Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Pali] Tikandaka Sutta: The agreeable and the disagreeable

Expand Messages
  • Kumara Bhikkhu
    I agree with Nina that it has to do with upekkha. When there is judgement that something is agreeable, it already means that there is also judgement of things
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree with Nina that it has to do with upekkha. When there is judgement that something is agreeable, it already means that there is also judgement of things that are disagreeable. And vice versa. That's just the theory of course. You'd have to see for yourself what's true in your experience.

      Btw, would be good in the future that you include the reference to the sutta.

      kb

      behappydfgt wrote thus at 05:27 PM 12-06-12:
      >Dear Dhamma friends,
      >
      >in Tikandaka Sutta, a discourse on the agreeable and the disagreeable (the contemplations called as ariya iddhi).
      >
      >I do not understand very well why it is said, incases 3 and 4 the followinf (Nyanaponika Thero Translation):
      >
      >(3) "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive as well as in the repulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no lust arise in me for lust- inducing objects, and may no hatred arise in me towards hate-inducing objects!'
      >
      >(4) "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive as well as in the unrepulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no hatred arise in me towardshate-inducing objects, and may no lust arise in me for lust-inducing objects!'
      >
      >I would say, in case 3: in both cases "may ... not arise in me for hateinducing objects".
      >
      >I would say in case 4, in both cases: "may ... not arise in me for
      >lust inducing objetcs".
      >
      >
      >Any suggestion or idea about why it is phrased in that way (I checked the pali and Nyanaponika's rendering is correct).
      >
      >With metta and thankfulness,
      >
      >Be happy :)
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Behappy, When I had posted my answer to you I realized that you took the text of the Tikandakasutta from: The roots of Good and Evil , Wheel 251-253. PTS
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Behappy,
        When I had posted my answer to you I realized that you took the text
        of the Tikandakasutta from: "The roots of Good and Evil", Wheel 251-253.
        PTS III, 167, Tika.n.dakiisutta.
        I then checked the co. and I am still reading the tiika.
        Co: < I.t.thasmiṃ vatthusmi.m pana asubhāya vā pharati, aniccato
        vā upasa.mharati. Evaṃ tāva appa.tikūle pa.tikūlasaññī
        viharati. Ani.t.thasmiṃ vatthusmi.m mettāya vā pharati, dhātuto
        vā upasa.mharati. Evaṃ pa.tikūle appa.tikūlasaññī viharati.>
        He pervades pleasant objects with the impure or applies these with
        impermanence. He pervades unpleasant objects with mettaa or sees them
        as elements. Thus he abides seeing the unrepulsive in the repulsive.

        N: When we meet an unpleasant person who insults us we can forgive
        him and have mettaa instead of aversion, or we can understand that
        whatever we see or hear are only conditioned elements.
        -------
        The co then states that the third and fourth round are according to
        the first and last method (mentioned before). The fifth way is the
        sixfold upekkhaa.
        N: This is evenmindedness, tatramajjhattataa, a sobhana cetasika.
        Sixfold: with regard to the objects experienced through the senses
        and the mind-door.
        Text: < Cha.la"ngupekkhā cesā khī.nāsavassa upekkhāsadisā, na
        pana khī.nāsavupekkhā.>
        ------
        This is not the sixfold upekkhaa of the arahat, it is similar
        (sadisaa) to it.
        N: Usually the sixfold upekkhaa refers to the arahat.
        The text states: with whatever object, in whatever location.
        The text:
        < Iti imasmi.m sutte pañcasu .thānesu vipassanāva kathitā. Ta.m
        āraddhavipassako bhikkhu kātu.m sakkoti, ~naa.naavaa paññuttaro
        bahussutasama.nopi kātuṃ sakkoti. Sotāpannasakadāgāmianāgāmino
        kātu.m sakkontiyeva, khī.nāsave vattabbameva natthīti.>
        In this sutta in the five occasions vipassanaa only has been spoken
        of. The bhikkhu who has begun vipassanaa can develop this. Even the
        recluse (sama.na) who has listened much, has understanding, has a
        great deal of wisdom, can develop this. The sotaapanna, sakadaagaami,
        anaagami can develop this. It is not necessary to speak of the arahat.>
        -------
        Nina.




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Kumara Bhikkhu
        I agree with Nina that it has to do with upekkha. When there is judgement that something is agreeable, it already means that there is also judgement of things
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 4, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          I agree with Nina that it has to do with upekkha. When there is judgement that something is agreeable, it already means that there is also judgement of things that are disagreeable. And vice versa. That's just the theory of course. You'd have to see for yourself what's true in your experience.

          Btw, would be good in the future that you include the reference to the sutta.

          kb

          behappydfgt wrote thus at 05:27 PM 12-06-12:
          >Dear Dhamma friends,
          >
          >in Tikandaka Sutta, a discourse on the agreeable and the disagreeable (the contemplations called as ariya iddhi).
          >
          >I do not understand very well why it is said, incases 3 and 4 the followinf (Nyanaponika Thero Translation):
          >
          >(3) "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive as well as in the repulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no lust arise in me for lust- inducing objects, and may no hatred arise in me towards hate-inducing objects!'
          >
          >(4) "And for what reason should he abide perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive as well as in the unrepulsive? (He should do so with the thought:) 'May no hatred arise in me towardshate-inducing objects, and may no lust arise in me for lust-inducing objects!'
          >
          >I would say, in case 3: in both cases "may ... not arise in me for hateinducing objects".
          >
          >I would say in case 4, in both cases: "may ... not arise in me for
          >lust inducing objetcs".
          >
          >
          >Any suggestion or idea about why it is phrased in that way (I checked the pali and Nyanaponika's rendering is correct).
          >
          >With metta and thankfulness,
          >
          >Be happy :)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.