The Buddha and his Teachings, according to Suttas in the Pali Canon

[bigrooster]

Even though there's example for volitional, i still do not understand

Volitional Formations including thoughts, ideas and to a large extent, volition (one's intention to do something).

 

[Pearce]

Volitional Formations including thoughts, ideas and to a large extent, volition (one's intention to do something).

I thought 行 = 行为, action. But from you, it's intention only (which means intend but no action taken)?

 

[happyfingers]

mano mayakaya - 意生身

mano vijnana - 意识 （ 6th consciousness ）
manas vijnana - 末那识 （ 7th consciousness )

 

[bigrooster]

I thought 行 = 行为, action. But from you, it's intention only (which means intend but no action taken)?

Intention first, then speech/deeds/thoughts.

Intention/volition drives the actions by speech/deeds/mental thoughts.

Unwholesome intention drives unwholesome actions by speech/deeds/mental thoughts -> kamma

Likewise for wholesome intention.

 

[chintokkong]

Even though there's example for volitional, i still do not understand

行 (sankhara) has meanings dependent on context.

In general, 行(sankhara) is the aggregated formation of all presenting mental factors (cetasika), except that of 受(vedana) and 想(sanna).

In the context of the 5 aggregates or 12 nidanas, sankhara is usually understood in its active form, which makes the mental factor of volition (思 cetana) prominent. This is why in such contexts, sankhara is usually said to be process of volitional formation, which has a tendency to make forms/things of dhammas.

This is why the three marks are usually said:
- All sankharas are impermanent.
- All sankharas are suffering.
- But all dhammas are without self.

 

[chintokkong]

mano mayakaya - 意生身

mano vijnana - 意识 （ 6th consciousness ）
manas vijnana - 末那识 （ 7th consciousness )

Yup. 末那 is 意. They are the same.

With regards to the yogacara system, both the 6th and 7th vijnanas belong to the ground of manas/mano, with the 7th as the root of manas/mano and the 6th as the vijnana of manas/mano.

 

[Ironside]

行 (sankhara) has meanings dependent on context.

In general, 行(sankhara) is the aggregated formation of all presenting mental factors (cetasika), except that of 受(vedana) and 想(sanna).

In the context of the 5 aggregates or 12 nidanas, sankhara is usually understood in its active form, which makes the mental factor of volition (思 cetana) prominent. This is why in such contexts, sankhara is usually said to be process of volitional formation, which has a tendency to make forms/things of dhammas.

This is why the three marks are usually said:
- All sankharas are impermanent.
- All sankharas are suffering.
- But all dhammas are without self.

You see it is expressed as - All sankharas are suffering.

That is what I meant last time.

 

[AUTUMN&WINTER]

阿赖耶识 也是 如来藏。Our 8th consciousness Alaya (storehouse) is the same as our Buddha nature, the difference is they are at different state. Some non mainstream Buddhism disagree and says that there's a 9th consciousness.

 

[AUTUMN&WINTER]

I see. Btw, i free thinker.
Its just the logic that i was comtemplating. In christianity, they claim jesus is god, so natural that god can recite whatever long philosophy written in bible. But in buddhist, the canon was recited by a man who only start practicing at adulthood. Hence i asked the question, but it was not meant to be disrespect. Just wana check mainstream understanding of it. Thanks again.

Buddha was no ordinary human being like us. He was a Bodhisattva in other world and decided to be born in our Saha world to teach sentient beings how to relieve from sufferings. He decided to come to our world which is full of suffering to attain Buddhahood. In Buddhist cosmology, there are many worlds and different realms.

 

[mrBooBoo]

Anybody familiar with tibetan's dzogchen (大圆满) ? Anybody received the pointing out instruction before?


Read HWZ Forum Rules!

 

[Ironside]

I thought 行 = 行为, action. But from you, it's intention only (which means intend but no action taken)?

Formation is will. It is the will in terms of formation of new sets of aggregates as thoughts (intention is included in thoughts).

 

[bigrooster]

The 5 Precepts is the most basic training rules for lay people. Expanding the scope further, we get the 10 unwholesome/unskillful actions.

In the Cunda Sutta (AN 10.176), the Buddha was talking to Cunda and was told of some purification rituals done by some, e.g. stroking the ground/cow dung/grass, venerating the sky, dipping in cold water as means of "purification". The Buddha said that it is by bodily/verbal/mental actions done by oneself is one purified, not by mere performance of some rituals. If one performs the following bodily/verbal/mental unwholesome actions, no matter what ritual one does, s/he is still impure; upon the ending of the current life, s/he could be reborn in the ghost realm, the animal kingdom, or in hell.

10 Unwholesome Actions (Akusala Kamma):

1. Destroy life
2. Take what is not given
3. Engage in sexual misconduct
4. Speak falsehood
5. Speak divisively
6. Speak harshly
7. Indulge in idle chatter
8. Full of longing/being covetous
9. Mind with ill-will and hateful intentions
10. Hold wrong view (e.g. don't subscribe to the law of cause-and-effect, and more)

10 Wholesome/Skillful Actions are the abstension of the 10 unwholesome or doing the opposite; e.g. instead of a mind of ill-will and hatred, one acts with loving-kindness and compassion.

Online reference: AN 10.176 - Cunda Sutta, Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu translation

Note:

• As we can see, according to the sutta, engaging in one or more of the said unwholesome actions (3 by bodily actions, 4 by speech, 3 mentally) could have negative consequences (vipāka). As to whether one could really end up in hell, we ordinary folks don't know (the workings of kamma is not conceivable); but there is a potential for that.
• Example, those scammers who stole millions of money online, the potential consequences could be severe; some people who lost their entire savings could go and commit suicide one.
• Those who go live seafood restaurants and point to the fish and crab in the tank and ordered the killing, thinking that they are safe because they did not directly kill it. But, by selecting the creatures to be killed, they have already exhibited items 8, 9, 10 from the list above, and indirectly causing item 1.
• For those who lust after friend's wife, also be careful; items 8, 10 checked.
• For those who do fishing (hobby or not), items 8, 9, 10 checked.
• Item 7 - idle chatter. Maybe TCSS on EDMW is counted too?

 

[bigrooster]

SN 22.43 Attadīpa Sutta (Be Your Own Island)

Excerpt:
“Bhikkhus, dwell with yourselves as an island, with yourselves as a refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge. When you dwell with yourselves as an island, with yourselves as a refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dhamma as an island, with the Dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge, the basis itself should be investigated thus: ‘From what are sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair born? How are they produced?’"

"the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. That form of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.

“He regards feeling as self … perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That consciousness of his changes and alters. With the change and alteration of consciousness, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair.

“When one has understood the impermanence of form ... of feeling … of perception … of volitional formations … of consciousness, its change, fading away, and cessation, and when one sees as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘In the past and also now all consciousness is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change,’ then sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair are abandoned. With their abandonment, one does not become agitated. Being unagitated, one dwells happily. A bhikkhu who dwells happily is said to be quenched in that respect.”

Online reference: SN 22.43 - Attadīpa Sutta, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

Note:
On the following wrong views mentioned in the sutta above and in many others, how to interpret them? Here are some explanatory examples:

• he regards form as self : my soul/self and my body are the same
• he regards self as possessing form : my body belongs to my soul/self
• he regards form as in self : my body is inside my soul / my soul encompasses my body
• he regards self as in form : my soul is inside my body

The above leads to the misguided notion: this is mine, this is myself, this I am.

 

[Pearce]

Intention first, then speech/deeds/thoughts.

Intention/volition drives the actions by speech/deeds/mental thoughts.

Unwholesome intention drives unwholesome actions by speech/deeds/mental thoughts -> kamma

Likewise for wholesome intention.

行 (sankhara) has meanings dependent on context.

In general, 行(sankhara) is the aggregated formation of all presenting mental factors (cetasika), except that of 受(vedana) and 想(sanna).

In the context of the 5 aggregates or 12 nidanas, sankhara is usually understood in its active form, which makes the mental factor of volition (思 cetana) prominent. This is why in such contexts, sankhara is usually said to be process of volitional formation, which has a tendency to make forms/things of dhammas.

This is why the three marks are usually said:
- All sankharas are impermanent.
- All sankharas are suffering.
- But all dhammas are without self.

One of the books I came across mentioned:

行蕴——是与外接触之后,心理所起的对策。例如你搭乘公 车,车内很拥挤,突然被人踩了一脚感觉很痛,这个痛觉,就是 “受”。于是你赶紧抬起头看是谁踩了你,噢!是个急着想找座位的
胖妇人,这是“想”。这时,你决定瞪她一眼,还是埋怨她一句了 事,或者向她说:“对不起!我的脚把你吓了一跳。”这种决定处理
事情的意志、意愿,叫做“行”。

ChatGPT:

This refers to the mental responses that arise after encountering an external stimulus. For example, if you are riding a crowded bus and someone suddenly steps on your foot, causing pain, that pain sensation is the "feeling" (Vedana). You then quickly look up to see who stepped on you, and you notice it's a heavy woman in a hurry to find a seat; this is "perception" (Sanna). At this moment, you decide whether to glare at her, complain to her, or say, "Sorry! My foot startled you." This decision-making process, including the will and intention to handle the situation, is called "mental formations" (Sankhara).

Seems like "mental process" or "decision-making process"?

 

[bigrooster]

One of the books I came across mentioned:

行蕴——是与外接触之后,心理所起的对策。例如你搭乘公 车,车内很拥挤,突然被人踩了一脚感觉很痛,这个痛觉,就是 “受”。于是你赶紧抬起头看是谁踩了你,噢!是个急着想找座位的
胖妇人,这是“想”。这时,你决定瞪她一眼,还是埋怨她一句了 事,或者向她说:“对不起!我的脚把你吓了一跳。”这种决定处理
事情的意志、意愿,叫做“行”。

ChatGPT:

This refers to the mental responses that arise after encountering an external stimulus. For example, if you are riding a crowded bus and someone suddenly steps on your foot, causing pain, that pain sensation is the "feeling" (Vedana). You then quickly look up to see who stepped on you, and you notice it's a heavy woman in a hurry to find a seat; this is "perception" (Sanna). At this moment, you decide whether to glare at her, complain to her, or say, "Sorry! My foot startled you." This decision-making process, including the will and intention to handle the situation, is called "mental formations" (Sankhara).

Seems like "mental process" or "decision-making process"?

That's why Saṅkhārā (mental formations/volitional formations/行) is separated from feeling (vedanā/受).

Feeling in the suttas is not refering to things like emotions. E.g. People always say "You hurt my feelings!" - that one went into the domain of emotions already. Feeling in the suttas is only pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral feeling which came about from sense-impression/contact.

In the context of 5 aggregates, Saṅkhārā is in plural format (in the dependent origination context, it is singular - Saṅkhāra). Hence, it is translated as mental formations. After feeling took place and the mind perceives what happened at the same time, what follows are the mental "constructions" of Saṅkhārā - the reactions took place. E.g he scolded me, my volition/intention springs out: I want to scold him back. My mood/emotion became sour, due to my attachment to my so-called "self" identify - he hurt MY feelings, he tarnished MY reputation. All the mental characteristics/factors like emotions, ideas, spearheaded by volition were formed/constructed in no time; these mental constructions were conditioned by ignorance and craving.

Saṅkhārā was sometime translated as volitional formations, because volition/intention plays a key part in it. E.g. One we were hurt, we will ourselves to retaliate. The willful intention can be seen as a kind of choice, a determination to act. What follows from the determination/intention to act is the kamma committed.

 

[bigrooster]

SN 22.79 - Khajjanīya Sutta (Being Devoured)

In this sutta, the primary topic is still the 5 aggregates (subject to clinging). But there are a few noteworthy points inside.

Excerpt:
“Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects."

My note:
Through concentration achieved through meditation, many meditators of Buddhist faith/other faiths/sects might also have the capability to recollect their past lives (but they may lack the most important of the 3 knowledge - the direct knowledge: the taintless liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom ). From what the Buddha highlighted here, "those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them." The clinging to the 5 aggregates came about when one identifies with them, e.g. "I" was born as so-and-so in the past. Once the personal-identity view was formed, suffering follows, because the form/feeling/perception/volitional formations/consciousness being identified with and grasped, will not last forever; when they changed or were gone, suffering comes.

Excerpt:
“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations."

My note:
Another look at Saṅkhārā - Volitional Formations. There were many translations for Saṅkhārā: (volitional) formations, mental formations, activities, preparations, constructions, fabrications, determination, choices etc. The gist is on the making of something, the construction of something; and something that came about through the putting together of/relying on something(s) is conditioned. Volition (cetanā) is one of the key ingredients in the formation/construction process. Say when a form is impinged on one's sense contact (e.g. saw a beautiful girl), upon feeling, perceiving and cognising the form, one's Saṅkhārā starts to work and constructs further form/feeling/perception/mental formations/consciousness in various ways, e.g. (1) by imagining one's interaction with this form (beautiful girl), (2) by taking action and approaching the girl, (3) by planning what to do with the girl; all of (1),(2),(3) are already constructing/conditioning a new set of the 5 aggregates of grasping. Imagine how many constructing/formations (conditioned by ignorance and craving) we went through mentally everyday? Hence, for most of us, there is a continuous renewal of the conditioned 5 aggregates of grasping, on and on.

Online reference: SN 22.79 - Khajjanīya Sutta (Being Devoured), Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

p/s: the title of this discourse was translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as "Being Devoured". I saw another translated title which reads "Itchy". Imho, "Being Consumed" works as a title too.

 

[bigrooster]

MN 63 - Cūḷamālukya Sutta (Shorter Discourse to Mālukyaputta)

Summary:
Ven. Mālukyaputta wanted to know the answers to the 10 metaphysical/speculative questions, or else he would quit being a monk. He was admonished by the Buddha.

The following 10 questions were left undeclared by the Buddha:

• The world is eternal
• The world is not eternal
• The world is finite
• The world is infinite
• The soul is the same as the body
• The soul is one thing and the body another
• After death a Tathāgata exists
• After death a Tathāgata does not exist
• After death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist
• After death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist

Excerpt:
"Why have I left that undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have left it undeclared."

"And what have I declared? ‘This is suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the origin of suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the cessation of suffering’—I have declared. ‘This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering’—I have declared."

"Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. That is why I have declared it."

Online reference: MN 63 - Cūḷamālukya Sutta, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

 

[Elnoxv]

Speaking of manomayakaya, do you know if there is any difference in usage of the terms “mano“ and “manas”? Or are they used interchangeably?

Been thinking about the triad: citta-mano/manas-vijnana. I understand that they are all terms referring to mind and represent different aspects of mind. But getting a little confused over “mano” and “manas”. Seem to me to be the same?

Also, can the sixth sense-root be interchangeably called “mano” and “manas”?

You could probably give these videos a try which explain them in a simpler language (Chinese).

https://www.douyin.com/video/7381733038151060771
https://www.douyin.com/video/7206445292546182458

 

[PsyClick]

Anybody familiar with tibetan's dzogchen (大圆满) ? Anybody received the pointing out instruction before?


Read HWZ Forum Rules!

Out of topic lei.

this kind of topic better go b to your teacher

 

[sheamus]

#Blind
“These three kinds of people are found in the world. What three? The blind, the one-eyed, and the two-eyed.
Who is the blind person? It’s someone who doesn’t have the kind of vision that’s needed to acquire more wealth or to increase the wealth they’ve already acquired. Nor do they have the kind of vision that’s needed to know the difference between qualities that are skillful and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and those on the side of dark and bright. This is called a blind person.
Who is the person with one eye? It’s someone who has the kind of vision that’s needed to acquire more wealth and to increase the wealth they’ve already acquired. But they don’t have the kind of vision that’s needed to know the difference between qualities that are skillful and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and those on the side of dark and bright. This is called a one-eyed person.
Who is the person with two eyes? It’s someone who has the kind of vision that’s needed to acquire more wealth and to increase the wealth they’ve already acquired. And they have the kind of vision that’s needed to know the difference between skillful and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, or qualities on the side of dark and bright. This is called a two-eyed person.
These are the three people found in the world.
Neither suitable wealth,
nor merit do they make.
They lose on both counts,
those who are blind, with ruined eyes.
And now the one-eyed
person is explained.
By methods good and bad,
that devious person seeks wealth.
Both by fraudulent, thieving deeds,
and also by lies,
the young man’s skilled at piling up money,
and enjoying sensual pleasures.
From here they go to hell—
the one-eyed person is ruined.
And now the two-eyed is explained,
the best individual.
Their wealth is earned legitimately,
money acquired by their own hard work.
They give with best of intentions,
that peaceful-hearted person.
They go to a good place,
where there is no sorrow.
The blind and the one-eyed,
you should avoid from afar.
But you should keep the two-eyed close,
the best individual.”
https://suttacentral.net//Numbered Discourses 3.29
* 3. Persons