Who put's down the burden ?

[Srilankaputra]

At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden.

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden.

"And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden.

"And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the casting off of the burden."

That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-gone, the Teacher, said further:


A burden indeed
are the five aggregates,
and the carrier of the burden
is the person.
Taking up the burden in the world
is stressful.
Casting off the burden
is bliss.
Having cast off the heavy burden
and not taking on another,
pulling up craving,
along with its root,
one is free from hunger,
totally unbound.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Srilankaputra]

Note provided by ven Thanissaro;

This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however — the carrier of the burden — has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and-such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp — who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school — said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept's descriptive powers could go.
As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved.

Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. As SN 22.36 points out, when one stops trying to define oneself in any way, one is free from all limitations — and that settles all questions.

[DooDoot]

The fourth factor, however — the carrier of the burden — the person - has no parallel in the four noble truths....

SN 56.11

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

SN 22.22

And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

MN 44

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

SN 5.10

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html

SN 23.2

'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

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

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

MN 98

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name & clan (nāmagottaṃ) are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his living among men by merchandise is called a ‘merchant’…that is how the wise truly see… seers of dependent origination.

SN 22.22

The person, it should be said;
Puggalo tissa vacanīyaṃ.

the venerable of such and such name and clan.
Yvāyaṃ āyasmā evaṃnāmo evaṅgotto;

This is called the bearer of the burden.
ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, bhārahāro.

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.22/en/sujato

[pegembara]

Annihilation
An*ni`hi*la"tion (?), n. [Cf. F. annihilation.] 1. The act of reducing to nothing, or nonexistence; or the act of destroying the form or combination of parts under which a thing exists, so that the name can no longer be applied to it; as, the annihilation of a corporation.

http://www.websters1913.com/words/Annihilation

"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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Srilankaputra]

Thanks. very nice sutta references. It seems when passion for five aggregates is eradicated all doubts also vanish.

Sabbesu dhammesu samuhatesu
Samuhatā vādapathāpi sabbeti.

When all phenomena are done away with,
all means of speaking
are done away with as well.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Srilankaputra]

I received the following reply via PM. Sharing with permission:


As far as i know the pudgalovada school developed a notion of a person who lays down the burden and tried to get around the apparent contradictions with the doctrine of non-self by holding that the person was neither conditioned nor unconditioned, a being that underwent rebirth and experienced nibbana.

Such doctrine was criticized by the Vibbhajavadins. There is some info here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudgalavada

In short the answer to your question, as i understand it according to the Sutta method and the Abhidhamma;

That in the world which conceives and perceives the world is called the world [sn35.116].

The World is perceived and conceived of by the Aggregates[1].

[1] Aggreates can be internal[2] or external [3].

[2] Internal Aggregates are 'the six classes of past, present and future forms', '... feelings', '...perceptions', '...consciousnesses' and '...formations' which, for this or that being, are personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped by wrong view [4] to be a self or belong to an ultimately existing self.

[3] External Aggregates are 'the six classes of past, present and future forms', '... feelings', '...perceptions', '...consciousnesses' and '...formations' which, for this or that other being, for other persons, are personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped by wrong view to be a self or belong to an ultimately existing self by another.

[4] Wrong view because the existence of an ultimately existing self can not be established as a truth or reality neither in nor apart of the Aggregates as is best explained in the Annuradha Sutta;

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it proper to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

Ending of suffering is therefore end of Aggregates and also end of the world wherein a the carrier of the burden would be said the exist in conventional sense;

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the world & the ending of the world. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[DooDoot]

That in the world which conceives and perceives the world is called the world [sn35.116].

And?

The World is perceived and conceived of by the Aggregates.

This sounds like wrong view. ftw? I say the world is conceived by only one aggregate, namely, sankhara aggregate. I think the rest of PM is unnecessary. The sutta below only refers to one aggregate causing the arising of the world, namely, the sankhara of craving & becoming (2nd noble truth). Thanks for sharing the PM. ftw.

But I also say there’s no making an end of suffering without reaching the end of the world. For it is in this fathom-long carcass with its perception and mind that I describe the world, its origin, its cessation, and the practice that leads to its cessation.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.45/en/sujato

Also, the sutta below (in the PM) shows the world ends when craving ends (rather than all of the aggregates).

"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.

SN 12.44

Returning to topic, in the suttas, the term "clan-name" (" evaṃnāmo evaṅgotto") is found in a number of places. See link. This includes referring to an Arahant of such name and such clan (just as suttas refer to Arahant Gotama of the Shakyan clan). However, I think SN 22.22 is simply equating "the person" with "self-view". I think the delusion of self is the carrier of the burden and what puts down the burden is wisdom. Regards Bed time.

[Srilankaputra]

I think the delusion of self is the carrier of the burden and what puts down the burden is wisdom.

I think you are right( in an absolute sense). But this is not an experiential reality for me yet. so i must proceed with the determination i too will follow the noble eight fold path and put down this burden.

[User1249x]

I say the world is conceived by only one aggregate, namely, sankhara aggregate.

Through the Eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world - sn35.116
And what is Eye? That eye which, deriving from the four great essentials, is sensitive surface. This is called eye element. -Vibhaṅga 3.2
"And what is Form? The four great existents and the form derived from them: this is called form. -sn22.057
What is Form Aggregate? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the form aggregate. - SN 22.48

[DooDoot]

...

Friend. I think literally reading sutta is best (rather than than creating papanca/proliferation from suttas). The sutta literally says:

Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes... the ending of the world.

Through the Eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world - sn35.116
And what is Eye? That eye which, deriving from the four great essentials, is sensitive surface. This is called eye element. -Vibhaṅga 3.2

Friend. The eye does not "conceive" ("mānī"' "mana"; "maññati") . Ftw!

Concise Pali English Dictionary
maññati
man + ya
imagines; is of opinion; deems.

[User1249x]

you are contradicting yourself;

Friend. I think literally reading sutta is best (rather than than creating papanca/proliferation from suttas). The sutta literally says:

Through the Eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world - sn35.116

why don't you read this literally? it is as clear as clear can be?

Friend. The eye does not "conceive" ("mānī"' "mana"; "maññati") .

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.
Cakkhunā kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī.

It is exactly what the Sutta says! You are now denying what is written black on white!

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.
Cakkhunā kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī.

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘the world’. How is the world defined?” “Ānanda, that which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one. And what wears out? The eye wears out. Sights … eye consciousness … eye contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact also wears out. The ear … nose … tongue … body … The mind … thoughts … mind consciousness … mind contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact also wears out. That which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one.”

[DooDoot]

why don't you read this literally?

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘the world’. How is the world defined?” “Ānanda, that which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one. And what wears out? The eye wears out. Sights … eye consciousness … eye contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact also wears out. The ear … nose … tongue … body … The mind … thoughts … mind consciousness … mind contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact also wears out. That which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one.”

Why don't you read this literally?

The above appears to be a different usage or meaning of "the world". However, it appears to refer to impermanence (rather than the eye, ear, nose, etc); similar to the following:

Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

again denying what is written black on white.

Black and white is below:

Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[User1249x]

why don't you read this literally?

“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘the world’. How is the world defined?” “Ānanda, that which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one. And what wears out? The eye wears out. Sights … eye consciousness … eye contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact also wears out. The ear … nose … tongue … body … The mind … thoughts … mind consciousness … mind contact wears out. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by mind contact also wears out. That which wears out is called the world in the training of the noble one.”

Why don't you read this literally?

The above appears to be a different usage or meaning of "the world". However, it appears to refer to impermanence (rather than the eye, ear, nose, etc).

again denying what is written black on white and don't change topic now.
Have you heard of proof by contradiction? This is what happened to you ITT.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

again denying what is written black on white.

This post has no substance. The respective views have been exchanged. it is pointless to make posts like this. Thanks.



Metta,
Paul.

[User1249x]

Friend. The eye does not "conceive" ("mānī"' "mana"; "maññati") .

Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.
Cakkhunā kho, āvuso, lokasmiṃ lokasaññī hoti lokamānī.

Consider this discourse carefully