The Debate Of King Milinda

Post sayings and stories you find interesting or useful.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15232
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Debate : Reborn/Not Reborn

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:24 pm

Thanks Bhante,

I gathered that, I was just grumbling (mildly) that Access to Insight didn't have all of Sariputta's verses in translation. It would be good to read it in context, but if there are no on-line sources I'll have to wait until I have access to a full version.

Many of the Theragatha verses appear in other suttas, and I was also wondering if this particular one did.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 15232
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Debate : Reborn/Not Reborn

Post by mikenz66 » Sun Oct 28, 2012 7:36 pm

OK, I found a 1913 PTS Edition. It's interesting to read these archaic translations:
Not fain am I to die nor yet to live.
I shall lay down this mortal frame anon
With mind alert, with consciousness controlled. (1002)

With thought of death I dally not, nor yet
Delight in living. I await the hour
Like any hireling who hath done his task. (1003)
The verse also appears as 606 in the verses of Sankicca, a student of Sariputta.
http://www.aimwell.org/DPPN/sankicca.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: The Debate : Reborn/Not Reborn

Post by yawares » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:17 pm

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:This is the Pali text from the Theragāthā.

[quote="2. Sāriputtattheragāthā"]1002.
“Nābhinandāmi maraṇaṃ, nābhinandāmi jīvitaṃ.
Kālañca paṭikaṅkhāmi, nibbisaṃ bhatako yathā.

1003.
“Ubhayena midaṃ maraṇameva, nāmaraṇaṃ pacchā vā pure vā.
Paṭipajjatha mā vinassatha, khaṇo vo mā upaccagā.
[/quote] :anjali:

Dear Bhikkhu Pesala :bow:

Thank you so much for the answer, I'll never know how to find it by myself.

I posted the debate @ DSG and Sarah/members said that they loved to read it. :heart:

And @ sariputtadhamma , a member asked questions about householders/bhikkhus (Soul In The Breath?/Going Forth ), I couldn't answer so I searched yahoo for MILINDAPANHA BOOK and found the long.. long version with all details TO ANSWER MY MEMBER.....and he loved it...oh how I wish you were there!

With respect,
yawares :anjali:
Last edited by yawares on Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: The Debate : Reborn/Not Reborn

Post by yawares » Sun Oct 28, 2012 9:21 pm

mikenz66 wrote:OK, I found a 1913 PTS Edition. It's interesting to read these archaic translations:

The verse also appears as 606 in the verses of Sankicca, a student of Sariputta.
http://www.aimwell.org/DPPN/sankicca.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
Dear Mike,

Thanks for the Sankicca story, I like it very much. :heart:
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

The Debate : Knowledge,Wisdom/Pleasant Feeling

Post by yawares » Mon Oct 29, 2012 12:17 pm

Dear Members,

:candle: The Debate of King Milinda :candle:
[ Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala ]


#19. “In one, Nāgasena, in whom knowledge (ñāna) arises does wisdom (paññā) also arise?”

“Yes, O king.”

“Is knowledge the same as wisdom?”

“Yes, O king.”


“Then would he with his knowledge and wisdom be in ignorance about anything?”

“He would still be in ignorance about the things he had not yet learnt but regarding what had been accomplished by wisdom — that is the perception of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and soullessness — he would not be ignorant.”

“Then what would have happened to his delusions on those points?”

“From the moment when knowledge arises, delusion passes away. As when the light comes, darkness disappears.”

“But then what has become of his wisdom?”

:candle: “When wisdom has accomplished its task then it disappears; but his understanding of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and soullessness does not disappear.” :candle:

“Give me an illustration.”

“As a man who wants to write a letter at night would have a lamp lit and then write the letter. Then he would put out the lamp, but though the lamp had been put out the letter would remain.”

----------

#20. “Is a pleasant feeling wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral?”

“It may be any one of the three.”

“But surely, venerable sir, if wholesome conditions are not painful and painful ones are not wholesome, then there can be no wholesome condition that is at the same time painful.”

“What do you think, O king? If a man were to hold in one hand a hot iron ball and in the other a ball of ice, would they both hurt him?”

“Indeed they would.”


:heart: “Then your hypothesis must be wrong. If they are not both hot but the heat hurts, and they are not both cold but the cold hurts then the pain does not come from the heat or the cold.” :heart:

“I am not able to argue with you. Please explain the matter.”

Then the elder taught the king the Abhidhamma: “There are six pleasures connected with the world and six of renunciation; six worldly sorrows and six of renunciation; and six neutral feelings in each case, altogether thirty-six. Then there are thirty-six feelings in the past, present, and future so altogether there are one hundred and eight feelings.”

******to be continued********
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

The Debate :Mind,Matter/ Time

Post by yawares » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:32 pm

Dear Members,

:candle: The Debate of King Milinda :candle:
[ Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala ]


#21. “What is it, Nāgasena, that is reborn?”

“Mind and matter.”

“Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”

“No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”

“Give me an illustration.”

“It is like a fire that a man might kindle and, having warmed himself, he might leave it burning and go away. Then if that fire were to set light to another man’s field and the owner were to seize him and accuse him before the king, and he were to say, ‘Your majesty, I did not set this man’s field on fire. The fire that I left burning was different to that which burnt his field. I am not guilty.’ Would he deserve punishment?”

“Indeed, yes, because whatever he might say the latter fire resulted from the former one.”


“Just so, O king, by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”
------------
#22. “You were explaining just now about mind and matter. Therein what is mind and what is matter?”

“Whatever is gross is materiality, whatever is subtle and mind or mental-states is mentality.”

“Why are they not born separately?”

:heart: “These conditions are related like the yolk of an egg and its shell, they always arise together and thus they have been related through time immemorial.”
:heart:
------
#23. “Nāgasena, when you say, ‘Time immemorial,’ what does time mean? Is there any such thing?”

“Time means past, present, and future. There are some for whom time exists and some for whom it doesn’t. Where there are beings who will be reborn, for them time exists; where there are beings who will not be reborn, for them time does not exist.”

“Well put Nāgasena, you are clever in reply.”

******
Notes: Thag. 1002, 1003.
Wholesome deeds are not painful in result but we may find them hard to do because of our attachment and aversion. It is the defilements that cause us to suffer, not the good deeds. Unwholesome deeds are painful in result but we may enjoy doing them due to delusion. When the result comes we have to suffer.
Rhys Davids and Miss Horner, using the Sinhalese text, both read this sentence as: evametam dīghamaddhānam sambhāvitam, which Miss Horner translates, “Thus is produced this long (samsāric) time.” However, the Burmese text has: sandhāvitam, and so I have translated accordingly.

*********to be continued************
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
tidathep
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: The Debate :Mind,Matter/ Time

Post by tidathep » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:36 pm

Hi Yawares,

I really enjoy reading the debates that you posted. :thumbsup:

Tidathep

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: The Debate :Mind,Matter/ Time

Post by yawares » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:10 am

tidathep wrote:Hi Yawares,

I really enjoy reading the debates that you posted. :thumbsup:

Tidathep
Dear Tidathep,

Thank you very much 'new member' :hello:
yawares :smile:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

The Debate : Root/Sense/Beginning

Post by yawares » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:17 pm

Dear Members,

:candle: The Debate of King Milinda :candle:
[ Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala ]


#24. “What is the root, Nāgasena, of past, present, and future time?”

“Ignorance. By ignorance are conditioned formations; by formations, relinking consciousness; by consciousness, mind and matter; by mind and matter, the six sense bases; by the six sense bases, contact; by contact, feeling; by feeling, craving; by craving, attachment; by attachment, becoming; by becoming, birth; by birth are conditioned old age, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair.”
---------
#25. “You say that the ultimate beginning of things is not apparent. Give me an illustration.”

“The Blessed One said, ‘By reason of the sense bases and the sense objects there arises contact; by reason of contact, feeling; by reason of feeling, craving; and by reason of craving, action (kamma). Then, from action, sense bases are once more produced.’ Now could there be any end to this series?”

“No.”

“Just so, O king, the ultimate beginning of things cannot be comprehended.”

------------
#26. “Is the ultimate beginning of everything unknown.”

“Partly so and partly not.”

“Then which so and which not?”

“Whatever condition preceded this birth, that is to us as if it had not been. In reference to that, the ultimate beginning is not known. However, that which has not been comes into existence, and as soon as it has arisen it disappears again. With reference to that the ultimate beginning can be known.”

-------to be continued------
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

The Debate : Formations/The One Who knows

Post by yawares » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:52 pm

Dear Members,

:candle: The Debate of King Milinda :candle:
[ Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala ]


#27. “Are there any formations that are produced?”

“Certainly, O king. Where there is an eye and also forms there is sight; where there is sight there is contact; where there is contact there is feeling; where there is feeling there is craving; where there is craving there is attachment; where there is attachment there is becoming; where there is becoming there is birth, old age, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair. However, where the eye and forms are not, sight is not; contact is not, feeling is not, craving is not, attachment is not, becoming is not; and where there is no becoming there is no birth, old age, death, grief, pain, sorrow, or despair.”

------

#28. “Are there any formations that are not produced?”

“There are not, O king, for it is just by a process of becoming that they are produced.”

“Give me an illustration.”

“Was this house where you are sitting produced by a process of becoming?”

“There is nothing here that was not. This wood was in the forest and this clay was in the ground and it was through the effort of men and women that this house came to exist.”

“Just so, O king there are no formations that are not produced.”

----------------
#29. “Is there, Nāgasena, such a thing as ‘The one who knows’ (vedagū)?”2

“What is this thing?”

“The living principle within that sees, hears, tastes, smells, feels, and discerns things; just as we, sitting here, can look out of any window we wish to.”

“If, O king, the living principle within can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel things like you say, can it not also see forms through the ear and so on?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Then, O king, the living principle within cannot make use of whichever sense it pleases as you suggested. It is, O king, by reason of the eye and forms that sight and those other conditions arise, namely; contact, feeling, perception, intention, one-pointedness, vitality and attention. Each arises simultaneously with its cause and herein ‘The one who knows’ cannot be found.”

------------to be continued------------
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: The Debate : Root/Sense/Beginning

Post by yawares » Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm

yawares wrote:Dear Members,

#26. “Is the ultimate beginning of everything unknown.”

“Partly so and partly not.”

“Then which so and which not?”

“Whatever condition preceded this birth, that is to us as if it had not been. In reference to that, the ultimate beginning is not known. However, that which has not been comes into existence, and as soon as it has arisen it disappears again. With reference to that the ultimate beginning can be known.”

yawares :anjali:
Dear Bhikkhu Pesala,

A Sariputtadhamma-member asked me this question...I searched yahoo BUT I couldn't find the answer.
--------------
" Dear Yawares,

I am curious as to the meaning of this last two sentences of your quote:

"However, that which has not been comes into existence, and as soon as it has
arisen it disappears again. With reference to that the ultimate beginning can be
known."

I do not have a clue how "the ultimate beginning can be known" with reference to
"that"! ....Please elaborate for me?"


-------------
Could you please give me the answer, thank you very much.

With respect,
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
yawares
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:23 pm

The Debate : Consciousness/Contact And Feeling

Post by yawares » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:30 pm

Dear Members,

:candle: The Debate of King Milinda :candle:
[ Edited by Bhikkhu Pesala ]


#30. “Does mind-consciousness arise wherever eye-consciousness arises?”

“Yes, O king, where the one is there the other is.”

“Which arises first?”

“First eye-consciousness then mind-consciousness.”


“Does eye-consciousness issue a command to mind-consciousness or vice versa?”

“No, there is no communication between them.”

“Then why is it, Nāgasena, that mind-consciousness arises wherever there is eye-consciousness?”

“Because, O king, there is a tendency, an opening, a habit and an association.”


“Give me an illustration.”

“If a king’s border town had a strong wall and only one gateway and a man wanted to leave the town, which way would he go?”

“Through the gateway.”

“And if another man left, which way would he go?”

“Through the same gateway.”


“But does the first man issue a command to the second saying, ‘Go out the same way as I do,’ or does the second man tell the first, ‘I will go out the same way as you do’?”

“No venerable sir, there is no communication between them.”

“In the same way mind-consciousness arises wherever there is eye-consciousness but there is no communication between them.”

------------------
#31. “Where there is mind-consciousness, Nāgasena, is there always contact and feeling?”

“Yes, where there is mind-consciousness there is contact and feeling. And also perception, intention, initial application, and sustained application.”


“What is the characteristic mark of contact?”

“Touching.”

“Give me an illustration.”

“As when two rams butt together; the eye is like one ram, visible object is like the other and the butting together of the two is contact.”
----------
yawares :anjali:

User avatar
Will
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: The Debate Of King Milinda

Post by Will » Wed May 10, 2017 5:22 pm

Yes this is wonderful Dhamma. This kammic background between the King and the Arahat is only in the full translation.

Long before our buddha there was one named Kassapa. Among his bhikkhus was a novice and one very senior to him. The novice was sweeping up and paying more attention to thinking about buddha Kassapa than his work. The senior bhikkhu told him to carry away some of the garbage and take it to the dump - three times he called out. The novice ignored him, so the senior whacked him with his broom handle. The novice then vowed to ask seniors for clarity regarding the Dhamma and to pay close attention. The senior vowed to be more patient and always respond to Dhamma questions.

Many kappas pass... and the novice is reborn as King Milinda, who does seek out any sagely monastics. Yet he is very advanced himself and really is looking for someone wiser to confirm or deny his understanding. No monastics are qualified to help him, so a plea goes out. There is a very wise deva named Mahasana who is asked and reluctantly agrees to take birth as a human. He does so and quickly masters Abhidhamma and the Tipitaka as bhikkhu Nagasena. Then he meets the King and their discussion begins.

Maybe this shared destiny gives added power to the work and thus its great influence to this day.
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. -- Emerson

User avatar
Will
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: The Debate Of King Milinda

Post by Will » Tue May 16, 2017 4:01 am

When Nagasena agrees to discuss with the King as between learned ones, Horner is not certain about the six words meaning. They may be three pairs dealing with the standard format of a scholarly discussion.

I found an online translation of the Nagasena Sutra, which might be the basis for the longer Pali version. At any rate, the sutra says (from the Chinese):
When the wise converse, they question one
another, solve problems together, agree on and
turn down a point together. Winners or losers, they
know right and wrong, and they themselves know
what is right and what is wrong.
That is clear enough. I.B. Horner renders it as:
When the learned are conversing, sire, a turning
over (of a subject) is made and an unravelling is made
and a refutation is made [29] and a redress is made
and a specific point is made and a specific point is made
against it...
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. -- Emerson

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 3687
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: The Debate Of King Milinda

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala » Tue May 16, 2017 7:23 am

My edition reads:

3. Then the king said, “Venerable sir, will you dis­cuss with me again?”
“If your majesty will discuss as a scholar, yes; but if you will discuss as a king, no.”

“How is it then that scholars discuss?”
“When scholars discuss there is a summing up and an unravelling; one or other is shown to be in error. He admits his mistake, yet he does not become angry.”

“Then how is it that kings discuss?”
“When a king discusses a matter and advan­ces a point of view, if anyone differs from him on that point he is apt to punish him.”

“Very well then, it is as a scholar that I will discuss. Let your rever­ence talk without fear.”
“It is well your majesty.”
AIM ForumsPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)

User avatar
Will
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:26 pm
Location: So Cal

Re: The Debate Of King Milinda

Post by Will » Tue May 16, 2017 2:06 pm

May we always discuss in the manner of the learned and never lose our temper!

Since the site that had Nagasena Bhikshu Sutra is gone (or at least I cannot find the text online); those who wish a copy, PM me with your email and I can attach it to that, since it is too big to attach here. It has Chinese on facing pages.
The greatest homage we can pay to truth is to use it. -- Emerson

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests