[Lal]

The following post is by Raja_mw. It seems that occasionally some people are still unable to post (they get an error message). You can send me an email at [email protected] and I can post it.

Hi,
Homage to Triple Gem

I’m confused about the last part of Culasaccaka Sutta (MN 35).
…..
Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho saccako nigaṇṭhaputto bhagavantaṁ etadavoca: “yamidaṁ, bho gotama, dāne puññañca puññamahī ca taṁ dāyakānaṁ sukhāya hotū”ti.

“Yaṁ kho, aggivessana, tādisaṁ dakkhiṇeyyaṁ āgamma avītarāgaṁ avītadosaṁ avītamohaṁ, taṁ dāyakānaṁ bhavissati. Yaṁ kho, aggivessana, mādisaṁ dakkhiṇeyyaṁ āgamma vītarāgaṁ vītadosaṁ vītamohaṁ, taṁ tuyhaṁ bhavissatī”ti

it seems like there is a difference in the result of giving to Anariya and Ariya, but I don’t understand. please clarified this passage. isn’t in both instances, merit goes to the donor?
what is emphasized?
much appreciate…

[Lal]

“Cūḷasaccaka Sutta (MN 35)”

Here is an English translation of the sutta:

Cula-Saccaka Sutta: The Shorter Discourse to Saccaka

The verses that Raja refers to are at the end of the sutta.
– The first part of the sutta describes a conversation of the Buddha with Saccaka.
– Saccaka was a “guru” and had a large following. People brought offerings to him.

Once Scakkaka comprehended Buddha Dhamma, he invited the Buddha and the bhikkhus to a meal the next day.
– Then he asked his followers to prepare the meal.
– Once they brought the food to him, Saccaka offered that food to the Buddha and the accompanying bhikkhus.

At the end of the meal, Saccaka said, “Master Gotama, may the merits of this offering be exclusively for the happiness of the donors (his followers).”
– But the Buddha explained that the meal to him was offered by Saccaka and NOT by his followers, and thus the merits will go only to Saccaka.

Note that it was not the desire of the Buddha, but how nature works.
– One accrues his own kamma based on his intention. In the Nib­bedhi­ka Sutta (AN 6.63): “Cetanāhaṃ (cetanā aham), bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi.”
– The intention of the followers of Saccaka was to make the offering to Saccaka. They prepared the meal on the request of Saccaka, and NOT because they wanted to make the offering to the Buddha.
– But it was Saccaka who had the desire and intention to make the offering to the Buddha. Thus he gets the merits for his kamma (done with the intention).

P.S. It is NOT the physical action that matters. What matters is the kammic energy generated in one’s thoughts (citta).

[Aniduan]

Lal wrote: “The intention of the followers of Saccaka was to make the offering to Saccaka. They prepared the meal on the request of Saccaka, and NOT because they wanted to make the offering to the Buddha”.

If the followers instead made the food with the intention of offering it to the Buddha, not handing the food to the Buddha but keeping in mind when the food is being prepared that it will be offered to the Buddha by their guru Saccaka. In this case will they earn merits?

Thanks in advance, this is an important concept I would like to understand.

[Lal]

Aniduan asked: “If the followers instead made the food with the intention of offering it to the Buddha, not handing the food to the Buddha but keeping in mind when the food is being prepared that it will be offered to the Buddha by their guru Saccaka. In this case will they earn merits?”

Yes. I have highlighted the key part.
– If they had the intention, that is what counts.
– Even if they did not offer that food to the Buddha, they MADE AN EFFORT in preparing the food with the INTENTION that food will be offered to the Buddha.

The easiest way to remember is the following: Kammic energy is created in citta (one’s thoughts), specifically in javana citta.
– Javana cittas arise with intention. Here if the intention includes good mental factors (non-greed, compassion, etc) then those give rise to good kamma. If the intention includes bad mental factors (greed, anger, etc) then those give rise to bad kamma.
– Those are also vaci sankhara and kaya sankhara: “Saṅkhāra – What It Really Means” Good sankhara (punnabhi sankhara create good kamma. Bad sankhara (apunnabhi sankhara create bad kamma.

[Tobias G]

I have a question regarding the meaning of the sutta. 

The Buddha says:

“Nanu tvaṁ, aggivessana, evaṁ vadesi:‘rūpaṁ me attā, vedanā me attā, saññā me attā, saṅkhārā me attā, viññāṇaṁ me attā’”ti?

What is the meaning “… me attā“? The translation says “… my self”. If it can be translated as “my self”, one can assume the Buddha’s suggestive question about a self in it. But I rather think that the question of control over the five heaps is being asked here.

The Buddha also says:

‘vedanā me attā’ti, vattati te tissaṁ vedanāyaṁ vaso – evaṁ me vedanā hotu, evaṁ me vedanā mā ahosī”ti?

“…do you have power over that feeling to say: ‘May my feeling be like this! May it not be like that’?”

 

Thus the question of this sutta is not, if a person exists, but rather if one has control over the pancakkhandha.
——————————

I also see a discrepancy between
Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti – Connection to Taṇhā, Māna, Diṭṭhi #1 and #2

 “etaṁ mama, esohamasmi (eso aham asmi), eso me attā’ti samanupassati”

…However, as discussed below, it means ‘This is mine, I am (some of) this, this is for my benefit.’

vs. Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – “Me and Mine” View #9
“Yaṃ panāniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ, kallaṃ nu taṃ samanupassituṃ: ‘etaṃ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’”ti?

…“If something cannot be maintained to one’s liking, leads to suffering, and is subject to unexpected changes, is it wise to regard that as: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self or identity’?”

What is the meaning of “… me attā’ti”?

[Lal]

Yes. The word ‘attā‘ could have somewhat different meanings depending on the context. Let me take a look at those old posts and see whether I need to revise them. It may take a few days. Please remind me if I don’t post within a few days.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Tobias G

[Lal]

1. We can better understand what is meant by ‘attā‘ and ‘Sakkāya Diṭṭhi‘ with our deeper understanding of the role of ‘distorted sanna‘ in the process of kamma accumulation.

• The mind of any average person (puthujjana) initiates kamma accumulation (same as initiating a Paṭicca Samuppāda process or a pañcupādānakkhandha process) regardless of who it is. 
• If all samyojana remain intact, then any sensory input triggers kamma accumulation, even though some may not lead to the generation of potent kamma, i.e., to the ‘nava kamma‘ stage. See “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”

2. A good starting point is in the recent discussion on “Post on ‘Buddhist Non-Attachment Is Based on Yoniso Manasikāra’.”

• The reason why any mind would attach to any sensory input is the ‘false/distorted perception (saññā).’ In other words, a puthujjana always acts with ayoniso manasikāra, not knowing about the ‘false/distorted perception (saññā).’ See “Buddhist Non-Attachment Is Based on Yoniso Manasikāra.”
• I will post more in the coming days. Please feel free to comment or ask further questions on either discussion thread.

[Author]

Posts