Also speak russian and french.

...the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground
The question is, is "holy life" dhamma, or not.
If it is, why this dhamma have Nibbana as its ground, but not others dhammas?

Etymologicaly, the word dhamma, is actualy "fenomena+Nibbana".
Why dhammas have this noun?

If you say that dhammas have not Nibbana at its ground, it would mean that The Dhamma have nothink to do with Nibbana, that it's complitely differents, absolutely devided fenomenas. Yes, fenomenas, But Nibbana is not any fenomena, it not rise and not decay, it's have no beggining and have no and, it's infinity, so why, even logicaly, you think that this infinity have no dhammas?
Infinity is somethink that was not created, Buddha said that Nibbana is not-created, so automaticaly, by using very simple logic, without any experiance, we can understand that infinity is INFINITY, so all impermanent fenomenas have Nibbana as its ground.

So, even logicaly, without any personal experiance, we can understand that Nibbana is "the part" of all dhammas, wich have Nibbana at is ground.

So is "holy life" a dhamma? If it's not, why it is not?
Also we must ask some one who is an expert in pali, who can say us, if the word "dhamma" means "fenomena+Nibbana"
And also for understand all, we must ask, if The Dhamma mean Nibbana.

We have to get a constructive disscution, and not distructive.

PS now it's the time to give my blood, so i will return after that.

With regards

[tiltbillings]

. . .

You might want to reread your msg and try actually making a logical argument based upon taking the word "ground" in the actual context of the sutta you quoted, not what you imagine "ground" should be. Also, use a spell-checker; it would help. "Nothink" should be "nothing." Reading your msgs is a struggle and if you are not willing to put the effort in to make them as clear as possible, I am not sure it is worth it.

[Gwyddion]

Anyone want to try answering my updated question without dancing around with mysticism? Also yes the Buddha did not teach one to think 'nothink' if you want to do beyond concepts you have to realise this is also a concept. As for the monks here most of them become monks to get an education, and there is nothing wrong with that If it helps them. Personally I have an education what i'm looking for is a clear and precise understanding of the buddha's teaching. not get a reply like, 'your thinking too much', or 'listen to you'rse heart' these are lazy answers in this case at leas
t.

[tiltbillings]

Anyone want to try answering my updated question without dancing around with mysticism?

So we do not have to go rummaging through this thread, you might want to post a link to it.

[mikenz66]

I guess Gwyddion means:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14979#p216391

But perhaps he could look at the links I posted (Ajahn Maha Boowa, etc) and confirm that this is the sort of teaching he is talking about.


Mike

[Gwyddion]

Yes sorry I missed your post, definitely as in maha boowa. Do you think he is veering off from the Buddhas teaching in this respect?

[tiltbillings]

Yes sorry I missed your post, definitely as in maha boowa. Do you think he is veering off from the Buddhas teaching in this respect?

Maha Boowa is an outlier.

[DAWN]

. . .

You might want to reread your msg and try actually making a logical argument based upon taking the word "ground" in the actual context of the sutta you quoted, not what you imagine "ground" should be. Also, use a spell-checker; it would help. "Nothink" should be "nothing." Reading your msgs is a struggle and if you are not willing to put the effort in to make them as clear as possible, I am not sure it is worth it.

Ok.
Now i read comentaries of Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, would you like read it with me?

Afret words "You have gone beyond the range of questioning, Radha." there is 243,
After words For, Radha, the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana as its destination, Nibbana at its final goal." there is 244
(p.1093-1094)

243. This paragraph is also at 48:42 (V 218,19-21) and MN I 304,20-22. Be consistenly reads the verb as accayasi (aorist of atiyati), Se as accasara (aorits of atisarati). Ee's assa here and ajjhaparam below must steam from faulty manuscripts.
The last sentence is: Nibbanogadham hi Radha brahmacariyam vussati nibbanaparayanam nibbanapariyosanam. Many translators take nibbanogadha to mean "the plunge into Nibbana" or "merging with Nibbana," wich commentarie encourage with by connecting ogadha with ogaha, a plunge (from the verb ogahati, to plunge into). But ogadha is actually a by-form of ogadha, from the verb ogadhati, wich the commentaries treat like as synonymous with patitthahati, glossing ogadha with patittha, support; hence my rendering "ground". For the reference see CPD, s.v. ogadha, ogadhati, ogaha, and the use of the word gadha, both literal and metaphorical, in I,v.263. MW defines gaha (from the root gahi, to stand firmly) as a ground to standing on in water, a shallow place, a ford.

244. This reply hinge on a pum between satta as the Pli equivalent of Skt sattva, "a being," and as past participle of sajjati (=Skt sakta), attached.

When i said : "if you do it right, you will be able to see the nature of consciosness, to push off on your voice (any dhamma), and by this reflection of consciosness-light, jump into your self, "
You reply thus : you not talking about the Buddha's teachings here.
Devarupa said thus:
"into your self" is adhamma
"the base on which all sankharas are based" is very unclear
"impenetrable ground beyond impermanence" is adhamma
I reply thus: For the moment, all Buddha's words that i was read, confirm me what i know, and what i feel.
You say this : The problem is that you are here -- and elsewhere on this forum -- some sort of ground of being which is supposed to be the basis for all things: "my qoutation" The Buddha never taught any thing such as that
And after you say this: And nibbana certainly is not some sort of ground or "zero" from whence all things come.
And this: You are the one using unnecessary labels. As was said, the Buddha taught no ground, "stability on front of unstability."

So now i propose you to read again SN 23.1, and read again Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi commentaries.

And now please give your answer: Is adhamma to plonge into Nibbana? Ground is adhamma? Stability in front of unstability is adhamma?

I don't want to continue this disscution, peoples dont know what they talking about, they dont know what Lord Buddha said, they dont know pali, they dont want to try to understand anythink. It's some kind of void discussion about picture with someone who have no ears, and turned back to you. It's not insult, i tryed to explain, but it's impossible. I'am sorry.

The Noble Ehgtfold Path, is the only path. The rest have no importance.

With compassion, to me, to you, to all of us.

[daverupa]

I don't have a skilled ability with Pali, but "steeped in nibbana" seems like a better translation here:

nibbanogadham hi Radha brahmacariyam vussati nibbanaparayanam nibbanapariyosanam

"Steeped in nibbana, Radha, is the holy life; it has been lived with nibbana as the destination, nibbana as the final goal."

I feel as though I must surely have messed up tenses here, as well as who knows what else. Thoughts?

[tiltbillings]

. . .

Ven Bodhi's footnotes change nothing, but they do point to your continued misreading of the text in question. You are reading into the text a metaphysical importance that simply is not there. Nibbana is not some sort of "zero" thingie from which comes all other things. You have claimed as much, but you have not shown it to be the case. The texts you quote do not support your claim, and what you are claiming is not part of the Buddha's teachings.

[tiltbillings]

I don't have a skilled ability with Pali, but "steeped in nibbana" seems like a better translation here:

nibbanogadham hi Radha brahmacariyam vussati nibbanaparayanam nibbanapariyosanam

"Steeped in nibbana, Radha, is the holy life; it has been lived with nibbana as the destination, nibbana as the final goal."

I feel as though I must surely have messed up tenses here, as well as who knows what else. Thoughts?

"Based in nibbana." But we need to keep in mind what nibbana is and is not.

[DAWN]

. . .

Ven Bodhi's footnotes change nothing, but they do point to your continued misreading of the text in question. You are reading into the text a metaphysical importance that simply is not there. Nibbana is not some sort of "zero" thingie from which comes all other things. You have claimed as much, but you have not shown it to be the case. The texts you quote do not support your claim, and what you are claiming is not part of the Buddha's teachings.

What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?

[tiltbillings]

What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?

All of it, it would seem. You might want to not pay too much attention to the your inner voice. It is leading you down the garden path.

[daverupa]

Thankee-sai.

The three compounds are synonymous, aren't they, and qualifying brahmacariya? So it isn't saying anything about nibbana here, but is instead saying that the holy life is altogether centered on nibbana - no ontological commitments, but instead a matter of the appropriate intention, per MN 24:

"The holy life is lived under the Blessed One, my friend, for the sake of attaining nibbana through lack of clinging."

Based in nibbana, for the sake of nibbana, nibbana as the final goal, nibbana as the destination... this is the holy life.

[DAWN]

What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?

All of it, it would seem. You might want to not pay too much attention to the your inner voice. It is leading you down the garden path.

I ask you second time, please dont respond by evasion.

What i missunderstand?
What is Nibbana?
What i claim?
What is Buddha teaching?

[daverupa]

What is Nibbana?

The cessation of greed, hate, delusion. If I may be so bold, the problem is that Вы пробуете ожесточить "nibbana" by saying 'ground' in the way you have been.

[DAWN]

What is Nibbana?

The cessation of greed, hate, delusion. If I may be so bold, the problem is that Вы пробуете ожесточить "nibbana" by saying 'ground' in the way you have been.

Как много шума из за простой метафоры обозначающей стабильность.

Метафоры это как формулы, они используются для выявления определённой функции. В данном случае земля обозначает стабильность, не-изменность, но никак не твёрдость.
Если бы это было так, то это бы обозначало что Ниббана имеет какуюто субстанцию или наполнение, это не так, и именно потому что это не так, и не имеет никакой субстанции, она и стабильна, и неизменна.

PS
To much noize for some simple metaphore to designate stability.

Metaphores are like matemathics formuls, used to designate some fonction. In this case ground is used to designate the stability of Nibbana, that Nibbana is not object to change, but not hardness or solidity.
If it was the case, it would be mean that Nibbana is some substance, it is not, and because it is not any substance, it remain stable, not object to change, free from anicca.

I dont think that if we say that Nibbana is object to change, is annica, it would be concidered like Buddha Dhamma.
Is Nibbana anicca?

[DAWN]

Buddha said that i have right view

"Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states."

PS Sorry for this joke, but it's realy funny how peoples can be atached to labels. How we say it in russia "и смех и грех", "laught and sin" - it means that it's funny, but it's bad to lought about it. So it is.

[daverupa]

The thing is, the word isn't being used to describe nibbana, it's being used to qualify the holy life. You seem, still, to think of nibbana as a special thing, when the term is actually already a metaphor, one that refers to the absence of certain things - not the presence of certain things. It is not a metaphor for stability, as you say.