The "eternal" in Buddhism

[3bob]

"This condition I call neither arising nor passing away,

niether dying nor being born. It is without form and without change.

It is the eternal,which never originates and never passes away.

To find it is the end of sorrow".

 

Udana Sutta, the Buddha.

 

(thus and simply a "this" which is not bound with dependent origination nor empty of eternal-ness)

 

Om

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

You CANNOT use english translations for debate.

 

Do you realize how many DIFFERENT english translations of the Bhagavad Gita there are?

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

I accept the meaning of this (sutta) teaching of the Buddha, others may do as they wish. (such as submitting nearly countless other pages of english translation.

 

"Wonder of wonders"

 

Om

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

I guess you did not understand that different english translations of the Bhagavad Gita, for example, have totally different meanings.

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

"This condition I call neither arising nor passing away,

niether dying nor being born. It is without form and without change.

It is the eternal,which never originates and never passes away.

To find it is the end of sorrow".

 

Udana Sutta, the Buddha.

 

(thus and simply a "this" which is not bound with dependent origination nor empty of eternal-ness)

 

Om

Again, bad translation. If you want to quote from Pali Suttas, my advise is always rely on reliable translations from AccessToInsight (which is generally reliable).

 

Here's a more accurate version:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing urging, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with Unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.

 

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

 

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object). [1] This, just this, is the end of stress.

 

It did not say 'it is without form and without change' or 'it is the eternal'. It must not be misunderstood as a metaphysical essence.

 

Here's how Ajahn Amaro explains this experience:

 

http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2003/winter/ajahnamaro.html

 

And the Buddha replied, "It is not possible to reach the end of the world by walking, but I also tell you that unless you reach the end of the world, you will not reach the end of suffering." Rohitassa was a bit puzzled and said, "Please explain this to me, Venerable Sir." The Buddha replied, "In this very fathom-long body is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world" (Anguttara Nikaya 4.45, Samyutta Nikaya 2.26).

 

In that instance the Buddha used the same exact formulation as in the Four Noble Truths. The world, or loka, means the world of our experience. That's how the Buddha almost always uses the term "the world." He's referring to the world as we experience it. This includes only sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, emotion and feeling. That's it. That's what "the world" is—my world, your world. It's not the abstracted, geographical planet, universe-type world. It's the direct experience of the planet, the people and the cosmos. Here is the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the way leading to the cessation of the world.

 

He said that as long as we create "me and my experience"—"me in here" and "the world out there"—we're stuck in the world of subject and object. Then there is dukkha. And the way leading to the cessation of that duality is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. Geographically, it is impossible to journey to the end of the world. Only when we come to the cessation of the world, which literally means the cessation of its otherness or thingness, will we reach the end of dukkha, unsatisfactoriness. When we stop creating sense objects as absolute realities and stop seeing thoughts and feelings as solid things, there is cessation.

 

To see that the world is within our minds is one way of working with these principles. The whole universe is embraced when we realize that it's happening within our minds. And in that moment when we recognize that it all happens here, it ceases. Its thingness ceases. Its otherness ceases. Its substantiality ceases.

 

This is just one way of talking and thinking about it. But I find this brings us much closer to the truth, because in that respect, it's held in check. It's known. But there's also the quality of its emptiness. Its insubstantiality is known. We're not imputing solidity to it, a reality that it doesn't possess. We're just looking directly at the world, knowing it fully and completely.

 

So, what happens when the world ceases? I remember one time Ajahn Sumedho was giving a talk about this same subject. He said, "Now I'm going to make the world completely disappear. I'm going to make the world come to an end." He just sat there and said, "Okay, are you ready? The world just ended. Do you want me to bring it back into being again? Okay, welcome back."

 

Nothing was apparent from the outside. It all happens internally. When we stop creating the world, we stop creating each other. We stop imputing the sense of solidity that creates a sense of separation. Yet we do not shut off the senses in any way. Actually, we shed the veneer, the films of confusion, of opinion, of judgment, of our conditioning, so that we can see the way things really are. At that moment, dukkha ceases. There is knowing. There is liberation and freedom. There is no dukkha.

Edited May 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

 

This is a quote from the founder not a quote from a commentator, apparently some don't understand that?

 

I have no problem with nor do I see any difference in meaning with your addition to the continuing part of Udana sutta.

 

Thus a "poor" translation (and also interpretation) may be in the eyes of those who say it is.

 

Om

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[xabir2005]

 

This is a quote from the founder not a quote from a commentator, apparently some don't understand that?

 

I have no problem with nor do I see any difference in meaning with your addition to the continuing part of Udana sutta.

 

Thus a "poor" translation (and also interpretation) may be in the eyes of those who say it is.

 

Om

Buddha is pointing to the experience of cessation (Nirvana) by realising the non-dual and empty nature of reality.

 

You are mistaking it as a formless unchanging metaphysical essence.

 

These are not the same thing.

Edited May 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[RongzomFan]

 

This is a quote from the founder not a quote from a commentator, apparently some don't understand that?

Om

 

 

Buddha spoke english?

 

Do you know the definition of the word "quote"?

[xabir2005]

Oh by the way, I checked the source of your quote. The translation is done in the 19th century by someone who wants to translate the Suttas into a way that is appealing to Christians, using Christian terms like 'salvation' and so on. It is from a book called 'Buddha, The Gospel' by Paul Carus published in 1894.

 

The translation is of pretty bad quality though, I have read through some of them before, and there is an obvious contrast with the good translations.

 

There are also false views such as 'The extinction of self is salvation; the annihilation of self is the condition of enlightenment; the blotting out of self is Nirvana.' - this is antithesis to the Suttas which clearly taught that the annihilation of a self is the wrong view since it implies there is a 'self' in the first place. The author is also clearly confusing Advaita with Buddhism in his writings.

 

You're better off relying on Pali translations available at AccessToInsight as they are done by people with better credentials and mastery of Pali language and Dhamma training.

Edited May 11, 2010 by xabir2005

[3bob]

Oh by the way, I checked the source of your quote. The translation is done in the 19th century by someone who wants to translate the Suttas into a way that is appealing to Christians, using Christian terms like 'salvation' and so on. It is from a book called 'Buddha, The Gospel' by Paul Carus published in 1894.

 

The translation is of pretty bad quality though, I have read through some of them before, and there is an obvious contrast with the good translations.

 

There are also false views such as 'The extinction of self is salvation; the annihilation of self is the condition of enlightenment; the blotting out of self is Nirvana.' - this is antithesis to the Suttas which clearly taught that the annihilation of a self is the wrong view since it implies there is a 'self' in the first place. The author is also clearly confusing Advaita with Buddhism in his writings.

 

You're better off relying on Pali translations available at AccessToInsight as they are done by people with better credentials and mastery of Pali language and Dhamma training.

 

You don't listen that much Xabir, I said that I had no probelm with the translation you submitted in addition to and which continues with the Udana Sutta. And that it says the same thing to me as I said earlier... Btw, I'll take the carefully handed down and recorded words of the founder and my experiences over all the reams of stuff you come up with like an Eveready battery powered fount.

 

Good fortune to all

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Sunya]

You don't listen that much Xabir, I said that I had no probelm with the translation you submitted in addition to and which continues with the Udana Sutta. And that it says the same thing to me as I said earlier... Btw, I'll take the carefully handed down and recorded words of the founder and my experiences over all the reams of stuff you come up with like an Everyready battery powered fount.

 

Good fortune to all

 

 

Why did you start this thread?

 

If you want to trust your bad translations and your experience then go ahead. Do you want others to verify your experience? Is that why you started this?

[RongzomFan]

Btw, I'll take the carefully handed down and recorded words of the founder

 

 

 

Let me get this straight...even after numerous objections by multiple people, you honestly believe either

 

 

A ) The Buddha spoke english

 

OR

 

B ) Your bad english translation was sanctioned by Shakyanumi Buddha

 

 

You must be friends with dwai and alchemicalwizard

 

This is the best thread on taobums of all time!

Edited May 11, 2010 by alwayson

[3bob]

 

Why did you start this thread?

 

If you want to trust your bad translations and your experience then go ahead. Do you want others to verify your experience? Is that why you started this?

 

For those who may appreciate the Udana sutta from the Buddha is why I started it.

Thus if this isn't good enough for you as given (since poor translations, interpretations or otherwise are in the eye of the beholder) then start your own string on it with probable reams of whatever else you care to do. (I've already considered and responded to some of the fairly given counter-points and or insults; btw, no one else can truly verify anything for me, and that was a kind of strange comment or projection regarding same...)

 

Om

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

"This condition I call neither arising nor passing away,

niether dying nor being born. It is without form and without change.

It is the eternal,which never originates and never passes away.

To find it is the end of sorrow".

 

Udana Sutta, the Buddha.

 

(thus and simply a "this" which is not bound with dependent origination nor empty of eternal-ness)

 

Om

 

This has to be understood in context. The fact is that all phenomena, though they appear, are inherently empty, always and eternally. To realize this, is to realize beyond birth and death, beyond time... etc. It's not an actual thing he is describing, but an understanding that persists eternally if you realize the true meaning of his teaching on an experiential level.

[3bob]

This has to be understood in context. The fact is that all phenomena, though they appear, are inherently empty, always and eternally. To realize this, is to realize beyond birth and death, beyond time... etc. It's not an actual thing he is describing, but an understanding that persists eternally if you realize the true meaning of his teaching on an experiential level.

 

The "end of sorrow" realizes the end of sorrow... and imo the four-fold negation is as about as far as intellect can allude or relate to this, although countless other alludings are also used. (btw, who said anything about a thing or an aggregate?)

 

Thus I don't see us having a radical disagreement, and you even used the 'E' word

[Vajrahridaya]

The "end of sorrow" realizes the end of sorrow... and imo the four-fold negation is as about as far as intellect can allude or relate to this, although countless other alludings are also used. (btw, who said anything about a thing or an aggregate?)

 

Thus I don't see us having a radical disagreement, and you even used the 'E' word

 

Indeed... the Buddha doesn't deny that the flow is "E" ternal... =^D he just denies that it is all one homogeneous eternally static thing... like an Atman or Brahman. All phenomena and minds do have one homogeneous truth, that is it's all equally empty, but emptiness is also empty... thus emptiness is not a thing, but rather a quality that all things and non-things share.

[3bob]

Indeed... the Buddha doesn't deny that the flow is "E" ternal... =^D he just denies that it is all one homogeneous eternally static thing... like an Atman or Brahman. All phenomena and minds do have one homogeneous truth, that is it's all equally empty, but emptiness is also empty... thus emptiness is not a thing, but rather a quality that all things and non-things share.

 

Ut-oh, you used the f word, "flow" what do you mean by that?

 

"...he just denies that it is all one homogeneous eternally static thing..." not exactly imo, what he expertly uses is the four-fold negation which is far better than trying to nail the Buddha down.

Edited May 12, 2010 by 3bob

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess you did not understand that different english translations of the Bhagavad Gita, for example, have totally different meanings.

 

Yeah... one of the worst translations of the Bhagavad Gita on the planet has to be A.C. Bhaktivedantas' of the Hare Krishnas. Sadly, it's one of the most widely read version on the planet too... HA! Wow...

[Vajrahridaya]

Ut-oh, you used the f word, "flow" what do you mean by that?

 

"...he just denies that it is all one homogeneous eternally static thing..." not exactly imo, what he expertly uses is the four-fold negation which is far better than trying to nail the Buddha down.

 

Yes, ok... I can agree here. =^) Up to this point and beyond, the Buddha does everything better than me, including teaching Buddhism... HA!

[xabir2005]

You don't listen that much Xabir, I said that I had no probelm with the translation you submitted in addition to and which continues with the Udana Sutta. And that it says the same thing to me as I said earlier... Btw, I'll take the carefully handed down and recorded words of the founder and my experiences over all the reams of stuff you come up with like an Eveready battery powered fount.

 

Good fortune to all

Taking your current experience and especially your current view to interprete the sutra is not always reliable. The problem is that experience and views can and do evolve, and it is often the case that people use eternalist or nihilist (both extremes countered and rejected by Buddha many many times) views to interprete the sutras.

 

Hence the advise by teachers to students to always "refine the view", while at the same time "keep the experience" because this is not about a denial of your experience, but a refining of views. For example 'No Witness' does not deny the experience of Witnessing, 'No Phenomena' does not deny the experience of Phenomena, it just denies their being independent, self-existing, permanent and separate entities. A related post I wrote to someone at the I AM stage last year would be Keep the experience, Refine the view

 

As for how experience evolves, Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment is one way to explain the evolution of insights.

Edited May 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Hence the advise by teachers to students to always "refine the view", while at the same time "keep the experience" because this is not about a denial of your experience, but a refining of views.

 

 

Yes, as it's not about experiences per say, though experiences do happen on the path of life and on the path of meditation, but it's really about how you inwardly interpret the experience which liberates or binds. Eventually, your pure view and experience will be a cohesive unit and a sturdy platform which thought and action will emanate from.

 

But, view is very important in Buddhism, even more important than meditation. But, meditation and vipassana as well as other practices which are all basically modifications of these two or integrations into other forms of these two, are very important as well. "Right View" which is the first of the 8 fold noble path will feed your meditation and vipassana. But one must make sure the view is always refined and not just go off into bliss realms through the meditative absorptions. =^) hehe... which are very fun and can be quite dramatically blissful... very easy to be distracted by such phenomena that transcend the 5 senses.

[xabir2005]

Yes, as it's not about experiences per say, though experiences do happen on the path of life and on the path of meditation, but it's really about how you inwardly interpret the experience which liberates or binds. Eventually, your pure view and experience will be a cohesive unit and a sturdy platform which thought and action will emanate from.

 

But, view is very important in Buddhism, even more important than meditation. But, meditation and vipassana as well as other practices which are all basically modifications of these two or integrations into other forms of these two, are very important as well. "Right View" which is the first of the 8 fold noble path will feed your meditation and vipassana. But one must make sure the view is always refined and not just go off into bliss realms through the meditative absorptions. =^) hehe... which are very fun and can be quite dramatically blissful... very easy to be distracted by such phenomena that transcend the 5 senses.

Yes. In Vipassana the View and method of contemplation is intrinsically linked.

 

Samatha Jhanas, or blissful states of absorptions, cannot lead to liberation. As a teacher once said, to be true liberation, you must be liberated in both hell and heaven. It is not dependent on any states.

 

For liberation, it is a matter of awakening insights into the nature of experience. It is to contemplate on the View.

 

Someone by the name 'upekkha' at NewBuddhist forum wrote this (she was awakened after contemplating as such, according to her indirect indications she is now either Sakadagami or Anagami):

 

irrespective of the knowledge that how far you have read and listened to Lord Buddha's Teaching, i can suggest a simple method for you to recognize your own true experience

 

please be patient with me if you know these things already

 

there are six sense bases (internal) = eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind

there are six sense bases (external) = form (color and shape), sound, smell, taste, feel and thoughts

there are six consciousness (vinnana = tainted mind) relevant to each of internal sense bases, for example eye consciousness is the consciousness relevant to eye (chakku vinnana)

 

 

now we say 'i see' and we think our eyes can see a 'thing' in front of us

but according to Lord Buddha's Teaching the eye meet the form (color/shape) and eye consciousness occur and there is a 'seeing'

 

there is no person called 'i' to see a 'thing' instead 'seeing' is a results (effect) of the cause (the meeting of internal sense base+external sense base+relevant consciousness)

 

the important thing here is to see the difference between 'i see' and 'seeing'

it is very subtle but not difficult if we try

 

for example:

your eyes (internal sense base) meet the writing on the computer screen (external sense base) and the eye consciousness occur now and you take it as 'i see the writing' but according to Lord Buddha's Teaching there is only 'seeing'

 

at the beginning we can not see the difference so we have to remind our mind the difference

 

another example:

you see the word 'upekka' in the screen

you take as 'i see upekka' but there is only 'seeing' and writing 'upekka' help as external sense base in the process of 'seeing'

 

you can experiment this with 'your' eyes and can try to see (understand) the difference

 

apart from mind all other sense bases work like this and you can try them too

 

the mind always get thoughts as external sense base

thoughts are always 'something' that you saw, heard, smelt, tasted or felt before

 

you can do this exercise and try to understand the difference between 'i see' and 'seeing'

'i hear' and 'hearing'

'i smell' and 'smelling' etc.

 

do this for a while and tell us what you get as experience

then we can discuss further

touch the table near you

 

is hand the experience of touching?

is table the experience of touching?

is the attention to touch call touching?

 

what exactly is touching?

 

apply this theory to eye, ear etc.

and try to grasp the seeing, hearing, etc.

 

sure way to experience anatta

how long it will take depend on the capacity of individual

guranteed

we have to study hard to understand the theory (internal faculty+external faculty+vinnana = passa) 'thinnan sangathi passao

and then

practise, practise, practise until we grasp the meaning of it

 

how long it will take us to understand depends on how long we have been practising it (in this life as well as previous lives)

 

it may be in the next moment or few months later or may be few years later

 

 

so

irrespective of whatever we are doing now it is advisable to practise

eye+form+eye consciousness = just seeing and there is 'nothing' to be seen or there is no one to see a thing etc. for the six faculties

Edited May 12, 2010 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

 

Someone by the name 'upekkha' at NewBuddhist forum wrote this (she was awakened after contemplating as such, according to her indirect indications she is now either Sakadagami or Anagami):

 

Just reading this quote I could feel the sense of realization, and translucency. I could feel my I dessolving and dedensefying (made up word) while reading and experiencing the meaning. Very nice share!!

 

Tashi Delegs!!

[3bob]

Yes, ok... I can agree here. =^) Up to this point and beyond, the Buddha does everything better than me, including teaching Buddhism... HA!

 

Ok, same here...

 

btw, some of your icons are not coming through like =^) or I don't know the symbol?

[3bob]

"Hence the advise by teachers to students to always "refine the view", while at the same time "keep the experience" because this is not about a denial of your experience, but a refining of views. For example 'No Witness' does not deny the experience of Witnessing, 'No Phenomena' does not deny the experience of Phenomena, it just denies their being independent, self-existing, permanent and separate entities. A related post I wrote to someone at the I AM stage last year would be Keep the experience, Refine the view". Xabir

 

That's a pretty fair view . And I'd say refining views is better than pegging type judgments of someone elses...

 

Om