අනාත්ම ස්වභාවය | අනත්තං අසාරඛට්ඨේනන්ති

[Emios]

we are talking two dukkas here.. dukka as feeling/emotions and dukka as lakkana.. lakkana is a nature, not dukka (feeling)

cliging to skandas (with dukka lakkana) cause dukka (feeling)

yeah i'm reffering to it too,budda says rupam ko maro,vedana maro, in that the cup hotness itself is mara. if you say there is a separate lakkana to and you can get cling to.it doesn't sound right?

 

[ek_rosh]

yeah i'm reffering to it too,budda says rupam ko maro,vedana maro, in that the cup hotness itself is mara. if you say there is a separate lakkana to and you can get cling to.it doesn't sound right?

there is no separate lakkana cup being fire/mara is the lakkana...

mara/fire itself has no harm unless you touch it..

 

[Emios]

there is no separate lakkana cup being fire/mara is the lakkana...

mara/fire itself has no harm unless you touch it..

how do you say no harm? if you say you don't touch it, it becomes a separate entity of its own

 

[ek_rosh]

how do you say no harm? if you say you don't touch it, it becomes a separate entity of its own

there is no entity/you of clinging... avijja conditions clinging.

avijja->sankara->.............->upadana(clinging)

no harm: no dukka(emotional) unless clinging happens

 

[Emios]

there is no entity of clinging... avijja conditions clinging.

avijja->sankara->.............->upadana(clinging)

no harm: no dukka(emotional) unless clinging happens

my argument is the skandas itself is mara/harm. it comes with clinging.if there is no clining you cant call it not mara.not harmful.it already has a deceiving nature to it.cling or not

 

[ek_rosh]

my argument is the skandas itself is mara/harm. it comes with clinging.if there is no clining you cant call it not mara.not harmful.it already has a deceiving nature to it.cling or not

mara/fire has harmful NATURE...coz, if you touch you get burned...

NATURE itself is not a harm

 

[Emios]

mara/fire has harmful NATURE...coz, if you touch you get burned...

NATURE itself is not a harm

no i disagree that is not how buddha address it.he referrs to clining in second verses.if you call it that way you create a separate entity

 

[ek_rosh]

no i disagree that is not how buddha address it.he referrs to clining in second verses.if you call it that way you create a separate entity

explain pls..

 

[Emios]

explain pls..

it always touches us arises from both ends,there in no untouch from it.if you say you don't get burned from it,you create a separate exiting nature apart from you that is not harmful and lives beyond you.

 

[ek_rosh]

it always touches us arises from both ends,there in no untouch from it.

yes, with avijjas presence... clinging present when clinging present, me/i, dukkka (hurting/burning) present.

if you say you don't get burned from it,you create a separate exiting nature apart from you that is not harmful and lives beyond you.

when avijja is absent, clinging (touching) is absent...when cliging is absent.. me/i, dukka (hurting/burning) absent...

no entity..no person, no you. nothing seperate created...


paticccasapupada 101

 

[Emios]

yes, with avijjas presence... clinging present when clinging present, me/i, dukkka (hurting/burning) present.




when avijja is absent, clinging (touching) is absent...when cliging is absent.. me/i, dukka (hurting/burning) absent...

no entity..no person, no you. nothing seperate created...

no you didn't get what i said still the whole web itself is burning,avidya or not avidya the skandas itself has a deceiving nature to it.the web is born with it.not because of avidja the burning is present,rupayak hamuwana tanama burning eka present no need to cling,clinging drags sansara

 

[ek_rosh]

no you didn't get what i said still the whole web itself is burning,avidya or not avidya the skandas itself has a deceiving nature to it.the web is born with it.not because of avidja the burning is present,rupayak hamuwana tanama burning eka present no need to cling,clinging drags sansara

yes, whole web is fire/burning. but causes no sarrow/dukka unless avijja is present

 

[Emios]

yes, whole web is fire/burning. but causes no sarrow/dukka unless avijja is present

yes but you cant say the skandas are itself harmless.it is not the correct address,that's what i was pointing,it has a harm nature build in it.

 

[ek_rosh]

yes but you cant say the skandas are itself harmless.it is not the correct address,that's what i was pointing,it has a harm nature build in it.

you need to understand why they are called harmful..

harmful doesnt mean they are harming by its nature..

 

[Emios]

you need to understand why they are called harmful..

harmful doesnt mean they are harming by its nature..

they are,it is deceiving and mara.its their nature.the moment you call it not harming by nature you create it a identitiy.

 

[ek_rosh]

they are,it is deceiving and mara.its their nature.the moment you call it not harming by nature you create it a identitiy.

dont you create an identity when you say harming instead of not harming?

you need to get the idea.. not how I say it...

 

[Yeezus]

you need to understand why they are called harmful..

harmful doesnt mean they are harming by its nature..

ආනන්ද සර්පයා දුටුවෙහිද ?
A sack of gold = snake ?

Did you mean it's relative to the persojn whether harmful or not ? Considering the above example - Lay person can evoke " තණ්හා " but an entitled person won't ...

Did you mean this context in the term " harmful doesnt mean they are harming by its nature "

 

[Emios]

dont you create an identity when you say harming instead of not harming?

you need to get the idea.. not how I say it...

it's buddhas words to call it mara,you cant say harming is not there nature.buddha said only clinging to it drags the samsara.not like clinging to it only brings harming.the web itself is burning.

 

[ek_rosh]

ආනන්ද සර්පයා දුටුවෙහිද ?
A sack of gold = snake ?

Did you mean it's relative to the persojn whether harmful or not ? Considering the above example - Lay person can evoke " තණ්හා " but an entitled person won't ...

Did you mean this context in the term " harmful doesnt mean they are harming by its nature "

snake is harmful by its nature... coz he CAN n bite/ he has tendency to bite (this fact does not change depending on the person)

BUT he bites only when you touch... (doesnt cause any sorrow to the person who doesnt touch)

harmfulness - universal fact
harming - depends on the person

 

[Emios]

snake is harmful by its nature... coz he CAN n bite/ he has tendency to bite (this fact does not change depending on the person)

BUT he bites only when you touch... (doesnt cause any sorrow to the person who doesnt touch)

harmfulness - universal fact
harming - depends on the person

snake is never a non harming one.it can bite regardless of the person touching it or not.it has a biting nature to it.if you call a snake non harming its not a correct addressing