Self in Theravada

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by davidbrainerd » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:50 pm

Ananda wrote:154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving. [13]


13.(vv. 153-154) According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html
And I've read several such ridiculous commentaries. Yet its plain as day that craving is not the house-builder but more like payment to the house-builder. O house-builder you will not build the house again because I have cut off craving = house-builder, don't even bother trying to build no house cuz you ain't gettin' paid.

iskander
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sat Apr 15, 2017 1:23 pm

Ananda wrote:154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving. [13]


13.(vv. 153-154) According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html

Sadyo mukti : AH this Truth!!!

Sadhana
"If anybody’s heart is so pure as to understand this Truth and feel a tremor in the whole system by the very thought of It, such a person will not take another birth; such will attain the Supreme Being. This is called ‘Sadyo Mukti’—Immediate Salvation."

"That person who is ‘Akamah’, who desires nothing because he has all things within himself; ‘Nishkamah’, not having any further desire; ‘Aptakamah’, who has fulfilled all the desires; ‘Atmakamah’, who desires only the Universal Self. For such a person, the Pranas do not depart; they dissolve then and there, as a bubble dissolves in the Ocean. This is called Sadyo Mukti, Immediate Salvation"
An Analysis of the Brahma Sutra

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Apr 16, 2017 4:06 am

Yes, the oneness with the ocean in the simile is not Nibbana in Theravada!

Your better off looking for the Easter Bunny :whistling:

The Buddha did not teach Oneness - Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu at White Salmon - Part 1 of 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlJjcANFU30&t=154s
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:23 am

The ocean is easier to find. Oneness and the United Nations have much in common. Oneness should be more attractive than sectarian fragmentation.


Every religion sells the same commodity, they all sell a sort of heaven after death .But which one of those religions offers the the most compatible programme with the problems facing the living?

Oneness points in the preferred direction. The ocean is the destination of rivers


Nuestras vidas son los ríos
que van a dar en la mar,
que es el morir;
http://www.los-poetas.com/g/jorge1.htm
Poemas de Jorge Manrique


I didn't watch the video, for me priests are sellers of unwanted items.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Apr 16, 2017 1:33 pm

"Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."


No two Enlightened beings are the same, however, "ONENESS" doesn't know this!

Sale! Sale! Sale! :lol: Practicing the (4) right/wholesome efforts you get paid as you go!
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Apr 16, 2017 2:08 pm

It is easier to enslave a small sect of illuminati than it is to rule all .

See attached file
Who or what keeps a record of what the non-self may have done over such a very long period of time?
Theravada is more mysterious than the Holy Trinity .
Attachments
gota 1.PNG
gota 1.PNG (38.44 KiB) Viewed 4717 times

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:14 am

Theravada is more mysterious than the Holy Trinity.
"The hero Herakles attempted unsuccessfully to steal the tripod of Delphi. as depicted in many ancient Greek artworks, while the ruling triumvirate of the Greek pantheon consisted of the gods Zeus, Poseidon and Hades.
Gurdjieff parallels this in his Law of Three
The second fundamental cosmic Law - the Sacred Triamazikammo-consists of three independent forces, that is to say, this second law manifests in everything, without exception, and everywhere in the Universe, in three separate independent aspects. The Holy-Affirming, The Holy-Denying, and The Holy-Reconciling.

This Greek concept of the Triad became the Christian Trinity, a notion that was obviously foreign to Hebraic monotheism."
ref. 'Digging Up The Dog' by George Latura Beku
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:35 am

Ananda wrote:
Theravada is more mysterious than the Holy Trinity.
"The hero Herakles attempted unsuccessfully to steal the tripod of Delphi. as depicted in many ancient Greek artworks, while the ruling triumvirate of the Greek pantheon consisted of the gods Zeus, Poseidon and Hades.
Gurdjieff parallels this in his Law of Three
The second fundamental cosmic Law - the Sacred Triamazikammo-consists of three independent forces, that is to say, this second law manifests in everything, without exception, and everywhere in the Universe, in three separate independent aspects. The Holy-Affirming, The Holy-Denying, and The Holy-Reconciling.

This Greek concept of the Triad became the Christian Trinity, a notion that was obviously foreign to Hebraic monotheism."
ref. 'Digging Up The Dog' by George Latura Beku

The holy trinity is easier to understand. The holy trinity says god, mankind and the Holy Spirit are one: the incomprehensible, the hope, and their common language

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:04 pm

Here is one of my favorite Q & A
Vissudhimagga Ch. XVI


[DISCUSSION ON NIBBÁNA]
67. [Question 1] Is Nibbána non-existent because it is unapprehendable, like
the hare’s horn?
[Answer] That is not so, because it is apprehendable by the
means. For
it is apprehendable [by some, namely, the nobles ones] by the
means, in
other words, by the way that is appropriate to it, [the way of virtue, concentration,
and understanding]; it is like the supramundane consciousness of others, [which
is apprehendable only by certain of the Noble Ones] by means of knowledge of
penetration of others’ minds. Therefore it should not be said that it is non-existent
because unapprehendable; for it should not be said that what the foolish ordinary
man does not apprehend is unapprehendable.
68. Again, it should not be said that Nibbána does not exist. Why not? Because
it then follows that the way would be futile. [508] For if Nibbána were nonexistent,
then it would follow that the right way, which includes the three
aggregates beginning with virtue and is headed by right understanding, would
be futile. And it is not futile because it does reach Nibbána.
[Q. 2] But futility of the way does not follow because what is reached is absence,
[that is, absence of the five aggregates consequent upon the cutting off of the
defilements].
[A.] That is not so. Because, though there is absence of past and future
[aggregates], there is nevertheless no reaching of Nibbána [simply because of
that].
[Q. 3] Then is the absence of present [aggregates] as well Nibbána?
[A.] That is not so. Because their absence is an impossibility, since if they are
absent their non-presence follows. [Besides, if Nibbána were absence of present
aggregates too,] that would entail the fault of excluding the arising of the Nibbána
element with result of past clinging left, at the path moment, which has present
aggregates as its support.
[Q. 4] Then will there be no fault if it is non-presence of defilements [that is
Nibbána]?
[A.] That is not so. Because it would then follow that the noble path was
meaningless. For if it were so, then, since defilements [can be] non-existent also
before the moment of the noble path, it follows that the noble path would be
meaningless. Consequently that is no reason; [it is unreasonable to say that
Nibbána is unapprehendable, that it is non-existence, and so on].
69. [Q. 5] But is not Nibbána destruction, because of the passage beginning,
“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate … of delusion … is
Nibbána]?” (S IV 251).
[A.] That is not so, because it would follow that Arahantship also was mere
destruction. For that too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend,
which is the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
IV 252).
And what is more, the fallacy then follows that Nibbána would be temporary,
etc.; for if it were so, it would follow that Nibbána would be temporary, have the
characteristic of being formed, and be obtainable regardless of right effort; and
precisely because of its having formed characteristics it would be included in
the formed, and it would be burning with the fires of greed, etc., and because of
its burning it would follow that it was suffering.
[Q. 6] Is there no fallacy if Nibbána is that kind of destruction subsequent to
which there is no more occurrence?
[A.] That is not so. Because there is no such kind of destruction. And even if
there were, the aforesaid fallacies would not be avoided.
Also because it would follow that the noble path was Nibbána. For the noble
path causes the destruction of defects, and that is why it is called “destruction”;
and subsequent to that there is no more occurrence of the defects.
70. But it is because the kind of destruction called “cessation consisting in
non-arising,” [that is, Nibbána,] serves figuratively speaking as decisive-support
[for the path] that [Nibbána] is called “destruction” as a metaphor for it.
[Q. 7] Why is it not stated in its own form?
[A.] Because of its extreme subtlety. And its extreme subtlety is established because
it inclined the Blessed One to inaction, [that is, to not teaching the Dhamma (see M
I 186)] and because a Noble One’s eye is needed to see it (see M I 510).
71. It is not shared by all because it can only be reached by one who is possessed
of the path. And it is uncreated because it has no first beginning.
[Q. 8] Since it is, when the path is, then it is not uncreated.
[A.] That is not so, because it is not arousable by the path; it is only reachable,
not arousable, by the path; that is why it is uncreated. It is because it is uncreated
that it is free from ageing and death. It is because of the absence of its creation
and of its ageing and death that it is permanent. [509]
72. [Q. 9] Then it follows that Nibbána, too, has the kind of permanence [claimed]
of the atom and so on.
[A.] That is not so. Because of the absence of any cause [that brings about its
arising].
[Q. 10] Because Nibbána has permanence, then, these [that is, the atom, etc.]
are permanent as well.
[A.] That is not so. Because [in that proposition] the characteristic of [logical]
cause does not arise. [In other words, to say that Nibbána is permanent is not to
assert a reason why the atom, etc., should be permanent]
[Q. 11] Then they are permanent because of the absence of their arising, as
Nibbána is.
[A.] That is not so. Because the atom and so on have not been established as facts.
73. The aforesaid logical reasoning proves that only this [that is, Nibbána] is
permanent [precisely because it is uncreated]; and it is immaterial because it
transcends the individual essence of matter.
The Buddhas’ goal is one and has no plurality. But this [single goal, Nibbána,]
is firstly called with result of past clinging left since it is made known together
with the [aggregates resulting from past] clinging still remaining [during the
Arahant’s life], being thus made known in terms of the stilling of defilement
and the remaining [result of past] clinging that are present in one who has
reached it by means of development. But [secondly, it is called without result of
past clinging left] since after the last consciousness of the Arahant, who has
abandoned arousing [future aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving
result in a future [existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence,
and those already arisen have disappeared. So the [result of past] clinging that
remained is non-existent; and it is in terms of this non-existence, in the sense
that “there is no [result of past] clinging here” that that [same goal is called]
without result of past clinging left (see It 38).
74. Because it can be arrived at by distinction of knowledge that succeeds
through untiring perseverance, and because it is the word of the Omniscient
One, Nibbána is not non-existent as regards individual essence in the ultimate
sense; for this is said: “Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade,
an unformed” (It 37; Ud 80).18"
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2018
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Mon May 01, 2017 3:36 pm

Ananda wrote:Here is one of my favorite Q & A
Vissudhimagga Ch. XVI


[DISCUSSION ON NIBBÁNA]
67. [Question 1] Is Nibbána non-existent because it is unapprehendable, like
the hare’s horn?
[Answer] That is not so, because it is apprehendable by the
means. For
it is apprehendable [by some, namely, the nobles ones] by the
means, in
other words, by the way that is appropriate to it, [the way of virtue, concentration,
and understanding]; it is like the supramundane consciousness of others, [which
is apprehendable only by certain of the Noble Ones] by means of knowledge of
penetration of others’ minds. Therefore it should not be said that it is non-existent
because unapprehendable; for it should not be said that what the foolish ordinary
man does not apprehend is unapprehendable.
68. Again, it should not be said that Nibbána does not exist. Why not? Because
it then follows that the way would be futile. [508] For if Nibbána were nonexistent,
then it would follow that the right way, which includes the three
aggregates beginning with virtue and is headed by right understanding, would
be futile. And it is not futile because it does reach Nibbána.
[Q. 2] But futility of the way does not follow because what is reached is absence,
[that is, absence of the five aggregates consequent upon the cutting off of the
defilements].
[A.] That is not so. Because, though there is absence of past and future
[aggregates], there is nevertheless no reaching of Nibbána [simply because of
that].
[Q. 3] Then is the absence of present [aggregates] as well Nibbána?
[A.] That is not so. Because their absence is an impossibility, since if they are
absent their non-presence follows. [Besides, if Nibbána were absence of present
aggregates too,] that would entail the fault of excluding the arising of the Nibbána
element with result of past clinging left, at the path moment, which has present
aggregates as its support.
[Q. 4] Then will there be no fault if it is non-presence of defilements [that is
Nibbána]?
[A.] That is not so. Because it would then follow that the noble path was
meaningless. For if it were so, then, since defilements [can be] non-existent also
before the moment of the noble path, it follows that the noble path would be
meaningless. Consequently that is no reason; [it is unreasonable to say that
Nibbána is unapprehendable, that it is non-existence, and so on].
69. [Q. 5] But is not Nibbána destruction, because of the passage beginning,
“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed … [of hate … of delusion … is
Nibbána]?” (S IV 251).
[A.] That is not so, because it would follow that Arahantship also was mere
destruction. For that too is described in the [same] way beginning, “That, friend,
which is the destruction of greed … of hate … of delusion … is Arahantship]” (S
IV 252).
And what is more, the fallacy then follows that Nibbána would be temporary,
etc.; for if it were so, it would follow that Nibbána would be temporary, have the
characteristic of being formed, and be obtainable regardless of right effort; and
precisely because of its having formed characteristics it would be included in
the formed, and it would be burning with the fires of greed, etc., and because of
its burning it would follow that it was suffering.
[Q. 6] Is there no fallacy if Nibbána is that kind of destruction subsequent to
which there is no more occurrence?
[A.] That is not so. Because there is no such kind of destruction. And even if
there were, the aforesaid fallacies would not be avoided.
Also because it would follow that the noble path was Nibbána. For the noble
path causes the destruction of defects, and that is why it is called “destruction”;
and subsequent to that there is no more occurrence of the defects.
70. But it is because the kind of destruction called “cessation consisting in
non-arising,” [that is, Nibbána,] serves figuratively speaking as decisive-support
[for the path] that [Nibbána] is called “destruction” as a metaphor for it.
[Q. 7] Why is it not stated in its own form?
[A.] Because of its extreme subtlety. And its extreme subtlety is established because
it inclined the Blessed One to inaction, [that is, to not teaching the Dhamma (see M
I 186)] and because a Noble One’s eye is needed to see it (see M I 510).
71. It is not shared by all because it can only be reached by one who is possessed
of the path. And it is uncreated because it has no first beginning.
[Q. 8] Since it is, when the path is, then it is not uncreated.
[A.] That is not so, because it is not arousable by the path; it is only reachable,
not arousable, by the path; that is why it is uncreated. It is because it is uncreated
that it is free from ageing and death. It is because of the absence of its creation
and of its ageing and death that it is permanent. [509]
72. [Q. 9] Then it follows that Nibbána, too, has the kind of permanence [claimed]
of the atom and so on.
[A.] That is not so. Because of the absence of any cause [that brings about its
arising].
[Q. 10] Because Nibbána has permanence, then, these [that is, the atom, etc.]
are permanent as well.
[A.] That is not so. Because [in that proposition] the characteristic of [logical]
cause does not arise. [In other words, to say that Nibbána is permanent is not to
assert a reason why the atom, etc., should be permanent]
[Q. 11] Then they are permanent because of the absence of their arising, as
Nibbána is.
[A.] That is not so. Because the atom and so on have not been established as facts.
73. The aforesaid logical reasoning proves that only this [that is, Nibbána] is
permanent [precisely because it is uncreated]; and it is immaterial because it
transcends the individual essence of matter.
The Buddhas’ goal is one and has no plurality. But this [single goal, Nibbána,]
is firstly called with result of past clinging left since it is made known together
with the [aggregates resulting from past] clinging still remaining [during the
Arahant’s life], being thus made known in terms of the stilling of defilement
and the remaining [result of past] clinging that are present in one who has
reached it by means of development. But [secondly, it is called without result of
past clinging left] since after the last consciousness of the Arahant, who has
abandoned arousing [future aggregates] and so prevented kamma from giving
result in a future [existence], there is no further arising of aggregates of existence,
and those already arisen have disappeared. So the [result of past] clinging that
remained is non-existent; and it is in terms of this non-existence, in the sense
that “there is no [result of past] clinging here” that that [same goal is called]
without result of past clinging left (see It 38).
74. Because it can be arrived at by distinction of knowledge that succeeds
through untiring perseverance, and because it is the word of the Omniscient
One, Nibbána is not non-existent as regards individual essence in the ultimate
sense; for this is said: “Bhikkhus, there is an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade,
an unformed” (It 37; Ud 80).18"
Why?

Post Reply