Brahmajala Sutta

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Brahmajala Sutta

Postby K.Dhamma » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:16 pm

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

Ok so here is the passage I am reading. With one question following it.

49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?

"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

50. "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are partial-eternalists proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. Whatever recluses and brahmins there may be who proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.


Pardon the confusion, but I just need clarification. I think it's because of the way in which the context and wording is, but is he pointing out that mind/mentality/consciosness is impermanent too right? I have realized that it's all impermanent, but I have difficulty reading some of the suttas and just want clarification.

He is pointing out that there are some of those who believe that citta/mano/vinnana is permanent and having that view is a wrong view right?
"Remember you dont meditate to get anything, but to get rid of things. We do it, not with desire, but with letting go. If you want anything, you wont find it." - Ajahn Chah
K.Dhamma
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:50 am

Re: Brahmajala Sutta

Postby LonesomeYogurt » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:37 pm

The Buddha is simply saying that an eternalist believes that the mind is permanent. The Buddha, of course, was not an eternalist.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta

Stuff I write about things.
User avatar
LonesomeYogurt
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
Location: America

Re: Brahmajala Sutta

Postby santa100 » Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:50 pm

That view (wrong view #8 out of 62) is among the Four Kinds of Dualistic View in Eternity and Non-Eternity (wrong views #4 through #8). This view basically believes that the physical components (eye, ear, nose, etc.) are impermanent and not eternal, while the immaterial components (mind, thought, consciousness) are permanent and eternal (an eternalist view, which is a wrong view)..
santa100
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Brahmajala Sutta

Postby K.Dhamma » Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:05 pm

Clarified. Thank you!

Metta.
"Remember you dont meditate to get anything, but to get rid of things. We do it, not with desire, but with letting go. If you want anything, you wont find it." - Ajahn Chah
K.Dhamma
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:50 am

Re: Brahmajala Sutta

Postby Virgo » Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:39 pm

K.Dhamma wrote:He is pointing out that there are some of those who believe that citta/mano/vinnana is permanent and having that view is a wrong view right?

Yes, exactly.

Edit: I am guilty of reading the question and responding before reading any of the other responses. It seems you were already answered, oh well. :)
Virgo
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: Brahmajala Sutta

Postby Ananda26 » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:14 pm

K.Dhamma wrote:http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

Ok so here is the passage I am reading. With one question following it.

49. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things, proclaiming the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal?

"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.'

"This, bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

50. "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are partial-eternalists proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. Whatever recluses and brahmins there may be who proclaim the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.


Pardon the confusion, but I just need clarification. I think it's because of the way in which the context and wording is, but is he pointing out that mind/mentality/consciosness is impermanent too right? I have realized that it's all impermanent, but I have difficulty reading some of the suttas and just want clarification.

He is pointing out that there are some of those who believe that citta/mano/vinnana is permanent and having that view is a wrong view right?


The 5 aggregates affected by clinging are not fit to be reguarded as self. Therefor there is not an eternal self. Non eternal indicates an acceptence of impermanence subject to change and is therefore not fit to be reguarded as self. And the same as to partly eternal and partly non eternal.
Ananda26
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:41 pm


Return to Classical Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest