Interesting thoughts.
Regarding "consciousness without feature", could this be intellect without object?
Metta,
Retro.

Moderator: mikenz66
Of course. But what does it mean? The Buddha couldn't be referring to those who subscribe to his Dhamma. If he did, he was merely preaching to the converted. If he was referring to those recluse etc. who don't subscribe to his Dhamma, then the Buddha was merely setting up the playing field to ensure that he could not lose. Do you think the Buddha intended this?retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Sherab,
You'll note the sutta extract you provide says "in accordance with the Dhamma"...
You may be interested to know that I consider omniscience to be like omnipotence - logically impossible.retrofuturist wrote: To wit, I think when people project god-like omniscience onto the Buddha, they do so without an appreciation for the qualifications the Buddha gave on that which could be directly known.
I believe he was reframing it according to truth (Dhamma).Sherab wrote:Of course. But what does it mean? The Buddha couldn't be referring to those who subscribe to his Dhamma. If he did, he was merely preaching to the converted. If he was referring to those recluse etc. who don't subscribe to his Dhamma, then the Buddha was merely setting up the playing field to ensure that he could not lose. Do you think the Buddha intended this?
How was "sabba" (all) used by other religionists?retrofuturist wrote: The Sabba Sutta is such an instance of the Buddha rephrasing a term "sabba" (all) used by other religionists so that it accorded with Dhamma.
Hi Retroretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Kirk,
Interesting thoughts.
Regarding "consciousness without feature", could this be intellect without object?
Metta,
Retro.
And then the venerable Sāriputta goes on to say:kirk5a wrote:As regards this sutta "The All" all I know is that the Buddha did talk about this "consciousness without feature" a little bit here and there, and so it would seem to present a difficulty in interpreting "The All" as meaning - there is nothing else besides the 6 sense and their objects. Or so it seems to me, but I'm always open to having misunderstood
Wouldn't that fit with what Sariputta says in the Kotthita Sutta?
[Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?"
[Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This so-called "consciousness without feature" (as it is translated in here) is just a state where no one would be able to find any description for... since there are no objects that we can "stick" onto it, so to speak. That is why no one can ever measure a Tathāgata... even not another Tathāgata can.The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
Very distantly related.kirk5a wrote:Sounds good beeblebrox (are u related to Zaphod?)![]()
At first, I thought it was likely the third one:So then what's the right way to read this sutta "The All" as you see it? Which of my 3 earlier interpretations? Or another one.
And then it occurred to me: it's really none of the above... and not even this, since this would be objectifying too, leading to dukkha. The mind boggles... truly.kirk5a wrote: So is this sutta saying
1) "there isn't anything other than the six senses and their objects" ?
OR
2) "it isn't possible to experience anything other than the six senses and their objects" ?
OR
3) It isn't possible to describe anything beyond the six senses and their objects?
Just reading it as literally as possible, I see it saying #3, not the former. And if it is saying the former, then how does it not run head on into "consciousness without feature" and/or nibbana? I mean, he certainly wasn't saying the six senses and their objects are eternal. And surely he wasn't saying it's not possible to experience "consciousness without feature" and/or nibbana.
beeblebrox wrote:
And then it occurred to me: it's really none of the above... and not even this, since this would be objectifying too. The mind boggles... truly.
My mind hasn't recovered from the boggling yet... so might be a while before I can come up with an answer.kirk5a wrote:So then, what might be the practical application of this sutta for us mere mortals? Does it help our practice somehow? Or is it just another thing to put on the "mind boggling" shelf sigh... lol
I think it's important to keep in mind that the Buddha's primary focus was on dukkha, and then pointing out its cessation. Attempting to go into "beyond the range," clinging to this idea, or trying to explain it is just another source of dukkha, of which we'll have to observe the cessation... which is especially painful if we didn't realize that it was dukkha in the first place (i.e., clung to it).kirk5a wrote:So then, what might be the practical application of this sutta for us mere mortals? Does it help our practice somehow? Or is it just another thing to put on the "mind boggling" shelf sigh... lol
The Buddha responds (SN IV 15):Klaus Klostermaier's A SURVEY OF HINDUISM, pgs: 137-8 wrote:"In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad we read a dialogue in which Yajnavalkya is asked the crucial question: Kati devah, how many are the devas [gods]? His [Yajnavalkya's] first answer is a quotation from a Vedic text:
'Three hundred and three and three thousand and three." Pressed on, he reduces the number first to thirty-three, then to six, then to three, to two, to one-and-a-half and finally to One.
'Which is the one deva [god]?' And he answers: "The prana (breath, life). The Brahman. He is called tyat(that).' Though the devas still figure in sacrificial practice and religious debate, the question 'Who is God?' is here answered in terms that has remained the Hindu answer ever since.
10. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman. It knew only itself (atmanam): "I am Brahman!" Therefore it became the All. Whoever of the gods became awakened to this, he indeed became it; likewise in the case of seers (rsi), likewise in the case of men. Seeing this, indeed, the seer Vamadeva began:-
I was Manu and the sun (surya)!
This is so now also. Whoever thus knows "I am Brahman!" becomes this All; even the gods have not power to prevent his becoming thus, for he becomes their self (atman).
So whoever worships another divinity [than his Self], thinking "He is one and I another," he knows not. He is like a sacrificial animal for the gods. Verily, indeed, as many animals would be of service to a man, even so each single person is of service to the gods. If even one animal is taken away, it is not pleasant. What, then, if many? Therefore it is not pleasing to those [gods] that men should know this.
11. Verily, in the beginning this world was Brahman, one only. [ -- Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10-11 trans R.C. Zaehner Hindu Scriptures pgs 40-1]
Mano.kirk5a wrote:What is the Pali word that is being translated as "mind" by Ireland and "intellect" by Thanissaro? Thanks.
It's not.kirk5a wrote:Thanks. Ok help me understand this please. I'm working my way through "Samana - Luangta Maha Boowa" (awesome) and in it he says
"I understood clearly that nothing dies. The mind certainly doesn’t die; in
fact, it becomes more pronounced. The more fully we investigate the four elements,
breaking them down into their original properties, the more distinctly
pronounced the mind appears. So where is death to be found? And what is it
that dies? The four elements – earth, water, wind and fire – they don’t die. As
for the mind, how can it die? It becomes more conspicuous, more aware and
more insightful. The mind’s awareness never dies, so why is it so afraid of death?
Because it deceives itself. For eons and eons, it has fooled itself into believing
in death when actually nothing ever dies."
p.193
So which part of "the all" is this "mind's awareness" which never dies?
Like consciousness which "does not land" of SN 12.64? "It's not" part of "the all" in that sense?tiltbillings wrote:It's not.kirk5a wrote:
So which part of "the all" is this "mind's awareness" which never dies?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests