My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Explore the ancient language of the Tipitaka and Theravāda commentaries
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

Dear all DW forum, including those proficient in Pali.

I have developed a view of SN 12.15, a sutta I always found confusing due to its language/words/terms.

My new view is the two dualities or extremes in the sutta (of existence & non-existence) are not wrong views but, instead, represent two right views; of which neither is taken as a sole right view.

My view is as follows:

1. SN 12.15 asks the question: "How is right view defined?"

2. The question is answered as follows: "[Right view is defined] relying on two types [of definition], indeed this world mostly exists and non-exists: dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca".

3. SN 12.15 then says when the origin of the world is discerned with right view, the view the world does not exist does not occur.

4. SN 12.15 then says when the cessation of the world is discerned with right view, the view the world exists does not occur.

5. SN 12.15 then explains what 'the world' is (per SN 12.44), namely, being shackled by self-views, i.e., cravings, attachments, becomings, etc, which is the arising of suffering.

6. SN 12.15 then has its most difficult part, referring to "all exists" ("sabbamatthī") and "all does not exist" ("sabbaṃ natthī").

7. My view is when self-view towards all internal & external objects ceases; the whole (sabbaṃ) world [of suffering] ceases to exist.

8. To the contrary when self-view towards all internal & external objects arises, the whole (sabbaṃ) world arises or comes to exist.

9. Therefore, my view is the word "sabbaṃ" ("all") refers to "all of the world" ("sabbalokaṃ"), which is found in many places, such as:
Sabbalokaṃ abhiññāya,
sabbalokeyathātathaṃ;
Sabbalokavisaṃyutto,
sabbalokeanūpayo

By knowledge of the whole world,
The whole world as it truly is,
He is released from all the world,
In all the world he is unattached.

https://suttacentral.net/iti112/en/ireland
10. Therefore, when SN 12.15 concludes by saying the Buddha teaches Dhamma in the middle, this means the Buddha teaches about both arising/existence & cessation/non-existence (rather than only teaches one extreme of these two right views).

What do we think? Does the Pali itself negate my interpretation? Thank you.

Also, non-Pali-folks please feel free to discuss, debate or refute my interpretation.

:smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by auto »

I agree with you, rather it didn't occurred to me yet that the sense organ and its object is loka.
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent »

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34704p=518928&hilit=exists#p518928
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

_______

Note:

I don't have the time to check the Chinese parallels for the particular passages in the other suttas quoted below. If someone wants to do it, he/she is welcome.
Only SN 35.82 (// SA 231) has been checked as an accurate parallel.


The definitions of the "All" are given in SN 35.23 & SN 35.24 (see also MN 49) - and the definitions of the Buddhist "World" are given in SN 35.82 (please see this https://justpaste.it/18g7d), as well as in SN 35.107 (same as SN 12.44).

As per SN 35.82 (// SA 231), the Buddhist "world" is:
- form, eye-consciousness, eye-contact, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition.
- ear, ear-consciousness…
...
- mano, mano-consciousness...
All disintegrating, ([危脆 (breakable) 敗壞 (decaying)]) .

In other words, the world is defined as the ajjhatika āyatana (internal field of sensory experience,) encountering the bāhira āyatana (external field of sensory experience,) the ensuing SENSORY consciousness of that internal field, and the contact (transferred property from the external ayatana to the internal one) - that leads to one of the three feelings.
An experience that is intrinsically liable to decay.

This is what satta experiences in the "world".

.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:12 pm Only SN 35.82
Thanks 2V. I am not sure SN 35.82 is relevant because the term "the world" is defined as "it disintegrates". This would mean SN 12.15 says:
But when one sees the origination of what disintegrates as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of what disintegrates as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
This sounds a bit clumsy and seems to give too much weight to "cessation" (even though the above is certainly a very powerful message for insight).
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:12 pmThe definitions of the "All" are given in SN 35.23 & SN 35.24 (see also MN 49) [/- andd the definitions of the Buddhist "World" are given in SN 35.82
I considered the above however it must be able to placed seamlessly into the sutta. Its easy to merely suggest proximate definitions but they must fit into the sutta seamlessly. This would mean SN 12.15 says:
'The twelve/eighteen sense spheres exists': That is one extreme. 'The twelve/eighteen sense doesn't exist': That is a second extreme.
The above does not emphasize "the world" as being the arising of "self-views". SN 12.15 highlights the arising of self-view as the arising of suffering. I think to impute SN 35.23 into SN 12.15 does not actually fit the message of the sutta.
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:12 pmSN 35.107 (same as SN 12.44).
Yes, I chose the above as the meaning of "the world".
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:12 pmIn other words, the world is defined as the ajjhatika āyatana (internal field of sensory experience,) encountering the bāhira āyatana (external field of sensory experience,) the ensuing SENSORY consciousness of that internal field, and the contact (transferred property from the external ayatana to the internal one) - that leads to one of the three feelings.
No. The above is not what "the world" is defined as. SN 12.44 does not say the sense bases + consciousness + feeling without craving is "the world". SN 12.44 only says when craving arises does the world arise; when craving ceases does the world cease.
ToVincent wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:12 pmThis is what satta experiences in the "world".
A "satta" does not experience "the world". A "satta" is "strong attachment". A "satta" is "the world of self" and the "world is sattanam", per SN 23.2.
ToVincent wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 3:42 pm I don't see why some people consider the Kaccānagotta sutta as a "difficult philosophical discourse".
What the Buddha simply said is that things exist and don't exist (as they simply arise and fade).
It is as simple as that.
I have explained it before similar to the above but I think this is too simplistic (similar to Nargajuna) and not the message of the SN 12.15. This is because SN 12.15 does not refer to physical existence of discrete "things" but to "all" or "the all" and especially to "the world of self-views". Once I was at a dhamma lecture and a student couldn't explain what a nun was explaining and I said: "The tree next to us is made from causes and conditions therefore it exists. However, because the tree is made from causes & conditions that are impermanent and because the tree will one cease to exist, it does not inherently exist. The tree only has temporary existence". However, I think SN 12.15 is saying more than this simplistic Nargajuna interpretation.
mikenz66 wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:37 pm I think some read too much modern philosophy into the translation "exists". Bhikkhu Sujato commented in the talk I linked to that he toyed with translating as something like "exists absolutely", or "intrinsically exist", and saw it as, in part, a comment on Upanishadic concepts.
I think Sujato above is looking for a resolution in complexity rather than looking for a resolution is simplicity. The Dhamma is "well-spoken by the Blessed One" and I think resolution is found in simplicity rather than complexity. In other words, there is often a simple definition of a word, somewhere, when missed, that makes things unnecessarily complex.

Regards :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:38 pm My new view is the two dualities or extremes in the sutta (of existence & non-existence) are not wrong views but, instead, represent two right views; of which neither is taken as a sole right view.
No. The above is wrong. Try to simplify it further. SN 12.15 is about right view, which is the view there is suffering, its arising, its cessation & a path to cessation. You disagreed with most of the comments at this link because they are about reincarnation interpretations of eternalism & annihilationism, which are not generally defined as 'atthita' & 'natthita'. Since SN 12.15 is about right view, the forerunner of the path, SN 12.15 should be very basic.

1. 'Atthita' might refer to some idea of permanence selves or beings, including the atthikavādo found in MN 60, which is the mundane moral right view found in MN 117 that remains with asava (defilements) & upadhi (acquisition). Such a view cannot understand nor end suffering.

2. 'Natthita' might refer to some denial of suffering & denial of causation, including the natthikavādo found in MN 60, which is also the wrong view found in MN 117. To deny suffering exists or suffering has specific causes is wrong view and would be natthikavāda. The world is often lost in natthikavāda when suffering is attributed to nonsensical causes, as described in AN 3.61 (namely, past lives, God or causelessness).

3. Therefore, the world is mostly lost in 'Atthita' (belief in or holding on to permanent beings) & 'Natthita' (denial of the real causes for suffering or even denial of suffering).

4. SN 12.15 says when there is right view of the arising of suffering, naturally, 'natthita', the denial of suffering &/or its causes, will not occur.

5. SN 12.15 says when there is right view of the cessation of suffering, naturally, 'atthita', clinging to permanence & illusion of 'beings', will not occur.

6. Therefore, we are still left with the difficult phrases: "all exists" ("sabbamatthī") and "all does not exist" ("sabbaṃ natthī").

7. "All exists" might represent the ordinary view of most puthujjana that view the world in a very solid & real way; such as "sakkaya- real true self" or how people rigidly conform & believe in rigid social & political structures. They take the world to be "very real".

8. "Sabbaṃ natthī" might represent the typical apathy of the world, such as "life is a joke; nothing is really important; Islam did 9/11, etc".

9. In summary, I think 'Atthita' & 'Natthita' must represent wrong views about suffering & its cessation.

10. Therefore, my view here, contrary to the thread title, is not really new. :mrgreen:



There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Caodemarte »

According to the T.R.V. Murti (in his classic Central Philosophy of Buddhism; A Study of the Madhyamika System ) and most traditional and modern commentary: it is incorrect to say that one or both are correct views (by themselves as alternatives, in synthesis, or in some kind of alternating way). Best to say “Not both, but neither.” Grasping either (or any position) is the error.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:49 am According to the T.R.V. Murti (in his classic Central Philosophy of Buddhism; A Study of the Madhyamika System ) and most traditional and modern commentary: it is incorrect to say that one or both are correct views (by themselves as alternatives, in synthesis, or in some kind of alternating way). Best to say “Not both, but neither.” Grasping either (or any position) is the error.
Yes. My initial hypothesis was wrong. Your post was too late plus it is confusing. Madhyamika does not necessarily represent SN 12.15. Regards
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Caodemarte »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:59 am
Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 4:49 am According to the T.R.V. Murti (in his classic Central Philosophy of Buddhism; A Study of the Madhyamika System ) and most traditional and modern commentary: it is incorrect to say that one or both are correct views (by themselves as alternatives, in synthesis, or in some kind of alternating way). Best to say “Not both, but neither.” Grasping either (or any position) is the error.
Yes. My initial hypothesis was wrong. Your post was too late plus it is confusing. Madhyamika does not necessarily represent SN 12.15. Regards
No, but I did not claim it does or does not “represent” SN 12.15 I took no position on that :tongue: Murti analyses SN 12.15 and a number of other Pali canon texts (he also does quite bit on Kant quoting, but does not say Kant represents SN 12.15 by the way).

I took
DooDoot wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 3:48 am ......
9. In summary, I think 'Atthita' & 'Natthita' must represent wrong views about suffering & its cessation.
as your latest view. This is not what I am saying about how I understand the reference is seen in traditional Buddhism at all. Murthi and other commentators explain why saying these two are “wrong views” misses the point.
Last edited by Caodemarte on Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Jeff_
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:45 am

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Jeff_ »

I see you’ve updated your thinking here, DooDoot, but from a much simpler angle I would add that I don’t think you can ever have two right views, given what I understand as the full meaning of the Pali word samma (best, highest, complete, perfected).
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

Jeff_ wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:11 am I see you’ve updated your thinking here, DooDoot, but from a much simpler angle I would add that I don’t think you can ever have two right views, given what I understand as the full meaning of the Pali word samma (best, highest, complete, perfected).
Thank you. I traveled a few back streets, here. Regards :smile:
Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:08 am as your latest view. This is not what I am saying about how I understand the reference is seen in traditional Buddhism at all. Murthi and other commentators explain why saying these two are “wrong views” misses the point.
I trust they are over-complicating it; into Mahayana Taoist non-conceptuality; which I think is not warranted. I've been around Buddhism for a long time and have heard these types of "viewless" interpretations many times. The Buddha said his Dhamma was straightforward. The Buddha does not place secret teachings or messages into his Dhamma. SN 12.15 is supposed to be very basic; for stream-enterers; as shown by the same teaching in SN 22.90. Kind regards :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2019 8:25 pm ...
This interpretation is based on a poor knowledge of:

1. Parallels: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn12.15

2.Sanskrit and its root meanings:
a. Lujjati means disintegrates - but also means "to cause pain".
[Pass.of ruj,corresponding to Sk.rujyate -> pr. √रुज् ruj ]
√ रुज् ruj
- to cause pain , afflict (VS.)
to break , break open , dash to pieces , shatter , destroy (RV.)
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&p=533489&sid ... 1a#p533456
b. paronomasia between satta (Skt sattva), and the past participle of sajjati (Skt sakta), that means "clinging or adhering to".
So one should also know the arena where satta operates (as "being"); as shown here in orange https://justpaste.it/1695d
c. You say: "sakkaya = real true self"?!?!?
Bad sandhi, I suppose.
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&p=533480&sid ... 35#p533473
sak (√ शक् śak) + Ka + iya
lit. "to be able (to be like) what belongs to Ka" (where Ka is the other name for the god Prajāpati [made "permanent and blissful" selves, as Ka])
॰ईय -īya forms possesives in Sanskrit.
& sak means "to be able".

3. Chinese parallels.

Just to give a few examples.

_____

Not to speak about how you interpret what people say; as in:
No. The above is not what "the world" is defined as. SN 12.44 does not say the sense bases + consciousness + feeling without craving is "the world"
!?!?!
Red herring? - Bad faith?
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=35685&p=533480&sid ... 35#p533456

Is that just to put a NO, that sounds like a well-versed refutation?.

By the way, SN 12.44 does not have a parallel; so the identical SN 35.107 in the Saḷāyatana Saṃyutta (//SA 233) should be preferred.
SN 233 is very succint about the definition of the world ((not in SN 35.107/SN 12.44) . It sums up to the mere internal ayatanani. And the origin of the worlds is defined as "the desire for future acquisition, coupled with craving and joy, and the desire to be reborn here (kama-loka) and there (rupa & arupa lokas).

This is why I stick to the definitions of the Buddhist "World" given in SN 35.82/SA 231 (with lujjati having both the meaning of shattering (disintegrated dhammas made of "sankarized" khandhas), as well as the ensuing meaning of causing pain.

_______

For Buddha's sake, do a serious study of the suttas you are quoting; before embarking on a (very) personal interpretation (although not totally wrong in your first interpretation; as far as existence and non-existence are the two sides of a same coin in Buddhism).
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

ToVincent wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:26 am This interpretation is based on a poor knowledge of:

1. Parallels: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn12.15
Parallels are not Theravada and merely belated interpretations. The Buddha did not teach so parallels made hundreds of years into the future would explain his teachings.

:focus:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
ToVincent
Posts: 1839
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by ToVincent »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:37 am
ToVincent wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:26 am This interpretation is based on a poor knowledge of:

1. Parallels: https://legacy.suttacentral.net/sn12.15
Parallels are not Theravada and merely belated interpretations. The Buddha did not teach so parallels made hundreds of years into the future would explain his teachings.
You are so painful Doodoot.

How many times do the following has to be repeated?
Do you have the zheimer?
That dreadful arabic pathology, that have people forget everything. Do you?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34694&p=518788&hil ... 9a#p518788

The Agamas are just the Chinese translations of the early Dharmaguptaka (DA) , Mahāsāṃghika (EA?) and mostly Sarvāstivāda (SA, MA, EA?) schools.
As for the Theravada school, they all existed around 250 BCE.

The translations are late. But the Sarvāstivāda's sutras were recited at the same time than the Theravada's suttas.

Which makes those parallels essentials.
The common denominator is a guarantee of authenticity. And suttas with perfect parallels (for passages studied,) should be definitely favored (at least when one start studying the texts).

Gee!
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Caodemarte
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by Caodemarte »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:11 am ......
Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:08 am as your latest view. This is not what I am saying about how I understand the reference is seen in traditional Buddhism at all. Murthi and other commentators explain why saying these two are “wrong views” misses the point.
I trust they are over-complicating it; into Mahayana Taoist non-conceptuality; which I think is not warranted. I've been around Buddhism for a long time and have heard these types of "viewless" interpretations many times. The Buddha said his Dhamma was straightforward. The Buddha does not place secret teachings or messages into his Dhamma. SN 12.15 is supposed to be very basic; for stream-enterers; as shown by the same teaching in SN 22.90. Kind regards :smile:
Who exactly do you think is saying that there are secret coded messages in the Buddha’s teachings? Certainly not the commentators referred to in this discussion. I have no idea why you would think ancient Indian Buddhists are “over-complicating” and were influenced by Taoism, and what “Taoist non-conceptuality” would be. You are free to disagree with anyone, ancient or living, but it is more helpful to understand what you disagree with, rather than straw man arguments. Not that we all don’t fall into that trap from time to time! 🙏
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My new view of SN 12.15. Is it right or is it wrong?

Post by DooDoot »

Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:02 pm Who exactly do you think is saying that there are secret coded messages in the Buddha’s teachings? Certainly not the commentators referred to in this discussion.
The unnamed "commentators" you refer to have as much merit is a gossip column.
Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 7:02 pm You are free to disagree with anyone, ancient or living, but it is more helpful to understand what you disagree with, rather than straw man arguments.
It would be more helpful if you made proper posts with detailed comments (rather that post one or two sentences of vague rumours that say nothing).
Caodemarte wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 5:08 am as your latest view. This is not what I am saying about how I understand the reference is seen in traditional Buddhism at all. Murthi and other commentators explain why saying these two are “wrong views” misses the point.
Returning to the topic, 'existence' & 'non-existence' are obviously two worldly wrong views, due to the unambiguous use of the word "yebhuyyena" ("for the most part; according to most people; typically") in the 2nd sentence below; which demonstrates both the 1st & 2nd sentences below refers to wrong views of puthujjana:
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
“Dvayanissito khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena—atthitañceva natthitañca.

The world is for the most part shackled to attraction, grasping, and insisting.
Upayupādānābhinivesavinibandho khvāyaṃ, kaccāna, loko yebhuyyena.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/sujato
Therefore, based on the ambiguous 2nd sentence above, as I have always thought for years, as I suggested to Bkikkhu Sujato to possibly investigate, the words atthitañceva & natthitañca might inherently be related to having self-views. The word 'atthi' does have a relationship (I do not understand but I recall was once explained away to me) with the word "asmi" ("I am"), as follows:
Concise Pali English Dictionary
asmi
1st sing. of as
I am.

PTS Pali English Dictionary
asmi
(I am) see atthi.


https://suttacentral.net/define/asmi
PTS Pali English Dictionary
atthi
to be, to exist.


pres Ind. 1st sg. asmi Snp.1120, Snp.1143; Ja.i.151; Ja.iii.55 and amhi MN.i.429; Snp.694; Ja.ii.153; Pv.i.10#2; Pv.ii.8#2.

https://suttacentral.net/define/atthi
The 2nd sentence above appears to negate my original post, here. But I will ponder it a bit more. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Post Reply