All, I see here is as an idiot it is better to take the body as mama instead of citta because body lasts longer than citta.. I dont see he acknowledges there is mama in either body or citta. Am i missing something here?
Latest ads
-
Professional CCTV Installation Service
- Techguy231
- Updated:
-
I'll research & write an article - Rs. 2000 onwards
- Blogerwiki
- Updated:
-
House Plan- lenura
- Updated:
-
iphone x used- AssassiN1
- Updated:
-
කිතුල් තලප- Manoj Suranga Bandara
- Updated:
සෝවාන් ඵලයට පමුණවන සතිපට්ඨානය හෙවත් යෝනිසෝමනසිකාරය
- Thread starter MalSeven
- Start date
All, I see here is as an idiot it is better to take the body as mama instead of citta because body lasts longer than citta.. I dont see he acknowledges there is mama in either body or citta. Am i missing something here?
Ayyooooo tama ahen midune nadda.
nethi mama hatagena innawa.hatagena nethi mama tiyenawa.
------ Post added on Mar 21, 2023 at 8:25 AM
Nethi mama innawa.
nethi mama hatagena innawa.hatagena nethi mama tiyenawa.------ Post added on Mar 21, 2023 at 8:25 AM
Last edited:
What I see is, if you are an idiot, there is “mama”, but load Buddha recommends taking body as mama over mind (citta). So, in this case, he acknowledges there is mama as far as idiots are concerned. Unless he wouldn’t recommend that, he could have simply said, there isn’t anything as such, therefore mind and/or body should not be taken as mama.
මහණෙනි, අශ්රැතවත් පෘථග්ජනතෙම ‘සිත මමයයි ගන්නවාට වඩා මේ සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත් කය මමයයි ගැනීම හොඳය.’
So, you read this as buddha recommends taking body as "mama"? Where does he recommend taking something as "mama" here. Im still missing that part.
Last edited:
Doesn’t he recommend that taking body as mama over mind (citta) is the better option here? Therefore, he acknowledges that, there is “mama” for idiots. What’s here to miss? It is precise and clear.
Well, I dont see he recommends or supports taking either body or mind as mama. What he says is that he sees idiots already take mind as mama. He says for idiots it makes more sense to take body as mama instead of mind coz, it lasts longer. But does he recommend taking any of these as mama? I dont see that in here.
Someone is extremely thirsty and only available is alcohol and poison. Do I recommend/support drinking him any of these? hell no. But that person is trying to drink the poison. So, I tell him given the two choices alcohol is a better option.
Not sure if you see what I point though.
Certainly not supporting or recommending any of those as “mama” I agree with that, but he does recommend taking body as "mama" over mind (citta) – this is a fact, do you agree?
Therefore, irrespective of the technicality, he acknowledges there is “mama” for idiots, else he wouldn’t have recommended something better to take as such. This is my point.
Sorry, I dont agree. I dont see where you get, "he is recommending" from. All he says is both A and B are silly. But for a silly person B makes more sense. But, does he ask to do B? Does he recommend B? no.. I dont see aything else here.
One should take this in context. Read the sutra, at least the beginning.
Thathagatha explains, pruthagjana is unable to see the "viparinaama" of the Citta, but able to see the viparinama of the body. Therefore pruthagjana has the opportunity to become disheartened, disgusted on the body, therefore if he to take I or Me it is advisable to take "I" or "Me:" as body, not citta.
Thathagatha explains, pruthagjana is unable to see the "viparinaama" of the Citta, but able to see the viparinama of the body. Therefore pruthagjana has the opportunity to become disheartened, disgusted on the body, therefore if he to take I or Me it is advisable to take "I" or "Me:" as body, not citta.
------ Post added on Mar 23, 2023 at 9:14 PM
mara sutrayakne niwanama meke tiyenawane okoma.indian unta pissu hadennna athi buduhamruwo mewa kiyanakota
The thing is I dont see "if he to take" as a recommendation or some sort of asking to do so. Like, stop taking citta and start taking body as mama/self.
His recommendation is not to switch mama from citta to body, but to: (5th para of the sutta)
“මහණෙනි, එහිදී ශ්රැතවත් (බොහෝ ඇසූපිරූතැන් ඇති) ආර්ය ශ්රාවකතෙම “පටිච්ච සමුප්පාදයම” මනාකොට නුවණින් කල්පනා කරයි. (කෙසේද?) මේ හේතුව ඇති කල මේ ඵලය ඇතිවෙයි. මේ හේතුවගේ පහළවීමෙන් මේ ඵලය පහළ වෙයි. මෙය නැති කල මෙය නැතිවේ. මෙය නූපන් කල්හි මෙය නූපදියි,
I don’t think you read what I have written correctly, I never said that he is recommending to take something as "mama" all I am saying is for idiots he recommends taking body as "mama" over mind (citta). Note the word ‘over’. This doesn’t mean he recommends taking something as “mama”. He is just pointing out the lesser of two evils. In saying that, he acknowledges that for idiots, there is something to take as such (“mama”).
Yes, but note here “එහිදී ශ්රැතවත් (බොහෝ ඇසූපිරූතැන් ඇති) ආර්ය ශ්රාවකතෙම”. Therefore, this is not intended for idiots.
------ Post added on Mar 24, 2023 at 9:01 AM
Yes, a clear recommendation encompassing a big "IF" condition is there.
IF the puthagjana, due to his ignorance, continue to take "I" or "Me" or "Mine" it it is advisable to relate that (I, Me, Mine) to the rough, tangible body, rather than intangible, unseen, citta or vinnana. If the puthagjana, is to take I. Me, Mine as the rough, tangible body that decays with time, he is to become disheartened with the notion "I, Me, Mine", see that notion as meaningless, a view that is not supported by evidence, and a notion that is not to be entertained by the wise. (Please read- Anupubba patipada- Ganaka Moggallana Sutta)
However Puthagjana will not be able to get disheartened, disgusted, disappointed in Citta, and will hold on to the incorrect view that " Citta is Me, or I" and even "Citta will survive after the death of body".
(This is where blind shradda come in to play, to believe in Thathagatha's advise, the path and to continue in that path without hesitation, with utter determination
)That is why the recommendation of Thathagatha is vital for the untrained shramana who is seeking and keen on liberation.
Thank you for clarifying this in detail Mr. Wijesekara, there is no recommendation to take anything as "I" or "Me" or "Mine" whatsoever, merely recommending one over the other for the reason you have explained. That big 'IF' always applies because we are talking about idiots with ignorance here.Yes, a clear recommendation encompassing a big "IF" condition is there.
IF the puthagjana, due to his ignorance, continue to take "I" or "Me" or "Mine" it it is advisable to relate that (I, Me, Mine) to the rough, tangible body, rather than intangible, unseen, citta or vinnana. If the puthagjana, is to take I. Me, Mine as the rough, tangible body that decays with time, he is to become disheartened with the notion "I, Me, Mine", see that notion as meaningless, a view that is not supported by evidence, and a notion that is not to be entertained by the wise. (Please read- Anupubba patipada- Ganaka Moggallana Sutta)
However Puthagjana will not be able to get disheartened, disgusted, disappointed in Citta, and will hold on to the incorrect view that " Citta is Me, or I" and even "Citta will survive after the death of body".
(This is where blind shradda come in to play, to believe in Thathagatha's advise, the path and to continue in that path without hesitation, with utter determination
That is why the recommendation of Thathagatha is vital for the untrained shramana who is seeking and keen on liberation.
You have the answer in the question itself. Stop categorising people as Sinhalese.
But do you think the problem will go away just because you have stopped seeing people in their races (Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim… etc.)?
------ Post added on Mar 25, 2023 at 3:53 PM
