Dhammapada verse meaning

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and texts.

Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby Amata » Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:58 pm

Chapter 5, verse 62 of the Dhammapada:
'These children belong to me, and this wealth belongs to me,' with such thoughts a fool is tormented. They themselves do not belong to themselves; how much less children and wealth?

I was wondering who, it is generally thought, the Buddha was thinking that they themselves belong to?
Amata
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby Cittasanto » Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:36 pm

Amata wrote:Chapter 5, verse 62 of the Dhammapada:
'These children belong to me, and this wealth belongs to me,' with such thoughts a fool is tormented. They themselves do not belong to themselves; how much less children and wealth?

I was wondering who, it is generally thought, the Buddha was thinking that they themselves belong to?

This is talking about non-self so no-one.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby SDC » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:08 pm

Cittasanto wrote:This is talking about non-self so no-one.


This.^^

He was drawing attention to the irony of a "self" having external objects that belong to it, when in the first place, this thing that is seen as "self" is a complex concept composed of internal and external objects that can not be fully controlled. And how what is not fully under control be declared as being "mine" let alone external objects not physically attached to it?

I love trying to explain this stuff, but in the end I'm not sure if I ever make sense. :smile:
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:38 pm

SDC wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:This is talking about non-self so no-one.


This.^^

He was drawing attention to the irony of a "self" having external objects that belong to it, when in the first place, this thing that is seen as "self" is a complex concept composed of internal and external objects that can not be fully controlled. And how what is not fully under control be declared as being "mine" let alone external objects not physically attached to it?

I love trying to explain this stuff, but in the end I'm not sure if I ever make sense. :smile:

one question, what does the ^^ mean?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby SDC » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:42 pm

It's me pointing at your post saying that I agree with it
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby Mawkish1983 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:57 pm

SDC wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:This is talking about non-self so no-one.
He was drawing attention to the irony of a "self" having external objects that belong to it, when in the first place, this thing that is seen as "self" is a complex concept composed of internal and external objects that can not be fully controlled. And how what is not fully under control be declared as being "mine" let alone external objects not physically attached to it? I'm not sure if I ever make sense.
Made sense to me, and I think I agree with this interpretation.

To paraphrase a wise philosopher, it's like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

Well, that analogy doesn't quite work, how about:

A computer game character being programmed to be [or at least, appear] upset about losing in-game money?
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:40 pm

SDC wrote:It's me pointing at your post saying that I agree with it

right :) Thought you were but not sure if you were replying or agreeing, was a little confused :rolleye:
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5686
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby SDC » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:26 am

Cittasanto wrote:right :) Thought you were but not sure if you were replying or agreeing, was a little confused :rolleye:


Its done often on another forum I post on. I sprung it with no warning. :tongue:
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby SDC » Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:26 am

Mawkish1983 wrote:Made sense to me, and I think I agree with this interpretation.


Nice!
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 962
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Dhammapada verse meaning

Postby sarahypp » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:53 pm

Very nice verse from the Dhammapada, thank you for sharing.

It does reflect our strong sense of self that we always identify things as 'mine' lol..

Can anyone share with us on the antidote to this? How does one lessen one's possessiveness?
sarahypp
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 12:38 pm


Return to Early Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests