we are all inter-connected

[Coëmgenu]

From MN 140, the Dhātuvibhaṅgasutta:

What, bhikkhu, is the earth element? The earth element may be either internal or external. What is the internal earth element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, contents of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth element.

The description of anattā immediately precedes the explanation that the earth element internally and externally are the same.

[BrokenBones]

That also ties into how a kind of interconnectedness can be a gateway to anattā.

But it isn't the interconnection that is being used to see anatta... it is the fact that we don't care what happens to external earth so why do we set store by our own earth... urine, faeces etc could be thrown onto external earth and it wouldn't be an attack on ourSELVES... but on reflection we realise we are of the same earth... why should we be upset by the slings and arrows... it's only earth.

Metta

[chownah]

To be able to see an interconnection one must firsts break up the world into parts.....parts that are then seen as interconnected....thus it is the rise of the view of individuation which gives rise to the view of interconnectedness.....put another way, the view of self (view of individuation) gives rise to the view of connected selves.....a world of connected selves is only possible if the world is first broken up into selves....
chownah

[Pondera]

By contrast, the fact that there may be some lobster crawling about on the bed of the North Atlantic who happens to have been my Auntie Edna in its former life doesn't amount to a connection that matters.

Unless you found your self in Juneau Alaska accepting Lobster alms from a layperson and by some sick twist of fate you happened to eat your late, great Auntie Edna. That would be unfortunate present kamma for both of you. Who knows how many further life times you would have to live before the darkness of such an unfortunate event could be rectified with light.

Ever since I went crazy and started talking to historical figures in my head, I found it interesting that throughout time immemorial each and every one of us has shared a blood relationship with the Buddha.

For me, I was his older brother. We visited a brothel. Like the one in “Brothers Karamazov”. Exactly like the one in that book.

By the time the Buddha became the Buddha I had migrated into life as a householder. I was old and crotchety and didn’t give alms. I missed out on the dhamma because of age and stinginess.

I think the reality that we are all interconnected is important for realizing that we do not necessarily meet people by accident - especially those who become important to us.

Also, the doctrine , “there is no mother. There is no father.” Is an expression which contradicts the special kammic relationship we share with our parents. I would say Buddhism recognizes this parental connection and holds it dear.

Having had at least one vivid past life recollection, I am able to say that my third closest brother’s current wife was my previous. That my niece was once my own daughter. That my youngest daughter in a previous life became a girl friend of mine in this life.

That my first closest brother was a soldier under me as I served as a military cleric on the planet Dune. Jesus was also a member of said military squadron.

Ah. Those were the days. The days of endless delusions sprinkled with particles of truth.

[Coëmgenu]

To see that the earth element internally and externally is the same and to see it "as it actually is with proper wisdom" involves separating "internal" and "external" individuated "parts" that then gives rise to self view? That doesn't sound like the Buddha's Dharma. It's probably a wrong explanation of satipatthana IMO. It's certainly a wrong explanation of what I was describing.

[Spiny Norman]

To see that the earth element internally and externally is the same and to see it "as it actually is with proper wisdom" involves separating "internal" and "external" individuated "parts" that then gives rise to self view? That doesn't sound like the Buddha's Dharma. It's probably a wrong explanation of satipatthana IMO. It's certainly a wrong explanation of what I was describing.

So the distinction between internal and external is used to emphasise that there isn't really a distinction between internal and external?

[Coëmgenu]

I'm not here to spread around a style of Buddhism foreign to the forum. I'd be more interested in hearing what people have to say the purpose of the ajjhattabahiddhā contemplations are if not to highlight the lack of distinction, particularly with respect to things like the ajjhattabahiddhā earth element.

[Spiny Norman]

I'm not here to spread around a style of Buddhism foreign to the forum. I'd be more interested in hearing what people have to say the purpose of the ajjhattabahiddhā contemplations are if not to highlight the lack of distinction, particularly with respect to things like the ajjhattabahiddhā earth element.

I'm not sure. You could say for example that a car and a toaster are both made of steel, but that doesn't diminish the obvious differences between them.

[Coëmgenu]

I suppose you could consider the car "external" to the toaster and vice-versa, but toasters and cars do not do satipatthana.



I specified "the earth element" because it is supposedly "the same" inside and out. If I'm going to babble, I guess I'll say the "inside you" is the important part of of inner-outer distinction. You are made of differently arranged materials materially. You are made of disparate thoughts and mind-states mentally. None of these things are "you." You can't actually be found in them however intuitive the contrary seems. The point is deconstructing the "you" by realizing that if the body hits the ground, it will be earth returning to earth. It will not be "special former Coëmgenu earth." Just earth. There is nothing special in the body, like there is nothing special in the external rocks and surfaces, despite the fact that, to the worldling, the body is "animated" by a spirit, an ātma, a soul, etc. This "special animation" is what the worldling distinguishes "me" versus "not me" via, and "a being" versus "not a being." This "special animation" analyzed however is merely a life energy prone to dying and a series of mental states. What happens to the body internally in age is like erosion in the external world -- natural processes. There is no special exception for inside. In this way, inside and outside are connected.

[Pondera]

Perhaps this sheds light on your disagreement:

"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3] Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and makes the earth property fade from the mind.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Coëmgenu]

Look to the top of page 4

[Pondera]

Look to the top of page 4

Indeed. I suppose it did no good.

[circuit]

OK, Thank all, from all the answers I got the meaning, and I understand this notion of inter-connectedness , and I agree with the idea that this is too ... in the end will be abandoned

[Kim OHara]

OK, Thank all, from all the answers I got the meaning, and I understand this notion of inter-connectedness , and I agree with the idea that this is too ... in the end will be abandoned

Thank you for starting such an interesting discussion!


Kim

[chownah]

To see that the earth element internally and externally is the same and to see it "as it actually is with proper wisdom" involves separating "internal" and "external" individuated "parts" that then gives rise to self view? That doesn't sound like the Buddha's Dharma. It's probably a wrong explanation of satipatthana IMO. It's certainly a wrong explanation of what I was describing.

I think you've got it reversed......first the sense of self arises which is the basis for seperating internal and external. And then to go on to the topic here (inter-connectedness) the internal and external are then inter-connected in the pali texts presented by saying that they are the same.

There would be no need for the buddha to teach that internal and external elements are the same thing UNLESS the worldling had conceived of them being seperate....and the worldling would have conceived of them as being seperate as part of the ignorance which supports view of self (internal and external being terms describing one sense of a self/other fabrication).
chownah