ශුන්‍යතා දහම

Emios

Well-known member
  • Dec 10, 2009
    74,824
    67,059
    113
    they are not inherently mara.. clinging to them is mara

    khandha mara
    klesha mara
    Im astonished you say like this.those are secondary results.rupaya itself is mara,budda says that to radha thero in its discussion
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nipund

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    838
    678
    93
    they are not inherently mara.. clinging to them is mara

    khandha mara
    klesha mara
    Yes, this is actually stated at the end of the Sutta. This is the problem when people read half of a Sutta and take what they like to take.

    Im astonished you say like this.those are secondary results.rupaya itself is mara,budda says that to radha thero in its discussion
    Read the whole thing :rolleyes:
    ------ Post added on Jun 11, 2026 at 9:36 AM
     

    Emios

    Well-known member
  • Dec 10, 2009
    74,824
    67,059
    113
    Yes, this is actually stated at the end of the Sutta. This is the problem when people read half of a Sutta and take what they like to take.


    Read the whole thing :rolleyes:
    ------ Post added on Jun 11, 2026 at 9:36 AM
    clinging is the trap to sansara.but form itself is mara.
     

    ek_rosh

    Well-known member
  • May 9, 2014
    3,246
    2,097
    113
    Im astonished you say like this.those are secondary results.rupaya itself is mara,budda says that to radha thero in its discussion

    i have read several ways how this one has been interpreted. another way that rupa called mara is becuase its dying nature..
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Blair Solari

    Emios

    Well-known member
  • Dec 10, 2009
    74,824
    67,059
    113
    buddha has said multiple places, rupa is not the problem.

    this Radha is prutakjana...rupa referred here could most probably be upadhana-rupa. Buddha has omitted upadhana part in many places.
    What to be taken as rupa without i,of course this is told to pruthakjana and to us.all we can see is updana rupa.and tripitaka is one of them
     

    Blair Solari

    Well-known member
  • Dec 9, 2025
    2,430
    1,920
    113
    රූපය පිරිසිද දැකීම තමයි රූප නිරෝධය

    රූපයක් නෙමෙයි..
    රුප්පන ස්වභාවය
     

    Emios

    Well-known member
  • Dec 10, 2009
    74,824
    67,059
    113
    Don't think that's correct, 5 aggregates + avidya/thrushna where "I" is born, 5 aggregates themselves has nothing to do with "I"
    How do you talk about 5 aggregates without an i? The moment you talk about 5 agreegates you are in maras land
     

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    838
    678
    93
    How do you talk about 5 aggregates without an i? The moment you talk about 5 agreegates you are in maras land
    This is what you need to learn properly, "sense something" is one thing "I sense something" is something else.
     

    Emios

    Well-known member
  • Dec 10, 2009
    74,824
    67,059
    113
    This is what you need to learn properly, "sense something" is one thing "I sense something" is something else.
    What are the 5 agrragtaes that ‘exists’ beyond you?or when you disappear do they exist as standalone
     

    ek_rosh

    Well-known member
  • May 9, 2014
    3,246
    2,097
    113
    What to be taken as rupa without i,of course this is told to pruthakjana and to us.all we can see is updana rupa.and tripitaka is one of them

    concept (tripitaka) is not wrong. clinging to it with wrong view is the problem. buddha has also used concepts.