What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.
zan
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by zan »

...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20
What is being quoted?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Look to an arahant for total accuracy and confirmation.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24983
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Zan,
zan wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 am What is being quoted?
Unless it's traced back to the Tipitaka, which I don't believe it is, I suspect it refers to commentators prior to Buddhaghosa.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
SarathW
Posts: 17394
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by SarathW »

“Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer.’”[1]
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .niza.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24983
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Sarath,

It's interesting, because that's actually a view being refuted by the Buddha in that sutta.

It reminds me also of these suttas, which provide some perspective on what a "doer" or "being" might be, in this Dhamma....
“To what extent, Ānanda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form & finite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form & finite.’ Or, delineating a self possessed of form & infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is possessed of form & infinite.’Or, delineating a self formless & finite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless & finite.’ Or, delineating a self formless & infinite, one delineates that ‘My self is formless & infinite.’“Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form & finite, either delineates it as possessed of form & finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form & finite [when asleep/ after death], or he believes that ‘Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.’ This being the case,it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form & finite obsesses him.”[Similarly with the other three delineations.] — DN 15
“If one stays obsessed with form, monk, that’s what one is measured by/limited by. Whatever one is measured by/limited by, that’s how one is classified.“If one stays obsessed with feeling... perception... fabrications...“If one stays obsessed with consciousness, that’s what one is measured by/limited by. Whatever one is measured by/limited by, that’s how one is classified.“But if one doesn’t stay obsessed with form, monk, that’s not what one is measured by/limited by. Whatever one isn’t measured by/limited by,that’s not how one is classified.“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with feeling... perception... fabrications...“If one doesn’t stay obsessed with consciousness, that’s not what one is measured by/limited by. Whatever one isn’t measured by/limited by, that’s not how one is classified.” — SN 22:36.
[Ven. Rādha:] “‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”
[The Buddha:] “Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha:when one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be‘a being [satta].’

“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...fabrications...“Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha: whenone is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’” — SN 23:2
Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
Srilankaputra
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by Srilankaputra »

The following might be relevent to this topic,
The Buddha, in explaining his doctrine, sometimes used conventional language and sometimes the philosophical mode of expression which is in accordance with undeluded insight into reality. In that ultimate sense, existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found. Thus, whenever the suttas speak of man, woman or person, or of the rebirth of a being, this must not be taken as being valid in the ultimate sense, but as a mere conventional mode of speech (vohāra-vacana).

It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammā). But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desanā), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhātu) or sense-bases (āyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc."

It should be noted, however, that also statements of the Buddha couched in conventional language, are called 'truth' (vohāra-sacca), being correct on their own level, which does not contradict the fact that such statements ultimately refer to impermanent and impersonal processes.

The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nītattha, q.v.) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathāgata) uses without misapprehending them
(Manual of Buddhist terms and doctrines)

Wish you all success in all your endeavours. Goodbye!
ToVincent
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by ToVincent »

Sam Vara wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 8:29 pm The first post of this sequence
Visuddhimagga XIX19
“There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right.

points out that there are no doers of deeds, and that the characteristics of action are imaginary. That would appear to be fairly uncontroversial among many Buddhists, although for many it is exceptionally hard to grasp as a reality.
Especially difficult when we hear Buddha saying the following in a sutta with a perfect parallel:
Then a certain brahmin approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had exchanged greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, I hold such a thesis and view as this: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others.’”

“Brahmin, I have never seen or heard of anyone holding such a thesis and view as this. For how can one who comes on his own and returns on his own say: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others’?

(1) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of instigation exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of instigation exists, are beings seen to instigate activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to instigate activity because the element of instigation exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(2) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of persistence exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of persistence exists, are beings seen to persist in activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to persist in activity because the element of persistence exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(3) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of exertion exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of exertion exists, are beings seen to exert themselves in activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to exert themselves in activity because the element of exertion exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(4) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of strength exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of strength exists, are beings seen to be possessed of strength?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to be possessed of strength because the element of strength exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(5) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of continuation exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of continuation exists, are beings seen to continue [in an action]?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to continue [in an action] because the element of continuation exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(6) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of force exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of force exists, are beings seen to act with force?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to act with force because the element of force exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

“Brahmin, I have never seen or heard of anyone holding such a thesis and view [as yours]. For how can one who comes on his own and returns on his own say: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative on the part of others’?”

“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the darkness so those with good eyesight can see forms. I now go for refuge to Master Gotama, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Let Master Gotama consider me a lay follower who from today has gone for refuge for life.”


Atha kho aññataro brāhmaṇo yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṃ sammodi. Sammodanīyaṃ kathaṃ sāraṇīyaṃ vītisāretvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho so brāhmaṇo bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:

“ahañhi, bho gotama, evaṃvādī evaṃdiṭṭhi: ‘natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro’”ti.

“Māhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃvādiṃ evaṃdiṭṭhiṃ addasaṃ vā assosiṃ vā. Kathañhi nāma sayaṃ abhikkamanto, sayaṃ paṭikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati: ‘natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro’ti.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brāhmaṇa, atthi ārabbhadhātū”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Ārabbhadhātuyā sati ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyantī”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Yaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, ārabbhadhātuyā sati ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro ayaṃ parakāro.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brāhmaṇa, atthi nikkamadhātu … pe …

atthi parakkamadhātu …

atthi thāmadhātu …

atthi ṭhitidhātu …

atthi upakkamadhātū”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Upakkamadhātuyā sati upakkamavanto sattā paññāyantī”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Yaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, upakkamadhātuyā sati upakkamavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro ayaṃ parakāro.

Māhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃvādiṃ evaṃdiṭṭhiṃ addasaṃ vā assosiṃ vā. Kathañhi nāma sayaṃ abhikkamanto sayaṃ paṭikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati: ‘natthi attakāro natthi parakāro’”ti.

“Abhikkantaṃ, bho gotama … pe … ajjatagge pāṇupetaṃ saraṇaṃ gatan”ti.
AN 6.38


時。有 婆羅門 來 詣 佛 所。與 世尊13 面 相 慰勞已。於 一 面 住。 白 佛 言。 眾生 非 自 作。非 他 作
At that time, a brahmin approached the Buddha’s residence, and having exchanged greetings with the World Honoured One, he remained at one side, and said this to the Buddha: “Sentient beings have neither self-agency [deed done by oneself] nor other-agency [deed done by another].”

佛 告 婆羅門。 如 是 論 者。 我 不 與 相 見。汝 今自來。
而 言 我 非 自 作。 非 他 作」
The Buddha told the brahmin, “I have never (before) met a person who has spoken thus. You have yourself come to tell me that there is neither self-agency [deed done by oneself], nor other-agency [deed done by another].”

婆羅門 言。 云 何。瞿曇。 眾生 為 自 作。 為 他 作 耶
The brahmin said, “Tell me why? Gautama, do sentient beings have self-agency, do they have otheragency?”

佛 告 婆羅門。 我 今 問 汝。隨 意 答 我。 婆羅門。 於 意 云 何。
The Buddha told the brahmin, “Brahmin, now I ask you, answer as you please. What do you think?

有 眾 生 方便 界。
令 諸 眾 生 知 作 方便 耶
Do sentient beings have the element of initiating?
What causes sentient beings to know how to initiate (a deed)?”

婆羅門 言。瞿曇。 有 眾 生 方便 界。令 諸 眾 生 知 作 方 便 也
The brahmin said, “Gautama, you mean that sentient beings have initiative, and that all sentient beings are able to initiate (a deed)?”

佛 告 婆羅門。若 有 方便 界。 令 諸 眾生 知 有 方便 者。
The Buddha told the brahmin, “If there is effort [initiative], then there are doers of effort [ie initiators] amongst sentient beings

是 則 眾 生 自作。是 則 他 作。
this is self-agency, this is other-agency.

婆罗门。 于 意 云 何。 有 众 生 安住界。 坚固界。 出界。 造作界。令 彼 眾生 知 有 造 作 耶
Brahmin, what do you think? Are there (a) the element of staying still, (b) the element of firmness, (c) the element of emerging, (d) the element of acting, that let other beings know there is an action?”

婆羅門 白 佛。 有 眾生 安住界。 堅固界。 出界。 造作界。
The brahmin said to the Buddha, “Sentient beings have the element of staying still, the element of firmness, the element of emerging, the element of acting,

令 諸 眾生 知 有 造作 佛 告 婆羅門。 若 彼 安住界。堅固界。出界。造作界。 令 諸 眾生 知 有 造作 者。 是 則 眾生 自作。 是 則 他 作
The Buddha told the brahmin, “If sentient beings have the element of staying still, the element of firmness, the element of emerging; do the element of acting, and (this) causes all sentient beings to know that there are those who act—this is self-agency, this is other-agency!”

婆羅門 白 佛。 有 眾生 自 作。有 他 作。 瞿曇。 世 間 多 事。
The brahmin said to the Buddha, “Sentient beings do have self-agency and other-agency. Gautama, there is much to be done in the world.

今 當 請 辭
I must now take my leave.”

佛 告 婆羅門。 世 間 多 事。 宜 知 是 時
The Buddha told the brahmin, “There is much to be done in the world. Do what you think it is now the time to do.”

時。彼 婆羅門 聞 佛 所 說。 歡 喜 隨喜。 從 座 起 去。
Then the brahmin, having heard what the Buddha said, was happy and rejoiced. Then, he rose from his seat and left.

SA 459

_______
Here, someone destroys life; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. He creeps along by body, speech, and mind. His bodily kamma is crooked; his verbal kamma is crooked; his mental kamma is crooked. His destination is crooked; his rebirth is crooked.
....
Thus a being is reborn from a being; one is reborn through one’s deeds. When one has been reborn, contacts affect one. It is in this way, I say, that beings are the heirs of their kamma.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti luddo lohitapāṇi hatapahate niviṭṭho, adayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtesu. So saṃsappati kāyena, saṃsappati vācāya, saṃsappati manasā. Tassa jimhaṃ kāyakammaṃ hoti, jimhaṃ vacīkammaṃ, jimhaṃ manokammaṃ, jimhā gati, jimhupapatti.
....
Iti kho, bhikkhave, bhūtā bhūtassa upapatti hoti. Yaṃ karoti tena upapajjati. Upapannamenaṃ phassā phusanti. Evamahaṃ, bhikkhave, ‘kammadāyādā sattā’ti vadāmi.
AN 10.216 / SA1046 (蛇行法 - the dharma [law] of the snake).

________

Anatta - take 10000000000000000000.... .
I guess bland actors (parakāro), just can't grasp the gist of their texts (pariyatti).

If anicca means "impermanent" it also means "not one's own" — which does not preclude a one's own doing (attakāro), as seen before.
Note that here, atta is meant as the personal pronoun - (not as the self (Prajapati/Ka - viz. Prajapati made selves ("~kas~")), as in asti-Ka/nasti-Ka).
atman/atta (self), is a term liable to misunderstanding and mistranslating because it can mean the spiritual self or the inmost core of a human being, besides functioning as a mere reflexive pronoun."
Olivelle - "The early Upanishads"


Metta.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
retrofuturist wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 3:21 am Greetings Sarath,

It's interesting, because that's actually a view being refuted by the Buddha in that sutta.

It reminds me also of these suttas, which provide some perspective on what a "doer" or "being" might be, in this Dhamma....

I see no "refutation" in that.

This is because after all these years, you haven't yet made the difference between what a self means in the Indian philosophy of the time, and the atta as a mere entity without self.
Buddhism is a nasti-Ka philosophy. There is no Prajapati made selves (Ka) in the actualized world. There is no Ka — the continuous and blissful self — in saḷāyatana nidāna and below — because things are neither continuous (anicca), nor blissful there. Period.
That does not preclude an atta as a personal pronoun related to satta (see Olivelle above). An atta (personal pronoun, related to satta), with no atta (spiritual Self/self).

Holy Molly — how long is this nonsense going to last?

Also, the parakāro (external) in the above post is definitely "not your own" (anicca) — but the attakāro (internal) [which is also anicca,] still encompasses some personal initiative - as long as the ārabbhadhātū, etc. are present.
.
. .
.
In this world, there are people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24983
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

You may see no refutation but it's as plain as day. The translator even comments on it in their translation note.
ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 7:36 am Holy Molly — how long is this nonsense going to last?
For as long as you deny what the Sutta says?

:shrug:

For as long as you persist with this Ka caca?

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 5294
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by confusedlayman »

ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 7:36 am
Sam Vara wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 8:29 pm The first post of this sequence
Visuddhimagga XIX19
“There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right.

points out that there are no doers of deeds, and that the characteristics of action are imaginary. That would appear to be fairly uncontroversial among many Buddhists, although for many it is exceptionally hard to grasp as a reality.
Especially difficult when we hear Buddha saying the following in a sutta with a perfect parallel:
Then a certain brahmin approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had exchanged greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, I hold such a thesis and view as this: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others.’”

“Brahmin, I have never seen or heard of anyone holding such a thesis and view as this. For how can one who comes on his own and returns on his own say: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative taken by others’?

(1) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of instigation exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of instigation exists, are beings seen to instigate activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to instigate activity because the element of instigation exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(2) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of persistence exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of persistence exists, are beings seen to persist in activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to persist in activity because the element of persistence exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(3) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of exertion exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of exertion exists, are beings seen to exert themselves in activity?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to exert themselves in activity because the element of exertion exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(4) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of strength exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of strength exists, are beings seen to be possessed of strength?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to be possessed of strength because the element of strength exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(5) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of continuation exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of continuation exists, are beings seen to continue [in an action]?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to continue [in an action] because the element of continuation exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

(6) “What do you think, brahmin? Does the element of force exist?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When the element of force exists, are beings seen to act with force?”

“Yes, sir.”

“When beings are seen to act with force because the element of force exists, this is the self-initiative of beings; this is the initiative taken by others.

“Brahmin, I have never seen or heard of anyone holding such a thesis and view [as yours]. For how can one who comes on his own and returns on his own say: ‘There is no self-initiative; there is no initiative on the part of others’?”

“Excellent, Master Gotama! Excellent, Master Gotama! Master Gotama has made the Dhamma clear in many ways, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the darkness so those with good eyesight can see forms. I now go for refuge to Master Gotama, to the Dhamma, and to the Saṅgha of bhikkhus. Let Master Gotama consider me a lay follower who from today has gone for refuge for life.”


Atha kho aññataro brāhmaṇo yena bhagavā tenupasaṅkami; upasaṅkamitvā bhagavatā saddhiṃ sammodi. Sammodanīyaṃ kathaṃ sāraṇīyaṃ vītisāretvā ekamantaṃ nisīdi. Ekamantaṃ nisinno kho so brāhmaṇo bhagavantaṃ etadavoca:

“ahañhi, bho gotama, evaṃvādī evaṃdiṭṭhi: ‘natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro’”ti.

“Māhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃvādiṃ evaṃdiṭṭhiṃ addasaṃ vā assosiṃ vā. Kathañhi nāma sayaṃ abhikkamanto, sayaṃ paṭikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati: ‘natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro’ti.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brāhmaṇa, atthi ārabbhadhātū”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Ārabbhadhātuyā sati ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyantī”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Yaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, ārabbhadhātuyā sati ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro ayaṃ parakāro.

Taṃ kiṃ maññasi, brāhmaṇa, atthi nikkamadhātu … pe …

atthi parakkamadhātu …

atthi thāmadhātu …

atthi ṭhitidhātu …

atthi upakkamadhātū”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Upakkamadhātuyā sati upakkamavanto sattā paññāyantī”ti?

“Evaṃ, bho”.

“Yaṃ kho, brāhmaṇa, upakkamadhātuyā sati upakkamavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro ayaṃ parakāro.

Māhaṃ, brāhmaṇa, evaṃvādiṃ evaṃdiṭṭhiṃ addasaṃ vā assosiṃ vā. Kathañhi nāma sayaṃ abhikkamanto sayaṃ paṭikkamanto evaṃ vakkhati: ‘natthi attakāro natthi parakāro’”ti.

“Abhikkantaṃ, bho gotama … pe … ajjatagge pāṇupetaṃ saraṇaṃ gatan”ti.
AN 6.38


時。有 婆羅門 來 詣 佛 所。與 世尊13 面 相 慰勞已。於 一 面 住。 白 佛 言。 眾生 非 自 作。非 他 作
At that time, a brahmin approached the Buddha’s residence, and having exchanged greetings with the World Honoured One, he remained at one side, and said this to the Buddha: “Sentient beings have neither self-agency [deed done by oneself] nor other-agency [deed done by another].”

佛 告 婆羅門。 如 是 論 者。 我 不 與 相 見。汝 今自來。
而 言 我 非 自 作。 非 他 作」
The Buddha told the brahmin, “I have never (before) met a person who has spoken thus. You have yourself come to tell me that there is neither self-agency [deed done by oneself], nor other-agency [deed done by another].”

婆羅門 言。 云 何。瞿曇。 眾生 為 自 作。 為 他 作 耶
The brahmin said, “Tell me why? Gautama, do sentient beings have self-agency, do they have otheragency?”

佛 告 婆羅門。 我 今 問 汝。隨 意 答 我。 婆羅門。 於 意 云 何。
The Buddha told the brahmin, “Brahmin, now I ask you, answer as you please. What do you think?

有 眾 生 方便 界。
令 諸 眾 生 知 作 方便 耶
Do sentient beings have the element of initiating?
What causes sentient beings to know how to initiate (a deed)?”

婆羅門 言。瞿曇。 有 眾 生 方便 界。令 諸 眾 生 知 作 方 便 也
The brahmin said, “Gautama, you mean that sentient beings have initiative, and that all sentient beings are able to initiate (a deed)?”

佛 告 婆羅門。若 有 方便 界。 令 諸 眾生 知 有 方便 者。
The Buddha told the brahmin, “If there is effort [initiative], then there are doers of effort [ie initiators] amongst sentient beings

是 則 眾 生 自作。是 則 他 作。
this is self-agency, this is other-agency.

婆罗门。 于 意 云 何。 有 众 生 安住界。 坚固界。 出界。 造作界。令 彼 眾生 知 有 造 作 耶
Brahmin, what do you think? Are there (a) the element of staying still, (b) the element of firmness, (c) the element of emerging, (d) the element of acting, that let other beings know there is an action?”

婆羅門 白 佛。 有 眾生 安住界。 堅固界。 出界。 造作界。
The brahmin said to the Buddha, “Sentient beings have the element of staying still, the element of firmness, the element of emerging, the element of acting,

令 諸 眾生 知 有 造作 佛 告 婆羅門。 若 彼 安住界。堅固界。出界。造作界。 令 諸 眾生 知 有 造作 者。 是 則 眾生 自作。 是 則 他 作
The Buddha told the brahmin, “If sentient beings have the element of staying still, the element of firmness, the element of emerging; do the element of acting, and (this) causes all sentient beings to know that there are those who act—this is self-agency, this is other-agency!”

婆羅門 白 佛。 有 眾生 自 作。有 他 作。 瞿曇。 世 間 多 事。
The brahmin said to the Buddha, “Sentient beings do have self-agency and other-agency. Gautama, there is much to be done in the world.

今 當 請 辭
I must now take my leave.”

佛 告 婆羅門。 世 間 多 事。 宜 知 是 時
The Buddha told the brahmin, “There is much to be done in the world. Do what you think it is now the time to do.”

時。彼 婆羅門 聞 佛 所 說。 歡 喜 隨喜。 從 座 起 去。
Then the brahmin, having heard what the Buddha said, was happy and rejoiced. Then, he rose from his seat and left.

SA 459

_______
Here, someone destroys life; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. He creeps along by body, speech, and mind. His bodily kamma is crooked; his verbal kamma is crooked; his mental kamma is crooked. His destination is crooked; his rebirth is crooked.
....
Thus a being is reborn from a being; one is reborn through one’s deeds. When one has been reborn, contacts affect one. It is in this way, I say, that beings are the heirs of their kamma.

Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco pāṇātipātī hoti luddo lohitapāṇi hatapahate niviṭṭho, adayāpanno sabbapāṇabhūtesu. So saṃsappati kāyena, saṃsappati vācāya, saṃsappati manasā. Tassa jimhaṃ kāyakammaṃ hoti, jimhaṃ vacīkammaṃ, jimhaṃ manokammaṃ, jimhā gati, jimhupapatti.
....
Iti kho, bhikkhave, bhūtā bhūtassa upapatti hoti. Yaṃ karoti tena upapajjati. Upapannamenaṃ phassā phusanti. Evamahaṃ, bhikkhave, ‘kammadāyādā sattā’ti vadāmi.
AN 10.216 / SA1046 (蛇行法 - the dharma [law] of the snake).

________

Anatta - take 10000000000000000000.... .
I guess bland actors (parakāro), just can't grasp the gist of their texts (pariyatti).

If anicca means "impermanent" it also means "not one's own" — which does not preclude a one's own doing (attakāro), as seen before.
Note that here, atta is meant as the personal pronoun - (not as the self (Prajapati/Ka - viz. Prajapati made selves ("~kas~")), as in asti-Ka/nasti-Ka).
atman/atta (self), is a term liable to misunderstanding and mistranslating because it can mean the spiritual self or the inmost core of a human being, besides functioning as a mere reflexive pronoun."
Olivelle - "The early Upanishads"


Metta.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
retrofuturist wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 3:21 am Greetings Sarath,

It's interesting, because that's actually a view being refuted by the Buddha in that sutta.

It reminds me also of these suttas, which provide some perspective on what a "doer" or "being" might be, in this Dhamma....

I see no "refutation" in that.

This is because after all these years, you haven't yet made the difference between what a self means in the Indian philosophy of the time, and the atta as a mere entity without self.
Buddhism is a nasti-Ka philosophy. There is no Prajapati made selves (Ka) in the actualized world. There is no Ka — the continuous and blissful self — in saḷāyatana nidāna and below — because things are neither continuous (anicca), nor blissful there. Period.
That does not preclude an atta as a personal pronoun related to satta (see Olivelle above). An atta (personal pronoun, related to satta), with no atta (spiritual Self/self).

Holy Molly — how long is this nonsense going to last?

Also, the parakāro (external) in the above post is definitely "not your own" (anicca) — but the attakāro (internal) [which is also anicca,] still encompasses some personal initiative - as long as the ārabbhadhātū, etc. are present.
.
. .
.
vism talking about ultimate reality where there is supermuindane right view and non clinging.. there is no being in supermundane

in conventional reality beings are taken due to power of craving and grapsping to certain things. hence as long as self view and object view is there there is action and result.. when self view not there, object view not there ,. there is no ignorance and hence no intentional action that leads to pleasent or unpleasent result. buddha in given sutta talking about conventional reality because brahmin student dont have supermundane teaching but vism is talking to supermundane buddhist in that particular paragrah not to crazy brahmins.
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2641
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by Zom »

What is being quoted?
Some Commentary. Such verses don't exist in the suttas.
ToVincent
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by ToVincent »

retrofuturist wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:45 am Greetings,

You may see no refutation but it's as plain as day. The translator even comments on it in their translation note.
ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 7:36 am Holy Molly — how long is this nonsense going to last?
For as long as you deny what the Sutta says?

:shrug:

For as long as you persist with this Ka caca?

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
Yet the problem remains that you see "refutation" between suttas (with parallels) - where I don't see any.

Are you implying that the Texts are intrinsically flawed, because of the discrepancies (you see) between the suttas (AN 6.38\SA 459 & the sutta's passages that you've quoted) ?

______

I also haven't heard about "Ka caca" — but definitely about Ka in the Indian philosophy (क ka epithecal attribute - Ka «Him», Prajāpati the creator of creatures and selves).

Time to harness yourself to that Veda thing, I suppose.
.
.
In this world, there are people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).
ToVincent
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:02 pm

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by ToVincent »

confusedlayman wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:54 am ...

Ultimate, conventional, etc.
What's that?
Where in the suttas?

Oh, late stuff!
Ah ok! — whatever you say.
In this world, there are people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; some for the Unborn.
.
Those who desire good are few, and those who desire evil are many.
Buddha
(And you just can't imagine how much goodness, those who desire evil, are ready to display - ToVincent).
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 24983
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 11:30 am Are you implying that the Texts are intrinsically flawed, because of the discrepancies (you see) between the suttas (AN 6.38\SA 459 & the sutta's passages that you've quoted) ?
No. Plus SA 459 is not relevant in this section of the forum.
ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 11:30 am I also haven't heard about "Ka caca"
You do a good job of spouting that which you've never heard.

:focus:

Metta,
Paul. :)
"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view?" (SN 5.10)

"Overcome the liar by truth." (Dhp 223)
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 5294
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by confusedlayman »

ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 11:38 am
confusedlayman wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:54 am ...

Ultimate, conventional, etc.
What's that?
in the suttas?

Oh, late stuff!
Ah ok! — whatever you say.
If u read suttas or buddhas teaching u will know.. if not you will never know. May i ask you one question? Who are you? How do u ans this question?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
santa100
Posts: 4494
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: What is being quoted in this Visuddhimagga quote?

Post by santa100 »

zan wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 2:45 am
...the Ancients said:

There is no doer of a deed
Or one who reaps the deed’s result;
Phenomena alone flow on—
No other view than this is right.

-Vism XIX.20
What is being quoted?
Probably a follow-up to this (by replacing 'self' with 'doer'):
SN 44.8 wrote:“What, Master Moggallana, is the cause and reason why, when wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’? And what is the cause and reason why when the ascetic Gotama is asked such questions, he does not give such answers?”

“Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’ But, Vaccha, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, does not regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 15087
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: Right effort and anatta

Post by Ceisiwr »

ToVincent wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 11:38 am
confusedlayman wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 9:54 am ...

Ultimate, conventional, etc.
What's that?
Where in the suttas?

Oh, late stuff!
Ah ok! — whatever you say.
Hi Vincent,

What’s your background in Sanskrit and Vedic texts/lexicography? Do you have qualifications in it or are you self taught?
There is no Ka — the continuous and blissful self — in saḷāyatana nidāna and below — because things are neither continuous (anicca), nor blissful there. Period.
That does not preclude an atta as a personal pronoun related to satta (see Olivelle above). An atta (personal pronoun, related to satta), with no atta (spiritual Self/self).
How does this understanding work when applied to the materialists/annihilationists, specifically the strict materialists who denied a divine self (which is then annihilated)?

Metta

:)
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu May 21, 2020 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There is nothing to understand, nothing at all to understand. For nothing in particular has been indicated, nothing in particular has been explained.”

Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Post Reply