Dr. Lal said, “I read Taryal’s post carefully and would like to ask him some questions. Please feel free to reply to only those you feel comfortable answering.
1. What do you mean when you say, “Long story short, I became a Dhamma practitioner and I am happy to say that so much of my mental vexations naturally went away.” Briefly explain (only if you feel comfortable) what the ‘practice’ means.
2. Do you believe in rebirth? How much do you understand about concepts like the anicca nature and Paticca Samuppada?
- Have you read the post “What Reincarnates? – Concept of a Lifestream“?
- Have you read my posts on (distorted) saññā? If so, what do you think are the major implications of it?
3. Regardless of whether you answer those or to what extent, I can make some general comments. My questions are designed to gauge your level of understanding, so that I MAY BE able to provide some specific suggestions. I know that you are a well-educated and intelligent young person. But those are different from “understanding of Buddha’s teachings.” Please take your time to respond.”
I’m sorry for not explaining how I started practicing Buddha’s teachings. I didn’t want for this post to be too long. But here are my quick answers to your questions:
- By ‘practice’, I almost exclusively meant insight meditation (vipassana). I’ve spent a lot of time going over blogs in this website and discourses from Jethavanarama Monastery which include concepts like Tilakkhana (anicca, anatta, dukkha), Paticca Samuppada, Pleasure & Vexation cycle, etc. (edited to add: I’ve also practiced metta where I wish the other person to be free from suffering no matter whether we had issues or not. I feel like my tendency to get angry has gone down tremendously.)
- Yes, I do believe in rebirth. I have noticed that this is a fundamental axiom of Buddha dhamma and all the other concepts integrate together with this foundation. Outside Dhamma, I have also spent a lot of time going over studies in Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and children recalling past lives, mostly from the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies, which I find to be compelling and compatible with Buddha’s teachings. But I will also say that I don’t have the ability to recall past lives or have had any “supernatural” experience that convince me without a shadow of a doubt that gandhabbas and para loka are real. I am faithful enough to the Dhamma that make them part of my worldview.
- I understand the anicca nature as “inability to main things to our liking in the long run”. We will inevitably die with future uncertain and if one stays in this world without attaining a magga phala (or being a bodhi satta), rebirth in the apaya is difficult to avoid. So in the long run, one is helpless. Paticca Samuppada elucidates this issue in more detail by explaining how causes and conditions bring their results, without it having anything to do with an unchanging self or soul. This includes the aspect that explains how much of what happens in our mind after receiving sensory inputs follow a series of conditionality chain that lead to different mental states based on our gati. Basically, this process is not under our complete control but it is also not random. The other aspect goes over how this leads to rebirth (cuti patisandhi, jati, bhava, etc.).
- Yes, I have read several posts on (distorted) saññā. I used a mantra to remember this concept that is, “We have to take our perception seriously but it does not obligate us to take it literally.” For example, a human is rightfully disgusted by rotten food because consuming it would create problems in the body. But that wouldn’t be the case for a pig. Similarly, a heterosexual man could be attracted to the sight of a woman’s body, not because it is intrinsically of attractive nature but because his perception is distorted into viewing it as attractive. Neuroscientists describe it as an evolutionary trait of reproduction. So what I understand to be its implication is that since our perceptions of worldly things are essentially fabricated to be viewed a certain way and built into our bodies, we don’t need to be enslaved by them. We need to take them seriously (like it’s not a good idea to consume rotten food) but this understanding can be used to detach from the illusory “beauty” or even “ugliness” of the external world, which combined with Tilakkhana elucidate the futility and danger of craving sensory pleasure. (I have found myself struggling to apply this when I look at certain women. The harmful conditioning from pornography has lasted for over a decade and it feels utterly difficult to get out of it. I’ve been telling myself that since detachment happens in stages, I could take the time to be intimate with a woman which would help me understand what it’s actually like and whether my fantasies are realistic or useful.)
I briefly summarized my answers. Please feel free to correct me if I said something wrong or ask more clarifying questions. I really appreciate you taking the time to consider helping me out.