388 & 389 LESSONS 28 & 29 09 2011 Arittha
Sutta To Arittha & Yamaka Sutta To Yamaka
388 LESSON 28 09 2011
Arittha
Sutta To Arittha
FREE ONLINE eNΔlandΔ Research and Practice UNIVERSITY
&
BUDDHIST GOOD NEWS LETTER
Through
FREE ONLINE CONCENTRATION PRACTICE INSTITUTE FOR
STUDENTS(FOCPIS)-
The Narratives for the Levels of Departmental Curricula- Course
Descriptions-
AN 4.36
PTS: A
ii 37
Dona Sutta: With Dona
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling
along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya,
and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and
Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One’s footprints, wheels with
1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On
seeing them, the thought occurred to him, “How amazing! How astounding!
These are not the footprints of a human being!”
Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went
to sit at the root of a certain tree β his legs crossed, his body erect, with
mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One’s
footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring
confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost
control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1]
On seeing him, he went to him and said, “Master, are you a deva?”[2]
“No, brahman, I am not a deva.”
“Are you a gandhabba?”
“No…”
“… a yakkha?”
“No…”
“… a human being?”
“No, brahman, I am not a human
being.”
“When asked, ‘Are you a deva?’ you
answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a deva.’ When asked, ‘Are you a gandhabba?’ you
answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.’ When asked, ‘Are you a yakkha?’
you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.’ When asked, ‘Are you a human
being?’ you answer, ‘No, brahman, I am not a human being.’ Then what sort of
being are you?”
“Brahman, the fermentations by which β if
they were not abandoned β I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their
root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of
development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which β if
they were not abandoned β I would be a gandhabba… a yakkha… a human being:
Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
“Just like a red, blue, or white lotus β
born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water β stands
unsmeared by the water, in the same way I β born in the world, grown in the
world, having overcome the world β live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
brahman, as ‘awakened.’
“The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become
a gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state: Those have
been destroyed by me, ruined, their stems removed. Like a blue lotus, rising
up, unsmeared by water, unsmeared am I by the world, and so, brahman, I’m
awake.”
Notes
1.
“Naga” is a term used to
describe a great being, such as an elephant or a great, magical serpent.
Buddhists adopted the term as an epithet for the Buddha and his arahant
disciples.
2.
Dona phrases his question in the
future tense, which has led to a great deal of discussion as to what this
entire dialogue means: Is he asking what the Buddha will be in a future life,
or is he asking what he is right now? The context of the discussion seems to
demand the second alternative β Dona wants to know what kind of being would
have such amazing footprints, and the Buddha’s image of the lotus describes his
present state β but the grammar of Dona’s questions would seem to demand the
first. However, A. K. Warder, in his Introduction to Pali (p. 55), notes
that the future tense is often used to express perplexity, surprise, or wonder
about something in the present: “What might this be?” “What on
earth is this?” This seems to be the sense of Dona’s questions here. His
earlier statement β “These are not the footprints of a human being” β
is also phrased in the future tense, and the mood of wonder extends throughout
his conversation with the Buddha.
It’s also possible that the Buddha’s answers to Dona’s questions
β which, like the questions, are put in the future tense β are a form of
word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings,
to refer both to his present and to his future state.
The Buddha’s refusal to identify himself as a human being
relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be
defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, “A Verb for Nirvana.” Because a mind with clinging
is “located” by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in
any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the
lotus unsmeared by water.
389 LESSON 29 09 2011
Yamaka Sutta To Yamaka
SN 22.85
Yamaka Sutta
To Yamaka
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
I have heard that on one
occasion Ven. Sariputta was staying near Savatthi at Jeta’s Grove, Anathapindika’s monastery. Now, at that time this evil
supposition had arisen to Ven. Yamaka: “As I
understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more
(mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes,
& does not exist after death.” A large number of monks heard,
“They say that this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I
understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more
effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does
not exist after death.’” So they went to Ven. Yamaka and on arrival
exchanged courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings &
courtesies, they sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they said to Ven.
Yamaka, “Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen
to you: ‘As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with
no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, &
does not exist after death.’
“Yes, friends. As I
understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more
effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does
not exist after death.”
“Don’t say that, friend
Yamaka. Don’t misrepresent the Blessed One. It’s not good to misrepresent the
Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, ‘A monk with no more effluents,
on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist
after death.’”
But even though Ven. Yamaka
was thus rebuked by those monks, he β from stubbornness & attachment β
maintained his adherence to that evil supposition: ‘As I understand the
Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up
of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.’
When those monks could not pry
Ven. Yamaka loose from his evil supposition, they got up from their seats and
went to Ven. Sariputta. On arrival they said to him: “Friend Sariputta,
this evil supposition has arisen to Ven. Yamaka: ‘As I understand the Teaching
explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of
the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.’ It would
be good if you would go to Ven. Yamaka out of sympathy for his sake.”
Ven. Sariputta consented by
remaining silent.
Then in the evening Ven.
Sariputta left his seclusion, went to Ven. Yamaka, and on arrival exchanged
courteous greetings. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies,
he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Yamaka, “Is
it true, my friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: ‘As I
understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more
effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does
not exist after death.’
“Yes, my friend
Sariputta. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk
with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes,
& does not exist after death.”
“What do you think, my
friend Yamaka: Is form constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my
friend.”
“And is that which is
inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, my
friend.”
“And is it proper to
regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This
is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, my friend.”
“Is feeling constant or
inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my
friend.”…
“Is perception constant
or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my
friend.”…
“Are fabrications
constant or inconstant?”
“Inconstant, my
friend.”…
“Is consciousness
constant or inconstant?
“Inconstant, my
friend.”
“And is that which is
inconstant easeful or stressful?”
“Stressful, my
friend.”
“And is it proper to
regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This
is my self. This is what I am’?”
“No, my friend.”
“What do you think: Do
you regard form as the Tathagata?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard feeling as
the Tathagata?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard perception
as the Tathagata?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard
fabrications as the Tathagata?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard
consciousness as the Tathagata?”
“No, my friend.”
“What do you think: Do
you regard the Tathagata as being in form?… Elsewhere than form?… In
feeling?… Elsewhere than feeling?… In perception?… Elsewhere than
perception?… In fabrications?… Elsewhere than fabrications?… In
consciousness?… Elsewhere than consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“What do you think: Do
you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“Do you regard the
Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception,
without fabrications, without consciousness?”
“No, my friend.”
“And so, my friend Yamaka
β when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the
present life β is it proper for you to declare, ‘As I understand the Teaching
explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of
the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death’?”
“Previously, my friend
Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard
your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and
have broken through to the Dhamma.”
“Then, friend Yamaka, how
would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more
mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?”
“Thus asked, I would
answer, ‘Form is inconstant… Feeling… Perception… Fabrications…
Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which
is stressful has ceased and gone to its end.”
“Very good, my friend
Yamaka. Very good. In that case I will give you an analogy for the sake of
taking your understanding of this point even further. Suppose there were a householder or householder’s son β rich,
wealthy, with many possessions β who was thoroughly well-guarded. Then suppose
there came along a certain man, desiring what was not his benefit, desiring
what was not his welfare, desiring his loss of security, desiring to kill him.
The thought would occur to this man: ‘It would not be easy to kill this person
by force. What if I were to sneak in and then kill him?’
“So he would go to the
householder or householder’s son and say, ‘May you take me on as a servant,
lord.’ With that, the householder or householder’s son would take the man on as
a servant.
“Having been taken on as
a servant, the man would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in
the evening only after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always
acting to please him, speaking politely to him. Then the householder or
householder’s son would come to regard him as a friend & companion, and
would fall into his trust. When the man realizes, ‘This householder or
householder’s son trusts me,’ then encountering him in a solitary place, he
would kill him with a sharp knife.
“Now what do you think,
my friend Yamaka? When that man went to the householder or householder’s son
and said, ‘May you take me on as a servant, lord’: wasn’t he even then a
murderer? And yet although he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s
son did not know him as ‘my murderer.’ And when, taken on as a servant, he
would rise in the morning before his master, go to bed in the evening only
after his master, doing whatever his master ordered, always acting to please
him, speaking politely to him: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although
he was a murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my
murderer.’ And when he encountered him in a solitary place and killed him with
a sharp knife: wasn’t he even then a murderer? And yet although he was a
murderer, the householder or householder’s son did not know him as ‘my
murderer.’”
“Yes, my friend.”
“In the same way, an
uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person β who has no regard for noble ones, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of
integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma β assumes form
(the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
self, or the self as in form.
“He assumes feeling to be
the self…
“He assumes perception to
be the self…
“He assumes (mental)
fabrications to be the self…
“He assumes consciousness
to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in
the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“He does not discern
inconstant form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He does not discern
inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant feeling.’ He does
not discern inconstant perception… He does not discern inconstant
fabrications… He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is
present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’
“He does not discern
stressful form, as it actually is present, as ’stressful form.’ He does not
discern stressful feeling… He does not discern stressful perception… He
does not discern stressful fabrications… He does not discern stressful
consciousness, as it actually is present, as ’stressful consciousness.’
“He does not discern
not-self form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He does not
discern not-self feeling… He does not discern not-self perception… He does not
discern not-self fabrications… He does not discern not-self consciousness, as
it actually is present, as ‘not-self consciousness.’
“He does not discern
fabricated form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He does not
discern fabricated feeling… He does not discern fabricated perception… He
does not discern fabricated fabrications… He does not discern fabricated
consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’
“He does not discern
murderous form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He does not
discern murderous feeling… He does not discern murderous perception… He
does not discern murderous fabrications… He does not discern murderous
consciousness, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous consciousness.’
“He gets attached to
form, clings to form, & determines it to be ‘my self.’ He gets attached to
feeling… He gets attached to perception… He gets attached to
fabrications… He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness,
& determines it to be ‘my self.’ These five
clinging-aggregates β attached to, clung to β lead to his long-term loss &
suffering.
“Now, the
well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones β who has regard for noble ones, is
well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of
integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma β does not assume
form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or
the self as in form.
“He does not assume
feeling to be the self…
“He does not assume
perception to be the self…
“He does not assume
fabrications to be the self…
“He does not assume
consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or
consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“He discerns inconstant
form, as it actually is present, as ‘inconstant form.’ He discerns inconstant
feeling… He discerns inconstant perception… He discerns inconstant
fabrications… He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is
present, as ‘inconstant consciousness.’
“He discerns stressful
form, as it actually is present, as ’stressful form.’ He discerns stressful
feeling… He discerns stressful perception… He discerns stressful
fabrications… He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present,
as ’stressful consciousness.’
“He discerns not-self
form, as it actually is present, as ‘not-self form.’ He discerns not-self
feeling… He discerns not-self perception… He discerns not-self
fabrications… He discerns not-self consciousness, as it actually is present,
as ‘not-self consciousness.’
“He discerns fabricated
form, as it actually is present, as ‘fabricated form.’ He discerns fabricated
feeling… He discerns fabricated perception… He discerns fabricated
fabrications… He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is
present, as ‘fabricated consciousness.’
“He discerns murderous
form, as it actually is present, as ‘murderous form.’ He discerns murderous
feeling… He discerns murderous perception… He discerns murderous
fabrications… He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present,
as ‘murderous consciousness.’
“He does not get attached
to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be ‘my self.’ He does
not get attached to feeling… He does not get attached to perception… He
does not get attached to fabrications… He does not get attached to
consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be ‘my
self.’ These five clinging-aggregates β not attached to, not clung to β lead to
his long-term happiness & well-being.”
“Even so, my friend Sariputta, are those who have people like you
as their fellows in the holy life, teaching them, admonishing them out of
sympathy, desiring their welfare. For now that I have heard this explanation of
the Dhamma from you, my mind β through lack of clinging/sustenance β has been
released from the effluents.”
DOB 520 Mind and its World III: Modes of Engagement - 2 credits
Delivery Mode: Residential & Online
Course Description:
This course provides the practitioner with the
tools for delineating conceptual and non-conceptual types of mind in
meditation. This teaching, codified as the modes of engagement of mind, is
coming from the tradition of PramΔna, or Buddhist epistemology.
We will contemplate the minds apprehending
generalities and particulars, inclusive and eliminative engagers, objects and
means of expression, connection and contradiction.
Prerequisites: DOB 501, DOB 502
POLITICS
IS SACRED WITH HIGHLY PROMISING BEST MERITORIOUS GOVERNENCE OF UP CM MS
MAYAWATI JI
Press Information Bureau
(C.M. Information Campus)
Information & Public Relations Department, U.P.
Honβble C. M. greets people on Agrasen Jayanti
Lucknow: 27 September 2011
The Honβble Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Ms. Mayawati ji has
greeted the people of the State on the occasion of Maharaja Agrasen Jayanti.
Hon’ble Chief Minister said that Maharaja Agrasen gave the
message of Sarv Samaj’s welfare by strengthening social harmony and unity. In
the present context, this message has become more relevant, she added.
Ms. Mayawati ji while extending her greetings to Vaishya
Community especially said this community played an important role in the economic
and social progress of the Country. She expressed the hope that this community
would actively participate in the development process of the country in future
as well.