I made a reasonable request and one that is Dhammic, to speak for oneself.
I have read the Buddha also expected/encouraged it in conversation, but you refused.
I would rather not converse with you any more.
best wishes
I agree it does not provide a definition of form, but, to me, it does much more than distinguishing between mere aggregates & clung to aggregates. ‘Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate.’ provides the scope of ‘rūpa’ whether clung to or not. Such that it is not limited to the internal, near, gross example of ‘kāya’.
I do not accept the interpretation of the teaching ‘I, me, mine’ but rather ‘I, me, myself’. Even if the former were an accurate translation, I do not accept it because I have seen so often, the Buddha and supposed Arahant monks refer to things as ‘my bowl and robe’, ‘my back aches’… if the former were correct, they would be clinging.
(As pointed out previously I don’t accept the doctrine of conventional and ultimate truth to explain this contradiction - the use of my/mine.)
the quote you gave, also does not define rūpa, to me, but just defines an example of it, that is, kāya, body. The question is ‘why do you call it form?’ not ‘why is it form?’
‘that, Rāhula, is called the internal earth element’ thus using one of the aspects of the scope of form: internal/external, that it is hard, to me would me about the ‘gross/sublte’ aspect of the scope of rūpa.
I accept the PTS dictionary definition: Rūpa (nt.) form, figure, appearance, principle of form, etc.
I also accept ‘shape’ ‘image’ as translations.
If you provided a quote where the Buddha said: 'in this Dhamma and Discipline rūpa means body (kāya). That would be quite convincing, otherwise it just seems to be conjecture.
best wishes
Not at all. SN 1.25 answers this.
“No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, sn.i.15
He still might say, ‘I speak,’
He might say too, ‘They speak to me.’
Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions.”
SN 1.25
It defines ‘rupa’ because it asks: “What is rupa?”
The four 4 great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. SN 12.2
Kaya is not always rupa. Kaya means ‘group’ or ‘collection’ and can refer to nama-kaya or mental collection.[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:191, topic:5041”]
If you provided a quote where the Buddha said: 'in this Dhamma and Discipline rūpa means body (kāya). That would be quite convincing, otherwise it just seems to be conjecture.
[/quote]
Please repost the quote. I do not recall what you posted.
Regards 
Thanks, this is another example of the conventional/ultimate truth philosophy, which I don’t accept.
If you showed me a quote where the Buddha said, I teach conventional and ultimate truth, just like he said ‘I teach the Four Noble Truths’ that would be quite convincing, otherwise I just take it as conjecture.
I did not see that at all in your quoted material.
You can search for it above.
best wishes
Thanks, I disagree. If you wish to continue conversation with me, then take up the training the Buddha gave of expressing opinion as opinion, otherwise it just sounds like pontification, to me.
" quote " from Brother_Joe:
If you provided a quote where the Buddha said: 'in this Dhamma and Discipline rūpa means body (kāya). That would be quite convincing, otherwise it just seems to be conjecture.
If You are looking for
definition for " rupa " khanda ,
from the Sutta , here I have found In the Chinese Agama as below where it mentioned body as rupa khanda .
漢譯《雜阿含》, 見大正藏《雜阿含》306經
Sutta 306 :
( please take note at the last 4 line )
「眼、色緣，生眼識，三事和合觸，觸俱生受、想、思。此四無色陰，眼、色，此等法名為人 。於斯等法，作人想，眾生……。耳……。鼻……。舌……。身、觸緣，生身識，三事和合觸，觸俱生受、想、思。此四是無色陰，
<# 身根是色陰 #> ，
此名為人……。緣意、法，生意識，三事和合觸，觸俱生受、想、思。此四無色陰、四大，士夫所依，此等法名為人。如上廣說。」
Please refer to below link :
http://agama.buddhason.org/SA/SA0306.htm
Actually , the 6 sense organs mentioned in the Sutta by the Buddha as " rupa khanda " .
( the 6 sense organ -
Eye Ear Nose Tongue Body Mind -
Is rupa khanda ) .
Thanks .
Metta .
I could not find it. Please post the quote, thank you.
SN 22.48 does not including the word ‘kaya’, which it states: “Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate.”
‘body’ (Kāya in Pāli) would be a: present, internal, gross, inferior(depending), near form.
There is no real self, including in the words “I” or “self”, which are merely words or sankharas. When the mind is enlightened, it must communicate.
‘Kaya’ does not always mean ‘rupa’, such as in the term ‘sakkaya’.
Unlike today, in the suttas, it appears all faithful monks conformed & agreed upon the Dhamma. There was no scope for “opinions”. Please provide a quote that states having diverse “opinions” about the Dhamma is the training of the Buddha. Thank you.
My reading of the suttas is the Buddha admonished monks that misrepresented the Teachings.
Regards
I just want to summarise a bit. In terms of answering the original question and keeping in mind “personal past lives/memories” issues, there have been two clear and concise answers.
-
@Brother_Joe : If I got it correct he said that Rebirth happens only in this life. I think it is fair to say this is a non-mainstream answer and one would need to rethink earlier Buddhist thought and pali translation.
-
@Brahmali: Quote: “We have a “personal” history in this life, and this is pretty much the same as the “personal” history that goes across lifetimes. The “you” of today is not the same as the “you” of last year, let alone the “you” of ten years ago. And yet there is a connection. That connection is your habits and the sense of continuity that results from these. There are change and continuity working together, but there is no ever-present essential core. It is exactly the same across lives, except that there is “jump” in your experiences as you cross from one life to the next. If you could recall your past lives, it would feel like you were there in the past lives, just as it feels that you were there ten years ago in this life.”
The key points in the quote are:
-
Personal past lives = personal past habits (are you exactly the same person as you were 10 years - obviously not?).
-
Anatta = no ever present essenital core (?)
-
The key aspect here is that one must have FAITH in Rebirth (i.e. without scientific proof)
-
I feel this is a good answer (and follows mainstream thoughts). Put in this way past “lives” become past “habits” and are therefore depersonalised. The only issue is that in all three schools of Buddhism in a classroom, monastery, teaching and academic setting make “past lives” VERY personal and never talk about “past habits.”
I am now thinking of it as a line of thread that keeps growing in length through the aeons. It always looks the same but when one looks at the details of the thread, each part of the thread is different and therefore lacking in any permanent essence (self). The question arises, if you are not any section of the thread, are you not the whole thread? I feel that as the thread is growing i.e. consistently changing and will in one day stop growing, how could one actually be the thread. I can also see how the thread has a personal history of its own in shape, size, material and pattern. Due to the fact that the thread is changing and not stationary, it makes sense that one can’t be a thread. If this is what Buddha means by anatta it makes sense to me.
I wonder why 99% of Buddhist teachers, teach in a way that makes past lives so personal and
why do they not teach karma as a simple law of cause and effect instead of making it so personal?
My more recent points and questions about your views still stand unanswered. But ending our conversation is fine by me.
I’d guess one reason is because making it personal emphasizes the law of kamma which is such an important teaching.
Law of cause and effect itself
is not sufficient
In explaining the dhamma .
Perhaps ,
Only if one approach it from Causal arising
( where Buddha enlightenment was on this dhamma itself ) ,
Maybe then one will not
See it as something Personal !
Probably , most people approach this
through a " self " view , that’s why it looks Personal .
1 Like
[quote=“Brother_Joe, post:189, topic:5041”]
Of course, I think you could find something to replace it. I notice you didn’t offer anything.[/quote]
As it’s a bit off topic I decided that laconic was the way to go.
You might if you could find a Christian church that made this an official dogma. I’ve never heard of one. The Catholic Church, at least, tended to stick to St. Augustine’s dictum that “The purpose of Scripture is to show the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go,” and so was reticent in making dogmatic pronouncements on science-related matters. Although one will find no end of bad science in, say, Aquinas’s Summa Theologia, and although this bad science had a great influence on Western Christendom for many centuries, scarcely a jot of it was ever made into official Church teaching.
Perhaps a better example for your purposes would be those American fundie Protestant churches that hold salvation to be dependent upon a literal acceptance of the Genesis creation story.
1 Like
Plus an Apocalyptic Holy War in the Middle East for the 2nd Coming.
[quote=“Mkoll, post:199, topic:5041”]
I’d guess one reason is because making it personal emphasizes the law of kamma which is such an important teaching.[/quote]
My guess is lay people will adhere to wrong doctrines (‘adhamma’), such as Cultural Marxism, Identitarianism & Liberalism, and thus commit sexual misconduct & other self-harming behaviours if they don’t, which will result in hellish, ghostly & animal worlds, such as the world of addicts, lost & broken souls & broken families. That is why it is important.
MN 117 & MN 60 clearly state these personal (asava; upadhi) kamma teachings side with merit (rather than with enlightenment). MN 60 in particular makes it clear that right view for the householder is that of continued existence (linked translation substitutes “affirmation”).
My suggestion is DN 31 seems to state Theravada Bhikkhus have a duty to teach laypeople the path to heaven (rather than to Nibbana). This gives the impression the primary duty of a monk is not to teach lay people ‘anatta’ (‘not-self’) but personal morality. That is probably why it is so personal. If monks taught impersonality, people (uninterested in enlightenment) would have no incentive to do good karma & wind up in hell (‘niraya’).
However, MN 143 states:
There are clansmen [laypeople] with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma [of annata]. There will be those who will understand it."
All the best 
thanks James
耳、鼻、舌，身觸緣，生身識，三事和合觸，觸俱生受、想、思，此四是無色陰，身根是色陰
ear nose tongue (and) body contact condition (the) arising (of) body consciousness, (the) three conditions converging (is) contact, contact accompanies (the) arising of: feeling, ideas and emotion, these four are (the) formless aggregate, body faculty is (the) form aggregate.
That is interesting, but seems to be talking about aggregate in a different way. I don’t recall reading about ‘formless aggregate’ in the Four Nikaya.
I didn’t see that in the sutta.
best wishes
Hello @Ataraxia_Now,
Well, I’m clearly not @Brahmali but I can help answer this question.
First if you want a somewhat academical answer, I would point you toward the great work of Malcom Gladwell: Outliers, the story of success.
It's a really interesting read, and it helps understand the causes and condition to great successes such as the Beattles, Steve Job, Rockeffeller or even Mozart.
Then I'm sure you can look into your own past to find tendencies that have caused you to lean toward certain activities until you reached a tipping point.
Second, at a personal level, I can say that for me, I always had something with computing. Albeit I was born in 75 on a lower middle class family of 5, and I got to see my first computer at school during my teenage.
It feels like I always had the mind needed to understand computers, but I was terrible with studies. I could not see the final point of studying general subjects so I quickly turned to vocational and electricity (well, I didn’t really know what I was getting onto, but that’s another story).
But during those studies the personal computers had developed and I got some exposure that built up on that inclination of mine.
I finished my study but was not really happy with the job opportunity in France so I left for England in the late 90’s and ended up working for a Network vendor. I started temping there only to cleanup their database of contacts and make sure it was fresh as possible, however I had the ability to help the sales guys in the room with problems using excel, word or other soft.
Long story short, I started training as an engineer and 20 years later I work for a large US software company and have well, 20+ years of network and software experience now. Starting from a world where computers were not part of people daily lives.
Conclusion: habitual thinking is not a 1 or 0 proposition. It's something that you build up and strengthen overtime (for good or bad). And that allows you to do things differently from others (one may say better).
Which I could consider as what the buddha taught: create the habits of giving up and relinquishing, sitting in seclusion, the inclination toward generosity and selflessness, and at some point you'll get some much joy out of not trying to be someone and being here and now that you'll stop clinging to anything at all.[[quote=“Deeele, post:196, topic:5041”]
SN 22.48 does not including the word ‘kaya’
[/quote]
I didn’t say it did.
thanks. I don’t find this type of ‘conversation’ interesting or stimulating. I hear it as preaching, or parroting and would rather not continue the conversation, if you insist on doing this.
I never said kaya means rūpa, since you can’t listen to what I say, I’d rather not continue the conversation.
quote=“Deeele, post:196, topic:5041”]
Please provide a quote that states having diverse “opinions” about the Dhamma is the training of the Buddha.
[/quote]
I never said that, since you can’t listen to what I say, I’d rather not continue the conversation.
The training I was referring to: https://suttacentral.net/en/mn95#27, there ‘faith’ is used other translators have used ‘conviction’. If someone has faith/conviction, them saying ‘my faith/conviction is thus’. is called ‘safeguarding the truth’.
Mine is the same.
Hi again Shaun, I appreciate your attempt to summarise. For Bh Brahmali you could cut and paste, that makes it easy. That explanation practically requires rewording the text, as you point out, lives → habits. I believe my explanation leaves the text and the words used there, without substitution.
I would only change RE-birth to ‘birth’, as I don’t believe that there is a permanent (part of) self that can be born twice or more. Each birth is of a different set of Five Clinging Aggregates (ego), related together by the Five Aggregates (the impermanent self) over the span of a life.
I would not say ‘self’ there, are that is impermanent to me. I would say ‘soul’.
For me questions of ‘am I this or that’ are useless and based on the conceit ‘I am’ and ‘identity view’.
best wishes
I may get to them, in time.
If someone can be tried for heresy for it, even though it might not be stated to be an official dogma, the action, I think shows it is taken as one: Galileo is accused of heresy
Hi Brother_Joe,
Thanks for the input as usual, it is always much appreciated!