The other day, I was talking to a friend I meditated with back when I was into vipassana (Goenka style), and he was speaking of “energy.” Energy that can picked up on and transmitted to others. He also said that Buddha used energy in certain ways to let people see/feel stuff.
That last seems to be related to abinna powers. Anyway, I’m just providing context for the question I have (not interested in the energy stuff itself, as I meditate in line with pure dhamma).
He was able to ask an “Ajahn doctor” in Thailand about the Pali of the “energy” he was talking about. Then he sent me the phrase:
“cattaro dhamma vaddhanti
ayu vanno sukham balam”
Doc said “balam” is supposed to refer to the “energy.”
Lal explained it’s part of:
cattaro dhamma vaddhanti
ayu vanno sukham balam
And provided the translation:
“One who always respects and honors those who are virtuous and wise, is bound to receive (as kamma vipaka in future lives) four benefits of longevity, health, comforts and strength.”
I also saw the post just now of Two Versions of 37 Factors of Enlightenment
Are there any finer details to the verse?
I got this after dissecting it:
– Abhivadana is a term that denotes deep respect
– Abhivadanasilissa refers to people who habitually act in this respectful way.
– niccam is the opposite of anicca here?
– vuddhapacayino refers to noble people I assume.
– balam means “strength/wealth.” However, it is a mundane version and not similar to “panca bala.” That means physical strength/health and material wealth? If bala could refer to “energy,” it could be only in the mundane sense as in “an energetic person.”
– ayu, vanno, sukha are also meant in a mundane sense (longevity, beautiful physical appearance, and pleasure/comfort)
– vaddhanti = to increase or improve
Basically, the benefits of respecting/honoring the wise are meritorious deeds that will have (mundane) benefits. Does this verse also imply that this puts one in a more advantageous position of cultivating the path, e.g., cultivating an understanding of tilakkhana? Buddha uttered this verse, after all. But it all depends on the context I suppose.