What awakens?

[Mkoll]

As long as one has craving, one is a being. This means only fully liberated ones are free from being which I believe is the translation of bhava.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

-SN 23.2

[Babadhari]

As long as one has craving, one is a being. This means only fully liberated ones are free from being which I believe is the translation of bhava.

so would it be fair to say that an arahant could be viewed as a human done instead of a human being??

'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world.'
MN105

[Boris]

Shell we call his efforts attempt of mental suicide?

No. That's a completely misleading and inaccurate simile. We could could his efforts attempting to wake up.

But in reality person as such is a part of structure we can call avijja, there is no place for avijja in awakening. In fact awakening and cessation of person (sakkaya) are synonyms.

"Bhikkhus, there are two kinds of (wrong) view, and when deities and human beings are in their grip, some hang back and some overreach; it is only those with vision that see. How do some hang back? Deities and human beings love being, delight in being, enjoy being; when the Dhamma is expounded to them for the ending of being, their hearts do not go out to it or acquire confidence, steadiness and decision. So some hang back. And how do some overreach? Some are ashamed, humiliated and disgusted by that same being, and they look forward to non-being in this way: 'Sirs, when with the dissolution of the body this self is cut off, annihilated and accordingly after death no longer is, that is the most peaceful, that is the goal superior to all, that is reality.' So some overreach. And how do those with vision see? Here a bhikkhu sees whatever has come to being as come to being. By seeing it thus he has entered upon the way to dispassion for it, to the fading and ceasing of lust for it. That is how one with vision sees."

Iti. 49

Venerable sir, one sees as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This has come to be.’ Having seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘This has come to be,’ one is practising for the purpose of revulsion towards what has come to be, for its fading away and cessation. One sees as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘Its origination occurs with that as nutriment.’ Having seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘Its origination occurs with that as nutriment, ’ one is practising for the purpose of revulsion towards its origination through nutriment, for its fading away and cessation. One sees as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation.’ Having seen as it really is with correct wisdom: ‘With the cessation of that nutriment, what has come to be is subject to cessation, ’ one is practising for the purpose of revulsion towards what is subject to cessation, for its fading away and cessation. It is in such a way that one is a trainee.

http://suttacentral.net/sn12.31/en#31-32

The puthujjana sees neither a task to be performed that can justify his existence—not even, in the last analysis, that of perpetual reflexion (Heidegger's Entschlossenheit or 'resoluteness', acceptance of the guilt of existing; which does no more than make the best of a bad job)—nor a way to bring his unjustifiable existence to an end. The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see the way to bring his existence to an end, and he sees that it is this very task that justifies his existence

http://www.nanavira.org/index.php/notes ... otes/kamma

I am but suppose I see that concept "I am" is impermanent, determined (sankhata) and dependently arisen. Knowing and seeing this way my task is to remove this "I am". If this is so, metaphor of mental suicide although not perfect, is quite well chosen. So perhaps objection:

That's a completely misleading and inaccurate simile

comes from one who does not see a way to bring his unjustifiable existence (bhava) to an end.

[kirk5a]

I am but suppose I see that concept "I am" is impermanent, determined (sankhata) and dependently arisen. Knowing and seeing this way my task is to remove this "I am". If this is so, metaphor of mental suicide although not perfect, is quite well chosen.

If it was "well chosen" I'd suppose we'd see the metaphor of "mental suicide" in the suttas, but we don't, as far as I've seen.

So perhaps objection:

That's a completely misleading and inaccurate simile

comes from one who does not see a way to bring his unjustifiable existence (bhava) to an end.

Your attempt to personalize the discussion is irrelevant and

[kirk5a]

"What gains total release from the five khandhas?"

"The heart, of course, & the heart alone.
It doesn't grasp or get entangled.
No more poison of possessiveness,
no more delusion,
it stands alone.
No saññas can fool it into following along
behind them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/mun/ballad.html

[Babadhari]

"What gains total release from the five khandhas?"

"The heart, of course, & the heart alone.
It doesn't grasp or get entangled.
No more poison of possessiveness,
no more delusion,
it stands alone.
No saññas can fool it into following along
behind them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/mun/ballad.html

NB***

Translating the poem has presented a number of difficulties, not the least of which has been getting a definitive reading of the original manuscript. Ajaan Mun wrote during the days before Thai spelling became standardized, some of the passages were smudged with age, and a few seem to have been "corrected" by a later hand.

[kirk5a]

NB***

Translating the poem has presented a number of difficulties, not the least of which has been getting a definitive reading of the original manuscript. Ajaan Mun wrote during the days before Thai spelling became standardized, some of the passages were smudged with age, and a few seem to have been "corrected" by a later hand.

So what? The poem is certainly reflective of what is available elsewhere of Ajahn Mun taught.

[Babadhari]

NB***

Translating the poem has presented a number of difficulties, not the least of which has been getting a definitive reading of the original manuscript. Ajaan Mun wrote during the days before Thai spelling became standardized, some of the passages were smudged with age, and a few seem to have been "corrected" by a later hand.

So what? The poem is certainly reflective of what is available elsewhere of Ajahn Mun taught.

i meant no offence. i guess there was no mistranslation of the piece you posted since one of the books of Ajahn Muns teachings was called A Heart Released

[kirk5a]

i meant no offence. i guess there was no mistranslation of the piece you posted since one of the books of Ajahn Muns teachings was called A Heart Released

None taken. Just didn't know what point you were making. "A Heart Released," indeed, as the quotation from the Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic provided by pegembara earlier says:

Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

[Babadhari]

ive just been coming across different translations of cittareferring to both heart and mind respectively lately in different passages as this alternative translation of the same passage illustrates

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

anupādāya āsavehi cittāni vimucciṃsūti.

there seems to be a tendancy in some Thai traditions to refer to 'heart-mind'

[kirk5a]

ive just been coming across different translations of cittareferring to both heart and mind respectively lately in different passages as this alternative translation of the same passage illustrates

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Yes both translations of "citta" are commonly used. As "mind" maybe moreso than "heart" in what I've seen.

[Boris]

I am but suppose I see that concept "I am" is impermanent, determined (sankhata) and dependently arisen. Knowing and seeing this way my task is to remove this "I am". If this is so, metaphor of mental suicide although not perfect, is quite well chosen.

If it was "well chosen" I'd suppose we'd see the metaphor of "mental suicide" in the suttas, but we don't, as far as I've seen.

So perhaps objection:

That's a completely misleading and inaccurate simile

comes from one who does not see a way to bring his unjustifiable existence (bhava) to an end.

Your attempt to personalize the discussion is irrelevant and

This is not so. We discuss the person And your remark was done from certain position. You said according for you how things are. I said that in reality things are quite different and out of compassion pointed out that your vision is distorted by sakkaya-ditthi. So, please try do not take it personally I do not attack you as a person I only point out that this is not the person, who has awaking. Contrary, awakening means cessation of person. But in order to understand it one has to be able to make distinction between person (sakkaya) and person (puggala). And again, let me (according to you) personalize the discussion: do you have such ability? [By this question, do I attack you personally? Or just try to improve or check your knowledge? What kind of attempt it is? ]

[kirk5a]

What kind of attempt it is? ]

It's an attempt, that's what it is, because this thread is not about me personally, so wasn't it perfectly clear the first time I wasn't going to respond along those lines?

[Mkoll]

I said that in reality things are quite different and out of compassion pointed out that your vision is distorted by sakkaya-ditthi.

You do realize yours is as well, right? All of ours are until the first stage of awakening, stream-entry.

[Boris]

I said that in reality things are quite different and out of compassion pointed out that your vision is distorted by sakkaya-ditthi.

You do realize yours is as well, right? ,,,.

It may be so ... Unfortunately, I do not see any contradiction in my position. So if you are so sure, that my vision is distorted by sakkaya-ditthi, I guess you have some very concrete reason for this. And since you don't know me personally, your judgment is evidently based on my mistaken explanation of Dhamma, on this forum. I am very interested to see my mistakes as such, so please to be so kind and show me them.

Or your idea that I am a victim of sakkaya-ditthi is just rooted purely on intuition? If this is so, while your intuition may be right, it does not help me to see my avijja as avijja, and in fact this is real But I do not mind to discuss my suppose sakkaya-ditthi here. I am eager to see my mistakes, and perhaps others also can learn from my mistakes, so please to point out where my words contradict Suttas. Don't be shy