This is going right over your head, it would seem. Simply, the Buddha expressed quite clearly what he meant by the "all," and what he meant by the "all" clearly is in stark and deliberate contrast to what the authors of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad meant by the "all."SarathW wrote: But perhaps that is not what Buddha meant by the all.
What is All?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What is All?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What is All?
The word "All" is used because it is 'all' that there is for you to use to construct your experiene....and to put it in a more worldly way: that is 'all' there is for you to get input about the world from.SarathW wrote: Ok I understand it. Buddha did not teach the mind is permanent etc.
But perhaps that is not what Buddha meant by the all.
Please note, however that the buddha did not talk explicitly about some world out there that we get input from. Some people say that it is implied in the All by the inclusion of the external sense objects but others suggest that these are mental fabrications as well....
chownah
Re: What is All?
Very comprehensive analysis found here.
Sabba Sutta - Dharma fareres
========
While science is based mainly of second and third-hand measurements, the Buddha‟s teaching is a first person discourse. In Western culture
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 3-piya.pdf
Sabba Sutta - Dharma fareres
========
While science is based mainly of second and third-hand measurements, the Buddha‟s teaching is a first person discourse. In Western culture
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 3-piya.pdf
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What is All?
In simple terms the distinction is that between "the world" and "my world".SarathW wrote:http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 3-piya.pdf
Buddha save me from new-agers!
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: What is All?
Thanks for finding this excellent excursus, which nicely supports my point vis a vis the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad and the Buddha's response. I hope you have read Piya Tan's excellent study of the text.SarathW wrote:Very comprehensive analysis found here.
Sabba Sutta - Dharma fareres
========
While science is based mainly of second and third-hand measurements, the Buddha‟s teaching is a first person discourse. In Western culture
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 3-piya.pdf
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: What is All?
I have not read the .pdf because the computer I use is not capable of opening .pdf files. (Yes, I have acrobat reader installed....for some reason it just doesn't work) I am assuming that you are refering to a distinction drawn in the discussion at the link. Not know exactly what that distinction is I will comment that while a distinction can be made between "the world" and "my world" I think that the All as it is presented is expressing the union or joining of "the world" and "my world" and really says little to nothing about a distinction between them. If a distinction between them is to be seen in buddha's teachings it is not explicitly stated in any elaborate way that I have seen or understood.Spiny Norman wrote:In simple terms the distinction is that between "the world" and "my world".SarathW wrote:http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 3-piya.pdf
chownah
Re: What is All?
Say there is a totally blind person.
So his All will be only fives senses and it's objects?
Am I correct?
So his All will be only fives senses and it's objects?
Am I correct?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What is All?
Some info from the above link:
4 The “soul,” the aggregates and the sense-bases
In several places in the brahmanical texts, “the all” or “this all” (Skt idaṁ sarvaṁ) is identified with
the “eternal soul” (ātman) or “universal soul” (brahman), that is, what were viewed respectively as the
human essence and the reality that pervades “everything” (sarva),13 and it is said that he who learns the
essence of everything knows everything.14 According to scholars, such as Przemysław Szczurek (2003),
12
such statements found in the early Upaniṣads (c500 BCE) were polemical reactions against the Buddha‟s
teaching on not-self (anattā). In a number of places in such texts, we find statements clearly contradicting
the Buddha‟s teachings.15
The ancient brahmins believed that there was an eternal soul which was as such indestructible. That
being the case, they argued, you could kill someone, but his soul is not destroyed. In other words, it was
not wrong to kill, especially when it was your duty to do so, such as when you were a kshatriya! Szczurek
goes on to discuss how such ideas are found in the Bhagavad,gītā, especially the (in)famous dialogue
between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa (BhG 1.35-39).16
The Buddha‟s rejection of the eternal soul-view is partly pragmatic, partly spiritual. An eternal soul is
nowhere to be found, so why construct such a notion? If there were really such an eternal soul, we would
be have complete control over ourselves: we can, for example, command our body not to suffer pain, not
to age, and so on. Moreover, whatever exists has to be impermanent; otherwise, it is meaningless.17
The Buddha declares “the all” (sabba) to be our six senses and their objects; for, they are our only
means of knowing, and the only things we can know, or need to know. In such texts as the Dvaya Sutta 2
(S 35.93/4:68 f) and the Rāhul’ovāda Sutta (M 147 = S 35.121/ 4:105-107), we find attempts at connecting
the aggregates (khandha) to the sense-bases (āyatana). However, the Nikāyas do not explicitly
correlate the two schemes. “Conscious correlation begins only with the Abhidhamma Piaka, especially in
the opening sections of the Dhātu,kathā, which reflects the attempt of the early Buddhist community to
merge the more pragmatic schemes of the suttas into a single all-inclusive system that assigned every
element a precisely defined place
4 The “soul,” the aggregates and the sense-bases
In several places in the brahmanical texts, “the all” or “this all” (Skt idaṁ sarvaṁ) is identified with
the “eternal soul” (ātman) or “universal soul” (brahman), that is, what were viewed respectively as the
human essence and the reality that pervades “everything” (sarva),13 and it is said that he who learns the
essence of everything knows everything.14 According to scholars, such as Przemysław Szczurek (2003),
12
such statements found in the early Upaniṣads (c500 BCE) were polemical reactions against the Buddha‟s
teaching on not-self (anattā). In a number of places in such texts, we find statements clearly contradicting
the Buddha‟s teachings.15
The ancient brahmins believed that there was an eternal soul which was as such indestructible. That
being the case, they argued, you could kill someone, but his soul is not destroyed. In other words, it was
not wrong to kill, especially when it was your duty to do so, such as when you were a kshatriya! Szczurek
goes on to discuss how such ideas are found in the Bhagavad,gītā, especially the (in)famous dialogue
between Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa (BhG 1.35-39).16
The Buddha‟s rejection of the eternal soul-view is partly pragmatic, partly spiritual. An eternal soul is
nowhere to be found, so why construct such a notion? If there were really such an eternal soul, we would
be have complete control over ourselves: we can, for example, command our body not to suffer pain, not
to age, and so on. Moreover, whatever exists has to be impermanent; otherwise, it is meaningless.17
The Buddha declares “the all” (sabba) to be our six senses and their objects; for, they are our only
means of knowing, and the only things we can know, or need to know. In such texts as the Dvaya Sutta 2
(S 35.93/4:68 f) and the Rāhul’ovāda Sutta (M 147 = S 35.121/ 4:105-107), we find attempts at connecting
the aggregates (khandha) to the sense-bases (āyatana). However, the Nikāyas do not explicitly
correlate the two schemes. “Conscious correlation begins only with the Abhidhamma Piaka, especially in
the opening sections of the Dhātu,kathā, which reflects the attempt of the early Buddhist community to
merge the more pragmatic schemes of the suttas into a single all-inclusive system that assigned every
element a precisely defined place
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What is All?
I'm suggesting that The All focuses on the direct experience of "my world", rather than on metaphysical speculation about "the world".chownah wrote:Not know exactly what that distinction is I will comment that while a distinction can be made between "the world" and "my world" I think that the All as it is presented is expressing the union or joining of "the world" and "my world" and really says little to nothing about a distinction between them.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: What is All?
This is how I understand the All.
What is all according to Buddha.
Objects, subject and consciousness that's all.
Even if you investigate an atom that's all you experience.
You cannot experience any thing beyond your six senses.
The highest you can experience is the Nirodha Samapatthi state.
All these experiences are subject to Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.
Hence it is futile to take them as I, me, mine or myself.
So you turn your mind away from all fabrications.
There is no more Dukkha.
Brahamnas are fortunate enough to experience those higher states.
Unfortunately they think they are permanent etc.
This Sutta should be interpreted in conjunction with other teaching of Buddha.
What is all according to Buddha.
Objects, subject and consciousness that's all.
Even if you investigate an atom that's all you experience.
You cannot experience any thing beyond your six senses.
The highest you can experience is the Nirodha Samapatthi state.
All these experiences are subject to Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta.
Hence it is futile to take them as I, me, mine or myself.
So you turn your mind away from all fabrications.
There is no more Dukkha.
Brahamnas are fortunate enough to experience those higher states.
Unfortunately they think they are permanent etc.
This Sutta should be interpreted in conjunction with other teaching of Buddha.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”