The context seems like a realm of nothingness or something like that....the ascending ladder thing of passing through various realms you get in a lot of these suttas on meditation.
Then Four become Three
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm
Re: Then Four become Three
Re: Then Four become Three
I believe ākiñcaññāyatana is ā-kiñcanajosaphatbarlaam wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:01 amThe context seems like a realm of nothingness or something like that....the ascending ladder thing of passing through various realms you get in a lot of these suttas on meditation.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kincana#palikiñcana : (nt.) something; a trifle; worldly attachment; trouble.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
From the Critical Pali Dictionary
So we could view the attainment of "Nothingness" not as literally Nothing, but rather a disinterested view of the world. Given that according to the Dhamma attention to a sense base is required to experience it, such a view when developed would lead to the fading away of sense contact.
https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=177a-kiñcana, mfn. [ts.], having nothing; calling no-thing his own, disinterested
So we could view the attainment of "Nothingness" not as literally Nothing, but rather a disinterested view of the world. Given that according to the Dhamma attention to a sense base is required to experience it, such a view when developed would lead to the fading away of sense contact.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
Actually , here the yogi became disinterested with the state of limitless consciousness itself and hence striving towards higher aim . However he saw there werent anything , then he takes the nothingness thought as its object thus attaining the nothingness state .Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:32 am From the Critical Pali Dictionary
https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=177a-kiñcana, mfn. [ts.], having nothing; calling no-thing his own, disinterested
So we could view the attainment of "Nothingness" not as literally Nothing, but rather a disinterested view of the world. Given that according to the Dhamma attention to a sense base is required to experience it, such a view when developed would lead to the fading away of sense contact.
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Then Four become Three
That the worldlings really really really wanna zig-a-zig-ah.
In all seriousness, the āgama texts are not easy texts to look at. There's a reason why DeepL makes a mess of them. They are from just before what we could call the "normative" period of Chinese translation, when translators like Venerables Kumārajīva and Xuánzàng start producing translations that use "standard" terminology. That 覺 is used for things like the verb pratisaṃvedayati in these translations and not as a noun for "bodhi" or "Buddha" is just one example. Compared to the āgamas, the Mahāyāna sutras are easy to read. When you go even older than the āgamas, to translations by people like the Arsacid monk Venerable Ān Shìgāo, those translations are almost impossible to read without being a specialist in the transitionary stage between Old and Middle Chinese. It looks like strange irrelevant characters arranged arbitrarily if you don't have the knowledge base (like me).
This text, while complicated, is easier than an unattemptable Ven Shìgāo translation from ~150AD. I haven't had the time to look at it in detail yet.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Then Four become Three
Thank you. What do you think the pali sutta is trying to say here?Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:56 pmThat the worldlings really really really wanna zig-a-zig-ah.
In all seriousness, the āgama texts are not easy texts to look at. There's a reason why DeepL makes a mess of them. They are from just before what we could call the "normative" period of Chinese translation, when translators like Venerables Kumārajīva and Xuánzàng start producing translations that use "standard" terminology. That 覺 is used for things like the verb pratisaṃvedayati in these translations and not as a noun for "bodhi" or "Buddha" is just one example. Compared to the āgamas, the Mahāyāna sutras are easy to read. When you go even older than the āgamas, to translations by people like the Arsacid monk Venerable Ān Shìgāo, those translations are almost impossible to read without being a specialist in the transitionary stage between Old and Middle Chinese. It looks like strange irrelevant characters arranged arbitrarily if you don't have the knowledge base (like me).
This text, while complicated, is easier than an unattemptable Ven Shìgāo translation from ~150AD. I haven't had the time to look at it in detail yet.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
That's the standard explanation, but check out MN 106.asahi wrote: ↑Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:06 am
Actually , here the yogi became disinterested with the state of limitless consciousness itself and hence striving towards higher aim . However he saw there werent anything , then he takes the nothingness thought as its object thus attaining the nothingness state .
https://suttacentral.net/mn106/en/sujat ... ript=latinFurthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come, visions in this life and in lives to come, perceptions of visions in this life and in lives to come, and perceptions of the imperturbable; all are perceptions. Where they cease without anything left over, that is peaceful, that is sublime, namely the dimension of nothingness.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the first way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
Furthermore, a noble disciple has gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, and reflects like this: ‘This is empty of a self or what belongs to a self.’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the second way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
Furthermore, a noble disciple reflects: ‘I don’t belong to anyone anywhere! And nothing belongs to me anywhere!’ Practicing in this way and meditating on it often their mind becomes confident in this dimension. Being confident, they either attain the dimension of nothingness now, or are freed by wisdom. When their body breaks up, after death, it’s possible that the consciousness headed that way will be reborn in the dimension of nothingness. This is said to be the third way of practice suitable for attaining the dimension of nothingness.
Nothing in that states that it is infinite consciousness which the meditator is disinterested in. Rather the message seems to be that there is an attitude of disinterest with existence in general. MN 106 is an interesting sutta, as it doesn't discuss infinite space or the 4th Jhāna either as a pre-requisite to ākiñcaññāyatana explicitly, but I think it is implicit. The following is the pre-requisite.
"A noble disciple reflects on this: ‘Sensual pleasures in this life and in lives to come, sensual perceptions in this life and in lives to come; both of these are Māra’s sovereignty, Māra’s domain, and Māra’s territory. They conduce to bad, unskillful qualities such as desire, ill will, and aggression. And they create an obstacle for a noble disciple training here. Why don’t I meditate with an abundant, expansive heart, having mastered the world and stabilized the mind? Then I will have no more bad, unskillful qualities such as desire, ill will, and aggression. And by giving them up my mind, no longer limited, will become limitless and well developed."
Which sounds like the 4 brahmavihārās. If then "the beautiful" as the highest attainment of loving-kindness is the 3rd Jhāna and the highest attainments of compassion and sympathetic joy are infinite space and consciousness respectively, it would follow that those states are attainable without the the 4th Jhāna which is then only required for ākiñcaññāyatana.
- Loving Kindness > 3rd Jhāna
- Compassion > Infinite space
- Sympathetic joy > Infinite consciousness
- Equanimity > 4th Jhāna leading to Nothingness.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:20 pm, edited 5 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
The āgama translates cetovimutti as 心三昧, or a "citta samādhi." 三昧 is a transliteration of the word "samādhi." It isn't a transliteration, nor is it a translation, of the term "vimutti." Like I said, these are odd and difficult texts. I have no clue how it turned into a "citta samādhi." Perhaps the translator thought that vimutti and samādhi meant the same thing?
The question:
Then there is dialogue between Citta and Ven Godatta. Skipping ahead to the relevant section, we see pieces of our answer:
With regards to "an existent" or "something," 所有, the DDB lists "kiṃcana" as one of its correspondences.
The question:
(The section I have marked with *** has a vocative-type exclamation of "O, householder!" that makes no sense in-context, as far as I can see.)「有無量心三昧、無相心三昧、無所有心 三昧、空心三昧。云何?長者!此法為種種義 故種種名?為一義有種種名?」
There is the limitless citta samādhi, the signless citta samādhi, the nothingness citta samādhi, and the emptiness citta samādhi. Why is this? *** Do these dharmas have diverse meanings because they have diverse names? Do they have one meaning despite having diverse names?
Then there is dialogue between Citta and Ven Godatta. Skipping ahead to the relevant section, we see pieces of our answer:
Skipping ahead more, since it matches the Pali anyways inasmuch as it outlines four samādhis, we get the "four becomes three" question:「有法種種義、種種句、種種味, 有法一義種種味。」
These dharmas have diverse meanings, diverse phrasings, and diverse flavours, but there is also one meaning to the diverse flavours.
And the answer:「云何法一義種種味?」
How do the dharmas have one meaning yet (also have) diverse flavours?
That's the best I can do this morning without spending a week or so researching. There's quite a bit that I don't understand in this text. That's what I could make of it. You asked about the Pali sutta, I can respond to that in a bit. I was busy trying to look at this strangeness above.「尊者!謂貪有 量,若無諍者第一無量,謂貪者是有相,恚、 癡者是有相,無諍者是無相。貪者是所有, 恚、癡者是所有,無諍者是無所有。復次,無諍者空,於貪空,於恚、癡空,常住不變易空, 非我、非我所,是名法一義種種味。」
Arhat [treat this as a vocative], concerning greed, it is a limit. If there are no afflictions, this is the limitless. Concerning greed, it is a sign. Rage and delusion are signs. If there are no afflictions, this is the signless. Greed is an existent [or "something," like in the Pali?]. Rage and delusion is an existent. If there are no afflictions, this is the nothingness. Furthermore, the unafflicted (person) is empty of greed, of rage, empty of delusion, (empty) of the eternal and unchanging, empty of the self and (empty of) of anything to the self belonging.
With regards to "an existent" or "something," 所有, the DDB lists "kiṃcana" as one of its correspondences.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Then Four become Three
They are both saying largely the same thing. In the Pāli version, the release of the heart through emptiness is repeated at the end of the "limits" section, the "something" section, and the "signs" section:
In the above, we can replace "makers of limits" with "something" or "makers of signs." Either way, at the end, the cetovimuttis associated with these things are empty of the three poisons and systematically said to be so.Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable release of the heart is said to be the best kind of limitless release of the heart. That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
The sutta and the parallel is describing liberation by way of the path of negation, specifically the negation of greed, rage, and delusion. The three ways of explaining these are that they are limits, signs, and "something."
Looking back at 所有, the way that it is rendered into Chinese, I think that "kiṃcana" was understood in the sense of "an (unspecified) ontic item" or an "existing thing."
The only significant difference that I see is that the Northern parallel lists the cetovimutti of emptiness on its own and at the end, as opposed to each of the cetovimuttis being described as "empty of greed, rage, delusion."
In short, the difference is:
Pali version:
1: appamāṇā cetovimutti
2: ākiñcaññā cetovimutti
3: suññatā cetovimutti
4: animittā cetovimutti
At the end:
Yāvatā kho [...] appamāṇā (or ākiñcaññā or animittā) cetovimuttiyo, akuppā tāsaṁ cetovimutti aggamakkhāyati. Sā kho pana akuppā cetovimutti suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena.
The pericope "suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena" is repeated for elements 1, 2, and 4. Element 3 does not get expanded because it is itself the pericope being incorporated into each of the other elements.
That is how four becomes three. The description of Element 3, the suññatā cetovimutti, is incorporated at the end of the descriptions of Elements 1, 2, and 4. Also, the order of cetovimuttis is different in the Chinese, listing "emptiness" at the end, where it matches where it appears in the subsequent elaboration.
Chinese version:
1: 無量心三昧 (limitlessness citta-samādhi)
2: 無相心三昧 (signlessness citta-samādhi)
3: 無所有心三昧 (nothingness citta-samādhi)
4: 空心三昧 (emptiness citta-samādhi)
At the end:
無諍者空,於貪空,於恚、癡空 (the unafflicted one is empty of greed, of rage, and empty of delusion)
The Chinese doesn't incorporate "suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena" into the end of the description of each cetovimutti. It saves it for the very end. That is the difference I see.
One last note: In the above tentative translation, there is this structure:
若無諍者第一無量
I translate it as an "if/then" sentence because of 若, but I'm thinking that in each of these, the 無諍者 refers to "the unafflicted (person)," like it does in the emptiness section from the Chinese above. If this is "an unafflicted person," then why "if"/若 is there is a little confusing. Either way, I think that rendering them as "if/then" statements was an error.
Maybe it means "Concerning the unafflicted (person), the best is the limitless." Somehow, I missed the ordinal number (第一 meaning "best" here) in my initial English rendering of the passage. This is a confusing text. Either way, there are a number of "if/then" statements that are most likely wrong in the previous rendering.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Then Four become Three
Disregarding trying to make the Chinese fit the English translation of the Pāli, in light of the above, I think that this is more accurate:
I want to tag atipattoh to look at the Chinese....greed is called "a limit." The unafflicted (person) is foremostly limitless. Greed is called "a sign." Rage and delusion are signs. The unafflicted (person) is signless. Greed is something. Rage and delusion are something. The unafflicted (person) is nothing. Furthermore, the unafflicted (person) is empty of greed, of rage, empty of delusion, (empty) of the eternal and unchanging, empty of the self and (empty of) of anything to the self belonging.
atipattoh wrote:
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Oct 16, 2021 3:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Then Four become Three
Thank you for your effort. This is a great passage to meditate.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 2:42 am Disregarding trying to make the Chinese fit the English translation of the Pāli, in light of the above, I think that this is more accurate:I want to tag atipattoh to look at the Chinese....greed is called "a limit." The unafflicted (person) is foremostly limitless. Greed is called "a sign." Rage and delusion are signs. The unafflicted (person) is signless. Greed is something. Rage and delusion are something. The unafflicted (person) is nothing. Furthermore, the unafflicted (person) is empty of greed, of rage, empty of delusion, (empty) of the eternal and unchanging, empty of the self and (empty of) of anything to the self belonging.atipattoh wrote:
The unafflicted has empied his experience from greed, rage, ignorance, foolish teachings about eternities and permanences, acquisitions of the five skhandas as myself and appropriations as "mine" and it dwells without limits. I wonder what the precise meaning of sign is here, since nimitta can be translated in various ways. Greed is a base (for suffering?) while The unafflicted is without basis/support/features. Not easy to find the best translation.
Re: Then Four become Three
This interests me, since I take Kiṃcana to be "something worth having" rather than simply ontic "things" in general, with ākiñcaññāyatana being a state of highly developed equanimity and "disinterest" in the world. Why do you think it means rather simply "existing thing"?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
When 所 is before a verb, 所V (with "V" for "verb"), the two become a noun phrase together that is semantically receptive to the action of the verb within the noun phrase.
見 = to see
所見 = that which is seen
e.g. 所見即所得 = "That which is seen is that which is obtained."
有 = to be
所有 = that which is (or "that which exists")
There is "is/has" ambiguity inherent in 有, but everything I have seen has suggested that "to be" is the operative meaning here and not "to have."
If it were the case that 有 is supposed to be read as "to have" in 所有, the meaning would be "a possession" or "that which is had." No resources I perused had anything substantiating this sense for 所有. While possible, it is utterly unsubstantiated, and possible in theōria monē.
見 = to see
所見 = that which is seen
e.g. 所見即所得 = "That which is seen is that which is obtained."
有 = to be
所有 = that which is (or "that which exists")
There is "is/has" ambiguity inherent in 有, but everything I have seen has suggested that "to be" is the operative meaning here and not "to have."
If it were the case that 有 is supposed to be read as "to have" in 所有, the meaning would be "a possession" or "that which is had." No resources I perused had anything substantiating this sense for 所有. While possible, it is utterly unsubstantiated, and possible in theōria monē.
Last edited by Coëmgenu on Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Re: Then Four become Three
The sanskrit has thisCoëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:51 pm When 所 is before a verb, 所V (with "V" for "verb"), the two become a noun phrase together that is semantically receptive to the action of the verb within the noun phrase.
見 = to see
所見 = that which is seen
e.g. 所見即所得 = "That which is seen is that which is obtained."
有 = to be
所有 = that which is (or "that which exists")
There is "is/has" ambiguity inherent in 有, but everything I have seen has suggested that "to be" is the operative meaning here and not "to have."
If it were the case that 有 is supposed to be read as "to have" in 所有, the meaning would be "a possession" or "that which is had." No resources I perused had anything substantiating this sense for 所有. While possible, it is utterly unsubstantiated, and possible in theōria monē.
Whilst the Pāli has thisKiṃcana (किंचन).—(= Pali id.), probably attachment, defilement (see Childers and [Pali Text Society’s Pali-English Dictionary]): Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā 35.12 kleśābhibhūtāḥ sa- khilāḥ sa-kiṃcanāḥ ([bahuvrīhi]). Undoubtedly sa-ki° and the noun kiṃcana (in Pali) were abstracted from a-kiṃcana, adj., orig. having nothing, then disinterested, unattached, without attachment or defilement, whence finally (sa-)kiṃ- cana, as above. In late Sanskrit (Schmidt, Nachtr.) sa-kiṃcana occurs, glossed sa-dhana. In Rāṣṭrapālaparipṛcchā it could possibly mean propertied, interested in wealth, but Pali usage is probably to be followed.
Which gives the impression that it means "something worth having". If it means simply "existing things" then doesn't the following become repetitive?Kiñcana, (adj. -nt.) (kiṃ+cana, equal to kiṃ+ci, indef. pron. ) only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the frequent context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get rid of, if he wants to attain to a higher moral condition. ‹-› Def. as the 3 impurities of character (rāga, dosa, moha) at D. III, 217; M. I, 298; S. IV, 297; Vbh. 368; Nd2 206b (adding māna, diṭṭhi, kilesa, duccarita); as obstruction (palibujjhana), consisting in rāga, etc. at DhA. III, 258 (on Dh. 200). Khīṇa-saṃsāro na c’atthi kiñcanaṃ “he has destroyed saṃsāra and there is no obstruction (for him)” Th. 1, 306. n’āhaṃ kassaci kiñcanaṃ tasmiṃ na ca mama katthaci kiñcanaṃ n’atthi “I am not part of anything (i.e. associated with anything), and herein for me there is no attachment to anything” A. II, 177. ‹-› akiñcana (adj.) having nothing Miln. 220.—In special sense “being without a moral stain, ” def. at Nd2 5 as not having the above (3 or 7) impurities. Thus frequent an attribute of an Arahant: “yassa pure ca pacchā ca majjhe ca n’atthi kiñcanaṃ akiñcanaṃ anādānaṃ tam ahaṃ brūmi brāhmaṇan” Dh. 421=Sn. 645, cf. Th. I, 537; kāme akiñcano “not attached to kāma” as Ep. of a khīṇāsava A. V, 232 sq. =253 sq. Often combined with anādāna: Dh. 421; Sn. 620, 645, 1094. -Akiñcano kāmabhave asatto “having nothing and not attached to the world of rebirths” Vin. I, 36; Sn. 176, 1059;—akiñcanaṃ nânupatanti dukkhā “ill does not befall him who has nothing” S. I, 23.—sakiñcana (adj.) full of worldly attachment Sn. 620=DA. 246. (Page 214)
If it means "existing things" then these are negated twice, but if it means "something worth having" then we seem to have a progressive negation. The negation of friends and enemies, the negation of objects to own and the negation of sense experience itself.Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable release of the heart is said to be the best kind of limitless release of the heart. That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
Greed is something, hate is something, and delusion is something. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable release of the heart is said to be the best kind of release of the heart through nothingness. That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of signs. A mendicant who has ended the defilements has given these up, cut them off at the root, made them like a palm stump, and obliterated them, so they are unable to arise in the future. The unshakable release of the heart is said to be the best kind of signless release of the heart. That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Then Four become Three
Well, the absorption corresponding to the base of nothingness is literally concerning "nothing," no? Something vs nothing is a fine contrasting. Greed, rage, etc., are "something" and the sage is "nothing" in comparison.
How is it negated "twice" if it's "something?" I don't follow that.
How is it negated "twice" if it's "something?" I don't follow that.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.