Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Like I have heard Nibbana is the end of suffering.
But Thanissaro has said: "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
What are these "clinging-aggregrates"? How do they cling? For example, how does the body cling? How do feelings cling? How do I stop the body from clinging once I discover how it actually clings?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think you're misrepresenting Thanissaro's views here.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with translating the compound panca-upadana-khandha as as 'five clinging-aggregates.' For one thing, it's a fairly literal translation, panca = 5, upadana = clinging, khanda = aggregate. And while I agree that something like 'five aggregates subject to clinging' would be a lot clearer, I think you're misrepresenting Thanissaro's translation considering that he never implies the aggregates themselves cling, only that they're "clingable" (SN 22.48), "affected by clinging" (his note to AN 10.58), etc.
Moreover, I'm pretty familiar with both his translations and his original works, and as far as I can recall, he never presents the aggregates as things that cling, but he always refers to them as clingable phenomena on top of which we mentally construct our sense of self in a process of "I-making" and "my-making" (MN 109). In The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide, he makes this explicitly clear:
When khandhas are experienced, the process of fabrication normally doesn't simply stop there. If attention focuses on the khandhas' attractive features — beautiful forms, pleasant feelings, etc. — it can give rise to passion and delight (§36). This passion and delight can take many forms, but the most tenacious is the habitual act of fabricating a sense of me or mine, identifying with a particular khandha (or set of khandhas) or claiming possession of it.
This sense of me and mine is rarely static. It roams like an amoeba, changing its contours as it changes location. Sometimes expansive, sometimes contracted, it can view itself as identical with a khandha, as possessing a khandha, as existing within a khandha, or as having a khandha existing within itself (§24). At times feeling finite, at other times infinite (§25), whatever shape it takes it's always unstable and insecure, for the khandhas providing its food are simply activities and functions, inconstant and insubstantial. In the words of the canon, the khandhas are like foam, like a mirage, like the bubbles formed when rain falls on water (§44). They're heavy only because the iron grip of trying to cling to them is burdensome. As long as we're addicted to passion and delight for these activities — as long as we cling to them — we're bound to suffer.
And this, he points out, most likely ties into the original meaning of khandha as 'tree trunk' and the "pervasive fire imagery in the canon," e.g., "nibbana being the extinguishing of the fires of passion, aversion, and delusion."
Thanissaro has said: "All phenomena have Unbinding [Nibbana] as their final end.'
So how does a block of concrete have Nibbana as its final end? Can a block of concrete end suffering?
Again, I think you're misrepresenting Thanissaro.
If you read his note to this particular translation, which you partially reference below, it makes it clear that he takes the phrase "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) to be a reference to the five aggregates in apparent agreement with the commentary to AN 8.83, not to a block of concrete. (Where he disagrees is the commentary's treatment of the statement, "All phenomena are rooted in desire," as dealing exclusively with worldly phenomena, noting that "the noble eightfold path, when brought to maturity, counts as transcendent, and it is obviously rooted in a skillful form of desire.")
That said, I actually quite like your explanation of the phrase sabba dhamma as 'all skillful practises,' and I think it works equally as well, if not better.
As for the transcendent in its ultimate form, the phrase "all phenomena" as used in this sutta does not cover Unbinding, as Unbinding is not rooted in anything and, as the final statement indicates, it constitutes the final end of all phenomena.
This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed.
I meant that Shakyamuni himself taught that there are 4 things in life that are true. They are called the "4 Noble Truths". This was one of the first things that he taught after getting his enlightenment.
Simple version:
1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. This is the path to the cessation of suffering.
More detailed version:
1: Sariputta: "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
2. "Now what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming...
3. And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving."
4. "And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding."
Hi seeker , I choose to belief that he was wrongly quoted . Siddharta fear old,sick ,death but I also belief his most fear is fear of not knowing . After he found buddha...he understand why we suffer ...so ALL SUFFERING SHOULD ENDS AFTER SIDDHARTA FOUND BUDDHA.
we once had a thread on this site about the very same Thanissaro talk, where the meditator was spooked by her guru, her 'elements' went bcrazy and she had to release her mind into some form of 'emptiness'
i listened to the talk myself
do not the Thai villagers talk about ghosts & stuff?
are not these things reported in the talks of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Maha-Boowa, etc?
The teaching is 'attachment to the five aggregates is suffering'. Finished. Simple & easy to understand, without the need for convoluted commentary by a 'guru'.
Buddha said his teaching is unconvoluted, open, plain, free from patchwork. (MN 22).
It is the role of bhikkhus to patch up their robes rather than patch up the teachings.
If you read his note to this particular translation, which you partially reference below, it makes it clear that he takes the phrase "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) to be a reference to the five aggregates in apparent agreement with the commentary to AN 8.83, not to a block of concrete.
Dude
A block of concrete is 'form' (rupa).
As for AN 8.83, we have been thru this before. Thanissaro is blindly following the Commentary Tradition.
The word 'dhamma' in the sutta is in the context as follows:
"O Bhikkhus. The footprints of all land-bound creatures fit within the footprint of the elephant; the elephant's footprint is said to be the supreme footprint in terms of size. Similarly all skilful dhammas have heedfulness as their base, converge within the bounds of heedfulness. Heedfulness may be said to be supreme amongst those dhammas." [S.V.43]
"I see no other dhamma which is as much a cause for arising of as-yet unarisen skilful dhammas and the decline of already arisen unskilful dhammas as heedfulness. When one is heedful, as-yet unarisen skilful dhammas will inevitably arise and unskilful dhammas that have already arisen will inevitably decline." [A.I.11]
"I see no other dhamma that is so conductive to supreme benefit ..." [A.I.16]
"I see no other dhamma that is so conducive to the stability, the non-degeneration, the non-disappearance of the True Dhamma as heedfulness." [A.I.17]
"Looking at it as an 'internal factor' I see no other dhamma so conducive to supreme benefit as heedfulness." [A.I.16-17]
So allow us to translate AN 8.83 according to both reason & reality (rather according to blind faith):
All skilful dhammas are rooted in zeal (chanda).*
All skilful dhammas come into play through attention.
All skilful dhammas have contact as their origination.
All skilful dhammas have feeling as their meeting place. **
All skilful dhammas have concentration as their presiding state.***
All skilful dhammas are governed by mindfulness.
Of, all skilful dhammas, wisdom is supreme.
All skilful dhammas have release as their heartwood.
All skilful dhammas gain a foothold in the deathless.****
All skilful dhammas have Nibbana as their fulfilment or culmination.
I suggest running this by Thanissaro.
* There is the case where a monk develops the base of power [iddhipada] endowed with concentration founded on zeal [chanda] & the fabrications of exertion...(SN 51.20)
*"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the development of the four frames of reference... the four right exertions... the four bases of power [iddhipada]... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors for awakening... the noble eightfold path: such are the monks in this community of monks.
** Whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. Briefly, it is in this way, ruler of gods, that a bhikkhu is liberated in the destruction of craving. (MN 37)
*** The Blessed One said: "Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions. (MN 117)
****The Blessed One said, "Mindfulness of death, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit & great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its final end. Therefore you should develop mindfulness of death." (AN 6.19)
we once had a thread on this site about the very same Thanissaro talk, where the meditator was spooked by her guru, her 'elements' went bcrazy and she had to release her mind into some form of 'emptiness'
i listened to the talk myself
Then provide a link so we can all listen to the talk and discuss exactly what was said.
The teaching is 'attachment to the five aggregates is suffering'. Finished. Simple & easy to understand, without the need for convoluted commentary by a 'guru'.
Whether it's translated literally as 'five clinging-aggregates' or 'attachment to the five aggregates,' it's simple and easy for me to understand. I'm not sure why you decide to turn this thread into a polemic against Thanissaro, but most of these criticisms seem pretty baseless to me.
If you read his note to this particular translation, which you partially reference below, it makes it clear that he takes the phrase "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) to be a reference to the five aggregates in apparent agreement with the commentary to AN 8.83, not to a block of concrete.
Dude
A block of concrete is 'form' (rupa).
As you're well aware, in the context of the five aggregates, form refers to the form of the body, not a block of concrete.
As for AN 8.83, we have been thru this before. Thanissaro has no idea about what he is talking about, blindly following the Commentary Tradition.
Another ad hominem, and a peculiar one at that since, in the very note we're discussing, Thanissaro disagrees with the commentary's treatment of the statement, "All phenomena are rooted in desire," as dealing exclusively with worldly phenomena, noting that "the noble eightfold path, when brought to maturity, counts as transcendent, and it is obviously rooted in a skillful form of desire."
As for AN 8.83, we have been thru this before. Thanissaro is blindly following the Commentary Tradition.
The word 'dhamma' in the sutta is in the context as follows:
"O Bhikkhus. The footprints of all land-bound creatures fit within the footprint of the elephant; the elephant's footprint is said to be the supreme footprint in terms of size. Similarly all skilful dhammas have heedfulness as their base, converge within the bounds of heedfulness. Heedfulness may be said to be supreme amongst those dhammas." [S.V.43]
"I see no other dhamma which is as much a cause for arising of as-yet unarisen skilful dhammas and the decline of already arisen unskilful dhammas as heedfulness. When one is heedful, as-yet unarisen skilful dhammas will inevitably arise and unskilful dhammas that have already arisen will inevitably decline." [A.I.11]
"I see no other dhamma that is so conductive to supreme benefit ..." [A.I.16]
"I see no other dhamma that is so conducive to the stability, the non-degeneration, the non-disappearance of the True Dhamma as heedfulness." [A.I.17]
"Looking at it as an 'internal factor' I see no other dhamma so conducive to supreme benefit as heedfulness." [A.I.16-17]
Yes, we have. It took me some time to dig it up, but here's my response from last time:
To begin with, the term "dhammā," often translated as "phenomena," can mean anything that arises in our experience or anything that is directly experienced in and of itself.
Furthermore, in the context of this sutta, the ancient commentary equates the phrase "all phenomena" with the five aggregates, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes is most likely "an expansion on MN 109, in which the five clinging-aggregates are said to be rooted in desire, an assertion echoed in SN 42.11, which states that "suffering & stress are rooted in desire."
And as far as I can see, there's nothing inconsistent about Thanissaro's translation of AN 10.58:
"All phenomena [the aggregates] are rooted in desire.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] come into play through attention.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have contact as their origination.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have feeling as their meeting place.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have concentration as their presiding state.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have mindfulness as their governing principle.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have discernment as their surpassing state.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have release as their heartwood.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] gain their footing in the deathless.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have Unbinding as their final end."
"... It may be, monks, that wandering ascetics of another persuasion should ask you: 'In what are all things rooted? Whereby do they come to actual existence? Where do they arise? Where do they converge? What is the foremost in all things? What is their master? What is the highest of all things? What is the essence in all things? Where do all things merge? Where do they end?'
"If thus questioned, monks, you should reply in the following way:
"'All things are rooted in the will. All things come to actual existence through attention. All things arise from contact. All things converge on feelings. Of all things the foremost is concentration. All things are mastered by mindfulness. Of all things the highest is wisdom. In all things the essence is liberation. All things merge in the Deathless. And Nibbaana is the ending of all things.'"
As well as Bhikkhu Bodhi:
"It may be, O monks, that wandering ascetics of another persuasion might ask you: "In what are all things rooted? How do they come to actual existence? Where do they arise? Where do they converge? What is the foremost in all things? What is their master? What is the highest of all things? What is the essence in all things? Where do all things merge? Where do they end?
If you are thus questioned, monks, you should reply as follows: "All things are rooted in desire. They come to actual existence through attention, originate from contact, and converge on feelings. The foremost of all things is concentration. All things are mastered by mindfulness. Their peak is wisdom, their essence liberation. All things merge in the Deathless, and Nibbana is their culmination."
Further support of this interpretation is the fact that the original Pali being translated as "phenomena" is the plural form of dhammā (ending with a long ā):
Although I'm no expert in Pali, my understanding is that the plural form "dhammā" is almost never used to refer to teachings. That is more commonly found with the singular form "dhamma" (ending with a short a).
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, it's certainly plausible, but considering all of the above, I'm still not convinced that your interpretation is the correct one.
Not all of them, no, but a few of them in this thread have been.
An ad hominmen is defined as a personal attack, mainly against an opponent's character, and claiming that Thanissro is "blindly following the Commentary Tradition" (especially when the reality is that he doesn't) is an example of an ad hominem. It attacks his character as a translator and not the merits of his translation. (I notice that you edited the beginning of that statement, so I won't address that part.)
If you disagree with his translation, you can make a good case against it without resorting to the above.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
I have not done such a thing.
I have simply said the premise is invalid.
As for Thanissaro, I trust he is a good man (despite what I regard as poor translations).
My translation is the one that is correct & beneficial.
For example, how can the body aggregates have concentration as its presiding state?
Straw man. Assuming that "all phenomena" is referring to the five aggregates, then that includes all the aggregates together (mind + body), not just form.
Quoting authors all from the same Mahavihara Commentary School does not change anything.
For example, these same authors regard Dependent Origination as occuring of three lifetimes.
The phrase 'sabbe dhamma' here does not mean 'the five aggregates'.
It means "all skilful practices".
I don't see why not. For example, it should be clear from the context that when referring to the "the all" (sabba) and the "the world" or "cosmos" (loka), the Buddha was using these terms as metaphors for the five aggregates or the six sense spheres. It's plausible that the same applies here.
As I said earlier, I actually quite like your explanation of the phrase sabba dhamma as 'all skillful practises,' and I think it works equally as well, if not better. However, assuming that your translation is the "correct & beneficial" one, it still depends a fair amount of interpretation itself since the word skillful (kusala) doesn't actually appear as it does in, say, AN 10.15, where the Pali reads "kusalesu dhammesu," so it'd have to be implied.
Certainly not non-sequitur. Each author is following the views of the same sect.
It is for three reason. The first is that we're not discussing dependent co-arising at all. The second is that Thanissaro occasionally references the commentaries when he thinks it can help elucidate a point or when he disagrees with the commentrial gloss. So, for example, he'll use the commentarial definition of dukkha as 'that which is hard to bear,' but then he'll also point out areas where he disagrees or finds their treatment peculiar (e.g., here). And regardless of what the commentaries say about dependent co-arising or how you feel about it, that doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.
An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), also known as argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
I have not done such a thing.
That's precisely what you did when you said, "Thanissaro has no idea about what he is talking about, blindly following the Commentary Tradition." But since you edited it after the fact and removed the part about Thanissaro not knowing what he's talking about, I'll admit that it's less of an ad hominem than it was before.
When I started to post here I am confident that I will learn alot , yes indeed I learn alot , many question / views or even belief had push me to think and I am happy that ....I think I am a better person....in better awareness now ....I hope more and more discussion so that we could explore more....I NEVER expect to find ( not even imagine ) is that I notice a lot of anger here..... I find laughter even in porn site but I never expect find ego , selfishness in Buddhism site......
When I started to post here I am confident that I will learn alot , yes indeed I learn alot , many question / views or even belief had push me to think and I am happy that ....I think I am a better person....in better awareness now ....I hope more and more discussion so that we could explore more....I NEVER expect to find ( not even imagine ) is that I notice a lot of anger here..... I find laughter even in porn site but I never expect find ego , selfishness in Buddhism site......
A lively discussion isn't necessarily an angry discussion, and debating ideas can be a great aid in learning. For example, I learn a lot from DD, even if I don't always agree with him. I find his challenging replies refreshing.
When I started to post here I am confident that I will learn alot , yes indeed I learn alot , many question / views or even belief had push me to think and I am happy that ....I think I am a better person....in better awareness now ....I hope more and more discussion so that we could explore more....I NEVER expect to find ( not even imagine ) is that I notice a lot of anger here..... I find laughter even in porn site but I never expect find ego , selfishness in Buddhism site......
A lively discussion isn't necessarily an angry discussion, and debating ideas can be a great aid in learning. For example, I learn a lot from DD, even if I don't always agree with him. I find his challenging replies refreshing.
Hi Jason....I am sorry maybe you are righ....if all of us here share same views I admit I was wrong.....lets us share ok.....my coffin is closer to me each day....I hope I will be confident enough one just to walk in and sleep inside smilling instead of someone drag or push me inside....I think you understand me ...
we once had a thread on this site about the very same Thanissaro talk, where the meditator was spooked by her guru, her 'elements' went bcrazy and she had to release her mind into some form of 'emptiness'
i listened to the talk myself
do not the Thai villagers talk about ghosts & stuff?
are not these things reported in the talks of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Maha-Boowa, etc?
:zombie:
is your Dharma Dhatu developed enough to see pretas (ghosts) or asuras (demons)? ...I guess pretas and asuras... prefer to avoid me.
The teaching is 'attachment to the five aggregates is suffering'. Finished. Simple & easy to understand, without the need for convoluted commentary by a 'guru'.
Buddha said his teaching is unconvoluted, open, plain, free from patchwork. (MN 22).
It is the role of bhikkhus to patch up their robes rather than patch up the teachings.
The teaching is 'attachment to the five aggregates is suffering'. Finished. Simple & easy to understand, without the need for convoluted commentary by a 'guru'.
Whether it's translated literally as 'five clinging-aggregates' or 'attachment to the five aggregates,' it's simple and easy for me to understand. I'm not sure why you decide to turn this thread into a polemic against Thanissaro, but most of these criticisms seem pretty baseless to me.
"attachment to the five aggregates is suffering" is clearer clearer means closer to the Dharma.
When I started to post here I am confident that I will learn alot , yes indeed I learn alot , many question / views or even belief had push me to think and I am happy that ....I think I am a better person....in better awareness now ....I hope more and more discussion so that we could explore more....I NEVER expect to find ( not even imagine ) is that I notice a lot of anger here..... (...)
some are not free from anger... CSEe. I guess you are free from it.
When I started to post here I am confident that I will learn alot , yes indeed I learn alot , many question / views or even belief had push me to think and I am happy that ....I think I am a better person....in better awareness now ....I hope more and more discussion so that we could explore more....I NEVER expect to find ( not even imagine ) is that I notice a lot of anger here..... I find laughter even in porn site but I never expect find ego , selfishness in Buddhism site......
A lively discussion isn't necessarily an angry discussion, and debating ideas can be a great aid in learning. For example, I learn a lot from DD, even if I don't always agree with him. I find his challenging replies refreshing.
well... a lively discussion leads to an angry discussion. one thing is virya (energy, power), and the other is anger.
Lively debate certainly doesn't mean anger is involved in any way. Personally I really enjoy reading debates between DD and Jason and find it puzzling that others would want to intervene with comments which are irrelevant to the discussion.
not so sure about zeal; chanda can be more like: will, willpower, determination?
sure
finding the right word is not easy
bhikkhu bodhi uses 'zeal'
for me, thanissaro's 'desire' is too generic & potentially misleading given chanda here is a quality leading to enlightenment
Ñanamoli used 'the will'
buddhadasa would say 'love of duty', which is not a convenient single word & a bit idiosyncratic
buddhadasa's works have also been translated from the thai as "zeal", "will" & "aspiration"
chanda does have the quality of love or enthusiasm, which I think needs to be captured and 'the will' can miss that
so finding the right word is difficult
i prefer 'zeal' because it contains that quality of devoted enthusiasm
kind regards
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
But since you edited it after the fact...
Hey dude
Your'e the moderator and that's cheating!
:dunce:
No, He's not, but I am...
Lively debate certainly doesn't mean anger is involved in any way. Personally I really enjoy reading debates between DD and Jason and find it puzzling that others would want to intervene with comments which are irrelevant to the discussion.
I've gone through and deleted irrelevant, superfluous and unnecessary interjections by other members. The discussion may occasionally veer into the 'heated' but all in all it's educational and very illuminating to see such discussion taking place. Both DD and Jason are 'big' enough to conduct themselves in a manner fitting to the forum. Having known Jason for a very long time, he is far more lenient and reluctant to implement his Moderator role, and does not abuse his position. he never has, and never will. if anything, I sometimes think he's extremely lenient, whereas I am apt to kick@ss a little more swiftly.
as I have done here, evidently. And will continue to do.
Actually, moderators can't see changes after they've been made; we could potentially do that on the old forum software, but not anymore. I simply quoted and responded to the reply before it was edited, that's all.
not so sure about zeal; chanda can be more like: will, willpower, determination?
sure
finding the right word is not easy
bhikkhu bodhi uses 'zeal'
for me, thanissaro's 'desire' is too generic & potentially misleading given chanda here is a quality leading to enlightenment
Ñanamoli used 'the will'
buddhadasa would say 'love of duty', which is not a convenient single word & a bit idiosyncratic
buddhadasa's works have also been translated from the thai as "zeal", "will" & "aspiration"
chanda does have the quality of love or enthusiasm, which I think needs to be captured and 'the will' can miss that
so finding the right word is difficult
i prefer 'zeal' because it contains that quality of devoted enthusiasm
I like 'desire' and 'zeal' depending on the context, but I think they both work well to describe chanda. For example, in that case of kama-chanda, I think 'sensual desire' and 'zeal for sensuality' work equally as well. In the case of dhamma-chanda, desire as part of the path, I think zeal is a bit more evocative, such as Nyanatiloka's 'righteous zeal/will.' I tend to shy away from 'will,' however, mainly due to the Western philosophical baggage associated with that term, but that's simply a personal preference on my part.
Hi seeker , I choose to belief that he was wrongly quoted . Siddharta fear old,sick ,death but I also belief his most fear is fear of not knowing . After he found buddha...he understand why we suffer ...so ALL SUFFERING SHOULD ENDS AFTER SIDDHARTA FOUND BUDDHA.
I agree in the ultimate sense but we don't live in the ultimate world, we live in the conventional world. In the conventional world, your personal suffering does not end until YOU find, for yourself, what Siddharta himself found. That is why he taught about what he found to begin with.
Hi seeker , I choose to belief that he was wrongly quoted . Siddharta fear old,sick ,death but I also belief his most fear is fear of not knowing . After he found buddha...he understand why we suffer ...so ALL SUFFERING SHOULD ENDS AFTER SIDDHARTA FOUND BUDDHA.
I agree in the ultimate sense but we don't live in the ultimate world, we live in the conventional world. In the conventional world, your personal suffering does not end until YOU find, for yourself, what Siddharta himself found. That is why he taught about what he found to begin with.
If it were possible not to live in the ultimate world it wouldn't be very ultimate, would it?
Hi seeker , I choose to belief that he was wrongly quoted . Siddharta fear old,sick ,death but I also belief his most fear is fear of not knowing . After he found buddha...he understand why we suffer ...so ALL SUFFERING SHOULD ENDS AFTER SIDDHARTA FOUND BUDDHA.
I agree in the ultimate sense but we don't live in the ultimate world, we live in the conventional world. In the conventional world, your personal suffering does not end until YOU find, for yourself, what Siddharta himself found. That is why he taught about what he found to begin with.
If it were possible not to live in the ultimate world it wouldn't be very ultimate, would it?
That depends if you have wrong perceptions or not. And everyone, except for a Buddha, has wrong perceptions.
What do you mean by "wrong perceptions?" What is "right perception?" What differentiates right perception from wrong perception?
What I meant was the presence of ignorance. An example of a typical wrong perception is "I am enlightened". Right perception mean perceiving without ignorance. What differentiates the two is that one is born of ignorance while the other is not.
Comments
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with translating the compound panca-upadana-khandha as as 'five clinging-aggregates.' For one thing, it's a fairly literal translation, panca = 5, upadana = clinging, khanda = aggregate. And while I agree that something like 'five aggregates subject to clinging' would be a lot clearer, I think you're misrepresenting Thanissaro's translation considering that he never implies the aggregates themselves cling, only that they're "clingable" (SN 22.48), "affected by clinging" (his note to AN 10.58), etc.
Moreover, I'm pretty familiar with both his translations and his original works, and as far as I can recall, he never presents the aggregates as things that cling, but he always refers to them as clingable phenomena on top of which we mentally construct our sense of self in a process of "I-making" and "my-making" (MN 109). In The Five Aggregates: A Study Guide, he makes this explicitly clear: And this, he points out, most likely ties into the original meaning of khandha as 'tree trunk' and the "pervasive fire imagery in the canon," e.g., "nibbana being the extinguishing of the fires of passion, aversion, and delusion." Again, I think you're misrepresenting Thanissaro.
If you read his note to this particular translation, which you partially reference below, it makes it clear that he takes the phrase "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) to be a reference to the five aggregates in apparent agreement with the commentary to AN 8.83, not to a block of concrete. (Where he disagrees is the commentary's treatment of the statement, "All phenomena are rooted in desire," as dealing exclusively with worldly phenomena, noting that "the noble eightfold path, when brought to maturity, counts as transcendent, and it is obviously rooted in a skillful form of desire.")
That said, I actually quite like your explanation of the phrase sabba dhamma as 'all skillful practises,' and I think it works equally as well, if not better. No, as he clearly states in his note to SN 35.23:
we once had a thread on this site about the very same Thanissaro talk, where the meditator was spooked by her guru, her 'elements' went bcrazy and she had to release her mind into some form of 'emptiness'
i listened to the talk myself
do not the Thai villagers talk about ghosts & stuff?
are not these things reported in the talks of Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Maha-Boowa, etc?
:zombie:
Buddha said his teaching is unconvoluted, open, plain, free from patchwork. (MN 22).
It is the role of bhikkhus to patch up their robes rather than patch up the teachings.
Suffering = attachment.
Attachment = suffering.
Non-suffering = non-attachment.
Non-attachment = non-suffering.
If we think Thanissaro could translate clearer then why does he not do so?
We both know what the Buddha said about slandering his teachings.
If interpretation is required when it should not be required then that is slander.
All the best
A block of concrete is 'form' (rupa).
As for AN 8.83, we have been thru this before. Thanissaro is blindly following the Commentary Tradition.
The word 'dhamma' in the sutta is in the context as follows:
Thanissaro is way off the mark (but at least comes close with 'skilful desire').
'Sabbe dhamma' does not mean the five aggregates.
My posts are not ad hominem. My criticisms are not basesless.
I sugggest you study them carefully.
This will be for your welfare & happiness.
To begin with, the term "dhammā," often translated as "phenomena," can mean anything that arises in our experience or anything that is directly experienced in and of itself.
Furthermore, in the context of this sutta, the ancient commentary equates the phrase "all phenomena" with the five aggregates, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes is most likely "an expansion on MN 109, in which the five clinging-aggregates are said to be rooted in desire, an assertion echoed in SN 42.11, which states that "suffering & stress are rooted in desire."
And as far as I can see, there's nothing inconsistent about Thanissaro's translation of AN 10.58: In fact, that's how Nyanaponika Thera translates it: As well as Bhikkhu Bodhi: Further support of this interpretation is the fact that the original Pali being translated as "phenomena" is the plural form of dhammā (ending with a long ā): Although I'm no expert in Pali, my understanding is that the plural form "dhammā" is almost never used to refer to teachings. That is more commonly found with the singular form "dhamma" (ending with a short a).
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, it's certainly plausible, but considering all of the above, I'm still not convinced that your interpretation is the correct one.
For example, how can the body aggregate have concentration as its presiding state?
Quoting authors all from the same Mahavihara Commentary School does not change anything.
All the best.
An ad hominmen is defined as a personal attack, mainly against an opponent's character, and claiming that Thanissro is "blindly following the Commentary Tradition" (especially when the reality is that he doesn't) is an example of an ad hominem. It attacks his character as a translator and not the merits of his translation. (I notice that you edited the beginning of that statement, so I won't address that part.)
If you disagree with his translation, you can make a good case against it without resorting to the above.
Examples:
"You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
"Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
I have not done such a thing.
I have simply said the premise is invalid.
As for Thanissaro, I trust he is a good man (despite what I regard as poor translations).
So how do the five aggregates have Nibbana as their find end?
How do the five aggregates have liberation as their heartwood?
How do feelings have wisdom as their supreme state? Do feelings have wisdom?
What I said is not a "straw man".
Anway. I will leave it to you.
All the best.
As I said earlier, I actually quite like your explanation of the phrase sabba dhamma as 'all skillful practises,' and I think it works equally as well, if not better. However, assuming that your translation is the "correct & beneficial" one, it still depends a fair amount of interpretation itself since the word skillful (kusala) doesn't actually appear as it does in, say, AN 10.15, where the Pali reads "kusalesu dhammesu," so it'd have to be implied.
Sabbe dhamma is just a small 'all'; like in sabbe satta (all beings) or sabbe kaya (all bodies).
As for 'The All', this is an old Brahministic phrase the Buddha redefined or improved.
All the best
I find laughter even in porn site but I never expect find ego , selfishness in Buddhism site......
...I guess pretas and asuras... prefer to avoid me.
non-attachment begets non-suffering
not so sure about zeal; chanda can be more like: will, willpower, determination?
clearer means closer to the Dharma.
Personally I really enjoy reading debates between DD and Jason and find it puzzling that others would want to intervene with comments which are irrelevant to the discussion.
Your'e the moderator and that's cheating!
:dunce:
finding the right word is not easy
bhikkhu bodhi uses 'zeal'
for me, thanissaro's 'desire' is too generic & potentially misleading given chanda here is a quality leading to enlightenment
Ñanamoli used 'the will'
buddhadasa would say 'love of duty', which is not a convenient single word & a bit idiosyncratic
buddhadasa's works have also been translated from the thai as "zeal", "will" & "aspiration"
chanda does have the quality of love or enthusiasm, which I think needs to be captured and 'the will' can miss that
so finding the right word is difficult
i prefer 'zeal' because it contains that quality of devoted enthusiasm
kind regards
Both DD and Jason are 'big' enough to conduct themselves in a manner fitting to the forum.
Having known Jason for a very long time, he is far more lenient and reluctant to implement his Moderator role, and does not abuse his position. he never has, and never will.
if anything, I sometimes think he's extremely lenient, whereas I am apt to kick@ss a little more swiftly.
as I have done here, evidently. And will continue to do.
do carry on, gentlemen.
What I meant was the presence of ignorance. An example of a typical wrong perception is "I am enlightened". Right perception mean perceiving without ignorance. What differentiates the two is that one is born of ignorance while the other is not.