DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:26 pm
The Buddha never said his teaching were "complex" (MN 22). I really hope you ordain one day. 5 years of obedience to discipline & limitations to talk.
Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork.
MN 22
You are extracting information that the Dhamma is not-complex from where it is not stated, ie above, plain, open, explicit do not mean that it is not complex or is simple.
I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."
Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to the Blessed One:
Enough now with teaching
what
only with difficulty
I reached.
This Dhamma is not easily realized
by those overcome
with aversion & passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,
deep,
hard to see,
going against the flow —
those delighting in passion,
cloaked in the mass of darkness,
won't see.
Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork.
MN 22
as it said this Dhamma even tho it is hard to understand it is well explained. The simple understanding such as;
- A person is reborn as long as there is craving, when there is no craving he is not reborn.
Even tho this is a true statement but without explaining what is rebirth, how it can happen and how to destroy the craving, it is just a extremely over simplified.
of course it is hard to understand how someone can enter cessation of perception and feeling, how there can be pleasure, consciousness and perception where there is neither feeling, perception nor consciousness;
"Friend Sariputta, could a monk have an attainment of concentration such that he would neither be percipient of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?"
"Yes, friend Ananda, he could..."
Even Devas and Brahma do not understand it;
"There is the case, Sandha, where for an excellent thoroughbred of a man the perception[2] of earth with regard to earth has ceased to exist; the perception of liquid with regard to liquid... the perception of fire with regard to fire... the perception of wind with regard to wind... the perception of the sphere of the infinitude of space with regard to the sphere of the infinitude of space... the perception of the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness with regard to the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness... the perception of the sphere of nothingness with regard to the sphere of nothingness... the perception of the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception with regard to the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception... the perception of this world with regard to this world... the next world with regard to the next world... and whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect: the perception of that has ceased to exist.
"Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, fire, wind, the sphere of the infinitude of space, the sphere of the infinitude of consciousness, the sphere of nothingness, the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world, nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, or pondered by the intellect — and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man.
Homage to you, O superlative man —
you of whom we don't know even what it is
dependent on which
you're absorbed.'"