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.Lindama wrote:Indeed, in this sutta, we see an example of the subtle sense of spiritual individuality that claims awakening.oushi wrote:Not in this sutta.Lindama wrote:The Buddha took the bowl of milk
Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Say what you think about me here.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
free from external factors is separation is what is meant by ignorance. It won't be safe for him to walk the streets alone
Not last night,
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
I could see the second paragraph being a point of confusion...
I could see it being read in a way that completely invalidates the householder path."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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Householder life is full of sensuality almost by design. If one abandons sensuality, it is impossible to retain a householder life.PorkChop wrote:I could see the second paragraph being a point of confusion...
I could see it being read in a way that completely invalidates the householder path."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.
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.Lindama wrote:free from external factors is separation is what is meant by ignorance.
From this comfort of body and mind comes delight, which has no external factors as a source.
Say what you think about me here.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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.oushi wrote:Householder life is full of sensuality almost by design. If one abandons sensuality, it is impossible to retain a householder life.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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
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
Not last night,
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Perhaps the background story would put things in context. From Ven. Bodhi's "Middle Length Discourses":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.
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.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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Yes, excellent point, well made. In a similar vein the Buddha made this point too: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.
"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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Sorry, I was just going by Thanissaro's own notes on this topic:santa100 wrote:Perhaps the background story would put things in context. From Ven. Bodhi's "Middle Length Discourses":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.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.
"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).
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
From the links you provided:plwk wrote:Right... explain these then 1 2 3
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."
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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 thatFrom the links you provided:Right... explain these then 1 2 3Milindapanha 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."
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
It seems that my risky assertion was quite accurate.santa100 wrote: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."
Say what you think about me here.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
Well, technically the Miln. isn't the words of the Buddha, nor does it purport to be.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.
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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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.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.
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
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.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.
Now
Re: Exploring Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta
The last footnote in the text reads:
can anyone put this in context with this discussion?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.
Not last night,
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho
not this morning,
melon flowers bloomed.
~ Bassho