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

Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view?

Expand Messages
  • sarah abbott
    Hi James, ... .... S: 1a. There is nothing given etc - means there are no fruits of giving. There is a denial of kamma and vipaka, there is no value in
    Message 1 of 109 , Mar 23, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi James,

      Thanks for your good question:

      --- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@...> wrote:
      > > >J: And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered,
      > > > nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
      > > > actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no
      > father,
      > > > no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who,
      > > > faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
      > > > after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
      > > > wrong view.
      > > >
      > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#micchaditthi
      > > > -----------------------------------------------------------
      >
      > Could you explain how this is different from the position of: there is
      > no Nina, Lodewijk, Sarah, James, Buddha, etc. ?
      ....
      S:
      1a. "There is nothing given" etc - means there are no fruits of giving.
      There is a denial of kamma and vipaka, there is no value in developing
      kusala. It is a very serious wrong view.
      ***
      1b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. These namas are
      kusala (wholesome), akusala (unwholesome), vipaka (result) and kiriya
      (inoperative). Giving (dana) is performed by kusala cittas which result in
      kusala vipaka. Instead of there being a denial of kamma and vipaka, the
      opposite is stressed by the Buddha.
      ======
      2a. "no this world, no next world" - is a denial of rebirth in any form.
      All is annihilated at the end of this life. Again, there is a denial of
      kamma.
      ***
      2b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. Rebirth does not
      refer to rebirth of people but to rebirth of namas (cittas and cetasikas).
      At the end of this life, the last citta (cuti citta or death
      consciousness) is succeeded by the first citta (patisandhi citta or
      rebirth consciousness) of the next life.
      =====
      3a. "no mother, no father" - is a denial of any value or fruit of right
      conduct towards parents or any harm in wrong conduct.
      ***
      3b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. The Buddha
      stressed the great value as you know in doing whatever is possible for
      one's parents. Of course, again in an ultimate sense, what we take for our
      parents are again namas and rupas, particular streams of accumulations.
      ======
      4a. "no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing
      rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known &
      realized it for themselves." - is a denial of arhants and Buddhas.
      ***
      4b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. The attainment of
      arahantship refers to magga and phala cittas and definitely the Buddha
      taught about such attainement. Again, in an ultimate sense, the Buddha
      does not/did not exist as discussed at length, but the namas and rupas
      referred to as the Buddha definitely did.
      ["In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to
      be found", Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85]
      ======

      S: I know the "no Nina, Lodewijk, Sarah, James, Buddha, etc." area is a
      very difficult one for many to accept. In the end, it comes back to the
      present moment now. What is seen? What is heard? What is smelt? What is
      tasted? What is touched? And then, what is thought about?

      Metta,

      Sarah
      =========
    • colette
      Hi Jon, That clarifies it: your age, being elder, and your calcification of your bones and your muslces ability to flex. This includes your mind s ability to
      Message 109 of 109 , Apr 25, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jon,

        That clarifies it: your age, being elder, and your calcification of
        your bones and your muslces ability to flex. This includes your
        mind's ability to flex.

        That appears to be a good pin set so that bowlers can come along and
        knock the pins down in the middle class way. Calcium makes bones
        rather brittle and subject to breakage doesn't it?
        > > the point of synethesia is that the brain or mind actually
        cognizes
        > > things using more than a single sense i.e. eye consciousness can
        and
        > > is also used by blind persons that have nevere had sight or sound
        > > waves reverberating against the body making them a tactile
        > > consciousness and not simply the ear consciousness. I am showing,
        > > here, that our focus and obsession with identifying each of the
        eight
        > > consciousnesses is misleading or Miss Leading and inevitably
        leads
        > > down the path of WRONG VIEW.
        >
        > To take the second example you give above ("sound waves
        reverberating
        > against the body making them a tactile consciousness and not simply
        > the ear consciousness"), this as you correctly say is an experience
        by
        > body-consciousness, i.e. of hardness/softness, etc.
        >
        colette: STOP RIGHT THERE.

        So, you admit the the "conciousness" is manufactured or manfiested
        by several other "consciousnesses". Now we get into the "initial
        contact" of the consciousnesses which construct the FORM to the NAME
        in the ALAYA-VIJNANA. Now we're into a new game, no? Well, isn't it
        true that the Theravadans require that only their given list of
        consciousnesses be recognized, and that the Alaya-Vijnana is in no
        terms worthy of the magnioificents of the power of the Theravadan
        monks' grasp and hold on to the conscious through the limitation of
        consciousness?

        "I guess I'm talkin' 'bout love", Trampled Under Foot by Led Zepplin

        Lets further your analysis of my RE-TURNING OF THE WHEEL WHETHER
        THOSE IN THEIR DRUG INDUCED COMOTOSE ENJOY, LIKE IT OR NOT. Are you
        telling me that turning the wheel is a bad thing, while we see in
        countless WEstern cultures that bingo, that roulette, that any
        spinning wheel is a good and desirous thing <.....>?

        You seem to say that the Alaya-Vijnana is only good enough for you
        and that you are not a Theravadan holding the tenants <.....>? What are you trying to sell me from your cushy position in Hong
        Kong?
        -----------------------------

        > Now we think of the hardness that is experienced as being the "sound
        > waves" of the sound that is being heard at the same time.

        colette: so it's true that you intend on relying on your tired old
        foundation as a means of subordinating the next group of "believers"
        or followers of the Buddhist precepts? <....>

        You got me way off today.

        I gotta go.

        toodles,
        colette


        But in fact
        > there is no "sound" in the tactile experience, just as there is no
        > hardness in the audible object being experienced through the ear-
        door.
        <....>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.