The devas are not capable of seeing him

[one_awakening]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

[Ceisiwr]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

Can’t pin down the Buddha or Arahants as the self has ceased.

[SDC]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

What's the source of this?

If you take in the sense of, "One sees me sees the Dhamma", then it could just be implying that as great as a deva is in stature they are not as great as the Buddha.

[mikenz66]

Here's the Sutta Udana 2.10

“For he who has no agitations inside the mind,
Who has thus completely transcended continuity of existence,
The devas are unable to see
He who is without fear, happy, and griefless.”
https://suttacentral.net/ud2.10/en/anandajoti

There are a number of similar statments about Mara not being able to find an arahant...

“Though they seek him everywhere,
Mara and his army do not find him:
The one thus detached, secure,
Who has gone beyond all ’fetters.”

Then Mara the Evil One … disappeared right there.
https://suttacentral.net/sn4.16/en/bodhi

Those who do not accumulate and are wise regarding food, whose object is the Void, the Unconditioned Freedom—their track cannot be traced, like that of birds in the air.
https://suttacentral.net/dhp90-99/en/buddharakkhita#92

Mike

[Lucas Oliveira]

The Devas are still trapped in Existence.

Buddhas and Arahants have transcended existence.

[Polar Bear]

Also, in the Brahmajāla Sutta we have this:

The Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.

When the stalk of a bunch of mangoes is cut, all the mangoes attached to the stalk will follow along. In the same way, the Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off. As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans. But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.”

https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato

[mikenz66]

Also, in the Brahmajāla Sutta we have this:

Ah, thanks for that.


Mike

[Crazy cloud]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

They have ceased to make individual patterns in the flow of vibrations, become the flow ...

[auto]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

Can’t pin down the Buddha or Arahants as the self has ceased.

What do you mean by the self has ceased?

[Ceisiwr]

Can someone explain what "The devas are not capable of seeing him" means in the following?

In whom exist no inner stirrings,
Having passed beyond being this or that,
Free from fear, blissful and sorrowless,
The devas are not capable of seeing him.

Can’t pin down the Buddha or Arahants as the self has ceased.

What do you mean by the self has ceased?

There is no more grasping and so no more “I am” or “I am this” and so on. So, a Deva looking to find and pin down the Buddha (or Arahants) won’t find him/them.

[auto]

Can’t pin down the Buddha or Arahants as the self has ceased.

What do you mean by the self has ceased?

There is no more grasping and so no more “I am” or “I am this” and so on. So, a Deva looking to find and pin down the Buddha (or Arahants) won’t find him/them.

conceit "I am" is asmimāna, which is ego. Whereas there seem to be many who think it is about cessation of sense of self or self.

And how is a mendicant a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached?Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṃyutto hoti?
It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno asmimāno pahīno hoti, ucchinnamūlo tālāvatthukato anabhāvaṅkato, āyatiṃ anuppādadhammo.
That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached.Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṃyutto hoti.

When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, will not findEvaṃ vimuttacittaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuṃ saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā anvesaṃ nādhigacchanti:
anything that such a Realized One’s consciousness depends on.‘idaṃ nissitaṃ tathāgatassa viññāṇan’ti.Why is that?Taṃ kissa hetu?
Because even in the present life the Realized One is undiscoverable, I say.Diṭṭhevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, dhamme tathāgataṃ ananuvijjoti vadāmi.

the part where certain ascetics and brahmins misinterpret it as declaration of the annihilation of the 'soul'/self.

Though I speak and explain like this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the false, hollow, lying, untruthful claim:Evaṃvādiṃ kho maṃ, bhikkhave, evamakkhāyiṃ eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti:
‘The ascetic Gotama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being.’‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetī’ti.

but it isn't, buddha isn't annihilator.

I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say.Yathā cāhaṃ na, bhikkhave, yathā cāhaṃ na vadāmi, tathā maṃ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti:
In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering.Pubbe cāhaṃ, bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ.

are you an annihilator of the self, do you annihilate sentient beings? and think they don't have self, so there is just aggregates?

[auto]

Can’t pin down the Buddha or Arahants as the self has ceased.

What do you mean by the self has ceased?

There is no more grasping and so no more “I am” or “I am this” and so on. So, a Deva looking to find and pin down the Buddha (or Arahants) won’t find him/them.

conceit "I am" is asmimāna, which is ego. Whereas there seem to be many who think it is about cessation of sense of self or self.

And how is a mendicant a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached?Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṃyutto hoti?
It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future.Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhuno asmimāno pahīno hoti, ucchinnamūlo tālāvatthukato anabhāvaṅkato, āyatiṃ anuppādadhammo.
That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached.Evaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ariyo pannaddhajo pannabhāro visaṃyutto hoti.

When a mendicant’s mind is freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, will not findEvaṃ vimuttacittaṃ kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhuṃ saindā devā sabrahmakā sapajāpatikā anvesaṃ nādhigacchanti:
anything that such a Realized One’s consciousness depends on.‘idaṃ nissitaṃ tathāgatassa viññāṇan’ti.Why is that?Taṃ kissa hetu?
Because even in the present life the Realized One is undiscoverable, I say.Diṭṭhevāhaṃ, bhikkhave, dhamme tathāgataṃ ananuvijjoti vadāmi.

the part where certain ascetics and brahmins misinterpret it as declaration of the annihilation of the 'soul'/self.

Though I speak and explain like this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the false, hollow, lying, untruthful claim:Evaṃvādiṃ kho maṃ, bhikkhave, evamakkhāyiṃ eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti:
‘The ascetic Gotama is an exterminator. He advocates the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing being.’‘venayiko samaṇo gotamo, sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññāpetī’ti.

but it isn't, buddha isn't annihilator.

I have been falsely misrepresented as being what I am not, and saying what I do not say.Yathā cāhaṃ na, bhikkhave, yathā cāhaṃ na vadāmi, tathā maṃ te bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti:
In the past, as today, what I describe is suffering and the cessation of suffering.Pubbe cāhaṃ, bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ.

are you an annihilator of the self, do you annihilate sentient beings? and think they don't have self, so there is just aggregates?

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings auto,

“I am” is identity, which is to say “I am” is the sense of self which the worldling takes to be real and true. “There is a self because I am”.

Annihilationism is the doctrine of the destruction of an existing being. It starts from the premise of “I am”, which is taken to be real and existing and then is destroyed. The Dhamma isn’t annihilationism as it doesn’t claim a self to start with. The sense and idea of self is viewed as being dependently originated. It’s an empty concept. The cessation of self merely means that “I am” no longer arises due to ignorance based contact. “I am” is no longer constructed, apart from in language for convenient speech.

The concept of “I am” and the self is to be seen through and abandoned with knowledge of the way things are. That’s is to say, the self and “I am” goes to cessation.

Metta

[auto]

Greetings auto,

“I am” is identity, which is to say “I am” is the sense of self which the worldling takes to be real and true. “There is a self because I am”.

Annihilationism is the doctrine of the destruction of an existing being. It starts from the premise of “I am”, which is taken to be real and existing and then is destroyed. The Dhamma isn’t annihilationism as it doesn’t claim a self to start with. The sense and idea of self is viewed as being dependently originated. It’s an empty concept. The cessation of self merely means that “I am” no longer arises due to ignorance based contact. “I am” is no longer constructed, apart from in language for convenient speech.

The concept of “I am” and the self is to be seen through and abandoned with knowledge of the way things are. That’s is to say, the self and “I am” goes to cessation.

Metta

yo,
Sense of self isn't conceit. Māna= conceit. When you know that you are human being, the 'I know' is paññā, knowledge. When you ask from anyone about their self, whatever answer they give is knowledge: I am worker, I am teacher.
Losing the 'I' isn't going to change the fact you are human being, more so human beings are classed by the things they do, so the cessation of the self doesn't look reasonable, why would you do it or want?

The conceit is about I am brahman by birth, I will be brahman next world again. These people doesn't think in terms of conditions or kamma, doesn't care about how they act, If you don't act appropriately then your brahman status is subject to cease.

The 'I am' is conventional for people who doesn't know about next world or kamma, if they do then the conventional sense of self is the ultimate(here and now).

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings auto,

“I am” is identity, which is to say “I am” is the sense of self which the worldling takes to be real and true. “There is a self because I am”.

Annihilationism is the doctrine of the destruction of an existing being. It starts from the premise of “I am”, which is taken to be real and existing and then is destroyed. The Dhamma isn’t annihilationism as it doesn’t claim a self to start with. The sense and idea of self is viewed as being dependently originated. It’s an empty concept. The cessation of self merely means that “I am” no longer arises due to ignorance based contact. “I am” is no longer constructed, apart from in language for convenient speech.

The concept of “I am” and the self is to be seen through and abandoned with knowledge of the way things are. That’s is to say, the self and “I am” goes to cessation.

Metta

yo,
Sense of self isn't conceit. Māna= conceit. When you know that you are human being, the 'I know' is paññā, knowledge. When you ask from anyone about their self, whatever answer they give is knowledge: I am worker, I am teacher.
Losing the 'I' isn't going to change the fact you are human being, more so human beings are classed by the things they do, so the cessation of the self doesn't look reasonable, why would you do it or want?

The conceit is about I am brahman by birth, I will be brahman next world again. These people doesn't think in terms of conditions or kamma, doesn't care about how they act, If you don't act appropriately then your brahman status is subject to cease.

The 'I am' is conventional for people who doesn't know about next world or kamma, if they do then the conventional sense of self is the ultimate(here and now).

Strange to think that someone can have a sense of self without “I am”.

A human being is a concept. Birth is a concept. Death is a concept. Concepts are to be seen through and let go of.

Metta