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
Sure, but not anyone, must be corrected as anyone who doesn’t know the way to interpret thripitaka this way.
Let’s say that’s my interpretation for now because I don’t think you can grasp anicca this way. Let’s go with your mono dimensional definition of "impermanent".
2. 'mama' comes in to existence due to upadana skandhas, what’s more to elaborate? It is by definition. These are basics… පංචස්කන්ධය මම මගේ කියල ගැනීමනෙ උපාදාන ස්කන්ධය, නිරෝධ කලයුතු වන්නෙ උපාදාන ස්ක්නධයනෙ මහත්තය.
So why are you keep avoiding my question with other questions? Again, why are you saying there is nothing to take as “mama”?
For me they do
. It will for you too if you see them the way I see them… but I guess that’s nonsense for you.Don’t have to tell literally, that’s what your sentences means to me. If not, please correct me, simple
මේ ආවා ..මේ ගියා මහත්තය, any time now
------ Post added on Mar 9, 2023 at 2:33 PM
Last edited:
There is nothing magical to interpret there. If buddha hasn't said it there he hasn't said it there.
Let’s say that’s my interpretation for now because I don’t think you can grasp anicca this way. Let’s go with your mono dimensional definition of "impermanent".
2. 'mama' comes in to existence due to upadana skandhas, what’s more to elaborate? It is by definition. These are basics… පංචස්කන්ධය මම මගේ කියල ගැනීමනෙ උපාදාන ස්කන්ධය, නිරෝධ කලයුතු වන්නෙ උපාදාන ස්ක්නධයනෙ මහත්තය.
So why are you keep avoiding my question with other questions? Again, why are you saying there is nothing to take as “mama”?
Im not avoiding the question. I dont think it will make any sense to you as your interpretation of anicca is different than mine. Thats why I asked questions to see if there is any relation to begin with. According to your interpretation of anicca, is there anything in skandas that you can take as mama?
Don’t have to tell literally, that’s what your sentences means to me. If not, please correct me, simple
Not "dont have to", it should be "cant". Thats what I said before you need some help if my sentence means: Im singling out as BS BY DEFAULT", ALL THEY SAY IS BS
to you, coz there is no any hint of those in my sentence.
attatama hodai dala tyena eka, eth ai ban terena sinhalen nathuwa nikan liyana basawen wage pahadili karanne? aluth paramparawen agama nathi wenna mulika hethuwa oka. pothak balanna hithenne na eka balanna wenama dictionaryak laga tyaganna wenawa
very good point මහත්තය, මම නම් කොහොමත් කැමති බුදු දහම සිංහලෙන් ලියන්න මොකද ඉංග්රීසි භාෂාවේ තියෙන සමහර තේරුම් පාලියේ එන නියම තේරුමට ගලපන්න බැහැ. ඇත්තටම කියනවනම් සිංහලෙන් උනත් හරිම වචනේ නැහැ හැබැයි ඉංග්රීසි වලට වඩා සිංහලෙන් පාලි අර්ථය ලඟට යන්න පුළුවන්.
Of course, to you there isn’t, all you have is the book to prove whether the Buddha said something or not, no ecosystem to back it up with.
See, why do you have to go to an extreme to talk about “මම”? Why can’t you stay in the middle? This is my point. When you say there is nothing to take as “මම”, you are still in an extreme and also in the unknown, it is as incorrect as saying there is something to take as “මම” but in this cast at least you are not in unknown.
I know what you want me to mean by anicca, but for me that anicca is not complete. So, if I answer your question, according to my interpretation of anicca, I can’t say whether “මම” exists, not exists, is there something to take as “මම” or there isn’t something to take as “මම”, it’s existence or non-existence simply irrelevant (for anything for that matter). Meaning, existence or non-existence is irrelevant, the anicca I am talking about is in the middle ground of those extremes, where the question of “මම”/everything is invalid.
Ok, so they are not BS’ing now?
------ Post added on Mar 16, 2023 at 11:20 AM
Last edited:
Yup, no ecosystem is needed. Pitaka clearly says if buddha said something. No ecosystem can quote he said this or that.
It is your thinking that you take it as "natha" extreme when I say, there is nothing to take as "mama". You can talk about mama "atha" or "natha" (both existences) only when you have something to take as "mama". When there is nothing to take as such, you cant go it IS there or it is NOT there. Thats the middle. Not sure if you get this though.
Simply both "atha" and "natha" are existence.
Ok, so they are not BS’ing now?
------ Post added on Mar 16, 2023 at 11:20 AM
They used to say some BS specially the core. Not sure now, havent listened for a while.
Sure, but that is still your view, which I can’t agree… so let’s leave at that.
Yes, we can’t talk about both ("atha" and "natha") when it comes to dhamma. If meant the same thing, then I have no issue. Only thing is though, we can’t simply say there is nothing to take as such, I think the more appropriate statement is the whole concept of “මම”/"atha" and "natha" is irrelevant.
Ok
I have seen some interesting sermons recently on that front.Think about why it is wrong going with "mama" atha or natha... or what is the cause to for the extremes. You will see what I mean then.
මේව ගැනනම් මහත්තය තියෙන්නෙ සංකල්පයක් විතරයි. අපිට ගෝචර දේවල් නෙමෙයිනෙ.
ජවන් සිත් කියන්නෙත් ක්රියාවලියක් තුල විද්යමාන වෙන එක්තරා ලක්ෂණයකට දාපු නමක්, දැන් අපි සිතක් කියන්නෙ මොකක්ද කියල බැලුවොත් ඒ ලක්ෂණය තමයි ආරම්මණ විජානන ලක්ෂණය. අපි මෙතන බැලුවොත්, ජවන් සිතට එන ආරම්මණය වෙන්නෙ වොත්තපන සිතේ විජානනය. ඒ කියන්නෙ යමක් විනිෂ්ය කරගැනීමෙන් පසු ඒ දෙය රස විදීම හෙවත් අභිසංකාර නැත්නම් උපාදාන කිරීමේ විජානනය තමයි ජවන් චිත්තය.
@MalSeven
This is my answer to the question you have been asking for a while:
“මහණෙනි, අශ්රැතවත් පෘථග්ජනතෙම ‘සිත මමයයි ගන්නවාට වඩා මේ සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත් කය මමයයි ගැනීම හොඳය.’ ඊට හේතු කවරේද? මහණෙනි, සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත්තාවූ, අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, දෑවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, තුන් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, සතර අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, පස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, දස අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, විසි අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, තිස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, හතළිස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නා වූද, පනස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද හැට අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, හැත්තෑ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අසූ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අනූ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අවුරුදු සීයක් සිටින්නාවූද, ඊට වැඩිය හෝ සිටින්නාවූද, මේ කය දක්නා ලැබේ. (එහෙයිනි.) මහණෙනි, යමකට වනාහි සිත යයි කියනු ලැබේද, මනසයයි කියනු ලැබේද, විඤ්ඤාණයයි කියනු ලැබේද ඒ සිත රෑද, දවල්ද, අනිකක්ම උපදියි අනිකක්ම නිරුද්ධ වෙයි.
Here you see, that buddha clearly says, atleast it is better to take the body as "mama" (than citta) coz it has some kind of permanent nature than the nature of consciousness/citta. Within skandhas, there is nothing you can take as permanent. So, there is nothing you can take as "mama", or skandas are not suitable to take as "mama" coz, there is nothing in there to take as such due to lack of permanence. Permanence is the key to take something as "mama/self".
In other words, there is nothing you can take as permanent/self/mama out of "something" impermanent.
All the skandas are interdependent, selfless (empty by itself / shunya) impermanent "things"
When there is nothing to take as such, you dont go to extremes mama atha/natha. Coz, in either case you have something to take as mama (existence) but that is not there (natha) or that is there (atha). You can only be middle grounded when there is nothing to take as such.
This is pretty straight forward for me although you dont get my point.
This is my answer to the question you have been asking for a while:
“මහණෙනි, අශ්රැතවත් පෘථග්ජනතෙම ‘සිත මමයයි ගන්නවාට වඩා මේ සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත් කය මමයයි ගැනීම හොඳය.’ ඊට හේතු කවරේද? මහණෙනි, සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත්තාවූ, අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, දෑවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, තුන් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, සතර අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, පස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, දස අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, විසි අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, තිස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, හතළිස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නා වූද, පනස් අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද හැට අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, හැත්තෑ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අසූ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අනූ අවුරුද්දක් සිටින්නාවූද, අවුරුදු සීයක් සිටින්නාවූද, ඊට වැඩිය හෝ සිටින්නාවූද, මේ කය දක්නා ලැබේ. (එහෙයිනි.) මහණෙනි, යමකට වනාහි සිත යයි කියනු ලැබේද, මනසයයි කියනු ලැබේද, විඤ්ඤාණයයි කියනු ලැබේද ඒ සිත රෑද, දවල්ද, අනිකක්ම උපදියි අනිකක්ම නිරුද්ධ වෙයි.
Here you see, that buddha clearly says, atleast it is better to take the body as "mama" (than citta) coz it has some kind of permanent nature than the nature of consciousness/citta. Within skandhas, there is nothing you can take as permanent. So, there is nothing you can take as "mama", or skandas are not suitable to take as "mama" coz, there is nothing in there to take as such due to lack of permanence. Permanence is the key to take something as "mama/self".
In other words, there is nothing you can take as permanent/self/mama out of "something" impermanent.
All the skandas are interdependent, selfless (empty by itself / shunya) impermanent "things"
When there is nothing to take as such, you dont go to extremes mama atha/natha. Coz, in either case you have something to take as mama (existence) but that is not there (natha) or that is there (atha). You can only be middle grounded when there is nothing to take as such.
This is pretty straight forward for me although you dont get my point.
Last edited:
I still think that when you say “nothing to take as such” you are still in the extreme of non-existence. But now I know what you mean by that, therefore I have no issue with it.
As you can see even here the load Buddha recommends taking something as “මම” for “අශ්රැතවත් පෘථග්ජන” first, this is necessary because this is where the journey starts. All I am saying is that the state of “මම”/things become irrelevant (or nothing to take as such according to you) is not something in our grasp to explain or comprehend.
No, he doesnt recommend taking anything as mama. What he says is that idiots already take citta as mama which does not last even a day. It is better (as an idiot) to take body as mama coz it lasts much longer than a citta.
Mama is irrelevant coz, there is nothing to take as mama to begin with.
When there is no animal to take as "fish with 3 legs", it is wrong to say "that" animal is in the world or "that" animal is not in the world. "That" is irrelevant. A question about "that" is also invalid because of that reason.
Last edited:
The point here is that the lord Buddha acknowledges, there is “මම” as far as idiots are concerned. He didn’t rid of it as there is nothing to take as such.
This I agree.
here>
මහණෙනි, අශ්රැතවත් පෘථග්ජනතෙම ‘සිත මමයයි ගන්නවාට වඩා මේ සතර මහා ධාතුවෙන් හටගත් කය මමයයි ගැනීම හොඳය.’
