Did the Buddha reject these conventions? Didn't he call Ananda 'younger brother', Rahula 'son', and address others as 'dear sons and daughters'? These are conventional terms. Aren't they true for communication? But are they ultimately real? These are just conventional designations.
The five aggregates exist both in conventional and ultimate sense. How do they exist? Isn't it worth examining? They exist as impermanent (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anatta). Are these pleasant or unpleasant qualities? They are aspects of suffering, aren't they? Isn't this worth investigating?
When you gain this understanding, consider your acts of giving. Pure intention, right? Is the intention based on concepts of people, devas, or brahmas? Does the Buddha call intention (cetana) self-view (sakkāya)? Don't the wrong views about being human, deva, or brahma fall away?
When you understand intention as a mental factor, wrong view falls away. People say 'maintain good intention, don't let intention fade' - don't they? Is intention permanent or impermanent? It's impermanent. Can you command it not to cease? It's impermanent, understand? What's important is 'don't let faith (saddhā) fade' - the confidence.
Isn't intention taught as impermanent, suffering, and non-self? Yet people say 'don't let it fade' - wouldn't that make it self (atta)? When intention is seen as impermanent, do you see intention or its non-existence? When non-existence is seen as impermanent, isn't that knowledge called Path?
Does craving arise? Does clinging arise? Does kamma arise? This is maggo-nāma-cetanā (Path intention). Isn't this worth studying? Such understanding is needed. Who directs these acts of giving? Isn't it taught as mindfulness and wisdom? This is being accompanied by mindfulness and wisdom.
When accompanied by mindfulness and wisdom, do craving and clinging still arise? Think about it. Isn't intention a mental factor? Isn't the co-arising wind element physical? These are just mind and matter. Are they persons? Don't wrong view and doubt cease when seen this way?"
"Doesn't intention cease after giving? Think about it. To explain this clearly: Don't thoughts of wanting to give arise?
For instance, with meditation retreats, don't people take responsibility for meal offerings? That initial planning, isn't it taught as pubba-cetana (prior intention)? Is it taught as 'people' or as 'intention'? The first arising is intention - pubba-cetana. Isn't this worth examining?
From pubba-cetana, you plan how to buy, prepare, and make offerings. When these plans come to fruition, doesn't it exist? At this point, isn't it taught as muñca-cetana (present intention)? Think about it.
When it's accomplished - when the cooking is done, the purchasing complete - don't you personally offer it? Isn't this taught as pubba-muñca? This is muñca-cetana.
The first arising is pubba-cetana - is it a person or intention? The second arising - is it a person or muñca-cetana? This isn't just my teaching, it's the Buddha's teaching. When the offering is complete...
Thirdly, don't you feel joy and satisfaction thinking 'my offering is successful'? Is this a person or para-cetana (subsequent intention)? Pubba, muñca, para-cetana - see how there's no person involved? Isn't this worth contemplating?
Doesn't the first arising thought reach impermanence? After pubba-cetana reaches impermanence, muñca-cetana arises. Doesn't muñca-cetana cease? Doesn't para-cetana enter? And doesn't that joyful satisfaction also cease?
Isn't it taught that 'all formations are impermanent'? When impermanent, doesn't it reach its end? Understanding this, does craving for it still arise? Give and offer with this understanding.
So are we abandoning giving, or abandoning defilements? Are we abandoning virtue, or defilements? Are we abandoning concentration, or defilements? We're abandoning defilements.
That's why it's taught in texts as vivaṭṭa-dāna, vivaṭṭa-sīla, vivaṭṭa-samatha, isn't it? When mindfulness and wisdom lead, it becomes vivaṭṭa (turning away from saṃsāra). Isn't this worth studying? Think about it. Isn't this worth investigating?"
For instance, with meditation retreats, don't people take responsibility for meal offerings? That initial planning, isn't it taught as pubba-cetana (prior intention)? Is it taught as 'people' or as 'intention'? The first arising is intention - pubba-cetana. Isn't this worth examining?
From pubba-cetana, you plan how to buy, prepare, and make offerings. When these plans come to fruition, doesn't it exist? At this point, isn't it taught as muñca-cetana (present intention)? Think about it.
When it's accomplished - when the cooking is done, the purchasing complete - don't you personally offer it? Isn't this taught as pubba-muñca? This is muñca-cetana.
The first arising is pubba-cetana - is it a person or intention? The second arising - is it a person or muñca-cetana? This isn't just my teaching, it's the Buddha's teaching. When the offering is complete...
Thirdly, don't you feel joy and satisfaction thinking 'my offering is successful'? Is this a person or para-cetana (subsequent intention)? Pubba, muñca, para-cetana - see how there's no person involved? Isn't this worth contemplating?
Doesn't the first arising thought reach impermanence? After pubba-cetana reaches impermanence, muñca-cetana arises. Doesn't muñca-cetana cease? Doesn't para-cetana enter? And doesn't that joyful satisfaction also cease?
Isn't it taught that 'all formations are impermanent'? When impermanent, doesn't it reach its end? Understanding this, does craving for it still arise? Give and offer with this understanding.
So are we abandoning giving, or abandoning defilements? Are we abandoning virtue, or defilements? Are we abandoning concentration, or defilements? We're abandoning defilements.
That's why it's taught in texts as vivaṭṭa-dāna, vivaṭṭa-sīla, vivaṭṭa-samatha, isn't it? When mindfulness and wisdom lead, it becomes vivaṭṭa (turning away from saṃsāra). Isn't this worth studying? Think about it. Isn't this worth investigating?"
"Even in giving, we must discriminate. Puññābhisaṅkhāra (meritorious formations) leads to human and deva aggregates - but doesn't escape aging, sickness, and death. Āneñjābhisaṅkhāra (imperturbable formations) leads to brahma aggregates - but doesn't escape aging, sickness, and death. Apuññābhisaṅkhāra (demeritorious formations) leads to the four woeful realms.
How clear this is! This is its domain. One must transcend this world of formations. To transcend, one must understand the disadvantages of the aggregates..."
How clear this is! This is its domain. One must transcend this world of formations. To transcend, one must understand the disadvantages of the aggregates..."
