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

Re: Sabbe dhammaa anattaa

Expand Messages
  • rahula_80
    Hi, The PTS Dictionary have this: In the entry for Dhamma, it says: .....Freq. in formula sabbe dhamma anicca (+dukkha anatta: see nicca) the whole of the
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      The PTS Dictionary have this:

      In the entry for Dhamma, it says:

      ".....Freq. in formula sabbe dhamma anicca (+dukkha anatta: see
      nicca) "the whole of the visible world, all phenomena are evanescent
      etc." S III.132

      Sabbe dhamma anicca!!!

      The PTS Dictionary is available online.
      http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/

      CAn anyone check this out?
    • Sarah
      Hi Rahula, ... .... I m in a rush...students about to arrive, but you may like to look at part of this post from the DSG archives from Rob Ed in the meantime.
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Rahula,

        --- rahula_80 <rahula_80@...> wrote: > Hi,
        >
        > It seems that not only SA think thus.
        >
        > See Concentration-Insight Meditation
        > http://www.concentration.org/_insight.html
        >
        > [Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand]
        >
        > It says:
        >
        > sabbe dhamma anatta
        >
        > All compounds are devoid of self.
        ....

        I'm in a rush...students about to arrive, but you may like to look at part
        of this post from the DSG archives from Rob Ed in the meantime. (Btw,I
        hope people don't think SA refers to me;-)):
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8280
        *****
        ">Robert (Eddison):

        >There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is predicated of
        *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or
        phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the
        Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are impermanent"
        (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka
        has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the context
        makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are being
        referred to.

        When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or phrases
        it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them. The
        reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in such
        contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma
        (and
        the latter is not impermanent).

        As the Samyutta Commentary states:

        'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa.

        'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three levels
        are impermanent.

        'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.

        'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are not
        self.
        (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)

        ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material
        (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means the
        three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
        >(lokuttarabhuumi)]"<end quote>
        *****
        There was also a helpful post ages ago from Gayan (or was it Suan?)as I
        recall, but I haven't been able to access escribe for 2 or 3 days and
        can't find it quickly.

        Must dash. Thanks for raising these important points. Suan or others may
        have more.

        Sarah
        ======


        >
        > Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena"
        > (both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to Lord
        > Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by the
        > original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
        > (Carter and Palihawadana 1987) 2, the words sabbe dhamma , in this
        > context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
        > compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects of
        > nature such as nibbana .
        >
        > -----


        _______________________________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
      • rjkjp1
        ... Dear Rahula, Dhammakaya are well-known in thailand where I am. You might want to do an internet search on the Bangkok post website (a main English
        Message 3 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          ---
          Dear Rahula,
          Dhammakaya are well-known in thailand where I am. You might want to
          do an internet search on the Bangkok post website (a main English
          newspaper) for background..
          Robert
          In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rahula_80" <rahula_80@y...> wrote:
          > Hi,
          >
          > It seems that not only SA think thus.
          >
          > See Concentration-Insight Meditation
          > http://www.concentration.org/_insight.html
          >
          > [Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand]
          >
          > It says:
          >
          > sabbe dhamma anatta
          >
          > All compounds are devoid of self.
          >
          > Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena"
          > (both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to
          Lord
          > Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by
          the
          > original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
          > (Carter and Palihawadana 1987) 2, the words sabbe dhamma , in this
          > context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
          > compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects
          of
          > nature such as nibbana .
          >
          > -----
        • abhidhammika
          Dear Sarah, Rahula, Robert Kirkpatrick How are you? I have been following this thread with interest. Like Robert Kirkpatrick said, Sabbe Dhammaa means both
          Message 4 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Sarah, Rahula, Robert Kirkpatrick

            How are you?

            I have been following this thread with interest. Like Robert
            Kirkpatrick said, Sabbe Dhammaa means both conditioned and
            unconditioned dhammas as Robert Eddison quoted from Khandha Samyutta
            commentary where the term "catubhuumakadhammaa" is used.

            When Section 279 in Dhammapada commentary said "Tattha sabbe dhammaati
            pancakkhandhaa eva adhippetaa", we need to remember the context
            indicated by the term "Tattha" (On that occasion, in that context).

            The context on that occasion was that the Buddha was giving this
            particular instruction (sabbe dhammaa anattaa, all things are
            selfless)to those monks who had previously practised specializing in
            the characteristic of selflessness of the five aggregates.

            That is why the Dhammapada commentary on Section 279 has to say
            that "On that occasion, all things means the five aggregates only".

            Therefore, we cannot justify any interpretation of the phrase "sabbe
            dhamaa" as a loophole to imply that the five aggregates alone are
            selfless. The Section 279 of the Dhammapada commentary does not
            permit us to interpret that selfless things do not include Nibbaana.

            With kind regards,

            Suan

            http://www.bodhiology.org



            --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:


            Hi Rahula,

            --- rahula_80 <rahula_80@y...> wrote: > Hi,
            >
            > It seems that not only SA think thus.
            >
            > See Concentration-Insight Meditation
            > http://www.concentration.org/_insight.html
            >
            > [Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand]
            >
            > It says:
            >
            > sabbe dhamma anatta
            >
            > All compounds are devoid of self.
            ....

            I'm in a rush...students about to arrive, but you may like to look at
            part
            of this post from the DSG archives from Rob Ed in the meantime. (Btw,I
            hope people don't think SA refers to me;-)):
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8280
            *****
            ">Robert (Eddison):

            >There are a small number of texts in which impermanence is
            predicated of
            *dhammas* (as opposed to sankhaaras), but there is always some term or
            phrase limiting it to some particular kind of dhamma. For example, the
            Kathaavatthu has the phrase "all *conditioned* dhammas are
            impermanent"
            (sabbe san.khatadhammaa aniccaa); the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
            Pi.taka
            has simply "dhammas are impermanent" (dhammaa aniccaa), but the
            context
            makes it clear that it is the sense bases and sense objects that are
            being
            referred to.

            When the term "dhammas" occurs without any such limiting terms or
            phrases
            it is invariably anattaa and not anicca that is predicated of them.
            The
            reason for this according to the Commentaries is that "dhammas" in
            such
            contexts denotes both conditioned dhammas and the unconditioned dhamma
            (and
            the latter is not impermanent).

            As the Samyutta Commentary states:

            'Sabbe san.khaaraa aniccaa' ti sabbe tebhuumakasan.khaaraa aniccaa.

            'All formations are impermanent' means all formations on the three
            levels
            are impermanent.

            'Sabbe dhammaa anattaa' ti sabbe catubhuumakadhammaa anattaa.

            'All dhammas are not self' means all dhammas on the four levels are
            not
            self.
            (SA ii 318, Commentary to the Channa Sutta)

            ["Three levels" means the sensual (kaamabhuumi), the refined material
            (ruupabhuumi) and the immaterial (aruupabhuumi). "Four levels" means
            the
            three already mentioned together with the supramundane level
            >(lokuttarabhuumi)]"<end quote>
            *****
            There was also a helpful post ages ago from Gayan (or was it Suan?)as
            I
            recall, but I haven't been able to access escribe for 2 or 3 days and
            can't find it quickly.

            Must dash. Thanks for raising these important points. Suan or others
            may
            have more.

            Sarah
            ======


            >
            > Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena"
            > (both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to
            Lord
            > Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by
            the
            > original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
            > (Carter and Palihawadana 1987) 2, the words sabbe dhamma , in this
            > context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
            > compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects
            of
            > nature such as nibbana .
            >
            > -----
          • upasaka@aol.com
            Hi, Rahula - In a message dated 11/1/02 2:09:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... ========================= Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I
            Message 5 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Rahula -

              In a message dated 11/1/02 2:09:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              rahula_80@... writes:

              >
              > Hi,
              >
              > It seems that not only SA think thus.
              >
              > See Concentration-Insight Meditation
              > http://www.concentration.org/_insight.html
              >
              > [Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute Thailand]
              >
              > It says:
              >
              > sabbe dhamma anatta
              >
              > All compounds are devoid of self.
              >
              > Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena"
              > (both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to Lord
              > Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by the
              > original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators
              > (Carter and Palihawadana 1987) 2, the words sabbe dhamma , in this
              > context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or
              > compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects of
              > nature such as nibbana .
              >
              >
              =========================
              Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
              heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking that
              position causes me to wonder about that organization.
              The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
              'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
              changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
              unintentional.


              With metta,
              Howard

              /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
              in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
              phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • rahula_80
              Hi, ... I know they are into some controversy but that is beside the point.
              Message 6 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi,

                > Dhammakaya are well-known in thailand where I am. You might want to
                > do an internet search on the Bangkok post website (a main English
                > newspaper) for background..
                > Robert

                I know they are into some controversy but that is beside the point.
              • phamdluan2000
                Dear Howard, ... Hi, Rahula - Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe, heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute s
                Message 7 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Howard,


                  --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:


                  Hi, Rahula -


                  Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
                  heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking
                  that position causes me to wonder about that organization.
                  The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
                  'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
                  changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
                  unintentional.


                  With metta,
                  Howard





                  KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:


                  O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                  Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                  there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                  Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                  so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.


                  This definition could easily lead
                  one to think that Nibbana is atta
                  since one meaning of atta is that
                  something << exists by itself >> and
                  is << independent >> of other things.

                  If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                  then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                  and << independent >> of everything?


                  I raise this question not because
                  I want to defend the atta doctrine
                  but because I want to show that
                  this matter is not easily to clinch.


                  Peace,


                  KKT
                • rahula_80
                  Hi, ... In a psychological sense, a design could be unmade or dissolved by shifting one s attention to its components. Even so, what is born (jaatam),
                  Message 8 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    > KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:
                    >
                    >
                    > O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                    > Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                    > there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                    > Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                    > so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                    >
                    >
                    > This definition could easily lead
                    > one to think that Nibbana is atta
                    > since one meaning of atta is that
                    > something << exists by itself >> and
                    > is << independent >> of other things.
                    >
                    > If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                    > then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                    > and << independent >> of everything?


                    "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved'
                    by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born'
                    (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded'
                    (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not-made'
                    and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes
                    and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of
                    consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when
                    ignorance and craving are eradicated.

                    The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not
                    metaphysical, in their import. Where there is no 'putting-together',
                    there is no 'falling-apart'. Hence Nibbaana is also called
                    apalokitam--the 'Non-disintegrating'. It is unfortunate that many
                    scholars, both Eastern and Western, have interpreted metaphysically
                    the two passages trom the Udaana quoted here, bringing out
                    conclusions which are hardly in keeping with the teachings of
                    Anattaa. The widespread tendency is to see in these two passages a
                    reference to some mysterious, nondescript realm in a different
                    dimension of existence, though the Buddha was positive that all
                    existence is subject to the law of impermanence."

                    (from _The Magic of the Mind_, pages 78-79, footnote 2)
                  • rahula_80
                    Hi, This is written by Bruce Burrill: It appears twice in the Pali texts, in the Udana 80 (Ud VIII.3) and in the Itivuttaka, 37-8. (Itivuttaka 43) The non
                    Message 9 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,

                      This is written by Bruce Burrill:


                      It appears twice in the Pali texts, in the Udana 80 (Ud VIII.3) and
                      in the
                      Itivuttaka, 37-8. (Itivuttaka 43)


                      The "non" words are in Pali _ajatam_, _abhutam_, _akatam_,
                      _asankhatam_. In the Pali texts when there is a list of words such
                      as we have here, ajatam, abhutam, etc, they can be understood as
                      synonyms.
                      As we can plainly see each of these words starts with an _a_, which
                      is a privative. The privative _a_ in Sanskrit/Pali is very much like
                      the
                      English privative _a_, for example, asexual reproduction -- that is,
                      reproduction without sex. The privative _a_ in Sanskrit/Pali needs
                      not be, as unfortunately it so often is, limited to being translated
                      as "un," "not," or "non." Asankhata: unformed, or better:
                      unconditioned,
                      can be translated as free from conditions, without conditions, not
                      conditioned, conditionlessness. The most important word in this list
                      is _asankhata_. Both
                      nibbana/nirvana and ASANKHATA are defined in the same way: "That
                      which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nirvana;
                      .. is _asankhata_," S.N. IV 251 and IV 321 and in S.N. IV 359 and S.N.
                      362, respectively. Each of the other "a" terms of the Udana 80 are
                      used in these forms or in variations to indicate nirvana. The word
                      _asankhata_ tells us that one is no longer conditioned by hatred,
                      greed, and ignorance.

                      The first sentence in our passage reads in Pali: "Atthi [There is]
                      ajatam [unborn], abhutam [unproduced], akatam, [unmade], asankhatam
                      [unconditioned]." It is important to note that ajatam, abhutam, etc
                      are adjectives, not nouns. The noun is implied. So we can ask, There
                      is
                      _what_? What is the implied noun? Since the early texts show that the
                      Buddha did not indulge in a metaphysics of being, but rather was
                      concerned with an ontology of becoming in terms of experiential
                      states, it seems hardly likely that some sort of transcendent,
                      metaphysical "entity" or "reality" are the concepts implied here. To
                      assume that the Udana 80 text is referring to a metaphysical entity
                      is to put this text outside of what the immediate and broader contexts
                      show.

                      As to the question, "There is what," a word meaning "state" or
                      "characteristic" rather than "entity" seems more likely and this is
                      borne out by the Buddha in the Itivuttaka 39:

                      "Whoever, by knowing this state/this characteristic [padam] that is
                      _not conditioned_ [(asankhatam) by greed, hatred, and delusion], their
                      minds released by the extinction of becoming's conduit -- They,
                      delighting
                      in extinction [of hatred, greed, and ignorance], reach the pith of
                      mental states. Those who are 'such' get rid of all becomings."

                      _Ye etad-an~n~aaya padam(ng) asankhatam(ng)...._
                      or

                      "By knowing this unconditioned state/characteristic..."

                      or

                      "By knowing the state/characteristic that is without conditions [of
                      hatred, greed, and ignorance]...."

                      Let us not forget, unconditioned, asankhata, is a synonym for
                      nirvana, which is to say: By knowing the destruction greed, hatred,
                      and
                      delusion, their minds released.... "The extinction of becoming's
                      conduit" is another expression for nibbana/nirvana.

                      The Itivuttaka, 37-8, contains the central section of Udana 80, and
                      I like very much Rune Johansson's suggestion of translating _ajata_,
                      etc, by
                      "freedom from birth," etc. since such a translations supplies the
                      implied noun via the privative _a_ as in _a_sankhata:

                      ===

                      This said by the Blessed One, the Worthy One, was heard by me
                      in this way: "Monks, there is freedom from birth, freedom from
                      becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning.
                      For, monks if there were not this freedom from birth, freedom from
                      becoming, freedom from making, freedom from conditioning,
                      then escape from that which is birth, becoming, making,
                      conditioning, would not be known here. But, monks, because there is
                      freedom from
                      birth, freedom from becoming, freedom from making, freedom from
                      conditioning, therefore the escape from that which is birth,
                      becoming, making, conditioning is known."

                      [Here the Buddha, The Blessed One, offers his own verse commentary
                      on his statement.]

                      This meaning the Blessed One spoke, it is spoken here in this way:

                      That which is born, become, arisen, made, conditioned,
                      And thus unstable, put together of decay and death,
                      The seat of disease, brittle,
                      Caused and craving food,
                      That is not fit to find pleasure in.

                      Being freed of this, calmed beyond conjecture, stable,
                      Freed from birth, freed from arising, freed from sorrow,
                      Freed from passions, the elements of suffering stopped,
                      The conditioning [of greed, hatred and delusion] appeased,
                      This is ease [bliss].

                      ===

                      Or this could be translated as:

                      "There is (a state) without birth, without becoming, without
                      production and without compounding..."

                      It is worth noting that the Buddha's own commentary does not point to
                      a metaphysical entity.
                    • rahula_80
                      Hi, Bhikkhu Thanissaro s translation of the two suttas can be found here: Udana VIII.3 (Udana 80) Nibbana Sutta, Total Unbinding (3)
                      Message 10 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi,

                        Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation of the two suttas can be found here:

                        Udana VIII.3 (Udana 80) Nibbana Sutta, Total Unbinding (3)
                        http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud8-03.html


                        Ittivuttaka 43. {Iti II.16; Iti 37}
                        http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/iti/iti2.html
                      • upasaka@aol.com
                        Hi, KKT - In a message dated 11/1/02 4:36:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... =========================== Nibbana does formally share elements in common with a
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi, KKT -

                          In a message dated 11/1/02 4:36:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                          phamdluan@... writes:

                          >
                          > Dear Howard,
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > Hi, Rahula -
                          >
                          >
                          > Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
                          > heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking
                          > that position causes me to wonder about that organization.
                          > The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
                          > 'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
                          > changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
                          > unintentional.
                          >
                          >
                          > With metta,
                          > Howard
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:
                          >
                          >
                          > O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                          > Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                          > there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                          > Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                          > so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                          >
                          >
                          > This definition could easily lead
                          > one to think that Nibbana is atta
                          > since one meaning of atta is that
                          > something <<exists by itself >>and
                          > is <<independent >>of other things.
                          >
                          > If Nibbana is <<unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                          > then isn't Nibbana <<existing by itself >>
                          > and <<independent >>of everything?
                          >
                          >
                          > I raise this question not because
                          > I want to defend the atta doctrine
                          > but because I want to show that
                          > this matter is not easily to clinch.
                          >
                          >
                          > Peace,
                          >
                          >
                          > KKT
                          >
                          >
                          ===========================
                          Nibbana does formally share elements in common with a self. What makes
                          nibbana not-self is, as I see it, twofold: 1) it is impersonal, and 2) it is
                          an absence, not a presence - it is not pure being or sat (such as is the
                          brahman/atman of the Vedanta).

                          With metta,
                          Howard

                          /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                          in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                          phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • rahula_80
                          Hi, The PTSD is in error on this point. Thanks to the lead pointed out by Sarah. S III 132 is actually Channa Sutta. And Channa Sutta (S III 132) has: Sabbe
                          Message 12 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi,

                            The PTSD is in error on this point. Thanks to the lead pointed out by
                            Sarah. S III 132 is actually Channa Sutta.

                            And Channa Sutta (S III 132) has:

                            Sabbe sa"nkhaaraa aniccaa; sabbe dhammaa anattaa"ti


                            --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "rahula_80" <rahula_80@y...> wrote:
                            > Hi,
                            >
                            > The PTS Dictionary have this:
                            >
                            > In the entry for Dhamma, it says:
                            >
                            > ".....Freq. in formula sabbe dhamma anicca (+dukkha anatta: see
                            > nicca) "the whole of the visible world, all phenomena are
                            evanescent
                            > etc." S III.132
                            >
                            > Sabbe dhamma anicca!!!
                            >
                            > The PTS Dictionary is available online.
                            > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
                            >
                            > CAn anyone check this out?
                          • rahula_80
                            Hi, From ... Howard: Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From SN 4 I have no idea of where to look. Anders: I m pretty sure it s the
                            Message 13 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi,

                              From
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/82804.

                              Howard:

                              Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I
                              have no
                              idea of where to look.

                              Anders:

                              I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.

                              ------


                              This is Samyutta Nikaya I. 4

                              Accentisutta.m

                              4. Saavatthinidaana.m Ekamanta.m thitaa kho saa devataa bhagavato
                              santike ima.m gaatha.m abhaasi–
                              "Accenti kaalaa tarayanti rattiyo,
                              vayogu.naa anupubba.m jahanti;
                              eta.m bhaya.m mara.ne pekkham±no,
                              puññaani kayiraatha sukhaavahaanii"ti.
                              "Accenti kaalaa tarayanti rattiyo,
                              vayogu.naa anupubba.m jahanti;
                              eta.m bhaya.m mara.ne pekkham±no,
                              lokaamisa.m pajahe santipekkho"ti.
                            • upasaka@aol.com
                              Hi, Rahula - This post confuses me. I don t recall giving any reference. (I don t know why you mention my name.) Also, when I try to access your url, I get a
                              Message 14 of 24 , Nov 1, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi, Rahula -

                                This post confuses me. I don't recall giving any reference. (I don't
                                know why you mention my name.) Also, when I try to access your url, I get a
                                msg saying that there is no msg 82804.

                                With metta,
                                Howard

                                In a message dated 11/1/02 7:26:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                rahula_80@... writes:

                                >
                                > Hi,
                                >
                                > From
                                > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/82804.
                                >
                                > Howard:
                                >
                                > Could you please be more detailed in this reference? From "SN 4" I
                                > have no
                                > idea of where to look.
                                >
                                > Anders:
                                >
                                > I'm pretty sure it's the Samyutta Nikaya I 4.
                                >
                                > ------
                                >
                                >
                                > This is Samyutta Nikaya I. 4
                                >
                                > Accentisutta.m
                                >
                                > 4. Saavatthinidaana.m Ekamanta.m thitaa kho saa devataa bhagavato
                                > santike ima.m gaatha.m abhaasi–
                                > "Accenti kaalaa tarayanti rattiyo,
                                > vayogu.naa anupubba.m jahanti;
                                > eta.m bhaya.m mara.ne pekkham±no,
                                > puññaani kayiraatha sukhaavahaanii"ti.
                                > "Accenti kaalaa tarayanti rattiyo,
                                > vayogu.naa anupubba.m jahanti;
                                > eta.m bhaya.m mara.ne pekkham±no,
                                > lokaamisa.m pajahe santipekkho"ti.
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                                in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                                phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • abhidhammika
                                Dear KKT You wrote the following. ...since one meaning of atta is that something
                                Message 15 of 24 , Nov 2, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear KKT

                                  You wrote the following.

                                  "...since one meaning of atta is that something << exists by itself
                                  >> and is << independent >> of other things."

                                  I wonder if you could post those meanings of atta in Pali or Sanskrit
                                  when you have spare time.

                                  I will like to check them side by side with the meanings of nibbana
                                  in that Udaana passage.

                                  Thanking in advance.

                                  With kind regards

                                  Suan







                                  --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...> wrote:


                                  Dear Howard,


                                  --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:


                                  Hi, Rahula -


                                  Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
                                  heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking
                                  that position causes me to wonder about that organization.
                                  The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
                                  'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
                                  changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
                                  unintentional.


                                  With metta,
                                  Howard





                                  KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:


                                  O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                                  Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                  there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                                  Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                  so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.


                                  This definition could easily lead
                                  one to think that Nibbana is atta
                                  since one meaning of atta is that
                                  something << exists by itself >> and
                                  is << independent >> of other things.

                                  If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                                  then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                                  and << independent >> of everything?


                                  I raise this question not because
                                  I want to defend the atta doctrine
                                  but because I want to show that
                                  this matter is not easily to clinch.


                                  Peace,


                                  KKT
                                • rahula_80
                                  Hi Howard, ... I apologise. The confusion is really my error. ... your url, I get a msg saying that there is no msg 82804.
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Nov 3, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Howard,

                                    You wrote:

                                    > This post confuses me. I don't recall giving any reference. <

                                    I apologise. The confusion is really my error.

                                    > (I don't know why you mention my name.) Also, when I try to access
                                    your url, I get a msg saying that there is no msg 82804.<

                                    First, there is no message of 82804. Therefore, it is my error.
                                    Secondly, I was not mentioning your name. I was quoting from the url
                                    Sarah gave. The url is:

                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8280

                                    I am not sure whether Howard in the message is you or not as I have
                                    not joing at that time. I am sorry for all these.

                                    With apology,
                                    Rahula
                                  • upasaka@aol.com
                                    Hi, Rahula - Ahhh. I see. No apology needed. And, yes, I was the Howard Anders quoted. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/3/02 8:39:19 AM Eastern
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Nov 3, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi, Rahula -

                                      Ahhh. I see. No apology needed. And, yes, I was the "Howard" Anders quoted.

                                      With metta,
                                      Howard

                                      In a message dated 11/3/02 8:39:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      rahula_80@... writes:

                                      >
                                      > Hi Howard,
                                      >
                                      > You wrote:
                                      >
                                      > >This post confuses me. I don't recall giving any reference. <
                                      >
                                      > I apologise. The confusion is really my error.
                                      >
                                      > >(I don't know why you mention my name.) Also, when I try to access
                                      > your url, I get a msg saying that there is no msg 82804.<
                                      >
                                      > First, there is no message of 82804. Therefore, it is my error.
                                      > Secondly, I was not mentioning your name. I was quoting from the url
                                      > Sarah gave. The url is:
                                      >
                                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8280
                                      >
                                      > I am not sure whether Howard in the message is you or not as I have
                                      > not joing at that time. I am sorry for all these.
                                      >
                                      > With apology,
                                      > Rahula
                                      >


                                      /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
                                      in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
                                      phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra)




                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • rahula_80
                                      Hi, I would like to check whether Samyutta Nikaya I 4. contains the phrase sabbe dhammaa aniccaa . I found this it is Accentisutta.m and it does not contain
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Nov 3, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi,

                                        I would like to check whether Samyutta Nikaya I 4. contains the
                                        phrase "sabbe dhammaa aniccaa". I found this it is Accentisutta.m and
                                        it does not contain the phrase.

                                        I am using http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/booklistframe2.html

                                        So, I was thinking if someone has other other Tipitaka text to verify
                                        it.

                                        The same thing goes for Samyutta Nikaya III 132 quoted by PTS
                                        Dictionary as containing the phrase. But I check with that url but
                                        found that it is Channa Sutta. And the phrase according to that
                                        website is " Sabbe sa"nkhaaraa aniccaa; sabbe dhammaa anattaa"ti"

                                        Rahula
                                      • Sarah
                                        Hi KKT & Rahula, ... ..... I don’t understand nibbana to be ‘atta’ in any sense or to have been ‘transformed into’ as suggested by the quote form
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Nov 4, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi KKT & Rahula,

                                          Thanks for raising this verse and your comments:

                                          > > KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:
                                          > >
                                          > > O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                                          > > Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                          > > there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                                          > > Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                          > > so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > This definition could easily lead
                                          > > one to think that Nibbana is atta
                                          > > since one meaning of atta is that
                                          > > something << exists by itself >> and
                                          > > is << independent >> of other things.
                                          > >
                                          > > If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                                          > > then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                                          > > and << independent >> of everything?

                                          --- rahula_80 <rahula_80@...> wrote: > Hi,

                                          > "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved'
                                          > by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born'
                                          > (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded'
                                          > (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not-made'
                                          > and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes
                                          > and conditions.
                                          .....
                                          I don’t understand nibbana to be ‘atta’ in any sense or to have been
                                          ‘transformed into’ as suggested by the quote form ‘The Magic of the Mind’.


                                          Let me quote from the commentary to this same passage in the Udana, Patali
                                          Villagers Chapter3(Masefield, PTS trans):
                                          *****
                                          “That which is unborn, that which is unbecome, that which is uncreated,
                                          that which is unconditioned (ajaata.m abhuuta.m akata.m asa”nkhata.m):
                                          all these terms are synonymous with one another. Or alternatively, it is
                                          “that which is unborn”(ajaata.m) since, unlinke sensations and so on, it
                                          has not been born (na jaata.m), has not come into being, by way of the
                                          harmony of causes reckoned as the conjunction of root-cause and condition,
                                          “that which is unbecome” (abhuuta.m) since it has not become (na
                                          bhuuta.m), has not appeared, has not arisen, either in the absence of such
                                          a cause or else solely of its own accord, (whilst) on account of its being
                                          so unborn, on account of its being so unbecome, it is “that which is
                                          uncreated” (akata.m) since it has not been created (na kata.m) by way of
                                          any cause whatsoever, “that which is unconditioned” (asa”nkhata.m) being
                                          said with the aim of indicating that nibbaana, whose own nature is that of
                                          being unconditioned, does not possess the own nature of being born, become
                                          and created possessed by states that are conditioned, such as
                                          name-and-form and so on.

                                          Or alternatively, (taking things) in reverse order, “that which is
                                          conditioned” (sa”nkhata.m) is such since it has been created (kata.m) by
                                          conditions that have come together (samecca), that have become co-existent
                                          (sambuuya), “that which is unconditioned” (asa”nkhata.m) being such since
                                          that it is not so conditioned, since it lacks the characteristics of that
                                          which is conditioned. “That which is uncreated” (akata.m) is said with
                                          the aim of indicating that it has not been created by way of any (cause)
                                          whatsoever, lest the suspicion arise, when fact of its having been thus
                                          brought into being by way of multiple causes is ruled out, that it might
                                          still have been created by way of one sole cause. “That which is
                                          unbecome” (abhuuta.m) is said with the aim of steering (people) away from
                                          the suspicion that, although thus existing independently of any condition
                                          (appaccaya.m), it might still have become, have appeared, solely of its
                                          own accord. “That which is unborn” (ajaata.m) is said to indicate “And it
                                          has this state of being unconditioned, uncreated, (and) unbecome on
                                          account of its nature being that in which there is a total absence of
                                          birth”.........................
                                          <snip>
                                          “If there were not (na abhavissa = na siyaa, synonyms) that unconditioned
                                          element having as its own nature that which is unborn and so on, there
                                          could not be made known, there could not be discovered, there could not be
                                          witnessed, here, in this world, the escape, allayment without remainder
                                          (anavasesavuupasamo), for that which is conditioned reckoned as the
                                          khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature being born and
                                          so forth. For states associated with the ariyan path, such as right view
                                          and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the
                                          defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this
                                          connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from,
                                          the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle.”<end quote>
                                          *****
                                          Look forward to more of your comments and quotes.

                                          Sarah
                                          =====


                                          _______________________________________________________________________
                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
                                        • phamdluan2000
                                          Dear Suan, ... Dear KKT You wrote the following. ...since one meaning of atta is that something and is of other
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Nov 5, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Suan,


                                            --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@b...> wrote:


                                            Dear KKT

                                            You wrote the following.

                                            "...since one meaning of atta is that something
                                            << exists by itself >> and is << independent >> of other things."

                                            I wonder if you could post those meanings of atta in Pali or Sanskrit
                                            when you have spare time.

                                            I will like to check them side by side with the meanings of nibbana
                                            in that Udaana passage.

                                            Thanking in advance.

                                            With kind regards

                                            Suan





                                            KKT: I think there are two
                                            main meanings of atta or self:


                                            __The empirical self: This is the ego or
                                            the << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >>
                                            or the << I-thought >>

                                            This << self >> was categorically
                                            denied by the Buddha in His 2nd sermon
                                            i.e. Anattalakkhana Sutta and in many
                                            other suttas by this famous phrase:

                                            << This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself >> (*)


                                            __The metaphysical self: In the historical
                                            context of the Buddha's time, this is
                                            the Atman/Brahman of orthodox Brahmanism
                                            or the Jiva (life principle) of Jainism
                                            (another unorthodox system like Buddhism)

                                            It seems that the Buddha didn't give
                                            a definite answer when being asked
                                            about this << self >> as in this sutta:

                                            Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:
                                            'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?'
                                            The Buddha is silent.
                                            'Then Venarable Gotama, is there no Atman?'
                                            Again the Buddha is silent.
                                            Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.
                                            (Samyutta Nykaya)

                                            I think just because of the silence of
                                            the Buddha that after Buddha's Parinibbana
                                            people began to speculate alot about
                                            this << fundamental >> question.
                                            (and a quite exciting question :-))


                                            As for your request, I've found
                                            a list of some << attributes >>
                                            of Braman/Atman in Sanskrit
                                            but they are not complete
                                            (I am not expert in Sanskrit)


                                            pure existence = sat
                                            pure consciousness = cit
                                            pure bliss = ananda
                                            truth = satyam
                                            knowledge = jnanam
                                            goodness = shivam
                                            beauty = sundaram
                                            omnipotent =
                                            infinite = anantam
                                            unborn = ajo
                                            uncreated =
                                            uncompounded =
                                            self-existent =
                                            immanent in all beings (and things) = sarva-sattva-dehantar-gata
                                            immortal = nitya
                                            eternal = shasvata
                                            permanent = dhruva


                                            BTW, in the Milindapanho,
                                            Nibbana is described as:

                                            << pure bliss >>
                                            << cannot be elucidated by means of any
                                            simile, explanation, reason, or inference >>
                                            << is not past, not future, not present,
                                            not produced, not unproduced, not producible >>
                                            << is not in storage somewhere >>
                                            << is not due to kamma, causes, climatic changes >>


                                            Hope this helps.


                                            Peace,


                                            KKT


                                            (*) In the Maitreya Upanishads
                                            there is a similar phrase:

                                            Borne along and defiled by the stream of qualities,
                                            unsteady, wavering, bewildered, full of desire, distracted,
                                            one goes on into the state of self-conceit. In thinking,
                                            "This is I" and "That is mine" one binds himself with himself,
                                            as does a bird with a snare.



                                            ==============

                                            --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...> wrote:


                                            Dear Howard,


                                            --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:


                                            Hi, Rahula -


                                            Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
                                            heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking
                                            that position causes me to wonder about that organization.
                                            The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
                                            'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
                                            changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
                                            unintentional.


                                            With metta,
                                            Howard





                                            KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:


                                            O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                                            Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                            there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                                            Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                            so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.


                                            This definition could easily lead
                                            one to think that Nibbana is atta
                                            since one meaning of atta is that
                                            something << exists by itself >> and
                                            is << independent >> of other things.

                                            If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                                            then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                                            and << independent >> of everything?


                                            I raise this question not because
                                            I want to defend the atta doctrine
                                            but because I want to show that
                                            this matter is not easily to clinch.


                                            Peace,


                                            KKT
                                          • abhidhammika
                                            Dear KKT You provided the following meanings of Brahman/ Atman. pure existence = sat pure consciousness = cit pure bliss = ananda truth = satyam knowledge =
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Nov 6, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear KKT

                                              You provided the following meanings of Brahman/ Atman.

                                              "pure existence = sat
                                              pure consciousness = cit
                                              pure bliss = ananda
                                              truth = satyam
                                              knowledge = jnanam
                                              goodness = shivam
                                              beauty = sundaram
                                              omnipotent =
                                              infinite = anantam
                                              unborn = ajo
                                              uncreated =
                                              uncompounded =
                                              self-existent =
                                              immanent in all beings (and things) = sarva-sattva-dehantar-gata
                                              immortal = nitya
                                              eternal = shasvata
                                              permanent = dhruva"


                                              To my knowledge, the following eight attributes of Brahman/Atman do
                                              not apply to those of nibbana.

                                              ( pure existence = sat
                                              pure consciousness = cit
                                              pure bliss = ananda
                                              knowledge = jnanam
                                              beauty = sundaram
                                              omnipotent =
                                              self-existent =
                                              immanent in all beings (and things) = sarva-sattva-dehantar-gata )

                                              Nibbana is not a sentient being. Therefore, sat, cit, annada, jnanam,
                                              omnipotent, and sarva-sattva-dehantar-gata (entering and residing as
                                              an homunculi in all beings) do not apply to nibbana.

                                              Similarly, sundaram (beauty) does not apply to nibbana because
                                              nibbana is "anidassana.m (invincible, unseeable)".

                                              Similarly, nibbana is not self-existent because it is selfless and
                                              because it is "abhuutam,neither caused by others nor self-caused".

                                              However, nibbana also has the following nine attributes.

                                              ( truth = satyam
                                              goodness = shivam
                                              infinite = anantam
                                              unborn = ajo
                                              uncreated =
                                              uncompounded =
                                              immortal = nitya
                                              eternal = shasvata
                                              permanent = dhruva )


                                              With kind regards and appreciation

                                              Suan

                                              http://www.bodhiology.org





                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...> wrote:


                                              Dear Suan,


                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@b...> wrote:


                                              Dear KKT

                                              You wrote the following.

                                              "...since one meaning of atta is that something
                                              << exists by itself >> and is << independent >> of other things."

                                              I wonder if you could post those meanings of atta in Pali or Sanskrit
                                              when you have spare time.

                                              I will like to check them side by side with the meanings of nibbana
                                              in that Udaana passage.

                                              Thanking in advance.

                                              With kind regards

                                              Suan





                                              KKT: I think there are two
                                              main meanings of atta or self:


                                              __The empirical self: This is the ego or
                                              the << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >>
                                              or the << I-thought >>

                                              This << self >> was categorically
                                              denied by the Buddha in His 2nd sermon
                                              i.e. Anattalakkhana Sutta and in many
                                              other suttas by this famous phrase:

                                              << This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself >> (*)


                                              __The metaphysical self: In the historical
                                              context of the Buddha's time, this is
                                              the Atman/Brahman of orthodox Brahmanism
                                              or the Jiva (life principle) of Jainism
                                              (another unorthodox system like Buddhism)

                                              It seems that the Buddha didn't give
                                              a definite answer when being asked
                                              about this << self >> as in this sutta:

                                              Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:
                                              'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?'
                                              The Buddha is silent.
                                              'Then Venarable Gotama, is there no Atman?'
                                              Again the Buddha is silent.
                                              Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.
                                              (Samyutta Nykaya)

                                              I think just because of the silence of
                                              the Buddha that after Buddha's Parinibbana
                                              people began to speculate alot about
                                              this << fundamental >> question.
                                              (and a quite exciting question :-))


                                              As for your request, I've found
                                              a list of some << attributes >>
                                              of Braman/Atman in Sanskrit
                                              but they are not complete
                                              (I am not expert in Sanskrit)


                                              pure existence = sat
                                              pure consciousness = cit
                                              pure bliss = ananda
                                              truth = satyam
                                              knowledge = jnanam
                                              goodness = shivam
                                              beauty = sundaram
                                              omnipotent =
                                              infinite = anantam
                                              unborn = ajo
                                              uncreated =
                                              uncompounded =
                                              self-existent =
                                              immanent in all beings (and things) = sarva-sattva-dehantar-gata
                                              immortal = nitya
                                              eternal = shasvata
                                              permanent = dhruva


                                              BTW, in the Milindapanho,
                                              Nibbana is described as:

                                              << pure bliss >>
                                              << cannot be elucidated by means of any
                                              simile, explanation, reason, or inference >>
                                              << is not past, not future, not present,
                                              not produced, not unproduced, not producible >>
                                              << is not in storage somewhere >>
                                              << is not due to kamma, causes, climatic changes >>


                                              Hope this helps.


                                              Peace,


                                              KKT


                                              (*) In the Maitreya Upanishads
                                              there is a similar phrase:

                                              Borne along and defiled by the stream of qualities,
                                              unsteady, wavering, bewildered, full of desire, distracted,
                                              one goes on into the state of self-conceit. In thinking,
                                              "This is I" and "That is mine" one binds himself with himself,
                                              as does a bird with a snare.



                                              ==============

                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "phamdluan2000" <phamdluan@a...> wrote:


                                              Dear Howard,


                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:


                                              Hi, Rahula -


                                              Any interpretation which views nibbana as atta is, I believe,
                                              heretical, and the Dhammakaya Buddhist Meditation Institute's taking
                                              that position causes me to wonder about that organization.
                                              The Buddha's teachings are generally quite precise, and his using
                                              'sankhara' twice, once with 'anicca' and once with 'dukkha', but then
                                              changing to 'dhamma' with regard to 'anatta' is quite unlikely to be
                                              unintentional.


                                              With metta,
                                              Howard





                                              KKT: A definition of Nibbana from the Udana:


                                              O bhikkhus, there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned.
                                              Were there not the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                              there would be no escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.
                                              Since there is the unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned,
                                              so there is escape for the born, grown, and conditioned.


                                              This definition could easily lead
                                              one to think that Nibbana is atta
                                              since one meaning of atta is that
                                              something << exists by itself >> and
                                              is << independent >> of other things.

                                              If Nibbana is << unborn, ungrown, and unconditioned >>
                                              then isn't Nibbana << existing by itself >>
                                              and << independent >> of everything?


                                              I raise this question not because
                                              I want to defend the atta doctrine
                                              but because I want to show that
                                              this matter is not easily to clinch.


                                              Peace,


                                              KKT
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.