INTRODUCTION.VIETNAMESE TRANSLATE ENGLISH BY=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=THE WOMEN OF THE SAKYA CLAN CHAN TANH. Our experiences with things are often misguided because various kinds of delusions arise countless times in our daily lives. We see a snake on the ground, and when we look closely it's just a rope. On the way we see a lake ahead, and as we approach the lake disappears. At night we look up at the stars, and from there there are sources of twinkling light, however it is known that many of these stars have long since died out, and are now just particles of dust suspended in the air. cosmic space. In the past, thinkers, based on the contradictory nature of thought, gave rise to a variety of theories, some doubting the veracity of our cognitive apparatus, others doubting the reality of the world. outside. Yet despite doubts and disagreements these thinkers may have harbored the truth of our ideas. It is central to the orientation of our empirical understanding of the world as well as the basis of philosophical consideration. Even Descarte, who was willing to drive skepticism around his hearth to the point of eliminating the whole realm of perception as a display of hallucinations conjured up by some kind of cunning devil, was eventually brought back to life. by his very fact of skepticism with the inevitable conclusion: 'I think, therefore I am.' And so of all the traditional ways of thinking, from the crudest empirical realism to the most obscure metaphysical idealism. All agree in determining the reality of the subject behind the cognitive process, I am the one who feels, thinks, However, it is this idea of ​​a self-perpetuating subject that the Buddha took as the object of his teaching, showing that it is only a hypothesis that cannot be empirically proven. In whatever form - or as the 'me' in common sense, the soul of religion, or the self of philosophy - it is still a ghost. consciousness, a concept that has no counterpart in reality. According to the Buddha's teaching, this idea of ​​a separate self is not a simple and harmless mistake or careless negligence in philosophical reasoning. On the contrary, it is a harmful wrong view that has serious consequences on the entire emotional and conscious life. The idea of ​​self is the anchor of our drives to grasp and possess, the root of our desires and aversions, and thereby the source of our suffering. It is the prejudice that brings us to sorrow, lamentation, suffering, grief and despair, the trap that draws us in the cycle of existence, when the ego view is built up in each action, the suffering of samsara is immeasurable. The Buddha preached the Mūlapariyāya Sutta for the purpose of exposing the workings of the self-concept when it entered the realm of perception itself, resulting in duplicative afflictions. According to traditional reports, this sutra originates in the realm of perception. from responding to a particular event. As is reported in the commentary, the five hundred bhikkhus of the Brahmin lineage were Vedic scholars, too complacent for their education, thereby omitting their spiritual obligations. Realizing this situation, the Buddha preached the above sutra to break their pride and make them ready to accept the teachings as before. But although arising under special conditions, the message of the sutra transcends time and original circumstances, for its subject matter is none other than the core of the Dharma - the question of suffering and the cessation of suffering. . In a series of succinct expressions, The Buddha exposes how self-perception imposes itself on the process of experience, coalescing data to fit its own picture of present reality. He knew how the bias concerning the self gives rise to craving and the cycle of existence, and how by correcting the illusion of a separate self, craving can cease and cyclical suffering comes to an end. . This sutra develops four main sections explaining the cognitive patterns of four classes of people, each of which is related to twenty-four possible cognitive objects. The four classes of people are 'ordinary' who lack understanding of Dhamma and so many times succumb to the game of self-consciousness; the 'schooled' has seen through the perversion of self-perception and is practicing to completely destroy this perception; the perfect arahant or saint is the one who has achieved liberation from the yoke of self-grasping; and the 'Tathagata', the Enlightened One is the originator of the teachings which he discovered through his unaided realization. These categories of people and the cognitive patterns of each are discussed more fully below. The twenty-four objects or 'bases' of perception cover the entire scale of empirical data, classified in some mutually complementary way. The first group consists of the four elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—which represent the basic behavior patterns of matter—expansion, cohesion, heat emission, and motion. The next group of classifications cuts across the realms as recognized by the traditional Buddhist cosmology, proceeding sequentially from the lower classes of beings included under the collective term 'beings' (bhūta), to the lower classes of beings. gods in the sensual world and the brahma world, and even higher are the pure-minded beings in the four formless realms. The next group reclassifies cognizable objects into four basic types of sense-perceptual, materialistic, tactile (through smell, taste, and touch), and cognitive. Finally, the other group sorted the bases into four types of abstraction: difference and identity in relation to perception and meditation ; all understood by mystical experience or intellectually acknowledged; and nirvana, the ultimate goal when conceived in terms of different systems of thought. In the first exposition of the suttas, the basic dhamma sutta reports the cognitive model of 'common man' (assutavā puthujjano), in relation to people without regard to saints and sages, and thus both lacking. both the understanding and the practical discipline needed to dispel the activities of self-consciousness. The cognitive process of ordinary people according to the scriptures, goes through a number of stages, each revealing a different aspect leading to the basic inner formation. The first stage stated in the sutras is: 'He perceives earth as earth,' (please use earth as a template for the rest of the premises). The 'perception' mentioned here is not a perception but grasps the object in its true nature, y according to the truth; rather, as the commentary states, it is a 'false perception' (viparītasaññā) and preludes to a preliminary distortion in its argument. We might assume that before this perception of 'earth is earth' occurs, a simple, rudimentary act of perception arises merely noting the object in a faint and indistinct character. If the first impression is inattentive, the mind will quickly let go of it and move on to another object. But if the impression is found to be remarkable, the object becomes the focal point for the succession of perception and deepens its characteristics. However, subsequent actions of perception will not necessarily define the nature of the object unambiguously and precisely. They can more fully capture the salient qualities of the object: but at the same time, due to the power of ignorance (at least always latently present in the constitution of ordinary people's minds), they will also often refract the object through the environment of subjective distortions that arise in false perception. However, this confusing, complicated process happens so quickly that it seems to the perceiver to be merely the automatic recognition of perception. So the sutras say: 'He perceives earth as earth.' Elsewhere in the sutras the Buddha lists four basic types of perversion (vipallāsa), in each of which can occur to three different degrees (A.IV.5.9). These four perversions hold that impurity is pure, suffering is bliss, impermanence is permanent, and no-self is self. These perversions can occur on three levels as perception (saññā), mind (citta), and views (diṭṭhi). Perversion occurs when the object is noticed only through one of the four distortion mechanisms with no further development. If the object is then similarly recalled, mental perversion occurs. And if, through repeated recollection, conviction arises that this structure gives an accurate picture of the object, the distortion has progressed to perverse bias. From a Buddhist perspective these perversions are not inherent products of perception, but are extraneous wrappers for the mere intellectual act that gives their appearance through separate fates. The factors responsible for perverted perceptions are the defilements (kilesa), which are led by greed, hatred, and delusion. From their latent conditioning at the base of the bhavanga-citta, they penetrate higher levels of consciousness which then lead to a distorted view of the whole of knowledge. This distortion can range from our elementary reactions to sensations, passing through more complex judgments and beliefs, to sophisticated metaphysical and religious systems of thought. Best. Each such section forms the basis for the next, the whole structure remaining in place as long as the defilements persist. The most basic of the three perversions is perversion, the very perception of which the Buddha alluded in his statement that ordinary people 'perceive the earth as earth.' Due to rational attention (ayoniso manasikāra) with external objects, the afflictions caused by perception arise. These external objects exhibit many other flaws, including the agitation of the incessant afflictions. Through repressed pressure, they direct the attentional function of the mind to cling to these dhammas and recur over and over again. This 'non-judgmental attention' by conditioned perception on those dhammas ascribes to the object properties that it does not actually possess but has only in form through the force of imposition of akusala cittas tendencies. Thus under the influence of greed the object will appear pure (subha); and happiness (sukha); under the influence of aversion the object will seem obnoxious (paṭigha); and under the influence of delusion the object will appear permanent (nicca) and self (attā). [2] It should be noted that this misleading imposition can occur even at the level of pre-linguistic consciousness, where the object is not clearly conceptually explained and interpreted. Misperceptions conditioned by afflictive afflictions can alternately generate afflictions and surface by a form of activation. The perception of objects as beautiful and agreeable stimulates greed and the attempt to possess and enjoy them; the idea of ​​dharmas as abominable provokes anger and attempts to destroy them; The idea of ​​dhammas as permanent and self becomes dogmatic, thus bringing about more delusion. Thus in the work of the mundane mind a mutual activity is evident: on the one hand, the afflictions of afflictions exude distorted perceptions; On the other hand, these distorted perceptions awaken the defilements and strengthen the deep-rooted roots below. But this whole process happens so quickly and so subtle that ordinary people are not aware of it. He takes perceptions as reliable copies of dharmas as they really exist. In this way the ordinary man is deceived, because, not realizing this deception, he continues to build upon his distorted ideas the tower of judgments, values, and dogmas. This tower forms the inertia of ordinary people. After perceiving 'earth as earth', in the next stage of perception the ordinary man continues to 'imagine' his object. Ordinary people can imagine this way or that way in the four ways in the scriptures: 'He imagines the earth; fantasy in the land; fantasy from the earth; imagine 'the land is mine.'[3] Before we can refer to these four ways in special meanings, it is necessary first to consider the general phenomenon of imagination itself. The Pāli word we have translated as 'imagining,' maññanā, comes from the root man, 'thinking'. But what is indicated by this word is not simple vitakka, which is either wholesome or unwholesome and may include grasping for right or wrong objects. The word maññanā denotes a different and more developed kind of thinking, it is definitely unwholesome and always involves a wrong grasp of the object. Maññanā is distorted thinking, which, under the influence of tainted taste, ascribes to its object possessions or close relationships not on the basis of the dharma itself, but in the structure of its activity. movement of the subjective imagination. It is the tendency of thought to misunderstand its object, relying on the perverse perception that precedes it to grasp the object in a way contrary to its true nature. We have tried to take the nuance of this Pāli word by translating it as 'imagination' although the English word 'conceiving' hardly appreciates the full meaning of the original. it attributes to its object possessions or close relationships not based on the dharma itself, but in the active structure of subjective imagination. It is the tendency of thought to misunderstand its object, relying on the perverse perception that precedes it to grasp the object in a way contrary to its true nature. We have tried to take the nuance of this Pāli word by translating it as 'imagination' although the English word 'conceiving' hardly appreciates the full meaning of the original. it attributes to its object possessions or close relationships not based on the dharma itself, but in the active structure of subjective imagination. It is the tendency of thought to misunderstand its object, relying on the perverse perception that precedes it to grasp the object in a way contrary to its true nature. We have tried to take the nuance of this Pāli word by translating it as 'imagination' although the English word 'conceiving' hardly appreciates the full meaning of the original. Although closely linked in the unity of conscious action, these factors can nevertheless be divided into two mutually supportive planes: on the one hand, the conscious or subjective plane which includes the mind. and its mental factors; on the other hand, is the objective plane that includes perceived objects. Intermediate for both are the sense-doors that provide the necessary contact bases for the mind and the external sense bases. Under the influence of ignorance, the basic ignorance of the four noble truths, the conditioned non-self components of the field of experience undergo a simple transformation through ordinary worldly perception, crystallizing into a clear confrontation between the self and its world as opposed to present reality. The cognitive plane of complex experience manifests itself as a separate subject from the act of perception itself, The experienced person holds each instance of fleeting perception. The objective plane in turn accepts the appearance of a solid, enduring world that spreads before perception becomes the field for self-relationship and action. From the inner fortress of subjective concern to see the world as something potentially possible; it is thus intended to control, dominate, and manipulate the world as a means of judging tacit confirmation of dubious inner way of being. Generating the idea of ​​a separate subjectivity results in the construction of a more complex view of self, which generates attempts to define and identify with that perverted self. The Buddha states this sequential development: 'I am' (asmi)- this is a delusion (maññita). 'I am this' (ayaṃ ahaṃ asmi)- this is a delusion. 'I would be'… 'I would not be'… 'I would be form'… 'I would not be form’… 'I would be perception… not perception… no perception… neither perception nor no are delusions - these are delusions. These delusions are diseases, boils, and poisons. (M. 140) This passage makes clear that the primary meaning that gives rise to misperception is the idea of ​​'I am', which arises as a conceit (asmimāna) stemming from a mistaken evaluation or estimation of objective fact, and as desire (asmichanda) manifests a fundamental urge to be born. Once the idea of ​​'I am' comes into focus of perception and is taken up as a subject for reflection, it is found to be implicitly ambiguous. While the idea of ​​'I' is certainly present as a semantics of every experience (I see, I hear, I speak, I do), it is still a semantic without introspection. In general it manifests only in a negative way, yet it is a strange negativity, for it is meant to be the essential goal of the whole structure of experience, the center and the impossible support. its replacement. So as soon as the idea of ​​'I' comes into view as the omnipresent intention of the act of perception, it begins to seek its own gratification, the pure negativity of the self requiring form. knowledge and conditions in the domain of the particular situation. This claim the ordinary man tries to meet by identifying the imaginary self with some part of his mentality and materiality. The result is the conception of 'I am this,' the absurd equating of the 'I' with 'this', some of the five aggregates constituting the grasping of craving. The conviction 'I am this' is called 'body view' (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), which can take any of the twenty-four bases depending on the self directly identified with the five aggregates, or perceived as the possessor, vessel, or inner center of the five aggregates.[5] it begins to seek gratification for itself, the pure negativity of the self requiring form and conditioning in the realm of concrete reality. This claim the ordinary man tries to meet by identifying the imaginary self with some part of his mentality and materiality. The result is the conception of 'I am this,' the absurd equating of the 'I' with 'this', some of the five aggregates constituting the grasping of craving. The conviction 'I am this' is called 'body view' (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), which can take any of the twenty-four bases depending on the self directly identified with the five aggregates, or perceived as the possessor, vessel, or inner center of the five aggregates.[5] it begins to seek gratification for itself, the pure negativity of the self requiring form and conditioning in the realm of concrete reality. This claim the ordinary man tries to meet by identifying the imaginary self with some part of his mentality and materiality. The result is the conception of 'I am this,' the absurd equating of the 'I' with 'this', some of the five aggregates constituting the grasping of craving. The conviction 'I am this' is called 'body view' (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), which can take any of the twenty-four bases depending on the self directly identified with the five aggregates, or perceived as the possessor, vessel, or inner center of the five aggregates.[5] This claim the ordinary man tries to meet by identifying the imaginary self with some part of his mentality and materiality. The result is the conception of 'I am this,' the absurd equating of the 'I' with 'this', some of the five aggregates constituting the grasping of craving. The conviction 'I am this' is called 'body view' (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), which can take any of the twenty-four bases depending on the self directly identified with the five aggregates, or perceived as the possessor, vessel, or inner center of the five aggregates.[5] This claim the ordinary man tries to meet by identifying the imaginary self with some part of his mentality and materiality. The result is the conception of 'I am this,' the absurd equating of the 'I' with 'this', some of the five aggregates constituting the grasping of craving. The conviction 'I am this' is called 'body view' (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), which can take any of the twenty-four bases depending on the self directly identified with the five aggregates, or perceived as the possessor, vessel, or inner center of the five aggregates.[5] Then some identification with the imaginary self has been pointed out, and then ordinary people continue to speculate about future beings. On the first degree his speculations point to one of two metaphysical extremes - permanent view (sassatavāda) when ordinary people think that the self will enjoy eternal existence after death (I will be), or the cessation of view. (ucchedavāda) when he thinks that the self will be destroyed at death (I will not be). If the ordinary man accepts eternal view then he must determine the manner in which immortal life occurs. The worldling does this in line with the five ego-exclusionary characteristics such as 'having form,' etc. Thus, starting from the initial fragmentation of the self, the worldling is caught in the net of speculations. of his conditioned 'self', not only does it prevent him from attaining insight into the nature of reality, but it also keeps him tied to the cycle of existence. The commentary indicates that the activity of the imagination is motivated by three basic mental factors which impart to it particular impulse and control. These three are craving (taṇhā), conceit (māna), and views (diṭṭhi). Under the influence of self-cherishing, self-image leads to manifestation in thoughts of desire and desire. Under the influence of conceit it becomes evident in judgments and comparisons so that we rank ourselves in relation to others as noble, equal and inferior. And under the influence of views, i.e. the theoretical inclination of thought, the self-view arose in dogmas, ideologies, speculations concerning reality and the nature of self and its abode. , world. These three aspects of self give rise to the corresponding three conceptual formulations to which the ordinary man is inclined to make his mark on the erecting elements of experience, i.e., the ideas 'this is mine' (etaṃ). mama), 'this is me' (esohaṃ asmi), and 'this is my self' (eso me attā).[7] The establishment of 'this is mine' is a reflection of loving-kindness, for it is the function of craving to possess dharmas as the possession of the self. The establishment of 'this is I' is the foundation of conceit, the 'I am' conceit (asmimāna), the root of later comparative judgments. And the establishment of 'this is my self' is the interpretation of the personal view, which arises when the thought 'I am' occurs many times and is taken up as evidence for the permanent self, then identified with the five aggregates. The same trio of these mental factors also lie behind the phrase 'the fabrications 'I', 'mine' and conceit (ahaṃkāramamakāramānānusaya) often occur in the suttas.[8] Here, craving functions as the cause for 'my' creation, views and conceit as the cause for 'I' creation, and conceit as 'arbitrary conceit'.'To translate fairly. The exact terminology of this phrase is important, even clumsily admitted, to emphasize the fact that the possessions of 'I' and 'mine' to which we attribute things are not. must be substantive to things themselves, but merely mind-generated pseudosciences and ascribed to cognitive factors beneath the veil of ignorance that are caused by extroversion. In this sutra, the Buddha explains four ways in which ordinary people imagine each of the twenty-four bases. Taking the earth as an example, without any further explanation, his imaginary form can be interpreted like this: 'He imagines the earth; he imagines in the earth; he imagines from the earth; he imagines 'the land is mine.' These confusing phrases naturally raise the issue of exact content. Venerable āṇananda suggests that the four combinations should be understood as 'an illustration of the ordinary man's attachment to the grammatical structure of language,' on the bases that the first three imaginary forms take. the object through a particular instance in the inflection of the nominative - that is, through the object, place, and instrument, respectively.[9] However, The main meaning of the pattern seems to us to be ontological rather than grammatical. The grammatical element is certain, but it is present only as the transformation of the absolute ontology, not the primary determinism. Regarding the explanation proposed here, each imagination represents an effort by ordinary people (at the pre-contemplative as well as the contemplative level) to let the positive nature over the negative conceptuality of the mind. determined self, by placing the relation between oneself as the perceiver and the perceived dhamma as its relational object. Experience is always completely related in structure. Things exist not as isolated units, but as participants in a vast web of relationships that can be broken down only in thought and never in reality. The relationships that things bring to each other are of different kinds. They present identical correlation when two dhammas are considered as separate instances of a general kind, or when the same dhamma is viewed from different points of view; inherent relationship, when one dharma is contained within another; causality, when one dharma arises from another as its source; and contrasting relationship when two things are distinguished by different characteristics or by spatial separation. At the experiential level all these relations belong only to the observed dhammas and to these relations the legitimate application is limited. However, given the basic condition of ignorance ordinary people continue to build (implicitly or explicitly) on the principle of analogy with these experiential relationships, a relationship between what is actually present in his perceived experience and what can never be present but is only assumed, i.e., his 'I' or 'self'. Thus, according to the relational pattern of observed dhammas, he will be inclined to identify with a particular dhamma 'x', when he perceives 'x'; or consider himself as belonging to that dharma, when he perceives 'in x'; either considers himself as different from that dhamma, either by simple contrast or by arising, when he perceives the word 'x'. Or he may try to possess the dhamma as his own dependent in any of these ways. The fourth case of perception, the thought 'x is mine,' gives rise to this detached perception of this possessiveness of self-consciousness; here the ordinary man stretches out his hand and claims possession over the object, Thus the imagining event turns out to be a dual process of assimilation and appropriation. Through worldly craving he takes possession of dharmas as 'mine', through conceit and views he identifies them as 'I' or 'my self.'If imagination consists only of an imaginary projection, as in daydreams or pretend games, it remains a harmless preoccupation, even just entertainment. However, because at the heart of this imaginary construction is the idea of ​​a self, a powerful stream of emotional energy arises to invest in the process. And because the idea of ​​a self lacks foundation, this emotional investment yields only as much frustration as severance pay. It is constantly betrayed by harsh experiential events, due to the impermanence of all dhammas being grasped as permanent 'I' and 'mine', The uneducated ordinary people consider form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness as self; either self as having these, or containing them, or being contained by them. He is obsessed with the thought: 'I am form, etc...; rupa, etc...is mine' His rupa, etc…changes and deforms. Due to this condition arise in him sorrow, lamentation, suffering, grief and displeasure. (S.III.III) As for the four alternatives of imagination, the Buddha added one more phrase to conclude the ordinary person's pattern of perception: 'he delights in the earth' (pathaviṃ abhinandati). The verb 'rejoice,' as the commentary points out, indicates the activity of craving, just as the second noble truth's adjective phrase describes craving as 'rejoicing here and there' (tatratatrābhinandinī). This addition raises the question of why, when craving was specified as implied in imagination, the Buddha introduced it again under a different heading. The reason seems to be to isolate this distinct and important aspect to the working of craving. According to Buddhist analysis, any individual mental element is capable of using various functions based on the different contexts in which it occurs and to bring these different functions into view. More equivalent descriptive words are needed. Craving is not only responsible for misperception in likable and attractive objects, or for imagining things as 'mine' and the impulse to obtain them. It is also responsible for the mental processes whereby we take pleasure in objects and try to exploit them for the pleasure we imagine them to be profitable. This last aspect, which is a particular extension of the word 'joy,' gains particular prominence from the Buddhist perspective because it is the insatiable thirst for joy that only maintain the forward movement of the wheel of samsara. When it finds satisfaction (assāda) in its perceptual objects, the mind craves a continual repetition of pleasure. Once its temporary gratification subsides and sex is aroused again, the search for more pleasure continues. Since craving can never be destroyed simply by submitting to its demands, the cessation of life force at death does not end the cycle of samsara, but only provides an opportunity for craving to resume the search for joy. its liking in a new form, the successor to the same kind of continuum in which it dwelt before: 'For beings are hindered by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). Since craving can never be destroyed simply by submitting to its demands, the cessation of life force at death does not end the cycle of samsara, but only provides an opportunity for craving to resume the search for joy. its liking in a new form, the inheritance for the same kind of continuum in which it dwelt before: 'For beings are hindered by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus, from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). Since craving can never be destroyed simply by submitting to its demands, the cessation of life force at death does not end the cycle of samsara, but only provides an opportunity for craving to resume the search for joy. its liking in a new form, the successor to the same kind of continuum in which it dwelt before: 'For beings are hindered by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). The cessation of life force at death does not end the cycle of samsara, but merely provides the opportunity for craving to recover its pleasure-seeking in a new form, the heir to the same kind of continuum with which it is born. formerly: 'Because sentient beings are thwarted by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). The cessation of life force at death does not end the cycle of samsara, but merely provides the opportunity for craving to recover its pleasure-seeking in a new form, the heir to the same kind of continuum with which it is born. formerly: 'Because sentient beings are thwarted by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus, from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). inheritance for the same kind of continuum in which it dwelt before: 'Because sentient beings are obstructed by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus, from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). inheritance for the same kind of continuum in which it dwelt before: 'Because sentient beings are obstructed by ignorance and bound by craving. Future rebirth takes place for the sake of rejoicing here and there (M.43). Thus, from the statement that the ordinary person delights in the object, the Buddha shows by implication that it is because of the mundane mind process that keeps him in the fetter of samsara's suffering. The Buddha himself drew this connection in detail later in the sutta when, in his explanation of dependent origination, he declared 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' (&13). In the next paragraph of explanation, the Buddha traced the reasoning behind ordinary people's delusional thoughts about imagination and rejoicing. The Buddha himself gave the reason, he declared: 'Because it is not understood by him.' To understand any particular dhamma is to grasp it by means of the three types of prolific knowledge (pariññā) mentioned in the commentaries: full knowledge of perfect knowledge (ñātapariññā), full knowledge of contemplation (tīraṇapariññā) and perfect knowledge contentment of renunciation (pahānapariññā). These three aspects of comprehension follow each other in successive stages. In the stage of full knowledge, the gross object is analyzed into its constitutive 'things' and each is limited to its particular sign, function, manifestation, and proximate cause. This method corrects the general assumption of simple homogeneous entities, exposing their place to a world of whole sets made up of objective and temporally aggregated components through a series of the charms. In the second stage, the contemplative wisdom, the phenomena which are the result of the above analysis are considered in relation to the three common signs - impermanence, suffering and not-self; whereby the tendency to perceive dharmas as permanent, pleasurable and self is stopped and that path is opened for clear contemplation of their true nature. Finally, in the third stage, From the lack of these three kinds of prolific wisdom is the root cause behind false perceptions, fantasies, and rapture. The Buddha implied that the path to the cessation of delusional perceptions, which only increase the cycle of samsara and accumulate suffering, is to develop wisdom - both mundane wisdom when contemplating the selfless, dependent origination of beings. Dharma, and supramundane wisdom in the holy path realizes the unconditioned, nirvana. The same model of interpretation, the effect of delusion through imagination, and joy on ignorance is applied to each of the twenty-four bases beginning with earth. To examine fantasies in relation to these bases separately would require a more detailed discussion here. However, a few points arise in the sutta that require some comment of our own. Although our remarks will deal only with fantasies arising through views, it must always be remembered that all three factors - craving, conceit and views - promote fantasies in each facility. Explanations of other parts can be found in the tradition of commentaries according to the translation of this sutra. The ordinary man's fantasies of the four elements - earth, water, fire, and wind - can be grasped to represent his efforts to relate himself to the physical world. The worldly man, compulsively by ignorance, interprets rupa in accordance with his prejudice of self-grasping, he tends to imagine rupas according to materialists as being like the self, or according to spiritualists as housing, vehicles, and physical tools. The fantasies about the bases from 'beings' all the way up to the 'base of neither perception nor non-perception' manifest ways of explaining ordinary people's relationships with other beings. His fantasies of Brahmā and Pajāpati, two ancient Hindu symbols of the creator god (although the commentary puts Pajāpati on a par with Māra) are of particular interest here. Since the heavenly being is understood as a separate person, ordinary people will not assimilate directly. But he himself can imagine being in the gods ('in him we live, move and exist') or arise from the gods. The fantasies of the four immaterial realms can be understood, in extended explanation, as ontological concretions of the respective jhānas, held to reveal a transcendent self that radiates. everywhere (in boundless space), universal perception (in boundless consciousness), indescribable actual existence (in the base of nothingness), and indescribable in positive or negative words (in non-perception and non-perception). origin.) The next group of bases classifies cognisable objects into preconceptions, literary faculties, sense-contacts, and knowledges, which enter the realm of ordinary man's imagination when he ascribes to those objects as faculties. Being belongs to 'mine', 'I' and 'self.' One can compare the Buddha's precepts then for one to learn to refrain from imagining these objects with his famous summary instruction to Bāhiya Daruciriya- So profound was this exhortation that the Buddha spoke. brought Bāhiya to enlightenment on the spot: 'In the seeing will be only the seeing; in the hearing will be only the hearing; in the opposite will be just the opposite; in the knowledge will be only the knowledge. Hey Bāhiya, that's how you must study yourself' (Udāna. I.10). What must be removed from correct perception are false subjective attributions, which distort incoming objects and introduce wrong view judgments and beliefs. The bases of difference, identity, and all become subject to views that include a high degree of abstract philosophy. The emphasis on the differential aspect of experience emerges from common sense leading to pluralistic ontology that celebrates the fundamentality of difference and diversity. The emphasis on the unifying aspect prominent in the meditators leads to a monistic ontology that places emphasis on the fundamentality of the unifying principle- 'Oneness is not duality.' The idea of ​​the whole which comes through meditative experience or intellectual postulates leads to a pantheistic or monistic philosophy, based on the way 'all' is conceptually tolerated. The last two positions can be seen as representing the two sides of mysticism, transcendental and immanent; unificationism maintains the transcendental nature of the self or theological principle, The final basis, nirvana, here refers to the ordinary person's conception of the ultimate goal or ultimate benefit. The commentary explains the five forms of 'present nirvana' - indulgence in sensual pleasures and the fourth jhāna. Perhaps this interpretation is too narrow and one should expand the idea of ​​nirvana to also include the Buddhist concept, seen from the point of view of the uneducated ordinary person. But the essential point remains the same- that in ignorance one who is bewitched by the world cannot resist the temptation to merge even this detail, which for the Buddhist means the destruction of self-grasping and motives. related to the self, within the frame of his ego view of reality. In the second exposition of this sutta, the Buddha continues to discuss the cognitive model of the learned (sekha)-the noble disciple who has transcended the level of ordinary people and reached the level of the noble ones. Regarding the characteristic type of Dharma, the learned person is one of the first three types of saints - stream-enterers (sotāpanna), first-returners (sakadāgāmī) and non-returners (anāgāmī). The fourth and final sage, the Arahant, is called uneducated, not because he lacks learning but because he has reached the goal of learning, that is, realizing the ultimate goal of liberation. The stream-enterer is the disciple who has entered the Dharma and has eliminated three of the ten fetters that bind the cycle of samsara--body view, doubt, and precepts of prohibition. He will be rebornup to seven lives in the human circle before attaining complete nirvana. The one-returner, by further cultivating the path, weakens greed, hatred, and delusion. He will return to this world again before attaining nirvana. The non-returner has destroyed the fetters of craving and aversion, thereby liberating himself of the five lower fetters and securing rebirth in the suddhāvāsa of the upper brahma world, where he will perfect fine-tuning the inner practice. All the learned are still subject to the five subtle fetters- craving for form, craving for formlessness, conceit, restlessness, and ignorance- so there is still work to be done in order to attain it. rescue. But the non-returners are equipped with the mental faculties capable of developing the path to the end. You don't slip back into the ordinary world, but apply yourself to the practice in the higher realms, the higher mind, and the higher wisdom. so you can uproot the remaining obstacles and achieve your goal. Because the learned ones practice in the three branches of the higher order, they are called the learned ones. Contrasted with ordinary people who 'perceive knowledge of earth as earth,' etc.. the learned is said 'abhiññā' (abhiññā), which, according to the commentary, implies two kinds of lower level understanding, at least in part that is, the apprehension of dhammas through signs and special conditions, the observation of them through the three signs. In the suttas and the Abhidhamma, the word abhiññā or its transliteration is often used to refer to the realization of the four noble truths. Hence, while the worldly and learned both perceive the conscious object in the initial stage of perception not mentioned but only implied by this sutra,[10] the ways of the two from this point onward. up in two different directions. While ordinary people continue to perceive the object through false perception, the learned person clearly sees the object in its undistorted true nature. He understands it as an aggregate of impermanence, the conditioned factors that the noble truth of suffering includes. He knows that the physical and mental forces that combine in the process of perception arising through previous craving and by uprooting present craving through development of the noble path can bring this process to a halt. So unlike the ordinary person the learned person is not unconsciously caught up in the web of expansionist concepts, but applies the energy to the work of cutting off the hindrances that hinder his future path to liberation. future. Therefore, the Buddha urges the student to overcome imagination and rejoice: 'he should not imagine (himself) the earth; he does not imagine (himself) in the earth; he does not imagine (himself) from the earth; he does not imagine 'the land is mine'; he should not rejoice in the earth.'The reason for having this teaching is because a vestige of predispositions to conceit and joy are still entrenched in the learned person's disposition. He has eradicated the contingent of absolute views and is therefore no longer attacked by fantasies conditioned by wrong views. But he only weakens, not eradicated, the afflictions of craving and pride, so there is still an opening for destructive fantasies that arise through these motives. Sometimes when he indulges in mindfulness, he still succumbs to thoughts of 'I' and 'mine', even though he never allows these thoughts to harden into prejudices. Since body view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) and conceit 'I am' (asmimāna) both revolve around a sense of self-nature, problems can arise in the exact relationship between the two; In particular, one may ask how conceit can occur in the absence of any view of a self in the five aggregates. These points of discussion were brought up and Bhikkhu Khemaka explained in a sutta to his name (S.III.1.9.7). Venerable Khemaka, being a non-returner, was asked by a group of bhikkhus how he could give up on himself a view of self without being an arhat. Venerable Khemaka answered their question: I am not saying 'I am' (asmi) of form, feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness. Nor do I say there is a 'I am' apart from form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness. However, a sense of 'I am' is still found in me in relation to the five aggregates of clinging; but I do not consider 'I am this' ... Although the noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters (becoming a non-returner), yet a residual 'I am' (anusahagato asmī ti māno) , the desire 'I am' (asmī ti chando), the attachment 'I am' (asmī ti anusaya) persists in him in relation to the five aggregates of clinging. The idea of ​​'I am' is a spontaneous, no-subjective idea born of a fundamental ignorance of the selfless nature of things. It becomes evident to the mind in a dual form- as a conceit or a misjudgment of oneself in relation to reality and as a directed desire towards one's enduring existence. Basically these two forms belong to pre-contemplation. Although often reinforced by subsequent reflection, they do not require it, but can exist in its absence or presence. The understanding of a self, on the other hand, is a thematic consideration associated with reflection as part of its inherent structure. Even if held dogmatically or accepted in faith without verification, it includes at least a fraction of the considerations that promote a theoretical position as its associated product. . The foundation for mature thinking is the primordial idea of ​​the self. The idea of ​​'I am,' evolves into an understanding of self as ordinary people accept the idea at its surface value - as he turns towards a real 'I' - and strives to fill it with consensus. transform this or that aggregate of the five aggregates as this 'I'. The learned person can never make such a mistake again. By penetrating the Dhamma he has understood the illusion of self and is therefore not inclined to seek identification among the five aggregates. However, as long as the traces of ignorance have not been erased in the deep layers of the bhavanga-citta, a diminished sense of self-nature remains. ' evolves into an understanding of the self as ordinary people accept the idea at its surface value - as he turns towards a real 'I' - and tries to fill it with identification of this or that aggregate. in the five aggregates as this 'I'. The learned person can never make such a mistake again. By penetrating the Dhamma he has understood the illusion of self and is therefore not inclined to seek identification among the five aggregates. However, as long as the traces of ignorance have not been erased in the deep layers of the bhavanga-citta, a diminished sense of self-nature remains. ' evolves into an understanding of the self as ordinary people accept the idea at its surface value - as he turns towards a real 'I' - and tries to fill it with identification of this or that aggregate. in the five aggregates as this 'I'. The learned person can never make such a mistake again. By penetrating the Dhamma he has understood the illusion of self and is therefore not inclined to seek identification among the five aggregates. However, as long as the traces of ignorance have not been erased in the deep layers of the bhavanga-citta, a diminished sense of self-nature remains.lingers through his experience in the form of subtle craving and conceit. Here the Buddha instructs the student to overcome imagination so that he can achieve understanding of the bases. Whereas the uneducated ordinary man imagines the aggregates through craving, conceit, and views, as 'This is mine, this is me, this is my self,' the learned person knows how to reverse this thinking. . Applying superior knowledge to the aggregates, he contemplates them thus: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self' (n'etaṃ, mama, n'eso'haṃ) asmi, na m'eso attā).[11] Due to the first contemplation he lessens craving, due to the second contemplation he softens his conceit, due to the third contemplation, beneficial for the new believer in training, for the learned only used to strengthen the liberation of view. fall solution. As he persists in the practice of contemplation, his wisdom gradually develops to maturity, until he has eradicated the last traces of ignorance, and with them, The third exposition of this sutra describes the cognitive model of the arahant, the perfect saint. The learned and the arhat participate in the self-realization of the dhamma. The difference between the two lies in the extent to which this realization has penetrated the subjective structure. The Buddha explained this difference as follows: Here a disciple of mine (i.e. the learned one) sees all form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness as they really are, thus: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not self mine.' To this extent a disciple is one who has followed my instructions and encouragement, has overcome doubt, abandoned hesitation, attained self-confidence, and lives independent of others in the teachings of the Tao. monk. Here a bhikkhu, having seen as it really is all form, feeling, etc., thus: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self,' is liberated? have an attachment. To this extent the bhikkhu is an Arahant, a saint of no corruption... he has been liberated through ultimate wisdom. (M. 35) For the learned, subjective penetration is partial. He has abandoned the ingrained wrong views of self, but still must strive to uproot ego clinging[12] in more subtle forms. But for the arahant, penetration is complete. He has destroyed all levels of defilements, thereby liberating even the slightest inclination to self-consciousness. The foundations of perception have been understood, ignorance has been completely abandoned, craving, conceit and views have come to an end. Therefore, the arahant no longer imagines in any way. He does not imagine the bases, he does not imagine in the bases, he does not imagine from the bases, he does not imagine the bases as 'mine.' This does not mean that the arahant is no longer understanding. His cognitive machinery continues to function effectively, even more delicately and sensitively than the period before his enlightenment. But now it just takes to heart the dhammas that act as they appear, without distortion or distortion. The Arahant no longer sees pleasant objects as attractive, because he is liberated from greed; he no longer sees unlikable objects as repulsive, because he has liberated anger; he no longer sees indistinguishable objects as confusion, because he is liberated from delusion. The position does not defend not discharge. Whatever dharma itself is present manifests itself as it really is. It is seen in the essence of reality, stripped of all embellishments and expansive concepts. For the arahant there is only seeing in seeing, in hearing only hearing, in contact there is only contact, in knowledge there is only knowledge. There is no idea 'I see, I hear, I touch, I know,' there is no idea 'what I see, what I hear, what I touch, and what I know is 'mine.' Surely the arhat is completely free to use words and designations such as 'I' and 'mine'. The release of the constraints of concepts does not imply a prohibition on their use. But the Arahant displays them only as means for the sake of communication. He is not deceived by them anymore; he no longer holds them as motives for assumptions. He understands them as established idioms, not as words describing kinds of essence. He may say 'This is my y,' but he is aware that 'mine' only arises. born through institutional usage and is not an indication of a true owner. In his thoughts only 'this robe is put on this body.' He may say 'I am entering the village,' but he knows that there is no one going, just the procession of the aggregates included in the act of walking. Because the arhat has uprooted his pride, he no longer seeks joy in the face of objects. He no longer pursues them out of longing for enjoyment. In the absence of bliss there are no conditions for samsara. Thus, at the end of the present life, the arahant puts an end to the lengthy cycle of life and also to birth, old age, and death. This achievement is the end of suffering. Like the arhat, the Buddha also attained the cessation of defilements, so his model of perception as shown in the next section is essentially the same as that of the arhat. The Buddha overcame every part of the knowledge as it really is and didn't imagine them anymore because he had uprooted craving, pride, and other views. His level of progress surpassed that of a shravaka arahant in two main respects, one related to his field of wisdom. The other aspect concerns his first enlightenment. The first aspect is indicated by an insignificant change that occurs in the interpretation of the 'Tathagata' section. Whereas the shravaka arahant does not imagine things simply because he has understood them (pariññātaṃ), the Buddha does not imagine them because he has understood them to the extreme (pariññātantaṃ). This slight variation, as the footnote explains, points to the difference in specific areas between shravaka and buddha wisdom. The shravakas may attain liberation by perceiving a limited segment of knowable dhammas, but the Buddha experiences liberation through the essential knowledge (sabbaññutanāṇa). He knows any dharma that can be known in its ways and relationships. Nothing escapes the web of his wisdom faculties. The second difference between the shravakas and the Buddha concerns the sequence of attainment. The shravaka who achieves liberation relies on the Buddha, but the Buddha realizes there is no guru, purely through wisdom developed by himself. This knowledge was not acquired through transference like shravaka wisdom, but arose in the darkness of ignorance from his own practice of right insight. The Buddha's enlightened aspect is covered by the second exposition in the 'Tathagata' section, which deals with the Buddha's realization of dependent origination, the unparalleled content of enlightenment discovered when he sat down to meditate. meditate under the Bodhi tree. The interlocking of the chain of causation at this point in the sutta further serves the purpose of linking the content of this sutta with the two central pillars of the Buddhadharma - the doctrine of Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths. The first part of the explanation outlines the ordinary person's cognitive process, which is grounded in constant ignorance, from the stage of misperception, through various ways of imagining, to then delighting in the bases of perception. Now, due to the statement that 'pleasure is the basis of suffering' and continues through the subsequent factors in the chain of dependent origination, the Buddha clearly explains the consequences of imagination and rapture. Imagination and pleasure are the source of suffering, and when we create them, they produce the inevitable result: birth, old age, sickness, and death, and these bring new forms of pain. suffering depends on their tracks. The antidote to this dependent-arising process, as the sutras show, lies in penetrating the very system of internal dynamics. For when the sources of dependent origination are discovered and exposed, they are exhausted of their causal generating potential and cease to produce their usual results. Ignorance is transformed into wisdom, craving is destroyed through dispassion and the cycle of birth and existence ends so that it can never arise again. Thus the Buddha concluded this sutra unequivocally with his triumphant declaration of his own unsurpassed enlightenment—the great, radically liberating awakening that covered samsara. At the conclusion, this sutta clearly states that the bhikkhus did not take delight in the teachings of the Blessed One. This is a direct reversal of the almost immutable mode at the end of a sutta, which states: 'Introspectively excited, The bhikkhus rejoiced in the teachings of the Blessed One.' Therefore, the arising of this problem is a cause for speculation. The commentary explains this particular conclusion by mentioning the Buddha's original purpose in elucidating the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (the basic dharma sutta): to break the conceit of the five hundred bhikkhus, from the conceit. intellectual arrogance, became conceited in their dharma duties. Because these bhikkhus could not understand such a profound sutra, their minds were confused and conceited. Confused, the bhikkhus did not take delight in the words of the Master. to break through the pride of the five hundred bhikkhus who, from their intellectual arrogance, became conceited in their Dharma duties. Because these bhikkhus could not understand such a profound sutra, their minds were confused and conceited. Confused, the bhikkhus did not take delight in the words of the Master. to break through the pride of the five hundred bhikkhus who, from their intellectual arrogance, became conceited in their Dharma duties. Because these bhikkhus could not understand such a profound sutra, their minds were confused and conceited. Confused, the bhikkhus did not take delight in the words of the Master. Although this tradition of hermeneutics certainly seems plausible, another explanation for the incomparable conclusion of the basic sutta is also possible. The commentary tells us that prior to their ordination as bhikkhus in the Buddha's teachings, these bhikkhus were brahmins who had mastered the Vedas. It might be suggested that the reason for their displeasure was not the inability to understand the Buddha's discourse, but in fact understanding it too well. Because their brahmin biases may have brought with them when they came to the Dharma and adversely affected their understanding of the Dharma in ways these monks were unwilling to give up. The main point of their wrong knowledge is likely to be the belief in an eternal and immortal self, Ātman, the main dogma of brahmin philosophy and the central goal of the Buddha's interpretation of the sutras. . A well-known passage in the Brihadāranyaka Upanishad (upanishads paragraph 3.7.3) presents a striking parallel to the flexible model of imaginations set forth in the present sutta: One who dwells on the earth, whether in in the earth, the earth does not know it, the earth is his body and he controls the earth from within - he is your self, the controller within, the immortal. Other dharmas that are similarly discussed are: water, fire, sky, air, heaven, sun, directions, moon and stars, space, darkness, light, sentient beings, breath , words, eyes, ears, mind, skin, intellect and reproductive organs. By outlining ways of thinking as mere fantasies of uneducated ordinary people, the Buddha might have hit the heart of these bhikkhus' remnant brahmin creeds, thereby inciting their indignation. However, the commentary reports a happy consequence to the entire course of events. After hearing the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (the basic dharma-door sutra) these five hundred bhikkhus became humble and full of respect. They resumed their Dharma duties, went to serve the Buddha, and listened to his teachings regularly. Some time later, when the Buddha knew that their wholesome roots were matured and their wisdom had deepened, the Buddha gave them a sutta called the Gotamaka (Gotamaka Sutta A.III.13.3), which expounded the superior virtues. of himself, the Dharma and his Sangha of disciples. By listening to this sutra, all five hundred bhikkhus were freed from defilements and completed their practice with the realization of the ultimate goal of liberation. After hearing the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (the basic dharma-door sutra) these five hundred bhikkhus became humble and full of respect. They resumed their Dharma duties, went to serve the Buddha, and listened to his teachings regularly. Some time later, when the Buddha knew that their wholesome roots were matured and their wisdom had deepened, the Buddha gave them a sutta called the Gotamaka (Gotamaka Sutta A.III.13.3), which expounded the superior virtues. of himself, the Dharma and his Sangha of disciples. By listening to this sutra, all five hundred bhikkhus were freed from defilements and completed their practice with the realization of the ultimate goal of liberation. After hearing the Mūlapariyāya Sutta (the basic dharma-door sutra) these five hundred bhikkhus became humble and full of respect. They resumed their Dharma duties, went to serve the Buddha, and listened to his teachings regularly. Some time later, when the Buddha knew that their wholesome roots were matured and their wisdom had deepened, the Buddha gave them a sutta called the Gotamaka (Gotamaka Sutta A.III.13.3), which expounded the superior virtues. of himself, the Dharma and his Sangha of disciples. By listening to this sutra, all five hundred bhikkhus were freed from defilements and completed their practice with the realization of the ultimate goal of liberation. when the Buddha knew that their wholesome roots were matured and their wisdom had deepened, the Buddha gave them a sutta called the Gotamaka (Gotamaka Sutta A.III.13.3), proclaiming his own superior qualities, Dharma and his Sangha of disciples. By listening to this sutra, all five hundred bhikkhus were freed from defilements and completed their practice with the realization of the ultimate goal of liberation. when the Buddha knew that their wholesome roots were matured and their wisdom had deepened, the Buddha gave them a sutta called the Gotamaka (Gotamaka Sutta A.III.13.3), proclaiming his own superior qualities, Dharma and his Sangha of disciples. By listening to this sutra, all five hundred bhikkhus were freed from defilements and completed their practice with the realization of the ultimate goal of liberation.END=NAM MO SHAKYAMUNI BUDDHA.( 3 TIMES ).WORLD VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST ORDER=BUDDHIST DHARMA WHEEL GOLDEN MONASTERY=VIETNAMESE BUDDHIST NUN=THE WOMEN OF THE SAKYA CLAN CHAN TANH.AUUSTRALIA,SYDNEY.1/1/2022.