[uncoodync]

.


Dear friends,

I would be interested in hearing your views on this sutta


Mahātanhāsankhaya Sutta : MN38

- The Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving




1] Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Sāvatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park.

2] Now on that occasion a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sāti, son of a fisherman, thus: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another."

3] Several bhikkhus, having heard about this, went to the bhikkhu Sāti and asked him: "Friend Sāti, is it true that such a pernicious view has arisen in you?"

"Exactly so, friends. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another."

Then those bhikkhus, desiring to detach him from that pernicious view, pressed and questioned and cross-questioned him thus: "Friend Sāti, do not say so. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One; it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not speak thus. For in many ways the Blessed One has stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness."

Yet although pressed and questioned and cross-questioned by those bhikkhus in this way, the bhikkhu Sāti, son of a fisherman, still obstinately adhered to that pernicious view and continued to insist upon it.

4] Since the bhikkhus were unable to detach him from that pernicious view, they went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, they sat down at one side and told him all that had occurred, adding: "Venerable sir, since we could not detach the bhikkhu Sāti, son of a fisherman, from this pernicious view, we have reported this matter to the Blessed One." continued here : URL

[RooldpalApata]

In this sutta Bhikkhu Sati expresses incorrect views about the same consciousness running through different rebirths.

The Buddha explains to him the correct view of Dependent Origination and how phenomena arise and cease through conditions.

Comments on the sutta anyone ?

[Giselle]

runs and wanders through the round of rebirths

Sure...the Pali does not state "through the round of rebirths".

It simply states "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another"...

tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati anañña'

"As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness (vinnàna) that runs (sandhàvati) and wanders (saüsarati), not another."

[Brainpole]

Thanks, Element

[Charryith]

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa refered to this sutta in his essay on dependent origination.


Why Do We Have to Know About Dependent Arising?

For the purpose of learning and cultivation, we must know dependent arising. Because nobody understands it, it has become a fallacy. The ordinary people's fallacy is similar to Bhikkhu Sati's belief: "Only the consciousness is going around in samsara." This bhikkhu insisted that there was a "person," "self," or "sentient being" in the consciousness, which dwelled in samsara from one lifetime to the next. Believing that the consciousness has a "person," "self" or "sentient being" that is perpetually going around in samsara is a fallacy resulting from ignorance of the nature of dependent arising.

All the bhikkhus tried to convince Bhikkhu Sati to abandon the fallacy, but Bhikkhu Sati was adamant about his view. The bhikkhus then told the Buddha about it, and the Buddha talked to Bhikkhu Sati. The Buddha asked him, "Do you really have such a concept?" Bhikkhu Sati said, "There is only the consciousness that is going around in samsara." The Buddha then asked, "What is this consciousness that you speak of?" Bhikkhu Sati replied, "Esteemed Buddha, the consciousness is the entity that can talk, feel, or receive all the karmic repercussions."

His was a very serious fallacy: a consciousness that facilitates talking, feeling, and receiving of all karmic repercussions.

Ordinary people do not know why it is a fallacy because they believe, as Bhikkhu Sati did, that the consciousness exists perpetually. Since they are used to the idea, they do not consider it a fallacy.

It is false to believe that the consciousness is perpetual, that it exists and acts on its own, and that it is not dependent arising. Consciousness, a manner of dependent arising, is devoid of ego. It manifests in an instant because of the interaction of mutually dependent conditions, and it advances to successive stages.

Bhikkhu Sati maintained that there was an ego or a consciousness with an ego that went around in samsara. This consciousness did not only exist in the instant but also persisted to the next life. He called the ego that could talk, feel, or receive karmic repercussions consciousness.

The common view prevents people from seeing the fallacy. Consciousness is devoid of ego. If consciousness exists, then it is dependent arising. It is a natural phenomenon manifested from successive occurrences due to mutually dependent conditions. It is not an entity.
URL

[n2Oddw8P]

I think this paragraph is interested :-

------------------------------------------
26] "Bhikkhus, the descent of the embryo takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but the mother is not in season, and the gandhabba (consciousness of the unborn being) is not present - in this case no descent of an embryo takes place. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba (consciousness) is not present - in this case too no descent of the embryo takes place. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba (consciousness) is present, through the union of these three things the descent of the embryo takes place.
-------------------------------------------

I ever heard the explaination that at the moment of death. Nothing move from this live to next live. The last mind cease this live and then arise at the next live. No movement of mind or consciousness.

[Kalobbis]

I ever heard the explaination that at the moment of death. Nothing move from this live to next live. The last mind cease this live and then arise at the next live. No movement of mind or consciousness.

Maybe if our physical bodies are insubstantial (an aspect of anatta) then when we die our consciousness does need to "move from this live to next live",it's already 'there',(where ever there is)

[MpbY5dkR]

"Bhikkhus, the descent of the embryo takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, but the mother is not in season, and the gandhabba (consciousness of the unborn being) is not present - in this case no descent of an embryo takes place. Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba (consciousness) is not present - in this case too no descent of the embryo takes place. But when there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, and the gandhabba (consciousness) is present, through the union of these three things the descent of the embryo takes place.

This passage doesn't make sense. The release of a monthly egg (when
"the mother is in season") plus a "consciousness" does not produce a fertilised egg or an embryo. There needs to be a fertile sperm which fertilises the egg in order for there to be an embryo. Sperm isn't mentioned. Difficulties in translation perhaps ?

[XIMHOTEP-X]

When the passage says 'union', we should probably infer that the union is a biologically viable one, i.e. sperm and ovum are both functioning appropriately.

[cheaploans]

What happens in laboratories when test-tube fertilisation which produces embryos takes place? ....and in particular -what about cloning?

Sorry, I'm getting off topic now. Back to the sutta

[Woziwfaq]

I think this paragraph is interested :-

sukitlek

why is this paragraph interesting?

what does it have to do with the sutta?

sutta is about the destruction of craving

thank you

[Butiqueso]

I must question Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation here

the Pali word for consciousness is vinnana and not gandhabba

in the suttas, gandhabba is a class of deities

MN 38 states three things are necessary for the development of an embryo:

1. sexual intercourse; 2. the mother in season with ovum; and 3. gandhabba

now, with our knowledge of reproduction, what could this third thing be?



At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you about the devas (gods) of the gandhabba order. Listen to that...."

"And what, bhikkhus, are the devas of the gandhabba order? There are, bhikkhus, devas dwelling in the fragrant roots, devas dwelling in the fragrant heartwood, devas dwelling in the fragrant softwood, devas dwelling in fragrant leaves, devas dwelling in fragrant flowers, devas dwelling in fragrant fruits, devas dwelling in fragrant sap and devas dwelling in fragrant scents."


"These bhikkhus are called the devas of the gandhabba order."

SN 31.1

Gandha [Vedic gandha, from ghrā ghrāti to smell, ghrāna smell, & see P. ghāna. Possibly conn. w. Lat. fragro= E. fragrant] smell, viz. -- 1. odour, smell, scent in gen. J iii.189; Dh 54 -- 56=Miln 333; Dhs 605 under ghānâyatanāni); āma˚ smell of raw flesh A i.280; D ii.242; Sn 241 sq; maccha˚ the scent of fish J iii.52; muttakarīsa˚ the smell of faeces and urine A iii.158; catujāti˚ four kinds of scent J i.265; PvA 127; dibba -- g˚puppha a flower of heavenly odour J i.289. -- 2. odour, smell in particular: enumerated as mūla˚, sāra˚, puppha˚, etc., S iii.156=v.44=A v.22; Dhs 625 (under ghandāyatanāni, sphere of odours).

[optormtix]

gandhabba (consciousness of the unborn being)

How is this reconciled with the sutta, which states:

For in many discourses the Blessed One has stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness."

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises.

Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns - when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on faggots, it is reckoned as a faggot fire; when fire burns dependent on grass, it is reckoned as a grass fire; when fire burns dependent on cow-dung, it is reckoned as a cow-dung fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire; when fire burns dependent on rubbish, it is reckoned as a rubbish fire - so too, consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the nose and odors, it is reckoned as nose-consciousness; When consciousness arises dependent on tongue and flavors, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on body and tangibles, it is reckoned as body consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. What is the particular condition dependent upon which the consciousness of the unborn being arises or exists?

[AdipexAdipex]

I find the following part interesting, which is also at SN 12.20 :

"Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you run back to the past thus: 'Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what did we become in the past?'?"

"No venerable sir."

"Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future thus: 'Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall become in the future?'?"

"No, venerable sir."

"Knowing and seeing in this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present thus: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?'?" -"No, venerable sir."

"Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: 'The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher'?"

"No, venerable sir."

"Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?"

"Yes, venerable sir."

"Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: 'Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.' What do we think?

Is the above about rebirth or is the above about emptiness of self?

[TimoDassss]

from post #10

1. Depends on what type of cloning, therapeutic or reproductive cloning?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning
Therapeutic cloning involves cloning cells from an adult for use in medicine and is an active area of research, while reproductive cloning would involve making cloned humans. I should think the Sutta's passage will be more applicable on the latter.

2. Perhaps, on another hand, in my poor opinion, it can also be...where 'union of father and mother' may be interpreted as the fertilization of the sperm and egg for test tube babies/IVF and cloning cases rather than being restricted to the 'normal biological process', to fit into what is being done and the context of our times today.

3. Then there is also this part...for points 1 & 2
Here, there is the union of the mother and father, and the mother is in season, but the gandhabba (consciousness) is not present - in this case too no descent of the embryo takes place... a. So even if cloning/IVF is done but if the above is not happening...
b. And the points raised by Element with respect to the above quote on consciousness and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of 'gandhabba'...

Back to topic...Destruction of Craving...

[anaisdannyxys]

from post #11

Sorry, I did off the topic.

[PersonalLoansBank]

from post #7

It like warp in star tek.

from post #8

- "the gandhabba" in Thai Tipitaka translate to "The baby who will coming to birth"
- In atthakatha explain "the gandhabba", the being who coming to that place.

Back to topic.

[Thomaswhitee]

What do we think?

Is the above about rebirth or is the above about emptiness of self?

It's certainly not about rebirth. It's about letting go of the past and of speculation about the future. One could say that its about being present with the freshness of here and now.

Relaxing with this, where is 'self' ?

[bactrimtab]

And what, bhikkhus, are the devas of the gandhabba order?

If we cast the Deva Realm in a modern light we may think of it as being represented by the different forms that energy takes.

Of course then we get into the problem of where all this lot started.

[serius_06]

the problem of where all this lot started

That's the past; throw out such idle speculation.