First one supress (restrain) all bad thoughts,speech and bodily action then one created the furtile ground. I have learned the Noble Method more and more and Yoniso of Manasikara (the origination of our current attention) is basically wherever our attention lands upon discern a necessary undermining basis for that Attention-landing. Thanks alot Venerables.
Thank you for the exposition, Bhantes. It's refreshing to hear paticca-samuppada spoken on as deeper than simple "cause and effect", and it makes sense as the translation I originally saw said "dependent co-arising" as opposed to "dependent origination". It makes further sense when you consider the arahant is supposed to have cut off craving, and part of paticca-samuppada is expounded such: "From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". If feeling was simply the cause that led to the effect of craving then an arahant wouldn't feel anything, and it's quite clear feeling is supposed to be present in the arahant while craving is not.
Thank you, Venerable. How would you distinguish desire from Intention, from Chanda, and so on? I had been operating under the belief that desire was not the same as craving
Question please: What book is he reading from? I've tried to find a book of the Suttas. I've asked the help of a librarian. There were only books of commentary from people today. And I found out there are different schools, and types, or suttas from different countries.
Description says "Sn12.41 Pañcaverabhaya Suttaṃ." 'Sn' is [often] an abbreviation for Sutta Nipata, so this description would be a mistake. 'SN' is intended here, for 'Samyutta Nikaya', as is said in the vid. This sutta is from Samyutta Nikaya [SN], 12.41 Pañcaverabhaya Suttaṃ. AccesstoInsight is a useful site, although this particular sutta isn't there.
Culavedalla Sutta - MN 44 "In what way is pleasant feeling pleasant, lady, and in what way painful?" "Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge." The craving aspect is when one out of ignorance, cling onto a particular quality (Usually pleasant) that is subject to impermanence/ change. That is always unpleasant and suffering.
Bhante says we don't have a say in the arising of our feelings, that we're subjected to them. Can someone help me understand this? If I eat a carton of ice cream and it creates an unpleasant feeling, didn't I have a say in the arising of the unpleasant feeling?
Consider that sometimes eating a carton of ice cream might make you feel unpleasant even though you wanted it to make you feel pleasant *and* you ate the ice cream *in order* to feel pleasant. And sometimes you might eat a carton of ice cream and it just makes no difference with regards to how you feel, you still feel the same as before you ate it. It's unreliable! That's the way I understand what they're getting at.
First one supress (restrain) all bad thoughts,speech and bodily action then one created the furtile ground. I have learned the Noble Method more and more and Yoniso of Manasikara (the origination of our current attention) is basically wherever our attention lands upon discern a necessary undermining basis for that Attention-landing. Thanks alot Venerables.
"Desire is a symptom of the attitude of craving"
🙇♂️🙇♂️🙇♂️ Thank you Venerables. 🙏🏻
Thank you so much!
thank you ❤
Thank you 🙏
Thank you Ajahn! 🙏🏼
🙏
sadhu sadhu Bhante..
Thank you for the exposition, Bhantes. It's refreshing to hear paticca-samuppada spoken on as deeper than simple "cause and effect", and it makes sense as the translation I originally saw said "dependent co-arising" as opposed to "dependent origination". It makes further sense when you consider the arahant is supposed to have cut off craving, and part of paticca-samuppada is expounded such: "From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving". If feeling was simply the cause that led to the effect of craving then an arahant wouldn't feel anything, and it's quite clear feeling is supposed to be present in the arahant while craving is not.
🙏☘️
Good morning Dhamma family
Thank you, Venerable. How would you distinguish desire from Intention, from Chanda, and so on? I had been operating under the belief that desire was not the same as craving
So the problem is craving in regard to something that isn't even mine, which is the feeling? :O
Question please: What book is he reading from?
I've tried to find a book of the Suttas. I've asked the help of a librarian. There were only books of commentary from people today. And I found out there are different schools, and types, or suttas from different countries.
Bhante Sujato from suttacentral has free translations.
He references the 5 nikayas, which are the early suttas that are closest to the teachings buddha actually taught.
Description says "Sn12.41 Pañcaverabhaya Suttaṃ."
'Sn' is [often] an abbreviation for Sutta Nipata, so this description would be a mistake.
'SN' is intended here, for 'Samyutta Nikaya', as is said in the vid.
This sutta is from Samyutta Nikaya [SN], 12.41 Pañcaverabhaya Suttaṃ.
AccesstoInsight is a useful site, although this particular sutta isn't there.
Thank you @@krenx
@@kzantalthank you.
How can any feeling infected with craving be considered pleasant when craving is felt as unpleasant?
Culavedalla Sutta - MN 44
"In what way is pleasant feeling pleasant, lady, and in what way painful?"
"Pleasant feeling is pleasant in remaining, & painful in changing, friend Visakha. Painful feeling is painful in remaining & pleasant in changing. Neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is pleasant in occurring together with knowledge, and painful in occurring without knowledge."
The craving aspect is when one out of ignorance, cling onto a particular quality (Usually pleasant) that is subject to impermanence/ change. That is always unpleasant and suffering.
is this a reupload?
Bhante says we don't have a say in the arising of our feelings, that we're subjected to them. Can someone help me understand this? If I eat a carton of ice cream and it creates an unpleasant feeling, didn't I have a say in the arising of the unpleasant feeling?
Consider that sometimes eating a carton of ice cream might make you feel unpleasant even though you wanted it to make you feel pleasant *and* you ate the ice cream *in order* to feel pleasant. And sometimes you might eat a carton of ice cream and it just makes no difference with regards to how you feel, you still feel the same as before you ate it. It's unreliable! That's the way I understand what they're getting at.
om shanti om
Drill :
th-cam.com/video/TcsgNYH7whM/w-d-xo.html