DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**shumozar** · 10-31-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote from: Element on October 26, 2010, 10:20:45 AM
Of 'beings' ('satta'), on the level of ultimate reality, the Theravada scriptures appear to share your point of view:

Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One:

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

Satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante , sattoti vuccatī’’ti?

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

"Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

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

Satta Sutta: A Being

Elementary, my dear Watson,

Anything that moves in the mind and is identified with is a sentient being. This is so obvious that I'm surprised so many practicing Buddhists miss it. These transitory karmic creations dominate the unenlightened mind with such constant rapidity that the poor mind actually thinks that's who it is. If the agitated mind sits still and slows itself down the space between thoughts will open up.

The Theravada quote in your second posting really is quite elementary and only the blind would miss it. I have a great affinity and respect for the Theravada but its bones are too dry for me. So, Pudgala, this being so elementary, could you distinguish "being" and "sentient being" in this context?

It's my understanding that "sentient being" indicates an organism with the facility to sense, that is to say touch, see, hear, taste and to experience emotional responses to these stimuli.

The Satta Sutta describes one who is caught up in sensing and desire as a "being". It does not say the mental constructs are themselves beings or sentient beings.

I suggest that the understanding of many practising Buddhists, that "sentient being" refers to an unenlightened individual, is perfectly adequate, and that a re-definition or interpretation of it is unnecessary.

10-31-2010, 12:20 AM	#12
shumozar Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 524 Senior Member	Quote from: Element on October 26, 2010, 10:20:45 AM Of 'beings' ('satta'), on the level of ultimate reality, the Theravada scriptures appear to share your point of view: Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" Satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati. Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante , sattoti vuccatī’’ti? "Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' "Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' Satta Sutta: A Being Elementary, my dear Watson, Anything that moves in the mind and is identified with is a sentient being. This is so obvious that I'm surprised so many practicing Buddhists miss it. These transitory karmic creations dominate the unenlightened mind with such constant rapidity that the poor mind actually thinks that's who it is. If the agitated mind sits still and slows itself down the space between thoughts will open up. The Theravada quote in your second posting really is quite elementary and only the blind would miss it. I have a great affinity and respect for the Theravada but its bones are too dry for me. So, Pudgala, this being so elementary, could you distinguish "being" and "sentient being" in this context? It's my understanding that "sentient being" indicates an organism with the facility to sense, that is to say touch, see, hear, taste and to experience emotional responses to these stimuli. The Satta Sutta describes one who is caught up in sensing and desire as a "being". It does not say the mental constructs are themselves beings or sentient beings. I suggest that the understanding of many practising Buddhists, that "sentient being" refers to an unenlightened individual, is perfectly adequate, and that a re-definition or interpretation of it is unnecessary.
	Quote