Hi DC Wijeratna,
This teaching is more Mahāyāna than Theravādin, although it is derivable I believe from Buddha's teachings of anatta in the Pāli transmission. It is sometimes hard to understand because it combines ultimate and conventional in the same thought process.
You find this kind of statement throughout the Avataṃsaka sutra, for example,
"When great enlightening beings dedicate all roots of goodness in this way, they understand that all realms of sentient beings have no sentient beings; they understand that all things have no life; they know that all things have no creator; they realize all things have no personality; they comprehend that all things have no conflict; they see that all things come from conditions and have no abode; they know all things have no basis; they know all lands have no location; they observe that enlightening beings' practices also have no locus; they see that all objects have no existence". (The Flower Ornament Scripture, trans. by Thomas Cleary, p. 562. Boston: Shambhala, 1993)
Indeed mind and the senses are vipāka, conditioned by past karma which makes one adopt an 'I' unwittingly.
From the Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamond Sutra), chapter 25
Subhūti, what do you think? Let no one say the Tathāgata cherishes the idea "I must liberate all living beings." Allow no such thought, Subhūti. Wherefore? Because in reality there are no living beings to be liberated by the Tathāgata. If there were living beings for the Tathāgat to liberate, he would partake in the idea of selfhood, personality, ego, entity and separate individuality.
Subhūti, though the common people accept egoity as real, the Tathāgata declares that ego is not different from nonego. Subhūti, those whom the Tathāgata referred to as "common people" are not really common people; such is merely a name. (from The Diamond Sutra & The Sutra of Hui-Neng, trans. by A. F. Price and Wong Mou-lam. Boston: Shambhala. 1990, p. 46.)
These pieces were written (or better "inspired") at least 400-500 years after the historical Buddha lived, but they echo some of his own teachings on anatta and non-duality. I am thinking specifically of the teachings in the Nidānasaṃyutta (SN I I), the Kaccānagotta sutta on non-duality (PTS 017) and the Assutavantusuttaṃ (PTS 094) on cittaṃ, mano and viññānaṃ not being the self.
Hope that helps, Bryan
________________________________
From: DC Wijeratna <
dcwijeratna@...>
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, December 20, 2009 12:04:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Was the Buddha Obliged to Observe Vinaya Rules?, no 2.
"An example: someone speaks harsh words to us. In the ultimate sense
there is not he who speaks, there is not me who hears. Hearing is
vipaakacitta conditioned by past kamma. It was the right time for
kamma to produce result. How could another person be blamed? The real
cause of trouble is not another person, it is by 'myself'. Right
understanding of naama and ruupa conditions most of all kind speech,
restraint from harsh speech."
We have a funny situation there.
1. no he; no me (in bold letters above)
2. vipaka citta exists (Hearing is vipaaka citta). Where?
3. Past kamma of whom? (no he, no me.)
The explanation seems to create more questions than answers.;
D. G. D. C. Wijeratna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________________
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]