any recommended/favorite sutras for advanced (enough) practitioners?

Vincenzi

thanks

taiyaki

bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon.
if you're into that kind of stuff.
it's a fun read.

Jeffrey

bodhidharma's bloodstream sermon

jll

The one on anicca, anatta & dukkha.

DhammaDhatu

There is no sutta on anicca, anatta & dukkha.

There are only suttas on anicca, dukkha & anatta.

That which is anicca is dukkha; that which is dukkha is anatta.

thickpaper

...to phrase the three characteristics as anicca, anatta & dukkha. This is a sign of non-advanced practitioners.

I do this. What am I getting wrong please?

DhammaDhatu

read the sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

what is your rationale for anicca, anatta & dukkha?

DhammaDhatu

thanks

Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty - which includes the noble ten fold path :hair:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html

thickpaper

read the sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

what is your rationale for anicca, anatta & dukkha?



I have just read this, i think ive read it before. It makes sense and seems wise words, but im not sure where it shows a lack of skill or insight to beginners like me who see the 3 foundations as essential starting points.

(I will address your other point shortly, when home)

Daozen

The Heart Sutra

budding_flower

The guy/girl (define please, thank you ) is asking about Sutras and not Suttas. So please everyone stick to the OP. I am currently studying the Lotus Sutra. Just facinating....

DhammaDhatu

The guy/girl (define please, thank you)

This thread is for "advanced ideas", as follows: :mullet:

What does womanhood matter at all
When the mind is concentrated well,
When knowledge flows on steadily
As one sees correctly into Dhamma.

One to whom it might occur,
'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man'
Or 'I'm anything at all' —
Is fit for Mara to address.

Soma Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.002.bodh.html

DhammaDhatu

Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

thickpaper

what is your rationale for anicca, anatta & dukkha?

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/11193/trying-to-explain-the-three-foundations-marks-seals-of-all-existent-things.

Respect.

jll

Sutta is the Pali word for Suttra.

The guy/girl (define please, thank you ) is asking about Sutras and not Suttas. So please everyone stick to the OP. I am currently studying the Lotus Sutra. Just facinating....

budding_flower

@jll forgive me for my ignorance, but till you corrected me I thought that when someone is reffeting to the Theravada school they call them suttas, when someone is reffering to the Mahayana, Sutras, and for the Vajrayana their documnets are called sometimes Tantras. So, can please someone explain to me why this distinction occurs, if Sutra in Pali is Sutta?

Thank you...

seeker242

The Nirvana Sutra is good as well as the Prajnaparamita Sutras. If you like things of a Zen flavor, the Platform Sutra also.

Vincenzi

thanks all,

sutras/suttas from any school. for some words I prefer the sanskrit word; like karma instead of kamma and nirvana instead of nibbana.

oh, and if available add links please

upekka

Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty - which includes the noble ten fold path :hair:

Noble Eightfold Path (8)
and
vimutti (9)
vimutti nana darshana (10)

DhammaDhatu

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

I read your link which, respectfully, is more confusion

The Buddha said he "revealed" four things that are natural lawfulness or inherent characteristics, namely:

1. conditionality/cause & effect
2. impermanence
3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness'
4. not-self/emptiness

your link is about conditionality rather than the three characteristics

if the mind understands something is impermanent, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberation

if the mind understands something is unsatisfactory, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberation

if the mind understands something is not-self, not-mine, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberation

these three characteristics do not require any relationship to conditionality

kind regards

thickpaper

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

I read your link which, respectfully, is more confusion

OK, I shall try to remedy that for you.

The Buddha said

I think it will be useful here, if you sincerely want to see my rational, to not go by what we are told anyone said but rather what is true and clear. This will be more helpful. Also you did ask me to explain my rational, hence telling me what you think the Buddha said, isn’t relevant at this point.
So, what I recommend is that you ask yourself “What is true of all things that can exist?”
This is what my put together Q/A tried to elucidate.
So the first four questions:

Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.

Are essential logical truths to do with identity and contradiction. I don’t think the Buddha stated these anywhere but I think he must have seen them to discover the Three Marks.
Questions 5 to 7 are about the reason for emptiness/impermanence, which is the possibility of consistent difference that arises when there are more than 2 things.

Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arises from interconnections.

@ Dhamma Dhatu, Do you see how emptiness arises from the very nature of existence and difference. It is not an esoteric truth discovered, it is obvious to any structure of at least three things.

In my QA list questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 are about impermanence. Do you see how this follows, out of necessity, from a world of difference, even if that world has just three things in it? Without essence all change must be changes of the interconnections of things, not of things in themselves. If you don’t understand this point I will try to explain it more clearly.
Q12 is about the three different types of change:

Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.

The first kind is a change between things that are not identical. In this universe it would be closest to spatial change, the change that occurs between here and there at any given moment.
The second kind of change is stochastic change. In our universe I guess this would be quantum randomness.
The third kind of change would be causal change, or as you call it conditionality. So when you say the QAs are about conditionality, you seem to have missed the point that the first 11 questions are about impermanence and emptiness.
Q13 is about dependent origination.

Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.

And Q14 points out that all changes, which are dependent on other changes, will bring about the stopping of all things, that is, of any given dependent thing. Inherent in the arising of a thing is its cessation. This is the mark that I think gets termed “dukka”. The dukka of all things that exist, not just experience. I think it is more helpful to think of the dukka of the 3 marks as really being a composite of dependent origination of empty and impermanent things.

So that I hope will explain that a bit more. I will gladly go over it again, but please don’t just dismiss it and tell me what you are sure you know, lets talk. Im certainly not certain on my expliantion. Back to what you said….

The Buddha said he "revealed" four things that are natural lawfulness or inherent characteristics, namely:
1. conditionality/cause & effect
2. impermanence
3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness'
4. not-self/emptiness

I think not quite. “3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness” doesn’t happen until you have things that can experience and value. It is meaningless without that, in a cold lifeless universe. BUT I agree that it can be seen to arise from your 1,2 and 4.

your link is about conditionality rather than the three characteristics

I hope you see now that is not the case. If not, I will have another go but please try to clarify where you think I am mistaken rather than just saying I am mistaken.

if the mind understands something is impermanent, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is unsatisfactory, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is not-self, not-mine, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationthese three characteristics do not require any relationship to conditionality.

This may all be true, but it is not relevant to the issue of the three foundations which are true of all conditioned things in any possible world, with or without mind.

kind regards

Likewise, respect.

thickpaper

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

I read your link which, respectfully, is more confusion

OK, I shall try to remedy that for you.

The Buddha said

I think it will be useful here, if you sincerely want to see my rational, to not go by what we are told anyone said but rather what is true and clear. This will be more helpful. Also you did ask me to explain my rational, hence telling me what you think the Buddha said, isn’t relevant at this point.
So, what I recommend is that you ask yourself “What is true of all things that can exist?”
This is what my put together Q/A tried to elucidate.
So the first four questions:

Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.

Are essential logical truths to do with identity and contradiction. I don’t think the Buddha stated these anywhere but I think he must have seen them to discover the Three Marks.
Questions 5 to 7 are about the reason for emptiness/impermanence, which is the possibility of consistent difference that arises when there are more than 2 things.

Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arises from interconnections.

@ Dhamma Dhatu, Do you see how emptiness arises from the very nature of existence and difference. It is not an esoteric truth discovered, it is obvious to any structure of at least three things.

In my QA list questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 are about impermanence. Do you see how this follows, out of necessity, from a world of difference, even if that world has just three things in it? Without essence all change must be changes of the interconnections of things, not of things in themselves. If you don’t understand this point I will try to explain it more clearly.
Q12 is about the three different types of change:

Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.

The first kind is a change between things that are not identical. In this universe it would be closest to spatial change, the change that occurs between here and there at any given moment.
The second kind of change is stochastic change. In our universe I guess this would be quantum randomness.
The third kind of change would be causal change, or as you call it conditionality. So when you say the QAs are about conditionality, you seem to have missed the point that the first 11 questions are about impermanence and emptiness.
Q13 is about dependent origination.

Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.

And Q14 points out that all changes, which are dependent on other changes, will bring about the stopping of all things, that is, of any given dependent thing. Inherent in the arising of a thing is its cessation. This is the mark that I think gets termed “dukka”. The dukka of all things that exist, not just experience. I think it is more helpful to think of the dukka of the 3 marks as really being a composite of dependent origination of empty and impermanent things.

So that I hope will explain that a bit more. I will gladly go over it again, but please don’t just dismiss it and tell me what you are sure you know, lets talk. Im certainly not certain on my expliantion. Back to what you said….

The Buddha said he "revealed" four things that are natural lawfulness or inherent characteristics, namely:
1. conditionality/cause & effect
2. impermanence
3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness'
4. not-self/emptiness

I think not quite. “3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness” doesn’t happen until you have things that can experience and value. It is meaningless without that, in a cold lifeless universe. BUT I agree that it can be seen to arise from your 1,2 and 4.

your link is about conditionality rather than the three characteristics

I hope you see now that is not the case. If not, I will have another go but please try to clarify where you think I am mistaken rather than just saying I am mistaken.

if the mind understands something is impermanent, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is unsatisfactory, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is not-self, not-mine, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationthese three characteristics do not require any relationship to conditionality.

This may all be true, but it is not relevant to the issue of the three foundations which are true of all conditioned things in any possible world, with or without mind.

kind regards

Likewise, respect.

thickpaper

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

I read your link which, respectfully, is more confusion

OK, I shall try to remedy that for you.

The Buddha said

I think it will be useful here, if you sincerely want to see my rational, to not go by what we are told anyone said but rather what is true and clear. This will be more helpful. Also you did ask me to explain my rational, hence telling me what you think the Buddha said, isn’t relevant at this point.
So, what I recommend is that you ask yourself “What is true of all things that can exist?”
This is what my put together Q/A tried to elucidate.
So the first four questions:

Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.

Are essential logical truths to do with identity and contradiction. I don’t think the Buddha stated these anywhere but I think he must have seen them to discover the Three Marks.
Questions 5 to 7 are about the reason for emptiness/impermanence, which is the possibility of consistent difference that arises when there are more than 2 things.

Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arises from interconnections.

@ Dhamma Dhatu, Do you see how emptiness arises from the very nature of existence and difference. It is not an esoteric truth discovered, it is obvious to any structure of at least three things.

In my QA list questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 are about impermanence. Do you see how this follows, out of necessity, from a world of difference, even if that world has just three things in it? Without essence all change must be changes of the interconnections of things, not of things in themselves. If you don’t understand this point I will try to explain it more clearly.
Q12 is about the three different types of change:

Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.

The first kind is a change between things that are not identical. In this universe it would be closest to spatial change, the change that occurs between here and there at any given moment.
The second kind of change is stochastic change. In our universe I guess this would be quantum randomness.
The third kind of change would be causal change, or as you call it conditionality. So when you say the QAs are about conditionality, you seem to have missed the point that the first 11 questions are about impermanence and emptiness.
Q13 is about dependent origination.

Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.

And Q14 points out that all changes, which are dependent on other changes, will bring about the stopping of all things, that is, of any given dependent thing. Inherent in the arising of a thing is its cessation. This is the mark that I think gets termed “dukka”. The dukka of all things that exist, not just experience. I think it is more helpful to think of the dukka of the 3 marks as really being a composite of dependent origination of empty and impermanent things.

So that I hope will explain that a bit more. I will gladly go over it again, but please don’t just dismiss it and tell me what you are sure you know, lets talk. Im certainly not certain on my expliantion. Back to what you said….

The Buddha said he "revealed" four things that are natural lawfulness or inherent characteristics, namely:
1. conditionality/cause & effect
2. impermanence
3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness'
4. not-self/emptiness

I think not quite. “3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness” doesn’t happen until you have things that can experience and value. It is meaningless without that, in a cold lifeless universe. BUT I agree that it can be seen to arise from your 1,2 and 4.

your link is about conditionality rather than the three characteristics

I hope you see now that is not the case. If not, I will have another go but please try to clarify where you think I am mistaken rather than just saying I am mistaken.

if the mind understands something is impermanent, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is unsatisfactory, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is not-self, not-mine, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationthese three characteristics do not require any relationship to conditionality.

This may all be true, but it is not relevant to the issue of the three foundations which are true of all conditioned things in any possible world, with or without mind.

kind regards

Likewise, respect.

thickpaper

In a hope to ease your confusion, I have tried to outline it here:

I read your link which, respectfully, is more confusion

OK, I shall try to remedy that for you.

The Buddha said

I think it will be useful here, if you sincerely want to see my rational, to not go by what we are told anyone said but rather what is true and clear. This will be more helpful. Also you did ask me to explain my rational, hence telling me what you think the Buddha said, isn’t relevant at this point.

So, what I recommend is that you ask yourself “What is true of all things that can exist?”
This is what my put together Q/A tried to elucidate.
So the first four questions:

Q1: What is true of just one thing?
A: That it exists and cannot change.
Q2: What is true of just two things?
A: That they exist. That one is not the other. That difference is not possible.
Q3: Why is difference not possible with just two things?
A: Because there is no there thing that the two things can change relative to.
Q4: What is true of just three things?
A: That they exist. That they are not the same. That there can be difference; There is the potential for difference.

Are essential logical truths to do with identity and contradiction. I don’t think the Buddha stated these anywhere but I think he must have seen them to discover the Three Marks.

Questions 5 to 7 are about the reason for emptiness/impermanence, which is the possibility of consistent difference that arises when there are more than 2 things.

Q5: How can there be difference?
A: One thing can be connected to either one of the other things or connected to both of the other things. If one things is connected to only one other thing then it is interconnected to the other thing.
Q6: What is the difference between the two that are different?
A: It is a difference of connection, not of essence.
Q7: What is essence?
A: There is no essence, only interconnected things, all that is not a thing arises from interconnections.

@ Dhamma Dhatu, Do you see how emptiness arises from the very nature of existence and difference. It is not an esoteric truth discovered, it is obvious to any structure of at least three things.

In my QA list questions 8, 9, 10 and 11 are about impermanence.

Do you see how this follows, out of necessity, from a world of difference, even if that world has just three things in it? Without essence all change must be changes of the interconnections of things, not of things in themselves.

If you don’t understand this point I will try to explain it more clearly.


Q12 is about the three different types of change:

Q12: What are the three kinds of change?
A: There is the change of being when this is not the same as that.
There is change without connection or cause.
There is change that depends on other changes.

The first kind is a change between things that are not identical. In this universe it would be closest to spatial change, the change that occurs between here and there at any given moment.
The second kind of change is stochastic change. In our universe I guess this would be quantum randomness.
The third kind of change would be causal change, or as you call it conditionality.


So when you say the QAs are about conditionality, you seem to have missed the point that the first 11 questions are about impermanence and emptiness.

Q13 is about dependent origination.

Q13: What is change that depends on other changes?
A: If this thing depends on that thing then without this, no that. Without that, then no this. When this stops that stops. What that stops so does this. ; All changes that are not true chance are changes of interdependence.

And Q14 points out that all changes, which are dependent on other changes, will bring about the stopping of all things, that is, of any given dependent thing. Inherent in the arising of a thing is its cessation. This is the mark that I think gets termed “dukka”. The dukka of all things that exist, not just experience. I think it is more helpful to think of the dukka of the 3 marks as really being a composite of dependent origination of empty and impermanent things.

So that I hope will explain that a bit more. I will gladly go over it again, but please don’t just dismiss it and tell me what you are sure you know, lets talk. Im certainly not certain on my expliantion. Back to what you said….

The Buddha said he "revealed" four things that are natural lawfulness or inherent characteristics, namely:
1. conditionality/cause & effect
2. impermanence
3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness'
4. not-self/emptiness

I think not quite. “3. unsatisfactoriness/'not-true-happiness” doesn’t happen until you have things that can experience and value. It is meaningless without that, in a cold lifeless universe.

BUT I agree that it can be seen to arise from your 1,2 and 4.

your link is about conditionality rather than the three characteristics

I hope you see now that is not the case. If not, I will have another go, but please try to clarify where you think I am mistaken, rather than just saying I am mistaken.

if the mind understands something is impermanent, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is unsatisfactory, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationif the mind understands something is not-self, not-mine, the mind will not cling to this. this is liberationthese three characteristics do not require any relationship to conditionality.

This may all be true, but it is not relevant to the issue of the Three Foundations which are true of all conditioned things in any possible world, with or without mind.

kind regards

Likewise, respect.

thickpaper

Oh lordy, sorry I got into a

battle there, Mods can you please delete the first zillion versions of my last post if possible.

Vincenzi

actually, I prefer sutras from the pali tripitaka

...and the last posts were off-topic.

abhishek_laser

Madhupindika Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

Mahavedalla Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html

Spaceless

http://tipitaka.org/
The Pāḷi Tipiṭaka is now available online in various scripts. Although all are in Unicode fonts, you may need to install some fonts and make some changes to your system to view the site correctly.

http://www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/
Digha Nikaya of the Agama Sutta Presented by Access to Insight (John Bullitt)
Majjhima Nikaya of the Agama Sutta Presented by Access to Insight (John Bullitt)
Samyutta Nikaya of the Agama Sutta Presented by Access to Insight (John Bullitt)
Anguttara Nikaya of the Agama Sutta Presented by Access to Insight (John Bullitt)
Khuddaka Nikaya of the Agama Sutta Presented by Access to Insight (John Bullitt)

Vincenzi

thanks, tagged for later reading.

wody

One perception arises and another perception ceases - lead to the Total Unbinding (Nibbana)
Potthapada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html

Suda Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html