- This topic has 14 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 13 hours ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Namo Buddhaya
Dear followers of the Pure Dhamma. It is with much gratitude that this follower found this wonderful website. As a new follower, there are many questions and misunderstandings. Thank you to those who read this forum, and share their understanding with others.
Having so many questions, they will be asked a few at a time.
Question 1: What does a Brahma look like? Like a man or like the sun? Or something from a Hollywood movie?
Question 2: In the picture of Venerable Waharaka, the monk is looking at the camera. Why did he look at the camera? Is it a form of desire to look at the camera?
Question 3: In the myths about stream-enterers article, it says that one day Venerable Sariputta did not know that the person he was talking to was an arhat. In the article about how to know if you have become a stream-enterer, it says, ”The ONLY WAY to come to this realization is to comprehend the true nature of this world of 31 realms: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. And those do not mean impermanence, suffering, and “no-self.” ” The question is why the monk did not just ask the man to give definitions of the true nature of the world and thus be able to know from the quality of his responses whether he is an arhat.
Much gratitude and appreciation to the followers of the Buddha, expounds of the Dhamma and lovers of the Sangha. 🙏☸️
Namo Buddhaya
-
Welcome to the forum, HugoZyl!
Question 1: A Brahma has no physical body like ours, a tiny ant, or even a virus/bacteria. A Brahma has only a “mental body” that cannot be seen with our eyes. Of course, that is hard to imagine for us.
Question 2: I don’t understand the question. Yes, it is possible that he intended to look at the camera. Is there anything wrong with that? It is likely that you equated “intention” with “tanha.” The Pali word tanha means “intention with greed/anger.” There can be “intention” without greed/anger, as in that specific case, to teach others.
Question 3: The “true nature of this world” is an understanding. It may not be possible to describe it in words unless one goes into a long explanation. I think the person in question was on his deathbed, i.e., close to dying. There was no time to have a lengthy discussion.
-
Regarding Question 1, I should clarify my answer to provide a better visualization.
1. The amount of “matter” in a Brahma‘s “body” is much smaller than that of a tiny ant or even a virus/bacteria. That is correct.
- However, in a given Brahma realm, each Brahma would have “identifiable features,” just like we can see the difference between any two people.
- Even though a “Brahma body” has very little “matter,” it could spread over a sizeable spatial dimension.
- For example, when the Buddha visited Baka Brahma, he went there not in his “human body” but only in his “mental body,” which is as subtle/fine as a “Brahma body.” See “Brahmanimantanika Sutta (MN 49).”
- Therefore, I did not mean that a Brahma is smaller than a virus or bacteria in “geometrical size.”
- Other realms are very different from the human or animal realms that we can “see.”
2. There is a sutta (I forget the name) in which Ven. Sariputta (or Ven. Moggalana) describes an encounter with a particular Brahma. He says that Brahma‘s body is extended over a large area.
- Only those with supernormal powers (iddhi powers) can “see” such subtle “bodies.”
3. To get an idea of what I am talking about, please read “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift. I read that book when I was small but still remember Gulliver’s encounters with giants and miniature humans.
- Even Gulliver’s experiences do not provide the correct visualization but could help get some idea.
-
Namo Buddhaya
Dear brother in Dhamma. There is much appreciation for your quick, kind and detailed responses. From where I am sitting, it says that you wrote that last reply at one o’clock in the morning. You certainly did not have to lose sleep on this humble beginner’s behalf. Thank you. 🙏
Question 4: Due to my ignorance, I find the article on the wrong interpretations of anicca, dukkha and anatta difficult to follow. You share that anicca is not impermanence but ”Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).” What is the difference between that quote and impermanence? All beings want satisfaction. No being can maintain the world to his satisfaction. Thus, in one word, ”impermanence”.
Question 5: From the same article, translating ”anatta” to ”no-self” is a poor translation, yes, and people who have only heard of the Buddhist concept are confused thereby, but dedicated practitioners, for the most part, understand perfectly well that it means the same as explained in the article. To use a comparison: peanuts are not nuts. All biologists know this. Some average people may perhaps not know it but that is not a problem. We do not have to rename ”peanuts”.
Question 6: Same article, ”Thus if a headache becomes impermanent (i.e., if it goes away,) that will lead to happiness. Thus, impermanence does not necessarily lead to suffering.” But happiness is suffering, is it not?
Question 7: Would you please share your opinion about following situation. I recently went to the hospital where they took blood. I was very scared of the needle, and as it entered my flesh, I prayed that the Buddha would have mercy on me. I sweated a lot and felt nauseous. What does this say about my mental state?
Once again, A thousand thanks to all who turn the wheel of the Dhamma with patience, understanding and kindness. May all reach the other shore. ☸️
Namo Buddhaya
-
Namo Buddhaya
As we know, the Buddha taught the Dhamma for living beings to see the world in themselves, not judging from external things to achieve purity
Anicca is one package with dukkha and anatta, that’s why we call it tilakkhana..
Like the analogy of a puddle of water evaporating, is there any suffering there? Water evaporates because of one of the characteristics of anicca, but it will not be suffering for us if we ignore it, day and night, rain and shine, and so on.
Suffering (dukkha) comes when attached to the sense input (puddle of water) when you are dissatisfied the water changes because it evaporates (anicca), even though the puddle of water is not yours, you cannot control it or use it as a hold, protection (anatta).
Try to reflect, if you only use the simple translation example on anicca, dukkha, anatta only on this puddle of water..
Where is the suffering and non-self in this water?
__________
I would like to know your opinion about
Sabbe shankara anicca
Sabbe shankara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
The above 3 things would be strange if we do not see them in internal form (mental formation)
Sorry my English is bad, I hope my message can be captured well and correctly.
With metta waisaka
-
Namo Buddhaya
Dear brother Waisaka in the precious Dhamma.
Much gratitude for your wonderful attempts to help another understand what is what. Also I would just like to share that your English is much better than most other second language speakers. 😊
I only recently became a follower of Buddhism. My understanding is limited. But I will of course share the little that I have to share.
If it perhaps has relevance, I started to follow the Dhamma after reading ‘Handbook for Mankind’ by Buddhadasa from Thailand which affected me greatly.
Quote, ”see the world in themselves.” I know nothing of this.
Quote, ”Where is the suffering and non-self in this water?” According to my limited understanding, if I am reborn as a puddle of water, I will identify with the puddle (anatta) because it gives me pleasure when someone steps in me (an example of feeling) and therefore due to evaporation (anicca), I will experience suffering (dukkha) because my death is close.
Quote, ”if we do not see them in internal form.” But is seeing an internal form not just grasping? Internal, external, tall, short, fat, thin… These are concepts based on desire which lead to suffering. If there is a real internal form, it must be permanent, satisfying and a self-identity.
These humble replies are mostly just repeating what I read in Handbook for Mankind.
Thank you for your time and love.
Namo Buddhaya
-
Okay, brother Hugo..
I mean, there are two types of RUPA, external and internal..
External rupa will run as it should.
Like a stone in the river, it will not cause us suffering.
Internal rupa is the form of the stone in your mind, and when you generate tanha on the object of the stone in your mind.. For example, you want the stone not to be carried away by the river current, but in reality, sooner or later, it can be carried away by the river current. Then there arises a feeling of dislike (dukkha) when you face the reality that does not match your expectations (anicca), impermanent, changing, wavering…
In fact, the stone is not yours, and you cannot control it (anatta).
Another extreme example:
When the weather is fine, you are very happy, but we cannot control the weather according to our wishes (anicca), when the weather changes you become sad and can even cause anger (dukkha) which will be vented on others, thus causing negative karma, which can result in you being reborn in the animal realm (dukkha), and you cannot control the weather because it is not yours (anatta), and in the end you are also helpless in the process of being reborn in a lower realm (anatta).
You cannot become a puddle of water, a rock, or the weather. We are living beings. Unlike living “things,” living beings have a mental body. So you cannot compare if you were born in a puddle of water.
Why can’t we get out of the flow of samsara? We always do something in vain, fruitless, and with no results (anicca). When it is anicca, then dukkha and anatta follow.
______
I also admire Bhante Buddhadhasa, his writings on the prison of life, and the section “attaching to the scriptures.”
From there you can contemplate the scriptures even if you have tanha with defilements (lobha, dosa, moha), the scriptures will become anicca, dukkha, anatta.
Although the scriptures are neutral, but when the scriptures are in your mind (internal Rupa) it can be the cause of your staying in samsara.
Try to contemplate carefully.
The saying goes, when studying, empty the cup first when receiving teachings.
You temporarily abandon the old concept, briefly translated as impermanence, suffering, no self.
With the concept explained by Mr. Lal.
I also started learning from the beginning like you, recognizing this simple translation, but my progress was difficult to develop at that time..
With metta vaisaka.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
Thank you, Waisaka!
- This website has posts suitable for people with different levels of understanding. The current series of weekly posts may not be understandable to some, but my goal is to preserve what I have learned for future generations.
- For beginners, the following sections could be a good start: “Three Levels of Practice,” “Living Dhamma,” and “Bhāvanā (Meditation).”
- After reading some posts in those sections, one can explore other sections. Each person is different and may understand Buddha’s teachings at different levels. That is why this forum is a good resource. One can ask questions regarding posts in any section, and others can share their experience/knowledge. One can also make comments to get input from others.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I live in the United States, and you are likely to be in a different time zone. So when I replied, it was not one o’clock in the morning for me.
____
” You share that anicca is not impermanence but ”Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).” What is the difference between that quote and impermanence?”
- Impermanence means “not stable, subject to change and eventual destruction.” The way you are looking at it, you are probably thinking about an object (inert or living). Of course, everything in this world (inert or living) is impermanent. But that is just one manifestation of the anicca nature.
- Anicca means much more than that. It is a statement about the “nature of the world.” For example, those who do not comprehend the anicca nature seek happiness in worldly pleasures.
- If interested, read about different aspects of anicca nature here: “Anicca – True Meaning.”
____
More on anatta nature: “Anatta – A Systematic Analysis.”
- Buddha’s teachings are much more profound than many today perceive them to be. It takes an effort to understand the deeper meanings of words like anicca, dukkha, and anatta.
______
Question 7: Many people are scared of poking with a needle. Some are not. I don’t think you need to worry about that.
-
Namo Buddhaya ☸️
Gratitude and appreciation to the dear brothers and sisters in Dhamma.
Question 8: Quote,
- Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).
- When one strives to achieve that, it leads to suffering (dukkha).
- Thus, one’s efforts are not only unfruitful, but one becomes helpless in the rebirth process (anatta).
With these definitions, would you say that the average person already knows these things, though just subconsciously? If you ask a man on the street if things can be maintained according to his satisfaction, he will answer ”no”. If you ask him whether striving to achieve the impossible leads to suffering, he will say ”yes”. If you ask him whether we are helpless in the rebirth process, his answer will depend on his culture and religion. So everyone knows anicca and dukkha, and perhaps 25% of people know anatta.
Question 9: Are the Divine Beings like Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Bodhisatta Avalokitesvara and Buddha Amitabha examples of Brahmas?
Much appreciation for your patience with beginners. 🙏
Namo Buddhaya
-
Question 8: Yes. Some people may think they can understand the concepts of anicca, dukkha, and anatta, as quoted.
- However, they may not understand it enough to do something about it.
- Superficially understanding them is not enough. One must strive to remove the conditions that keep one bound to the world of anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature.
- If that motivation comes at some point, that is when one has fully comprehended the anicca, dukkha, and anatta of the world. That is when one becomes a Sotapanna.
Question 9: Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva (in Hinduism) are Devas.
- I am not familiar with Bodhisatta Avalokitesvara. However, a Bodhisatta would generally be in a Deva realm until the time of being born a human before attaining Buddhahood.
- I am also not familiar with Buddha Amitabha. If it is a past Buddha (who has passed away), he would not be in any realm of the world. A Buddha or an Arahant will not be reborn in any realm of the 31 realms of the world. Remember that any realm of the world is of anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature. The idea is to attain Nibbana and be free of even a trace of suffering (dukkha.)
-
“Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva (in Hinduism) are Devas.”
Ironic that worshipping devas won’t cause salvation.
“I am also not familiar with Buddha Amitabha. If it is a past Buddha (who has passed away), he would not be in any realm of the world.”
Well, not in the realm of Mahayana. Amitabha is expected to “save” you by taking you to the Pure Land if you have faith in him. Many Pure Land followers are convinced that it is not possible to purify the mind by using one’s own efforts so they chant different Buddha names hoping to be born in the Pure Land and be enlightened there.
-
Well, taryal, then if follows that they have no confidence in the Buddha’s word. If they have not heard it, and heard instead a distorted and ultimately false version of it, well….that explains it for me. The Buddha was questioned on more than one occasion, even by devas, as to how ‘total elimination of the taints/hindrances ‘( I can think of no better way to put it right now) by one’s own efforts ,leading to perfection, be possible. Even they must have been trying, and saw the great difficulties. I believe they ‘confronted ‘ the Buddha with the question not to challenge Him in the spirit of confrontation, but to be instructed by Him. The Buddha’s reply was (in brief, in my own words): there are perfected ones now here with me. Implication: it is possible because the proof is right here.
-
I should have given some background. The advent and rise of the Mahayana and its subsequent branches was due primarily, if not exclusively, to the fact that some were of the idea that the Dhamma in its original and pure form was beyond the capacity of the common people. And they happen to be right ! The Buddha himself had said that it is difficult. In fact it had taken the prompting of Brahma Sahampati to convince Him to teach for the sake of the very few who would understand. Toward the end of AN 7.72, the Buddha states what kind of mindset a bhikkhus has to develop in order to be finally freed from defilements . The sutta is a ghastly account of how to develop that mindset. No wonder 60 of those monks ‘spewed hot blood’.
So, ‘out of compassion’ a smoother path had to be devised for the common folk. The deeper aspects of Dhamma were declared optional and unnecessary. Only have faith, and ” hey presto ” the Pure Land is yours!! It is the same for those who are told “Have faith in Jesus” and salvation is yours. The (relatively) few who have striven so hard, life after life, to be freed from the shackles of raga, dvesha and moha and from all taints and defilements attain the Best at the end. And those who only believe attain the Best at the very start- having done nothing .Where is the justice? Now we will be told ” believing also is a cause.”!! A philosophy for the people has to be invented too. Those who have seen Dhamma, even ever so little, will easily see through it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.