the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:46 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:38 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:29 pm


:strawman:



It’s not a straw man as I’m asking you a question. I’m asking what you have in mind when you say “literal being”, “literal birth” and “literal death”?

To me, clinging leading to the birth of “I am” is quite literal. There being a “being” and the manifestation and taking up of the aggregates, sickness and death coming to be is quite literal.

Just in case you misunderstand, I’m not applying this to a 3 life model either.
"Manifestation" is exactly what I mean for literal.
The whole question is not about manifestation, that is what we call "birth", "death"... but about the calling itself.
The end of birth is the end of self-view (for the sotapanna) plus the end of self-conceit (for the arahant), nothing else.

I imagine that for you, right now, the aggregates have quite literally manifested. The matrix has been produced, which you are living your life in.


An interesting comment from Ven. Nanananda:


“How can one say that the question of an arahant's after death state is totally irrelevant? So that is not the reason.
The reason is that the questions are misleading. Those who posed these questions had the presumption that the word Tathāgata implied a truly existing being or a person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.

Though it is fallacious, for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as 'I' and 'mine', or a 'being' and a 'person', it is not a mere way of expression. It is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values.”

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm

For the everyday person, the world is a real thing. Part of that “real world” is death, ageing, sickness and suffering.

For the Arahant, that all ceases.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:46 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:38 pm




It’s not a straw man as I’m asking you a question. I’m asking what you have in mind when you say “literal being”, “literal birth” and “literal death”?

To me, clinging leading to the birth of “I am” is quite literal. There being a “being” and the manifestation and taking up of the aggregates, sickness and death coming to be is quite literal.

Just in case you misunderstand, I’m not applying this to a 3 life model either.
"Manifestation" is exactly what I mean for literal.
The whole question is not about manifestation, that is what we call "birth", "death"... but about the calling itself.
The end of birth is the end of self-view (for the sotapanna) plus the end of self-conceit (for the arahant), nothing else.

I imagine that for you, right now, the aggregates have quite literally manifested. The matrix has been produced, which you are living your life in.


An interesting comment from Ven. Nanananda:


“How can one say that the question of an arahant's after death state is totally irrelevant? So that is not the reason.
The reason is that the questions are misleading. Those who posed these questions had the presumption that the word Tathāgata implied a truly existing being or a person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.

Though it is fallacious, for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as 'I' and 'mine', or a 'being' and a 'person', it is not a mere way of expression. It is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values.”

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm
I'm not saying that there is no manifestation :cry:
I'm saying that "satta" refers to the concept of being, not to the manifestation of being.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:08 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:46 pm


"Manifestation" is exactly what I mean for literal.
The whole question is not about manifestation, that is what we call "birth", "death"... but about the calling itself.
The end of birth is the end of self-view (for the sotapanna) plus the end of self-conceit (for the arahant), nothing else.

I imagine that for you, right now, the aggregates have quite literally manifested. The matrix has been produced, which you are living your life in.


An interesting comment from Ven. Nanananda:


“How can one say that the question of an arahant's after death state is totally irrelevant? So that is not the reason.
The reason is that the questions are misleading. Those who posed these questions had the presumption that the word Tathāgata implied a truly existing being or a person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.

Though it is fallacious, for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as 'I' and 'mine', or a 'being' and a 'person', it is not a mere way of expression. It is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values.”

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm
I'm not saying that there is no manifestation :cry:
I'm saying that "satta" refers to the concept of being, not to the manifestation of being.

I don’t see a difference. When the person reaches Arahantship the world ceases for them, but for “you and I” there is very much the world, suffering and death. We are still “in” the programme of the Matrix, to make use of a modern analogy. For some reason you think the physical death within that Matrix means the end of it. It can’t because it’s part of that illusionary like world.

Taking physical death to be something is part of the problem.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:16 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:08 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:04 pm



I imagine that for you, right now, the aggregates have quite literally manifested. The matrix has been produced, which you are living your life in.


An interesting comment from Ven. Nanananda:


“How can one say that the question of an arahant's after death state is totally irrelevant? So that is not the reason.
The reason is that the questions are misleading. Those who posed these questions had the presumption that the word Tathāgata implied a truly existing being or a person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.

Though it is fallacious, for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as 'I' and 'mine', or a 'being' and a 'person', it is not a mere way of expression. It is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values.”

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm
I'm not saying that there is no manifestation :cry:
I'm saying that "satta" refers to the concept of being, not to the manifestation of being.

I don’t see a difference. When the person reaches Arahantship the world ceases for them, but for “you and I” there is very much the world, suffering and death. We are still “in” the programme of the Matrix, to make use of a modern analogy. For some reason you think the physical death within that Matrix means the end of it. It can’t because it’s part of that illusionary like world.

Taking physical death to be something is part of the problem.
There IS a difference, just because the Arahant no longer has the concept of death, yet there is still the manifestation of death.
The same goes for birth.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:27 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:16 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:08 pm


I'm not saying that there is no manifestation :cry:
I'm saying that "satta" refers to the concept of being, not to the manifestation of being.

I don’t see a difference. When the person reaches Arahantship the world ceases for them, but for “you and I” there is very much the world, suffering and death. We are still “in” the programme of the Matrix, to make use of a modern analogy. For some reason you think the physical death within that Matrix means the end of it. It can’t because it’s part of that illusionary like world.

Taking physical death to be something is part of the problem.
There IS a difference, just because the Arahant no longer has the concept of death, yet there is still the manifestation of death.
The same goes for birth.

Not for the Arahant. He’s checked out of this merry-go-round.

“Being” is merely a shorthand and a conventional word for an instance of clinging > becoming > jati, as we have already covered. The worlding takes being to mean a concrete “thing”. The Arahant understands “being” to be the result of clinging > becoming > jati and so does not get deluded by the linguistic convention.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:34 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:27 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:16 pm



I don’t see a difference. When the person reaches Arahantship the world ceases for them, but for “you and I” there is very much the world, suffering and death. We are still “in” the programme of the Matrix, to make use of a modern analogy. For some reason you think the physical death within that Matrix means the end of it. It can’t because it’s part of that illusionary like world.

Taking physical death to be something is part of the problem.
There IS a difference, just because the Arahant no longer has the concept of death, yet there is still the manifestation of death.
The same goes for birth.

Not for the Arahant. He’s checked out of this merry-go-round.

“Being” is merely a shorthand and a conventional word for an instance of clinging > becoming > jati, as we have already covered. The worlding takes being to mean a concrete “thing”. The Arahant understands “being” to be the result of clinging > becoming > jati and so does not get deluded by the linguistic convention.
So we also use the term "manifestation" differently. :( I try to be clearer.
We see the Arahant dying, that is manifestation of death. Conventional, of course, but we are talking about that event we call "death".
The conventional event still occurs to the Arahant, that we see, but he no longer think "I am", "I was born", "I will die".
So the end of death is just the end of the concept of death.
Same goes for birth: the end of birth is just the end of the concept of birth, not the end of the conventional event we call "birth".
Because the end of being (satta) is just the end of self-view (satta is a ditthi) plus the end of self-conceit (satta is a visatto). Nothing else.
It's just about concepts in our mind, not the physical events to which we give meaning with concepts.
We see the Arahant dying, so just his concept of death ended.
Since "birth" just refers to the concept of birth in this teaching, birth only continues as a concept, not as a physical event.
So there is no point in speculating a new physical birth after physical death, even conventionally.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:07 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:34 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:27 pm


There IS a difference, just because the Arahant no longer has the concept of death, yet there is still the manifestation of death.
The same goes for birth.

Not for the Arahant. He’s checked out of this merry-go-round.

“Being” is merely a shorthand and a conventional word for an instance of clinging > becoming > jati, as we have already covered. The worlding takes being to mean a concrete “thing”. The Arahant understands “being” to be the result of clinging > becoming > jati and so does not get deluded by the linguistic convention.
So we also use the term "manifestation" differently. :( I try to be clearer.
We see the Arahant dying, that is manifestation of death. Conventional, of course, but we are talking about that event we call "death".
The conventional event still occurs to the Arahant, that we see, but he no longer think "I am", "I was born", "I will die".
So the end of death is just the end of the concept of death.
Same goes for birth: the end of birth is just the end of the concept of birth, not the end of the conventional event we call "birth".
Because the end of being (satta) is just the end of self-view (satta is a ditthi) plus the end of self-conceit (satta is a visatto). Nothing else.
It's just about concepts in our mind, not the physical events to which we give meaning with concepts.
We see the Arahant dying, so just his concept of death ended.
Since "birth" just refers to the concept of birth in this teaching, birth only continues as a concept, not as a physical event.
So there is no point in speculating a new physical birth after physical death, even conventionally.

Perhaps there is a language barrier but I would say “phenomenon” of death instead of “concept” of death, which sounds more like a view.

Conventionally, after physical death, the person is reborn in accordance with kamma.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

For the worlding the Arahant dies because they have fabricated “things”, the world and the aggregates. Within that world the Arahant dies. For the Arahant, there is the deathless as he no longer fabricates “things”, the world or the aggregates.


The deathless isn’t the cessation of the “concept” of death. It’s the cessation of the world. You still seem to be taking the aggregates as being real and existing things.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:31 pm
It’s the cessation of the world.
Of the world he constructed until that moment, yet not of the world that everyone else is still creating.
So we are talking about his concepts, whether you like it or not.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:31 pm
You still seem to be taking the aggregates as being real and existing things.
Talking about concepts related to things doesn't imply affirming the existence of things.
Make such a comment again and we won't discuss anymore, because you are boring me.
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sat Feb 15, 2020 2:29 pm
Indeed the question is not "existence" or "non-existence", but the way we conceive things.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr, you always quote Nyanananda, who was the master of concepts! :D
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_4.0.pdf
I stop here :anjali:
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17740
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:46 pm
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:31 pm
You still seem to be taking the aggregates as being real and existing things.
Talking about concepts related to things doesn't imply affirming the existence of things.
...
One of my pet hates is language that makes the aggregates sound like building blocks.
You can't "build" a "thing" out of processes like feeling, perception, etc...
Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities ('heaps', 'bundles'), while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body- and -mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental formations are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_k.htm
:heart:
Mike

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92

Of the world he constructed until that moment, yet not of the world that everyone else is still creating.
I agree.
So we also use the term "manifestation" differently. :( I try to be clearer.
We see the Arahant dying, that is manifestation of death. Conventional, of course, but we are talking about that event we call "death".
The conventional event still occurs to the Arahant, that we see, but he no longer think "I am", "I was born", "I will die".
So the end of death is just the end of the concept of death.
Same goes for birth: the end of birth is just the end of the concept of birth, not the end of the conventional event we call "birth".
Because the end of being (satta) is just the end of self-view (satta is a ditthi) plus the end of self-conceit (satta is a visatto). Nothing else.
It's just about concepts in our mind, not the physical events to which we give meaning with concepts.
We see the Arahant dying, so just his concept of death ended.
Since "birth" just refers to the concept of birth in this teaching, birth only continues as a concept, not as a physical event.
So there is no point in speculating a new physical birth after physical death, even conventionally.
To the worldling, the arahant dies. The arahant dies because the worldling has constructed the world, the aggregates, self and self view. They identify the Arahant with one or more of these fabricated aggregates and believe him to have died.

For the sotāpanna the arahant does not die as he has removed self view, but there is still death for the sotāpanna himself due to his conceit (among the other fetters). Māna is the result of constructing the world and manifesting the aggregates, thus binding the sotāpanna to existence and death. He is still stuck in the world of his own making.

For the arahant the world, the aggregates, self and self view are not constructed. The world not being constructed there is the deathless. Death can only be when there is a world, aggregates, self.

The deathless isn't simply the end of the concept of "I am dying". It is the cessation of the very world itself, with "I am dying" ceasing because of that. Its not the case that there is a body that expires, but the arahant thinks "this is not me" and so there is the deathless. It is the case that the Arahant doesn't fabricate "body" to begin with.

In terms of birth, the worldling has constructed the world, the aggregates, self and self view. They identify with one or more of the fabricated aggregates and believe there to have been their birth, your birth and so on. If they believe in multiple lives then that view is born from this. The same with if they believe in one life, or are a sceptic about such matters or anything in between. If they believe in multiple lives and kamma then this view is acceptable, although tainted. In the supermundane teaching, which the worldling does not know or understand, birth refers to the arising of māna and the obtaining of the manifested aggregates. There being "I am", there being "body" and the view "I am the body" etc. There is the world with all of its ageing, sickness, death and suffering.

Not manifesting the world there is no manifestation of the self, aggregates, ageing, illness and death.


Talking about concepts related to things doesn't imply affirming the existence of things.
Make such a comment again and we won't discuss anymore, because you are boring me.
I made the comment because you seemed to be stating that there is still a body with expires, but its just that the Arahant doesn't think of it in terms of self and doesn't have conceit and so therefore there is the deathless. If thats a wrong interpretation, which ive gone into above, then I apologise but that is how your posts are reading. You seem to be saying that for the Arahant, there is still a body that "dies".
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:58 pm
you seemed to be stating that there is still a body with expires
Yes, from our point of view. I also write "conventional" many times, but since you've decided that I'm a realist, you pretend not to read it.
Ceisiwr wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 6:58 pm
You seem to be saying that for the Arahant, there is still a body that "dies".
No, only for us while seeing him. He no longer has any concept, "body" included.

That everything is ultimately just a concept is clear to my dog too.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

From "The Law of Dependent Arising", sermon 3, by Ven. K. Nyanananda:
“Ettāvatā kho Ānanda jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā
cavetha vā uppajjetha vā, ettāvatā adhivacanapatho ettāvatā
niruttipatho ettāvatā paññattipatho ettāvatā paññāvacaraṁ
ettāvatā vaṭṭaṁ vaṭṭati itthattaṁ paññāpanāya yadidaṁ nāmarūpaṁ saha viññāṇena”

“In so far only, Ānanda, can one be born or grow old or
die or pass away or reappear, in so far only is there any pathway
for a verbal expression, in so far only is there any pathway for
terminology, in so far only is there any pathway for designation,
in so far only is there any sphere of wisdom, in so far only is
there a whirling round for a state of ‘thisness’, that is to say, as
far as name-and-form together with consciousness.”

The full significance of the whirling round for a
designation of this existence (ettāvātā vaṭṭaṁ vaṭṭati itthataṁ
paññāpaṇāya) emerges from this declaration. This is the standard
quotation asserting the validity of our simile of the vortex
between consciousness and name-and-form (nāmarūpaṁ saha
viññāṇena). It is because of this whirling round, this vortex, that
even a designation is possible. The entire problem of existence is
traceable to this vortex and its solution through wisdom is also
within this and not outside it. Even the price of an article is
dependent on the whirling round of supply and demand.
Likewise, it is between these two that is name-and-form and
consciousness – that all concepts of a being in existence are at all
possible.
That's enough.
:anjali:
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7687
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 8:09 pm
From "The Law of Dependent Arising", sermon 3, by Ven. K. Nyanananda:
“Ettāvatā kho Ānanda jāyetha vā jīyetha vā mīyetha vā
cavetha vā uppajjetha vā, ettāvatā adhivacanapatho ettāvatā
niruttipatho ettāvatā paññattipatho ettāvatā paññāvacaraṁ
ettāvatā vaṭṭaṁ vaṭṭati itthattaṁ paññāpanāya yadidaṁ nāmarūpaṁ saha viññāṇena”

“In so far only, Ānanda, can one be born or grow old or
die or pass away or reappear, in so far only is there any pathway
for a verbal expression, in so far only is there any pathway for
terminology, in so far only is there any pathway for designation,
in so far only is there any sphere of wisdom, in so far only is
there a whirling round for a state of ‘thisness’, that is to say, as
far as name-and-form together with consciousness.”

The full significance of the whirling round for a
designation of this existence (ettāvātā vaṭṭaṁ vaṭṭati itthataṁ
paññāpaṇāya) emerges from this declaration. This is the standard
quotation asserting the validity of our simile of the vortex
between consciousness and name-and-form (nāmarūpaṁ saha
viññāṇena). It is because of this whirling round, this vortex, that
even a designation is possible. The entire problem of existence is
traceable to this vortex and its solution through wisdom is also
within this and not outside it. Even the price of an article is
dependent on the whirling round of supply and demand.
Likewise, it is between these two that is name-and-form and
consciousness – that all concepts of a being in existence are at all
possible.
That's enough.
:anjali:

Which is what I have been saying all along, yet Ven. Nanananda was able to incorporate “rebirth” into a foetus into his system of teaching. Something for you to think about.
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

Post Reply