[dsg] Re: Nina update .. But "Nina" Is Imaginary! ..
- Dear Tam, others -
[Please replace the previous message that had a few typos. Thanks.]
Although I am familiar with this Anuradha Sutta (SN 44.2), I still am grateful that you've offered it.
Is it a gentle approach to possibly kick-start another discussion/debate? Go ahead!
I believe this is going to be more productive than Sukin's aggressive debate! One thing I am sure is that you'll never call me "silly" and release an angry Self Demon to scare me. :-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Tam Bach <tambach@...> wrote:
> Dear Tep, Han Tun, Sukin, all
> May I offer you all a sutta?
> Tam B
> "And so, Anuradha â" when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present lifeâ"is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata â" the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment â" being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
> "No, lord."
> "Very good, Anuradha. Very good.Â Both formerlyÂ & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."
- Hi Tep,
--- In email@example.com, "Tep Sastri" <indriyabala@...> wrote:
> >Sarah (message #130635): What other conclusion does panna lead to?
> SN 22:86 (4) Anuraadha, Khandhasa.myutta (Bodhi transl)
> " 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard form as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - Do you regard feeling... perception... volitional formations... consciousness as the Tathaagata?' - 'No, venerable sir.'
> 'What do you think, Anuraadha, do you regard the Tathaagata as in form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as apart from form?' - 'No, venerable sir.' - 'Do you regard the Tathaagata as in feeling......perception...volitional formations....consciousness....?' - 'No, venerable sir.'
> > S: "just suffering", no Sufferer, no Tathaagata, no Phil, no Sarah, no Nina, no computer, no rose!
> T: The Buddha's teaching in this Sutta is about sakkaya (the 20 self identifications) that a real monk (mediatator) must relinquish (along with other fetters) in order to realize 'knowledge and vision' (yathabhuta~nana dassana).
S: There is no Tathagata, no monk in volitional formations including panna (understanding), no monk apart from panna, no monk outside panna, no panna in the monk. So no monk that relinquishes fetters or realizes the Truths. It is panna and associated mental factors that leads to and realizes the goal.
>Now, if there was no real-person Anuraaddha, then what would have been the purpose of such contemplation? If there were no Buddha, then how could there be the true Dhamma that has lasted over 2500 years for the real you and real me to enjoy? Of course, there is no good reason to assume a Self in anyone or assuming a person in the Self -- self views are just wrong assumption. Without self views there is no Self anywhere.
S: Right - "without self views, there is no Self anywhere". There is no Tathagata, no monk, no Anuradha - only khandhas arising and falling away. The purpose of the Teaching was for the development of panna, for the understanding of true Dhamma that in truth and reality there is no atta anywhere to be found. Yes, as the Buddha said, the Teachings are very deep and profound. When we say it's Tep or Sarah who benefit from hearing the Teachings, in fact, it is only hearing which hears the sounds, thinking with panna which wisely considers.
Of course the panna which arises in the stream of cittas we call 'Tep' is not the same as the panna which arises in the stream of cittas we call 'Sarah'. Likewise each kamma brings its own results, so what we refer to as 'your' seeing is not the same as what we refer to as 'my' seeing. In truth, however, only ever the present namas and rupas arising and falling away. At this instant, no stream, no Tep, no Sarah, just a conditioned citta accompanied by various cetasikas and rupas conditioned in various ways.
> T: No, Sarah, the reality is that the impermanent-and-not-self Nina is real and living; otherwise, we all must have been conceiving her accident and you must have been day-dreaming about Nina's being in the hospital!
S: I agree it seems like that. As we read in the Mulapariyaya Sutta MN1 about ignorant worldlings, "without regard for ariyans, unskilled in the Dhamma of the ariyans, undisciplined in the Dhamma of the ariyasn, who is without regard for the good men......he perceives beings as beings. having perceived beings as beings, he conceives beings; he conceives (himself) in beings; he conceives (himself apart) from beings; he conceives 'beings are mine'; he delights in beings...."
"Like a madman his image in a glass,
The fool takes the self to be real,
And so too property of this self-
These are his conceivings in terms of views.
"This that we have called 'conceiving'
Is the very subtle bondage of Maara,
Flexible and difficult to break,
By this the worldling is held in thrall.
"Though struggling and striving with all his might,
He does not escape the person-group,
But circles on like a leash-bound dog
Tied to a firmly planted post."