Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta

[oushi]

I would like to invite everyone to this great sutta that I found on access to Insight site.
Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta: The Lesser Mass of Stress
It is remarkable. I can see it as a great way to introduce someone to Buddhism, and a very deep teaching at the same time. Buddhas description of this ingrained defect in the whole social sphere, being sensuality, informs us that we are totally shaped by it. The entire society, with all its relationships, is based on sensuality, which causes suffering. He is showing that the actual problems are visible "here and now". In the second part, he presents his current state as constant pleasure, or a state capable of such joy. This is comforting, but how is it, that sensuality is the source of suffering, and pleasure is not? Like this pleasure he is talking about, is not a sensual pleasure.
A very interesting text, I encourage you to read.

[Lindama]

A great way to introduce someone to Buddhism? .... what school is it from? Buddhism transcends this... If this is what Buddhism is, I would run as fast as I can! This is pre-historic. It does not resonate with my understanding of Dzogchen, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tantra or zen and most importantly, with my own sensibility .... please put it in context.

Based on your description, it is dead, dead, dead. It is not an honest resolution to dukka or to our modern and post modern suffering. It sounds like white-knuckle purity... watch out... it's the most dangerous! The author lies... he is not awakened.

It's beauty lies in tracing it back to source... to all potentiality. It came from light. It invites us to turn back to source bec it is such BS.

As they say in zen.... don't be fooled by others! See for yourself.

[santa100]

A great way to introduce someone to Buddhism? .... what school is it from? Buddhism transcends this... If this is what Buddhism is, I would run as fast as I can! This is pre-historic. It does not resonate with my understanding of Dzogchen, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tantra or zen and most importantly, with my own sensibility .... please put it in context.

Well, care to share what kind of Buddhism you've studied that teaches the opposite of MN 14 ? By the way, the Theravada Nikaya's MN 14 has an exact Mahayana Agama equivalence, the Taisho.26/MadhyamaĀgama.100. So to answer your question, yes, MN 14 is really what Buddhism is, and both Theravada and Mahayana share the same source.

[Lindama]

A great way to introduce someone to Buddhism? .... what school is it from? Buddhism transcends this... If this is what Buddhism is, I would run as fast as I can! This is pre-historic. It does not resonate with my understanding of Dzogchen, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Tantra or zen and most importantly, with my own sensibility .... please put it in context.

Well, care to share what kind of Buddhism you've studied that teaches the opposite of MN 14 ? By the way, the Theravada Nikaya's MN 14 has an exact Mahayana Agama equivalence, the Taisho.26/MadhyamaĀgama.100. So to answer your question, yes, MN 14 is really what Buddhism is, and both Theravada and Mahayana share the same source.

Anybody qualified to comment on this?

Tell me how this view has served humanity, past, present and future? Show me.

[santa100]

I'll be glad to. But I'm still waiting for your answer first.

[Lindama]

I'll be glad to. But I'm still waiting for your answer first.

I have no scholarly credentials to offer beyond my own awareness.

[santa100]

I have no scholarly credentials to offer beyond my own awareness.

combine with your previous quote:

If this is what Buddhism is, I would run as fast as I can!

.. I'd recommend you to take some times to read MN 14 from start to finish and there's a good chance you won't run away from it! There's an even better chance it'll answer your question of "how this view has served humanity, past, present and future"..

[Lindama]

I read it.

[LastLegend]

Sumaraiz everything in a sentence or two please.

[oushi]

Thank you santa100.

@LastLegend, it's a really good lecture, find some time to read it whole. Then we may talk about it.

[dude]

"'Now, I — without moving my body, without uttering a word — can dwell sensitive to unalloyed pleasure for a day and a night... for two days & nights... for three... four... five... six... seven days & nights. So what do you think: That being the case, who dwells in greater pleasure: King Seniya Bimbisara of Magadha or me?'

Dwelling sensitive to unalloyed pleasure is greater than sensual pleasure.

[oushi]

Dwelling sensitive to unalloyed pleasure is greater than sensual pleasure.

It what sense?

[TRC]

Dwelling sensitive to unalloyed pleasure is greater than sensual pleasure.

It what sense?

It is pleasure that is not derived from sensuality. Or more specifically, it is not the pleasure that is derived from the contact with external and worldly objects (based of sense desire), but a refined pleasure derived internally from the deep calm of samadhi.

Edit: the real importance is that it is pleasure founded on non-craving and non-clinging.

[oushi]

Dwelling sensitive to unalloyed pleasure is greater than sensual pleasure.

It what sense?

It is pleasure that is not derived from sensuality. Or more specifically, it is not the pleasure that is derived from the contact with external and worldly objects (based of sense desire), but a refined pleasure derived internally from the deep calm of samadhi.

Edit: the real importance is that it is pleasure founded on non-craving and non-clinging.

Yes, I agree with what you say, I was referring to "dwelling sensitive to". This implies some kind of sensuality. But as you said, it is pleasure with an inner source, not dependent on the external world.
This part of Prajnaparamita 8000 came to my mind:
The Lord: Where there arises an act of consciousness which has none of
the skandhas for objective support, there the non-viewing of form, etc., takes
place. But just this non-viewing of the skandhas is the viewing of the world. That
is the way in which the world is viewed by that Tathagata.

[TRC]

Yes, I agree with what you say, I was referring to "dwelling sensitive to". This implies some kind of sensuality. But as you said, it is pleasure with an inner source, not dependent on the external world.

I think I see what you are asking about oushi, the seeming paradox of still using the senses verses sensuality. Sensuality involves wanting to obtain pleasure, driven specifically by craving/clinging. Being "sensitive to" still involves the senses (at least initially), but through being sensitive to the pleasure that arises, and is catalyzed by calming, and letting go. So in affect the rapture and pleasure that is born by the opposite means, through non-clinging. An important distinction.

During samadhi, the rapture and pleasure become increasingly refined (as they themselves are let go of) and moves towards abiding only in equanimity. This is still a fabricated state however, but is important in the cultivation of non-clinging. Hope this is helpful.

[oushi]

Yes, I only wanted a clarification, since the the second story may appear as unfinished.
It all comes down to pleasure of no stress and no suffering. In that sense, this sutta is a profound teaching that presents both the problem and the solution, in simple and unquestionable way.
Lindama, it is clear that sensuality is the source of this entire mass of suffering. Nobody can escape it by simply negating it.

[TRC]

It all comes down to pleasure of no stress and no suffering. In that sense, this sutta is a profound teaching that presents both the problem and the solution, in simple and unquestionable way.

Yes, agree

[Lindama]

The Buddha took the bowl of milk

[oushi]

The Buddha took the bowl of milk

Not in this sutta.

[Lindama]

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.