Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:53 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
Lindama wrote:
oushi wrote:
Lindama wrote:
The Buddha took the bowl of milk

Not in this sutta.


Indeed, in this sutta, we see an example of the subtle sense of spiritual individuality that claims awakening.

I think we see a realistic person that observes and analyses reality surrounding him. The result of this inquiry is pleasure, free from external factors.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
free from external factors is separation is what is meant by ignorance. It won't be safe for him to walk the streets alone


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 888
I could see the second paragraph being a point of confusion...

Quote:
"Mahanama, that very mental quality is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the mental quality of greed... the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades your mind and remains. For if that mental quality were abandoned in you, you would not live the household life and would not partake of sensuality. It's because that mental quality is not abandoned in you that you live the household life and partake of sensuality.


I could see it being read in a way that completely invalidates the householder path.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
PorkChop wrote:
I could see the second paragraph being a point of confusion...

Quote:
"Mahanama, that very mental quality is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the mental quality of greed... the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades your mind and remains. For if that mental quality were abandoned in you, you would not live the household life and would not partake of sensuality. It's because that mental quality is not abandoned in you that you live the household life and partake of sensuality.


I could see it being read in a way that completely invalidates the householder path.

Householder life is full of sensuality almost by design. If one abandons sensuality, it is impossible to retain a householder life.
Lindama wrote:
free from external factors is separation is what is meant by ignorance.

Chase after external factors is ignorance. We are separate and connected at the same time. There is no need to imagine it all shiny oneness. If you hold a view of oneness, there is oneness. If you hold a view of separation, there is separation. But being free from the chase after sensuality, oneness and separation are irrelevant ideas. No need to chase after them.
From this comfort of body and mind comes delight, which has no external factors as a source.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 888
oushi wrote:
Householder life is full of sensuality almost by design. If one abandons sensuality, it is impossible to retain a householder life.


Yes, that's exactly what I posted. What I commented on was the interpretation. In the context of the rest of the sutra, it could be read that householders are just s.o.l. in terms of the whole path and monks are solely privy to the fruits of attainment. I guess severing sensuality is not a requirement for attainment of Sotapanna, so they can still progress; but it's interesting that the Buddha did not give this as an option.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
I can risk an assertion, that he will progress normally until transformation takes place. Then then family structure will collapse, or it will be ready to function without a householder. This is what I am trying to do, as a householder. I'm creating conditions which facilitate a development of independent individuals, which are not bound by sensuality, but are functioning together.

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 10:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
yes, wonderful Oushi. The world will start to change when we raise our children to know themselves.

I do not see the sutta saying that... it draws a diff boundary... between rapture and householder. When the samadi ends, there is no transformation until it is burned away. I see it more as a householder with no boundaries and an eagle eye. His ability to respond is not based on any form of seduction. At the end of the day, sensuality is empty, yet ever present. The world is not victimizing us, it's another inside job.

the koan takes on a diff energy I hadn't seen before. as you said, we get what we give ....

at midnight, I walk alone through the town


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 5:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:56 am
Posts: 71
PorkChop wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I posted. What I commented on was the interpretation. In the context of the rest of the sutra, it could be read that householders are just s.o.l. in terms of the whole path and monks are solely privy to the fruits of attainment. I guess severing sensuality is not a requirement for attainment of Sotapanna, so they can still progress; but it's interesting that the Buddha did not give this as an option.

Perhaps the background story would put things in context. From Ven. Bodhi's "Middle Length Discourses":
Quote:
According to MA, Mahānāma had long ago attained the fruit of the once-returner, which only weakens greed, hate, and delusion but does not eradicate them. MA says that he had the mistaken notion that greed, hate, and delusion are eradicated by the path of the once-returner. Thus, when he saw that they still arose in his mind, he realised that they were not abandoned and inquired from the Buddha the cause for their arising. Noble disciples can be mistaken about which defilements are abandoned by which path.

So from the story, Mahanama already attained Once-Return while still living the householder life [a vivid proof that householder can get very far along the path if they train hard]. Only because he inquired about why he's still not free from states of greed, hate, and delusion did the Buddha pointed out the root cause. It's common sense after all, that one can't have it all: living a householder life with sensual pleasures AND expect to be completely free from states of defilements. Matter of fact, to get from Once-Return to Non-Return, one has to eliminate 2 more lower fetters of sensual lust and ill will. While this can still be possible for householder, the job is obviously more difficult compared to those who have gone forth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:23 am
Posts: 96
oushi wrote:
Chase after external factors is ignorance. We are separate and connected at the same time. There is no need to imagine it all shiny oneness. If you hold a view of oneness, there is oneness. If you hold a view of separation, there is separation. But being free from the chase after sensuality, oneness and separation are irrelevant ideas.

Yes, excellent point, well made. In a similar vein the Buddha made this point too:

"But when one sees the origination of the world 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 the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one."

Essentially he is saying don't get sidetracked into a "thicket of views" and distractions of existence/non-existence, separateness/oneness and overly clever philosophical debates. Ultimately experience will show that they are not even the right questions to be asking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:38 am
Posts: 556
bingo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 888
santa100 wrote:
Perhaps the background story would put things in context. From Ven. Bodhi's "Middle Length Discourses":
Quote:
According to MA, Mahānāma had long ago attained the fruit of the once-returner, which only weakens greed, hate, and delusion but does not eradicate them. MA says that he had the mistaken notion that greed, hate, and delusion are eradicated by the path of the once-returner. Thus, when he saw that they still arose in his mind, he realised that they were not abandoned and inquired from the Buddha the cause for their arising. Noble disciples can be mistaken about which defilements are abandoned by which path.

So from the story, Mahanama already attained Once-Return while still living the householder life [a vivid proof that householder can get very far along the path if they train hard]. Only because he inquired about why he's still not free from states of greed, hate, and delusion did the Buddha pointed out the root cause. It's common sense after all, that one can't have it all: living a householder life with sensual pleasures AND expect to be completely free from states of defilements. Matter of fact, to get from Once-Return to Non-Return, one has to eliminate 2 more lower fetters of sensual lust and ill will. While this can still be possible for householder, the job is obviously more difficult compared to those who have gone forth.


Sorry, I was just going by Thanissaro's own notes on this topic:
"A cousin of the Buddha. The Commentary claims that he was already a once-returner when this discourse took place, but there is nothing in the Canon to indicate that this is so."

I do completely agree on your summary though - that you can get far along the path, but can't realize liberation in this life if one is a householder (according to the Pali Canon).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Quote:
I do completely agree on your summary though - that you can get far along the path, but can't realize liberation in this life if one is a householder (according to the Pali Canon).
Right... explain these then 1 2 3

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:56 am
Posts: 71
plwk wrote:
Right... explain these then 1 2 3

From the links you provided:
Quote:
Milindapanha III.19:
"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Quote:
Quote:
Right... explain these then 1 2 3

From the links you provided:
Quote:
Milindapanha III.19:
"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."
Ah the Milindapanha, read it once through though...interesting isn't it, that a 'late' material has made it into the canonical collection. Then again, so did Abhidhamma...Oh and PC, here's more fodder for thee here. Happy chewing on that :tongue:

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:56 am
Posts: 71
First of all, the quote came straight out of the very links you provided. Second, the idea that if it's the Miln. or the Abhidhamma, then one can just brush them aside or discard them all together simply doesn't make any sense at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Posts: 1596
santa100 wrote:
Quote:
Milindapanha III.19:
"You say that if a layman attains arahantship he must either enter the Order that very day or die and attainparinibbàna. Yet if he is unable to find a robe and bowl and preceptor then that exalted condition of arahantship is a waste, for destruction of life is involved in it."
"The fault does not lie with arahantship but with the state of a layman, because it is too weak to support arahantship. Just as, O king, although food protects the life of beings it will take away the life of one whose digestion is weak; so too, if a layman attains arahantship he must, because of the weakness of that condition, enter the Order that very day or die."

It seems that my risky assertion was quite accurate. :smile:

_________________
Say what you think about me here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 888
santa100 wrote:
First of all, the quote came straight out of the very links you provided. Second, the idea that if it's the Miln. or the Abhidhamma, then one can just brush them aside or discard them all together simply doesn't make any sense at all.


Well, technically the Miln. isn't the words of the Buddha, nor does it purport to be.
Legend has it that Nagasena was an Arahant from about 300 years after the parinirvana.
So it's not a matter of "discarding [it] all together", but properly ranking it as a secondary source vis-a-vis the teachings of a SammyakSam Buddha.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:56 am
Posts: 71
PorkChop wrote:
Well, technically the Miln. isn't the words of the Buddha, nor does it purport to be.
Legend has it that Nagasena was an Arahant from about 300 years after the parinirvana.
So it's not a matter of "discarding [it] all together", but properly ranking it as a secondary source vis-a-vis the teachings of a SammyakSam Buddha.

Sure, there's no problem with that. There's a big difference between investigating what they said versus an immediate dismissal. Afterall, in MN 14, the Great Teacher himself pointed out the issue that sensual pleasures of the household life is the main factor in causing Mahanama's issue. The Miln. and Comy. simply elaborate and clarify what He already said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Quote:
First of all, the quote came straight out of the very links you provided. Second, the idea that if it's the Miln. or the Abhidhamma, then one can just brush them aside or discard them all together simply doesn't make any sense at all.
It was just an observation and noting of the lateness part and nothing about 'brushing aside' or 'discarding'. There are lots of late material that I read with an open mind. :smile:

Now :focus:

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:26 pm
Posts: 501
The last footnote in the text reads:
Quote:
One of the great ironies in the history of Buddhism is the extent to which teachings that the Buddha clearly disapproved of, such as this one, have later been taught as quintessentially Buddhist. In some circles, a teaching similar to this one — that non-reactivity to pain burns away the impurity of past kamma and creates no new kamma for the future — is still taught as Buddhist to this day.

can anyone put this in context with this discussion?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: smcj and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group