"Enlightened in regard to all things"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by beeblebrox »

Sherab wrote:Is "the All" then confined to the present only since what has passed is no longer existing and what has not come is non-existent?
I think not quite. The mind (sense kind) still see things about the past, and things about the future. These things could be based on something real, or based on fantasy... just like the mind can have some silly notions about the magnetic fields (such as viewing them as magic), or have precise notions (as in having a scientific theory).

The mind also could see the past or the future as "existent," "non-existent," "both existent and non-existent," or "neither"... whatever you can think of. All of these would be the objects of mind sense (i.e., mind & ideas).

This "All" is inclusive of everything that we can experience and think. That is basically why the Buddha said that if we try to see, or explain something that lies beyond this "All," we'll only end up vexed or frustrated. I think this is a very important clue... it points out the way to a complete liberation.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by acinteyyo »

Sherab wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:I wouldn't, because your statement depends on assumptions which lie beyond range, see Sabba Sutta: The All SN 35.23.
Would this sentence be more agreeable to you? : "The All" refers to all things/phenomena that can be sensed and anything beyond the realm of senses is mere speculation and irrelevant.
I would prefer if you insist on reformulating what is stated in sutta SN35.23: "'The All' refers to the six sense bases as well as to their corresponding sense objects."
The rest of your sentence is irrelevant, because "the All" is already containing everything there is and talking about another "All" lies beyond range.
Sherab wrote:If so, how would you regard those things that man cannot sense? For example, magnetic fields? Note that the teachings only talked about the five senses.
If you examine Sutta SN35.23 carefully again you will notice that the teachings are talking about the six senses and define the six senses and their corresponding objects as "the All" (and in SN 35.82 as "the world").
SN35.23
"What is the All? Simply the
1. eye & forms,
2.ear & sounds,
3.nose & aromas,
4.tongue & flavors,
5.body & tactile sensations,
6.intellect & ideas."
A magnetic field is part of "the All". We can talk about it, think about the idea of magnetic fields and so on because it lies within the sphere of our senses. But I don't want to go in for further discussion in that particular direction. Please keep in mind that it's just suffering and the ending of suffering which the Buddha was concerend with and not physics.
Sherab wrote:And how would you regard hypotheses and theories that are useful but cannot be proven, let alone sense, and would be beyond the comprehension of most people?
It depends, something which is useful for you needn't to be useful for anyone else and vice versa. But if you don't comprehend a hypotheses, theorie, idea or what ever, if you don't understand it, don't grasp it how can it be useful?
Sherab wrote:Also if you accept that free will/choice exists in the present, then you will have to advocate a multiverse theory since there will be many different paths that the future can take depending on the choices that you make in the present.
There are many different paths that the future can take depending on the choices that you make in the present, don't you think? Things aren't completely determined but they aren't also completely independent. There is only the present moment, the here and now. Future is nothing else but an idea in the present about how the present could become next. Which doesn't need to have anything to do with the present which actually became next. When a "future"(-idea) becomes reality we call it present. But the present can certainly change in a way no one expected and still can become real. The past is also just an idea in the present about how the present which has already changed could have been before. This idea of the past present also doesn't need to have anything to do with the past present which really was when it was actually present. This is the way I see it, but btw I don't consider such thoughts important for liberation from suffering.
Sherab wrote:All these futures have to exist side by side with one another in the present don't they?
All ideas which are thought toghether about how the present could probably become next exist (more or less) with one another in the present.
Sherab wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Past and future (as well as present) exist in the present; but they exist as past and as future.
Is this what the Buddha taught?
I'm not quite sure about that... maybe, maybe not. It's what Ven. Ñanavira Bhikkhu said about past, present and future.
But I wouldn't ponder much about it, what the Buddha taught is this:
MN 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta: An Auspicious Day
"You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. [...]"

"And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.

"And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called not chasing after the past.

"And how does one place expectations on the future? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called placing expectations on the future.

"And how does one not place expectations on the future? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the future I might have such a form (body)'... 'In the future I might have such a feeling'... 'In the future I might have such a perception'... 'In the future I might have such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the future I might have such a consciousness.' This is called not placing expectations on the future.

"And how is one taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who has not seen the noble ones, is not versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is not trained in the teachings of the noble ones, sees form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

"He/she sees feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.

"He/she sees perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.

"He/she sees thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.

"He/she sees consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called being taken in with regard to present qualities.

"And how is one not taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones who has seen the noble ones, is versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is well-trained in the teachings of the noble ones, does not see form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

"He/she does not see feeling as self, or self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling.

"He/she does not see perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception.

"He/she does not see thought-fabrications as self, or self as possessing thought-fabrications, or thought-fabrications as in self, or self as in thought-fabrications.

"He/she does not see consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. This is called not being taken in with regard to present qualities.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by kirk5a »

acinteyyo wrote: I would prefer if you insist on reformulating what is stated in sutta SN35.23: "'The All' refers to the six sense bases as well as to their corresponding sense objects."
The rest of your sentence is irrelevant, because "the All" is already containing everything there is and talking about another "All" lies beyond range.
Are you leaving room to accomodate this statement?

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by Kenshou »

"Consciousness without surface" is a tricky issue with a lot of interpretations. It would probably be good to look into a variety of them rather than just Thanissaro's. I'm just saying, it's one of those things.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by acinteyyo »

kirk5a wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: I would prefer if you insist on reformulating what is stated in sutta SN35.23: "'The All' refers to the six sense bases as well as to their corresponding sense objects."
The rest of your sentence is irrelevant, because "the All" is already containing everything there is and talking about another "All" lies beyond range.
Are you leaving room to accomodate this statement?

"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm leaving room... but I prefer to put it aside for the moment, 'cuz with respect to it I don't dare taking a position. "viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ" seems not to be all clear and far from easy to understand. See for example http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 618#p87611

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by kirk5a »

Fair enough. I just wondered whether if we interpret that sutta on "the all" as:

"the six sense bases as well as their corresponding sense objects contains everything there is"

... if it's quite right to restate it that way.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by kirk5a »

Kenshou wrote:"Consciousness without surface" is a tricky issue with a lot of interpretations. It would probably be good to look into a variety of them rather than just Thanissaro's. I'm just saying, it's one of those things.
Apparently! :smile: Not taking a position myself, I'm open to other interpretations.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by acinteyyo »

kirk5a wrote:Fair enough. I just wondered whether if we interpret that sutta on "the all" as:

"the six sense bases as well as their corresponding sense objects contains everything there is"

... if it's quite right to restate it that way.
What I'm trying to point out is that the six sense bases as well as their corresponding sense objects contain everything there is for us to experience.
I don't have a clue what "consciousness without surface" is like or is not like. I'm not able to tell anything about it, because I'm not able to experience it by the means available, it lies beyond range...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by kirk5a »

(This just popped into my head, sorry.)

And I get so tired when I have to explain
When you're so far away from me
See you've been in the sun and I've been in the rain
And you're so far away from me

So far away from me
So far I just can't see
So far away from me
You're so far away from me... all right.

Dire straits. :smile:
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by Sherab »

Here's a summary of what I see to be a problem:

If "the All" is confined only to whatever we can experience directly with our five senses and indirectly by the mind through the five senses (eg magnetic fields), then "the All" is confined to only the present experiences since the past is no longer there to be experienced and the future has not arrived as yet to be experienced. Thus, the Buddha's claim of being enlightened in regard of all things excludes the past and the future. If so, the Buddha's ability to see the past and the future is false. If the Buddha's ability to see the past and future is true, then the definition/interpretation of "the All" is called into question.

And the above have not even touch on where the consciousness without surface brought up by kirk5a resides within "the All".
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by ground »

Sherab wrote:Here's a summary of what I see to be a problem:

If "the All" is confined only to whatever we can experience directly with our five senses and indirectly by the mind through the five senses (eg magnetic fields), then "the All" is confined to only the present experiences since the past is no longer there to be experienced and the future has not arrived as yet to be experienced. Thus, the Buddha's claim of being enlightened in regard of all things excludes the past and the future. If so, the Buddha's ability to see the past and the future is false. If the Buddha's ability to see the past and future is true, then the definition/interpretation of "the All" is called into question.

And the above have not even touch on where the consciousness without surface brought up by kirk5a resides within "the All".
There are two faults:
1. Fault: Differentiating between "direct" experience of the physical senses and alleged "indirect" experience of the mind
2. Fault: Differentiating between "present things", "past things" and "future things" which presupposes real "time"

One imprisoned in "time" certainly could never be "enlightened in regard to all things".

Kind regards
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by tiltbillings »

TMingyur wrote:
Sherab wrote:Here's a summary of what I see to be a problem:

If "the All" is confined only to whatever we can experience directly with our five senses and indirectly by the mind through the five senses (eg magnetic fields), then "the All" is confined to only the present experiences since the past is no longer there to be experienced and the future has not arrived as yet to be experienced. Thus, the Buddha's claim of being enlightened in regard of all things excludes the past and the future. If so, the Buddha's ability to see the past and the future is false. If the Buddha's ability to see the past and future is true, then the definition/interpretation of "the All" is called into question.

And the above have not even touch on where the consciousness without surface brought up by kirk5a resides within "the All".
There are two faults:
1. Fault: Differentiating between "direct" experience of the physical senses and alleged "indirect" experience of the mind
2. Fault: Differentiating between "present things", "past things" and "future things" which presupposes real "time"

One imprisoned in "time" certainly could never be "enlightened in regard to all things".

Kind regards
Since this is a a General Theravada discussion section, please tie what is being said into actual Theravadin texts.
>> 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
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by ground »

tiltbillings wrote:Since this is a a General Theravada discussion section, please tie what is being said into actual Theravadin texts.
Sorry ... I was not even sure whether Sherab's presuppositions in the context of "Enlightened in regard to all things" do comply with the Theravadan view that is why I felt it to be okay to respond similarly.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by ground »

I feel that if we restrict the meaning of "enlightened in regard to all things" to the context of cause and effect in the context of dukkha then "enlightened in regard to all things" may capture the theravadan view and Sherab presuppositions regarding this expression may be recogized as invalid and/or speculative ... which then of course also applies to my response above. Why? Because in both Sherab's approach and my response there is a bias towards "knowing things" which necessarily neglects "knowing dukkha, its causes, the end of dukkha and the way to end dukkha" (at least to some degree ... which may be significant).

Kind regards
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:53 am

Re: "Enlightened in regard to all things"

Post by Sherab »

TMingyur wrote:... I was not even sure whether Sherab's presuppositions in the context of "Enlightened in regard to all things" do comply with the Theravadan view that is why I felt it to be okay to respond similarly.
TMingyur wrote:I feel that if we restrict the meaning of "enlightened in regard to all things" to the context of cause and effect in the context of dukkha then "enlightened in regard to all things" may capture the theravadan view and Sherab presuppositions regarding this expression may be recogized as invalid and/or speculative ... which then of course also applies to my response above. Why? Because in both Sherab's approach and my response there is a bias towards "knowing things" which necessarily neglects "knowing dukkha, its causes, the end of dukkha and the way to end dukkha" (at least to some degree ... which may be significant).
Please re-read carefully the opening post and my other posts in this thread before you presuppose things that I don't presuppose.
Post Reply