Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[atanu]

Yeah, really.

A lot of Buddhists have this idea of Hinduism from around the time of the Buddha, and in reality, it's much closer to Buddhism than many Buddhists realize.

I agree. Buddha, IMO, demonstrated the erroneous view of the both eternalism (eternal individual self) and Nihilism (no self apart from perishable physical body). The eternalism meant that a King would always be so and a servant will always be so. There would never be a chance for a demonic soul to get any better. Buddha emphasized the role of karma.

OTOH, he also did not agree with the atheist-materialists of the time.

There is no record to show that anatta of Buddha pertained to atman of the Vedantist.

OTOH, teachings of sunya and Nirvana by an awakened monk, who presumably abides in sunya (is devoid of risings and devoid of skandha-s), does indicate an abiding unborn unpartitioned dhatu (or whatever) that has property of awareness and sprouting a teacher from time to time.

The teaching of anatta is the process of weaning away the impermanent objects. But after weening away the objects (skandha-s etc.) what remains as awareness of the sunya?

Is that also impermanent? Is that anatta? Anatta, by definition is pain producing. So, the monk aware of the Nirvana/Sunya cannot be called anatta.

Discrimination of anatta-anitya is the process of weaning away the non self. But once a monk is established in Nirvana/Sunya, should such a monk carry the boat that helped him to crosss the river. While established in unborn Nirvana, can a monk, discard the Nirvana and awakened self as anitya and anatta?

That I think would be impossible. Abiding as Nirvana -- in the unborn nature, a monk says: this is anitya, this is anatta. Oh, my God. Is that possible?

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram :namaste



thus I had said when we ''explore'' or 'examine' the self and find it to be empty of all that we mistakenly assumed the self to be , we find the fullness of its true nature along of course with the true nature of all phenomena

Yep. This whole discussion is about faith {atman} vs skepticism {anatta.}

From Great Doubt comes Great Awakening.

 

[crossfire]

Talking about realizing the true nature of self through realizing everything that isn't self makes me remember what Chogyal Trungpa said that really put it into perspective for me.

I think he was talking about the higher jhanas and he talked about how you get to the point where you feel that you encompass everything, but then you realize that to identify anything as you is to limit things and so you simply cease identifying altogether.

I can't find it anywhere, but it was part of Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism.

Anyway, if there is a true self, in some way, we dont have to think that there is because any idea about it isn't going to affect whether it exists or not. So why not stop contriving ideas about it and let whatever is the case be the case?

Contriving is mental fermentations which cause stress and discontentment.

That's what I've been trying to say as well.

Spoiler: line 2 from Tao Te Ching 1

The name that can be named is not a true name.

 

[atanu]

From Chapter 21 of the Shobogenzo:

Now, I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about this, but it seems one of the great Zen masters of the Soto school would know a bit more than us about what he's talking about.

Actually the citation by you is great. I have two comments.

Upon hearing the term ‘Buddha Nature’, many practitioners have
erroneously surmised It to be the same as the non-Buddhist ‘innate eternal self ’ of the Shrenikans.3 This is because they have not yet become ‘such a person’,* or are not in accord with their True Self, or have not met with a genuine Master. To no avail, they take their mind, will, or consciousness, which are constantly on the move like wind and fire, to be their perception and comprehension of their Buddha Nature. Who has ever said that there is anything within Buddha Nature to perceive or comprehend? Even though persons who have perceived and comprehended It are Buddhas, Buddha Nature is beyond any thing we perceive or comprehend.

Even more, the perception that leads us to recognize Buddhas as persons who have discerned It and know It is not perception as some people have erroneously explained it, for this perception lies beyond the realm of their mind, which is ever-moving like wind and fire. Simply put, a couple of faces of a Buddha or an Ancestor are what we perceive It to be.

1. The eternal self is taught in shwashatavAda (eternalism) and not by all of Vedantic school. Some part of it is still held in Dvaita vedantic school. But we believe that it is a very layered thing. We may talk about it separately. The main point is that the Hindu scriptures do not support an eternal bonded or free soul. Hindu scriptures surely teach of yoga-absorption of individual soul in Brahman. So, individual soul is not eternal. It is not a teaching of Veda-Vedanta. Therefore, kindly do not take this opposition as opposition to Atman of the Veda-Vedanta. It is merely an opposition to a position held by the eternalists. Similarly, Buddha opposed atheists and nihilists.

2. The text you have provided does indicate "True Self".

I point out that the statement "This is because they have not yet become ‘such a person’,* or are not in accord with their True Self, or have not met with a genuine Master.", may apply to both non-Buddhists and Buddhists (and that includes me).

The point is that the Shobogenzo quote indeed talks of the ineffable TRUE SELF -- beyond normal perception.

The point is that the Shobogenzo quote indeed talks of the ineffable TRUE SELF -- beyond normal perception.

 

[crossfire]

namaskaram :namaste




it is no coincidence , but it is also missleading (whoever said it ) to say that Buddhism ''adopted'' any of these things , ......lord Buddha realised these things to be true , thus he taught upon them , which makes buddhism a confirmation or continuation of pre existing principles , but the Buddhist teachings them selves are a refinment , as it is said that the Brahmin preists of that date had become absorbed in malpractices therefore a revision was needed , this is no slur on Brahminism or the vedas as a whole , just a simple fact that the teachings and associated practices of vedic origin had become corrupted (maybe only in the Buddha's reigion of india ? we do not entirely know ) ..likewise it is also fortold that Buddhism will suffer the same fate after a certain period of time the teachings will become lost or debased . then a revision will again be needed .


and as for the useage of terminology ? terminology only acts as a tool to explain a principle , the simple fact that lord Buddha contionued to use the same terminology for the same principles clearly demonstrates that he only rejected the Brahminism of the day and not that he rejected the principles of Sanatana Dharma .

It might be a good idea to start a thread about the history and development of these different doctrines in another thread. It might go a long way in dispelling misconceptions, imo.

 

[atanu]

Yep. This whole discussion is about faith {atman} vs skepticism {anatta.}

From Great Doubt comes Great Awakening.

Ha Ha. But you say that you will cling to skepticism {anatta.} in Nirvana/Sunya.

 

[psychoslice]

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19

And sadly that is what has happen.

 

[crossfire]

I agree. Buddha, IMO, demonstrated the erroneous view of the both eternalism (eternal individual self) and Nihilism (no self apart from perishable physical body). The eternalism meant that a King would always be so and a servant will always be so. There would never be a chance for a demonic soul to get any better. Buddha emphasized the role of karma.

OTOH, he also did not agree with the atheist-materialists of the time.

There is no record to show that anatta of Buddha pertained to atman of the Vedantist.

OTOH, teachings of sunya and Nirvana by an awakened monk, who presumably abides in sunya (is devoid of risings and devoid of skandha-s), does indicate an abiding unborn unpartitioned dhatu (or whatever) that has property of awareness and sprouting a teacher from time to time.

The teaching of anatta is the process of weening away the impermanent objects. But after weening away the objects (skandha-s etc.) what remains as awareness of the sunya?

Is that also impermanent? Is that anatta? Anatta, by definition is pain producing. So, the monk aware of the Nirvana/Sunya cannot be called anatta.

Discrimination of anatta-anitya is the process of weening away the non self. But once a monk is established in Nirvana/Sunya, should such a monk carry the boat that helped him to crosss the river. While established in unborn Nirvana, can a monk, discard the Nirvana and awakened self as anitya and anatta?

That I think would be impossible. Abiding as Nirvana -- in the unborn nature, a monk says: this is anitya, this is anatta. Oh, my God. Is that possible?

Actually, Buddha said that any doctrine of self gives rise to suffering.

Again, from Anathapindika's monastery, just like all of the other suttas you refer to came from:

Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

excerpt:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!"

"Yes, lord," the monks replied.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by dispelling, and those to be abandoned by developing.

"[1] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas unfit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.​

What are the ideas appropriate for attending to? From later on in this sutta:

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.​

 

[Breathe]

This logic does not compute. Why does total oneness equal self?

Wouldn't total oneness be atman and anatta?

Anatta because nothing has an independent self.
Emptiness because it is empty of its own inherent nature.
Atman because it unified by all things in oneness.
Other-emptiness because it is empty of all except the underlying unity.
Nirvana, the root of it all.

I agree. Buddha, IMO, demonstrated the erroneous view of the both eternalism (eternal individual self) and Nihilism (no self apart from perishable physical body). The eternalism meant that a King would always be so and a servant will always be so. There would never be a chance for a demonic soul to get any better. Buddha emphasized the role of karma. [snip]

I agree. When Buddha taught anatta to his disciples, they were overjoyed.
Why would they be overjoyed that there was nothing to them, when humanity strives for existence? Why would they not have wept?

And we know from the Samannaphala Sutta that he denied amoralism, fatalism, materialism, and "agnosticism" with regards to that area. He also denied eternalism, but what is this eternalism?

'Great king, there are these seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain. Which seven? The earth-substance, the liquid-substance, the fire-substance, the wind-substance, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh. These are the seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar — that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, and are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain.

-- Source: Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
​

Hindus do not agree with this view. If this is eternalism, then Hindus surely deny eternalism, too.

 

[von bek]

2. The text you have provided does indicate "True Self".

Yes. But look at the context of the verse and what Dogen's views are. When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness. To speak of one is to speak of another. Dogen believed that impermanence was Buddha-Nature.

 

[von bek]

Is that also impermanent? Is that anatta? Anatta, by definition is pain producing. So, the monk aware of the Nirvana/Sunya cannot be called anatta.

Discrimination of anatta-anitya is the process of weening away the non self. But once a monk is established in Nirvana/Sunya, should such a monk carry the boat that helped him to crosss the river. While established in unborn Nirvana, can a monk, discard the Nirvana and awakened self as anitya and anatta?

That I think would be impossible. Abiding as Nirvana -- in the unborn nature, a monk says: this is anitya, this is anatta. Oh, my God. Is that possible?

Dogen believed that Buddha-Nature is impermanence and emptiness.

 

[crossfire]

This logic does not compute. Why does total oneness equal self?



Sorry if someone has already asked this but, if "everything is one" = atman, self, what, in your opinion, did Dogen mean in Genjokoan when he said "To study the Buddha way is to study the self, to study the self is to forget the self, to forget the self is to be actualized by the myriad things"?

Wouldn't total oneness be atman and anatta?

Anatta because nothing has an independent self.
Emptiness because it is empty of its own inherent nature.
Atman because it unified by all things in oneness.
Other-emptiness because it is empty of all except the underlying unity.
Nirvana, the root of it all.

Tathata (thusness) is often called "self" in Dogen's works. Does appreciation for the uniqueness of the current state of interconnectedness of reality constitute a permanent self? No, as reality is constantly changing. I don't think the word atman can apply to this in the Hindu sense of the word. Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization/appreciation/thusness experience, but does it constitute atman? The knowledge you gain from your own unique experiences may be said to be independent of others, since no one else can experience for you, but does that constitute a permanent self? Is that atman?

 

[von bek]

Tathata (thusness) is often called "self" in Dogen's works. Does appreciation for the uniqueness of the current state of interconnectedness of reality constitute a permanent self? No, as reality is constantly changing. I don't think the word atman can apply to this in the Hindu sense of the word. Buddha Nature might be the capacity to have this sort of realization/appreciation/thusness experience, but does it constitute atman? The knowledge you gain from your own unique experiences may be said to be independent of others, since no one else can experience for you, but does that constitute a permanent self? Is that atman?

When Dogen speaks about Buddha-Nature being inherent in all things, he means that since all things are impermanent, and since impermanence itself is Mind And Buddha-Nature, all things are already Buddha. This is why he can say rocks are Buddha, even though traditional Buddhist understanding is that rocks lack consciousness and therefore are incapable of achieving enlightenment. It's in the context. He is not contradicting traditional abhidhamma teachings, he is simply putting a twist to break down dualistic thinking about subject/object.

 

[crossfire]

When Dogen speaks about Buddha-Nature being inherent in all things, he means that since all things are impermanent, and since impermanence itself is Mind And Buddha-Nature, all things are already Buddha. This is why he can say rocks are Buddha, even though traditional Buddhist understanding is that rocks lack consciousness and therefore are incapable of achieving enlightenment. It's in the context. He is not contradicting traditional abhidhamma teachings, he is simply putting a twist to break down dualistic thinking about subject/object.

Agreed. It's like "What was your original face (unconditioned, non-dual awareness) before your parents (mother and father--duality) were born?"

 

[DreadFish]

Im reminded of one of those tantras that's used in Dzogchen. Samantabhadra is used to represent the primordial Buddha mind. In this tantra, which was quoted in a book by Namkai Norbu, Samantabhadra says "I am nothing at all!".

 

[atanu]

Yes. But look at the context of the verse and what Dogen's views are. When he talks of True Self, he means Buddha-Nature. Buddha-Nature is emptiness. To speak of one is to speak of another. Dogen believed that impermanence was Buddha-Nature.

I have not questioned sunya ever. I simply say that sunya must be known and then an awakened one can teach about it. With the materialist ideas of most Buddhists here, if the consciousness is solely the product of skandhas then sunya/nirvana cannot be discerned.

Further Buddha straightaway refused the notion of absence of self of the Nihilists. So, there is not even a question of anatta being the immutable truth of Buddha. Anatta is simply a way of weaning away the phenomenal.

Unadulterated Nikaya-s clarify many a points. What Buddha taught was falsity of ego self. And not falsity of the Nirvana realm which is the true nature of every person.

Buddha says:

SN 1.169: "When kindling wood, brahmin, do not imagine; This external deed brings purity; For experts say no purity is gained; By one who seeks it outwardly."

SN 1.169: "Having given up the fire (agni) made from wood (externality), I kindle, O brahmin, the inner light alone . Always ablaze, my mind always unified, I am an arahant living the holy (ariya) life."

SN 1.169: "Conceit, O brahmin, is your shoulder-load [of carrying wood], Anger the smoke, false speech the ashes; The tongue is the ladle, the pith the altar, a well-tamed Self is the Light of a man."

(Note: Buddha uses the words atta and nitya)

When Buddha teaches to enquire "This not my atta, this is not my self", it surely does not indicate that the Buddha was saying "there is no atta". the anatta is very specifically taught in terms of skandha-s to Radha.

At one time in Savatthi, the venerable Radha seated himself and asked of the Blessed Lord Buddha: “Anatta, anatta I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Anatta mean?” “Just this Radha, form is not the Soul (anatta), sensations are not the Soul (anatta), perceptions are not the Soul (anatta), assemblages are not the Soul (anatta), consciousness is not the Soul (anatta).

The above clearly explains what the anatta term means. OTOH, there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddha's denial of atman.

So, kindly discard the idea that Buddha ever denied the atman. He describes himself as solely reliant on the light of the atman, which he terms as Nitya.

We all however agree that the ego self is mAyA -- a delusion. It is called bhandAsur (a false demon) in our parlance. There is no difference on that point.

........

However million pages of text cannot explain it. The Nirvana/Sunya must be experienced. There is no substitute.

 

[atanu]

Agreed. It's like "What was your original face (unconditioned, non-dual awareness) before your parents (mother and father--duality) were born?"

For that the Sunya/Nirvana must be experienced.

 

[crossfire]

For that the Sunya/Nirvana must be experienced.

Agreed.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

Nirvana is not a source/ground from which phenomena arises.

Mula Sutta: Rooted

"'All phenomena have Unbinding as their final end.'

Nirvana is not phenomenon, but the ending of such.

Itivuttaka: The Group of Twos

 

[crossfire]

I have not questioned sunya ever. I simply say that sunya must be known and then an awakened one can teach about it. With the materialist ideas of most Buddhists here, if the consciousness is solely the product of skandhas then sunya/nirvana cannot be discerned.

Further Buddha straightaway refused the notion of absence of self of the Nihilists. So, there is not even a question of anatta being the immutable truth of Buddha. Anatta is simply a way of weaning away the phenomenal.

Unadulterated Nikaya-s clarify many a points. What Buddha taught was falsity of ego self. And not falsity of the Nirvana realm which is the true nature of every person.

Buddha says:



(Note: Buddha uses the words atta and nitya)

When Buddha teaches to enquire "This not my atta, this is not my self", it surely does not indicate that the Buddha was saying "there is no atta". the anatta is very specifically taught in terms of skandha-s to Radha.



The above clearly explains what the anatta term means. OTOH, there exists no substantiation in sutra for Buddha's denial of atman.

So, kindly discard the idea that Buddha ever denied the atman. He describes himself as solely reliant on the light of the atman, which he terms as Nitya.

We all however agree that the ego self is mAyA -- a delusion. It is called bhandAsur (a false demon) in our parlance. There is no difference on that point.

The Sanskrit word Nitya is Nicca in Pali, which means "constant, continuous, permanent." Anicca, one of the three marks of existence, means "not nicca," or impermanence.

Here's the entry for Nicca from the Pali Text Society's dictionary. I'll hide the entry to save space.

The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary

Spoiler: Pali dictionary definition Nicca/Nitya

Nicca

Nicca (adj.) [Vedic nitya, adj. -- formation fr. ni, meaning "downward"=onward, on and on; according to Grassmann (Wtb. z. Rig Veda) originally "inwardly, homely"] constant, continuous, permanent D iii.31; S i.142; ii.109, 198; iv.24 sq., 45, 63; A ii.33, 52; v.210; Ps ii.80; Vbh 335, 426. In chain of synonyms: nicca dhuva sassata avipari&#7751;&#257;madhamma D i.21; S iii.144, 147; see below anicca, -- nt. adv. nicca&#331; perpetually, constantly, always (syn. sad&#257 M i.326; iii.271; Sn 69, 220, 336; Dh 23, 109, 206, 293; J i.290; iii.26, 190; Nd2 345 (=dhuvak&#257;la&#331; PvA 32, 55, 134. <-> Far more freq. as anicca (adj.; anicca&#331; nt. n.) unstable, impermanent, inconstant; (nt.) evanescence, inconstancy, impermanence. -- The emphatic assertion of impermanence (continuous change of condition) is a prominent axiom of the Dhamma, & the realization of the evanescent character of all things mental or material is one of the primary conditions of attaining right knowledge anicca -- sañña&#331; manasikaroti to ponder over the idea of impermanence S ii.47; iii.155; v.132; Ps ii.48 sq., 100; PvA 62 etc. -- k&#257;ye anicc' ânupassin realizing the impermanence of the body (together with vayânupassin & nirodha&#730 S iv.211; v.324, 345; Ps ii.37, 45 sq., 241 sq. See anupassan&#257. In this import anicca occurs in many combinations of similar terms, all characterising change, its consequences & its meaning, esp. in the famous triad "anicca&#331; dukkha&#331; anatt&#257;" (see dukkha ii.2), e. g. S iii.41, 67, 180; iv.28 (sabba&#331, 85 sq., 106 sq.; 133 sq. Thus anicca addhuva app&#257;yuka cavanadhamma D i.21. anicca+dukkha S ii.53 (yad anicca&#331; ta&#331; dukkha&#331; iv.28, 31, v.345; A iv.52 (anicce dukkhasaññ&#257; M i.500 (+roga etc.); Nd2 214 (id. cp. roga). anicca dukkha vipari&#7751;&#257;madhamma (of k&#257;m&#257 D i.36. aniccasaññ&#299; anattasaññ&#299; A iv.353; etc. <-> Opposed to this ever -- fluctuating impermanence is Nibb&#257;na (q. v.), which is therefore marked with the attributes of constancy & stableness (cp. dhuva, sassata amata, vipari&#7751;&#257;ma). -- See further for ref. S ii.244 sq. (sa&#7735;&#257;yatana&#331; a.), 248 (dh&#257;tuyo); iii.102 (r&#363;pa etc.); iv.131, 151; A ii.33, 52; v.187 sq., 343 sq.; Sn 805; Ps i.191; ii.28 sq., 80, 106; Vbh 12 (r&#363;pa etc.), 70 (dv&#257;dasâyatan&#257;ni), 319 (viññ&#257;&#7751;&#257, 324 (khandh&#257, 373; PvA 60 (=ittara).
-- k&#257;la&#331; (adv.) constantly Nd2 345; -- d&#257;na a perpetual gift D i.144 (cp. DA i.302); -- bhatta a continuous food-supply (for the bhikkhus) J i.178; VvA 92; PvA 54; -- bhattika one who enjoys a continuous supply of food (as charity) Vin ii.78; iii.237 (=dhuva -- bhattika); iv.271; -- saññ&#257; (& adj. saññin) the consciousness or idea of permanence (adj. having etc.) A ii.52; iii.79, 334; iv.13, 145 sq.; Nett 27; -- s&#299;la the uninterrupted observance of good conduct VvA 72; PvA 256.