Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
I really hope that what is labelled "Excerpt 1" of SN 22.100 or SA 267 isn't an excerpt of an attempted translation of one of those sources. It resembles neither the Chinese nor the Pali.
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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
4 comments ago I posted the above. Coemgenu are you not breaking the rules of the forum? Are there no repercussions for that behavior?In accordance with ToS 2j, I formally request that Coemgenu and Ceisiwr no longer engage with me in this topic.
What point are the rules of a forum then? Rules that are meant to be broken?
With love
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
It appears that another fake translation might be circulating on this forum. A while ago, there was posted some material labelled "Excerpt 1," but the material underneath said designation is not an excerpt from either the Chinese agama or the Pali sutta it was labelled as. For instance, it contains italicized text in it that is nowhere in the Chinese I am looking at, nor in any translation of the Pali. Perhaps it was an honest mistake and it was supposed to be labelled "Random Idea 1?"
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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
ToS 2j asks members to refrain from:Pulsar wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:05 pm4 comments ago I posted the above. Coemgenu are you not breaking the rules of the forum? Are there no repercussions for that behavior?In accordance with ToS 2j, I formally request that Coemgenu and Ceisiwr no longer engage with me in this topic.
What point are the rules of a forum then? Rules that are meant to be broken?
With love
Coemgenu was not pressuring you to engage in anything. He was engaging with the topic directly, and not specifically calling upon you to provide an answer. My understanding of ToS 2j is that it is not intended as a thread-stopper by a poster - even the original poster - who finds a line of argument uncomfortable. A poster who you ask to refrain from interacting with you is allowed to continue posting to the thread, as others may want to respond to what they are saying. Unless you are specifically named by another poster and a request is made that you continue to debate with them after your request that they desist, then I don't think they are in breach. If you think I have it wrong, then an appeal to Retro or DNS would sort it, and I will be happy to enforce my amended understanding of 2j.Pressuring members to engage, despite them having already explicitly declined such engagement in the current topic.
Meanwhile, I'll just remind Coemgenu and Ceisiwr to continue to refrain from pressuring Pulsar as per the above, and I'm sure they'll be happy to comply.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
Greetings,
Metta,
Paul.
This is correct. If they are engaging with the topic, and not the individual, that is fine. Thanks.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:46 pmUnless you are specifically named by another poster and a request is made that you continue to debate with them after your request that they desist, then I don't think they are in breach. If you think I have it wrong, then an appeal to Retro or DNS would sort it, and I will be happy to enforce my amended understanding of 2j.
Metta,
Paul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
It still remains to be seen how swearing is incompatible with Buddhahood. It also remains to be seen how rupa is strictly mental in nature, a claim that is dubious in light of other suttas which, in those contexts, connect it with the body and the physical world.
“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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
By "swearing", I assume you did not mean a "solemn promise" right? 'Cuz while the Buddha certainly did use some strong words to admonish his disciples, there's no instance anywhere in the Canon where He used outright profanity (swearing). It'd be weird to hear the Great Teacher saying something like: "Listen up you motherf..kers, I'll teach you the Dhamma, this is the shit!". Afterall, swearing is something a virtuous monk would not do, let alone a SammasamBuddha:Ceisiwr wrote:It still remains to be seen how swearing is incompatible with Buddhahood.
Ud 4.01 wrote:"Furthermore, Meghiya, a bhikkhu is virtuous, he lives restrained by the restraint of the Patimokkha, endowed with conduct and resort; seeing danger in the smallest faults, he trains in the training rules he has accepted. When mind-deliverance is as yet immature, Meghiya, this is the second thing that leads to its maturity.
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
This doesn’t show that saying “shit”, as an example, is a fault. Ajahn Brahm has said “shit” before. Other teachers have sworn too, on occasion. Are you saying they broke the monks rules when they did so? If so, what rule?santa100 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 2:57 amBy "swearing", I assume you did not mean a "solemn promise" right? 'Cuz while the Buddha certainly did use some strong words to admonish his disciples, there's no instance anywhere in the Canon where He used outright profanity (swearing). It'd be weird to hear the Great Teacher saying something like: "Listen up you motherf..kers, I'll teach you the Dhamma, this is the shit!". Afterall, swearing is something a virtuous monk would not do, let alone a SammasamBuddha:Ceisiwr wrote:It still remains to be seen how swearing is incompatible with Buddhahood.Ud 4.01 wrote:"Furthermore, Meghiya, a bhikkhu is virtuous, he lives restrained by the restraint of the Patimokkha, endowed with conduct and resort; seeing danger in the smallest faults, he trains in the training rules he has accepted. When mind-deliverance is as yet immature, Meghiya, this is the second thing that leads to its maturity.
“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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
So, what's your point? Are you trying to use Ven. Brahm and some "other teachers" who used profanity as the frame of reference to conclude that the Buddha also said swear words too? If any, based on Ud 4.01 above, looks like Brahm and "other teachers" still have work to do on the "seeing danger in the smallest faults" part, if it was true that they used profanity ( some video evidence would be required here ).Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:36 amThis doesn’t show that saying “shit”, as an example, is a fault. Ajahn Brahm has said “shit” before. Other teachers have sworn too, on occasion. Are you saying they broke the monks rules when they did so? If so, what rule?santa100 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 2:57 amBy "swearing", I assume you did not mean a "solemn promise" right? 'Cuz while the Buddha certainly did use some strong words to admonish his disciples, there's no instance anywhere in the Canon where He used outright profanity (swearing). It'd be weird to hear the Great Teacher saying something like: "Listen up you motherf..kers, I'll teach you the Dhamma, this is the shit!". Afterall, swearing is something a virtuous monk would not do, let alone a SammasamBuddha:Ceisiwr wrote:It still remains to be seen how swearing is incompatible with Buddhahood.Ud 4.01 wrote:"Furthermore, Meghiya, a bhikkhu is virtuous, he lives restrained by the restraint of the Patimokkha, endowed with conduct and resort; seeing danger in the smallest faults, he trains in the training rules he has accepted. When mind-deliverance is as yet immature, Meghiya, this is the second thing that leads to its maturity.
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
Retro wrote
The topic however, of the post is
The user also wrote
How would a five year know the difference?
Thanks Retro and Sam Vara for paying attention to my complaintt. From now on I will skip over the comments made by Ceisiwr or Coemgenu, since you have alerted me, that their intention is not to engage with the OP. I will assume that these are merely random musings on my post, meant to attract the attention of others to the discussion of "Sutta on Origination"
Regards
I will assume that comments such as theseThis is correct. If they are engaging with the topic, and not the individual, that is fine. Thanks.
are to be ignored, as comments originating from the unfathomable ignorance of the user posting these on a Buddhist Forum on Early Buddhism.It still remains to be seen how swearing is incompatible with Buddhahood
The topic however, of the post is
- Sutta on Origination
The user also wrote
Am I to assume that defamatory comments such as these, are to be overlooked by the owner of the Post.It also remains to be seen how rupa is strictly mental in nature, a claim that is dubious in light of other suttas which, in those contexts, connect it with the body and the physical world.
- Even a five year old child knows that rupa of a mountain, a rock or the human anatomy, that his eye, ear, nose, tongue, surface of his body, or the material his brain is of a physical nature.
How would a five year know the difference?
Thanks Retro and Sam Vara for paying attention to my complaintt. From now on I will skip over the comments made by Ceisiwr or Coemgenu, since you have alerted me, that their intention is not to engage with the OP. I will assume that these are merely random musings on my post, meant to attract the attention of others to the discussion of "Sutta on Origination"
Regards
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
No. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that swearing in any context breaks the Vinaya? I used Ajahn Brahm as an example. When he swears, is he breaking the monks rules? If so, can you point this out to us please? So far you have not shown that swearing in any context breaks said rules, is unwholesome or in any other way incompatible with being a Buddha or Arahant.santa100 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 4:29 pm
So, what's your point? Are you trying to use Ven. Brahm and some "other teachers" who used profanity as the frame of reference to conclude that the Buddha also said swear words too? If any, based on Ud 4.01 above, looks like Brahm and "other teachers" still have work to do on the "seeing danger in the smallest faults" part, if it was true that they used profanity ( some video evidence would be required here ).
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:32 pm, edited 1 time 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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
The Buddha understands the dependency of our physical form and our mentality upon consciousness. A five year old would not understand this.
“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: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
Would be happy to address but you are the one who claimed 2 things without any backup evidence first:Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Jun 05, 2022 7:28 pm No. I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that swearing in any context breaks the Vinaya? I used Ajahn Brahm as an example. When he swears, is he breaking the monks rules? If so, can you point this out to us please? So far you have not shown that swearing in any context breaks said rules, is unwholesome or in any other way incompatible with being a Buddha or Arahant.
1. Using profanity is not incomptatible with Buddhahood; AND:
2. Ven. Brahm and some other teachers used profanity
Please provide backup evidence for those 2 claims first.
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
To get back to a discussion on Sutta on origination of suffering, the intention of the Post.
thomaslaw brought us the
I will however answer reasonable questions from reasonable folks who have concerns regarding my definitions, I will bring you the relevant suttas.
Here is a translation of the Chinese version SA 609
SA 609
Next word OP defines is nutriment. Nutriment is defined as given in SN 12.63, Putramansa sutta.
We are discussing issues of consciousness in this sutta.
With love
thomaslaw brought us the
Without a firm understanding of the word Ahara/nutriment in a soteriological sense, sutta is useless. One gropes in the dark. I don't have time to dispute OP's definition of "body", nor the definition of "Nutriment". My definitions are based on the suttas in the Pali canon that are not influenced by Abhidhamma.Chinese version of the sutta, and he mentioned the key is "Nutriment"
I will however answer reasonable questions from reasonable folks who have concerns regarding my definitions, I will bring you the relevant suttas.
Here is a translation of the Chinese version SA 609
SA 609
In the beginning Buddha reportedly says,“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origination and the passing away of the four establishments of mindfulness. Listen to that.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origination of the body? With the origination of nutriment there is the origination of the body.
With the cessation of nutriment there is the passing away of the body."
“With the origination of contact there is the origination of feeling. With the cessation of contact there is the passing away of feeling"
“With the origination of name-and-form there is the origination of mind. With the cessation of name-and-form there is the passing away of mind"
“With the origination of attention there is the origination of phenomena. With the cessation of attention there is the passing away of phenomena.”
- he will teach us how to get rid of the places, where mind tends to get established.
- With the origination of nutriment there is the origination of body.
- is forms that arise in the mind due to mental proliferation, sights, sounds etc that are imagined.
Next word OP defines is nutriment. Nutriment is defined as given in SN 12.63, Putramansa sutta.
- The nutriment that feeds the arising of forms in the mind is not ice cream, frog's legs or other forms of physical food. It is the longing for food that has been previously experienced,
We are discussing issues of consciousness in this sutta.
With love
Re: Sutta on Origination and concerns regarding Vitakka and vicara.
In order o follow the thread as OP presents,
body in the 4 establishments of mindfulness,
should be understood as not physical forms, (dead bodies, bodies oozing pus and blood or not even the physical body as such, but a body "kaya" of gathered thoughts).
The form (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, cognitions, that are retrieved by the mind due to longing or lust involved in mental proliferation (MN 18), is the form addressed in the first establishment of mindfulness, in SN 47.42.
If one conceives of "Body" as presented in MN 10/DN 22 or the suttas derived from those, it would be a waste of your time to follow this thread.
Secondly Nutriment as specifically presented in SN 47.42. If you think that nutriment is what is laid on the dinner table, then this thread is not for you.
But if you believe that, what is laid on the dinner table (i.e. Papayas, peas) is related to taste consciousness, and the main thrust of the sutta is the dynamics of consciousness that can be disciplined/restrained, (in relation to what is seen, heard etc) then please carry on reading.
Even a sane seven year old knows that this is impossible.
It is raining outside. Happy rainy Day!
body in the 4 establishments of mindfulness,
should be understood as not physical forms, (dead bodies, bodies oozing pus and blood or not even the physical body as such, but a body "kaya" of gathered thoughts).
The form (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, cognitions, that are retrieved by the mind due to longing or lust involved in mental proliferation (MN 18), is the form addressed in the first establishment of mindfulness, in SN 47.42.
If one conceives of "Body" as presented in MN 10/DN 22 or the suttas derived from those, it would be a waste of your time to follow this thread.
Secondly Nutriment as specifically presented in SN 47.42. If you think that nutriment is what is laid on the dinner table, then this thread is not for you.
But if you believe that, what is laid on the dinner table (i.e. Papayas, peas) is related to taste consciousness, and the main thrust of the sutta is the dynamics of consciousness that can be disciplined/restrained, (in relation to what is seen, heard etc) then please carry on reading.
- SN 47.42 presents us with the possibilty
- lust or longing can be arrested
- it is not impossible to do so
- By arresting that rising lust even for a short period, Nama-rupa of DO is brought to a halt.
- It is as if we escaped samsara during that dwelling.
Even a sane seven year old knows that this is impossible.
It is raining outside. Happy rainy Day!