vinasp wrote:Dhamma also means nature. Some have translated that line as:
"Whatever is of a nature to arise, all that is of a nature to cease."
Do you want to compare different translations?
mikenz66 wrote:Personally, I think it's helpful to look at multiple time scales.
retrofuturist wrote:Time-scales are only deemed to be of relevance whilst there is the assumption that a particular dhamma exists over time.
If you remove that erroneous assumption, you remove the notion of time.
mikenz66 wrote:Anyway, I'll leave it to Vincent to defend his "20 year time scale".
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I'm aware that's the erroneous from the point of view of some interpretations...
retrofuturist wrote:Even in Classical Theravada, dhammas only exist for an infinitesimal duration... not 20 years.
"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
mikenz66 wrote:On the other hand, the interpretation I posted in the OP is that a stream-enterer sees all formations arising and ceasing quickly...
vinasp wrote:What about a view, how long does that last?
pegembara wrote:Note that Kondanna's attainment did not occur during meditation but by penetrating to the truth through hearing the Buddha's discourse.
Ajahn Chah wrote: As he sat mindfully listening to the Buddha's discourse, Buddha-nature arose in him. He received a sort of Dhamma "transmission," which was the knowledge that all conditioned things are impermanent. Any thing which is born must have aging and death as a natural result.
This feeling was different from anything he'd ever known before. He truly realized his mind, and so "Buddha" arose within him. At that time the Buddha declared that Añña Kondañña had received the Eye of Dhamma.
mikenz66 wrote:You can dismiss this all as speculation if you like, but any statement about exactly what went on during that week (or the rest of the Buddha's life for that matter) is speculative. We simply don't have the details.
SN 56.11 wrote:That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.
MN 113 wrote:Whatever we imagine it turns to be otherwise.
I don't see anything in my speculation inconsistent with the Suttas.
What do you think it means?
Users browsing this forum: dhammapal, Google [Bot] and 28 guests