- This topic has 16 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
This is based on this post of Lal:
I know the sutta’s describe the Path and Fruits as, most of the time, a gradual development.
So in the end one becomes an arahant.Do you think it is possible, for a normal human being (without magga phala), to act like an arahant on a certain occasion? Is his/her behaviour always driven by abhisankhara, avijja and tanha, or is it possible that even a normal person can act without avijja, tanha, without expectations, without defilements, with wisdom, occasionaly, spontaneous? It is possible a normal person can act occasionaly with punna kiriya? Is purity of mind something that cannot be present in a normal person on a certain moment? Can a normal person act with wisdom. Many questions but i think they come down to the same issue.
-
“Do you think it is possible, for a normal human being (without magga phala), to act like an arahant on a certain occasion?”
If you mean whether a normal person can act wisely in a certain situation, yes.
“Is his/her behaviour always driven by abhisankhara, avijja and tanha/”
No. It is under “tempting situations” one acts like that. It depends on one’s anusaya.
“It is possible a normal person can act occasionaly with punna kiriya? ‘
Of course.
“Is purity of mind something that cannot be present in a normal person on a certain moment?”
There is no “fixed” mind. Mind (or more correctly thoughts or citta) arise when an external sense input comes in through one of the six senses, including the mana indriya.
See, “Do I Have “A Mind” That Is Fixed and “Mine”?”“Is purity of mind something that cannot be present in a normal person on a certain moment? Can a normal person act with wisdom. ”
Yes.Also see, “‘Self’ and “no-self”: A Simple Analysis – Do We Always Act with Avijja?“
-
Lal, I have read your answers and the post you refer to. And a question arose.
You say that there is no “fixed” mind in the reply above. Mind is just citta’s arising.
In the post you refer to you say for an arahant: “Since there is no rebirth, there is no future suffering. The mind is forever released from the material body that CAN AND WILL impart suffering to those who remain in the sansara, the cycle of rebirths.If mind can get released from a material body after death of an arahant, then this looks very much like a soul who is for ever released? Do you mean that mind- as citta’s arising- still continue after death of an arahant? What kind of mind gets released?
-
When I said, “The mind is forever released from the material body” That meant the mind (or more precisely citta) cannot arise after that.
The word “mind” has been used in English language as something that always exists. The problem arises when we try to find English words to match Pali words.
The following is a better description;
When a new bhava starts at a cuti-patisandhi moment, a hadaya vatthu for the new bhava is generated by kammic energy. That hadaya vatthu is where citta arise. But citta are not there all the time. For example when we are unconscious, there are no citta vithi, and the “mind” is in the bhavanga state.
– Even in between citta vithi (where thoughts arise), the “mind” is in the bhavanga state.Therefore, what is absolutely correct say is that a new hadaya vatthu will not be created at the cuti-patisandhi moment for an Arahant, instead of saying “The mind is forever released from the material body”.
– There will be no new hadaya vatthu for an Arahant at death (i.e., at the cuti-patisandhi moment), so no citta can arise (and thus no mind to speak of). -
What I discussed above needs some background in Abhidhamma:
“Gandhabba (Manomaya Kaya)- Introduction”
and other posts in the Abhidhamma section. -
Thanks Lal, can you please comment on the following that is bothering me for some time:
IF a being is nothing more than rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnna and after death of that being (for example an arahant) rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana do not arise anymore, then that can only lead to the conclusion that an arahant does not exist after death. He/she just goes out like a flame, with nothing remaining.
I see two problems:
-according the sutat’s the buddha did not teach an arahant does not exist anymore after death. He also did not teach he does exist, nor did he teach that he both exist and not-exist, nor did he take the stand of nor-existing nor not-existing.
-striving for ones non-existence after death does not seem as a noble goal. striving for truth is. Striving for non-existence, fearing suffering, that looks very much like vi-bhava tanha. That is no good motivation.
Siebe
-
Siebe wrote: “-according the sutta’s the buddha did not teach an arahant does not exist anymore after death. He also did not teach he does exist, nor did he teach that he both exist and not-exist, nor did he take the stand of nor-existing nor not-existing.”
This is a deep point.
In an ultimate sense, it is not possible to say “a person exists” because all five aggregates keep changing (a man is not the same compared to when he was a baby, both mentally and physically).
On the other hand, it is not possible to say that man “does not exist”. Obviously there is a man who lives.
This is why the Buddha rejected both those extreme views. At every moment a living being (or any sankata) has an existence that is dictated by Paticca Samuppada.
Furthermore, there is a continuation of this Paticca Samuppada process after death for a normal human (because there are causes and conditions to sustain that process)
– However, an Arahant has stopped the CONDITIONS for that process to proceed to at the moment of death (cuti-patisandhi), even though there will still be causes (past kamma) left. Therefore, that rebirth process is stopped for an Arahant. -
I am not really satisfied. I want to share this with you:
For me the clue is that an arahant or Tathagata, even while living, cannot be reckoned to be the khandha’s. One cannot say anymore that an arhant is rupa, vedana etc or some combination of those.
This is told in MN72
20. “So too, Vaccha, the Tathagata has abandoned that material form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him; he has cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, done away with it so that it is no longer subject to future arising. The Tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, Vaccha, he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable like the ocean. The term ‘reappears’ does not apply, the term ‘does not reappear’ does not apply, the term ‘both reappears and does not reappear’ does not apply, the term ‘neither reappears nor does not reappear’ does not apply”
The same is said about vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana.
Maybe some think the Buddha talks about the future but that makes not sense for me. The Buddha talks about the present. Even while living a Tathagata (and arahant) cannot be reckoned anymore in terms of the khandha’s. And this is also true for us, but sakkaya ditthi, sets the trap that we think we are rupa, vedana etc.
Also SN22.85 has the same thema:
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?” – “No, friend.” – “Do you regard feeling . . . perception .. . volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?” – “No, friend.” “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the
Tathagata as in form?” – “No, friend.” – “Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from form?” – “No, friend.” – “Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in consciousness? As apart from consciousness?” – “No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness [taken together] as the Tathagata?” – “No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?” – “NO, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life; is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?”When a arahant or Thatagata is only rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhare and vinnana, apart or all taking together, and nothing else, then is is quit clear a Tathagata does not exist after death.
The clue seems to be that even while living an arahant and Tathagata cannot be reckoned this way anymore. -
This seems like similar to the topic on Sakkaya Ditthi. No point in trying to discuss deep suttas using superficial/incorrect translations.
Just understand that an Arahant is not reborn in the 31 realms (which are filled with suffering) after death. That is what really matters.
I have no more comments on this.
-
Hi Lal,
What really matters to me is that an arahant in this very life is immeasurable, unfathomable like the ocean. That’s the way a fully enlightend one talks about his real nature (MN72 and others). Arahants know this too.
What the Buddha discovered is that the khandha’s (or conditioned arising phenomena) are only the waves off that unfathomable ocean. Mind immersed in ignorance does not know or see its own immeasurable and unfathomable nature because it is obsessed by the waves.
Because no arahant or Tathagata is the khandha’s, the Buddha resisted to say that after death an arahant or Tathagata does not exist anymore. But because the unfathomable nature of the Tathagata does not arise, it cannot be said to exist too. It cannot be described in terms of the world. This makes sense to me.
Siebe
-
“There are these four types of thunderheads. Which four?[…]
“And how is one the type of person who thunders but doesn’t rain? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. Yet he doesn’t discern, as it actually is present, that ‘This is stress.’ He doesn’t discern, as it actually is present, that ‘This is the origination of stress.’ He doesn’t discern, as it actually is present, that ‘This is the cessation of stress.’ He doesn’t discern, as it actually is present, that ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’ This is the type of person who thunders but doesn’t rain. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that thunders but doesn’t rain.
Like I said this will not bring any benefit, if one can not attain magga phala and keep up making ideas (the one you made belongs to Mahāyāna view which is more and more clear that you are crypto-mahayanist) it will not do, why you constantly look for acceptance from other people? If you understanding is right you should be already Anagami or Arahant. What you are trying to do also with sakkya ditthi thread is trying to think of a color that you do not know. It’s impossible – try to understand key things that leads to Nibbana and from that one can get deeper into those concepts but one can attain Nibbana even without knowing all of that if one know only key dhamma concepts that leads to it.
-
Christian,
Which sutta is this?
Siebe,
This is in Christian’s words what I have been saying in the Sakkaya Ditthi topic in the General Forum (May 13 +14).
Let me simplify,even at the risk now of being crude (but NOT harsh, mind you!).
I do not know, I cannot know at the stage I am at, how it is possible for an Arahant to be free of the khandhas and yet is not annihilated although He now ‘has no mind’ (Lal); how it can be that He ‘neither exists, nor does not exist….etc’. But we have the word of the Buddha, NO LESS A ONE than the Buddha, that it is the Ultimate state, and that it is nicca, sukkha and atta. He Himself went through many lives throughout many aeons to realize It. So had all the countless Buddhas before Him. Surely, They are not stu— !!
Whose word instead do you want? Lal’s? Christian’s? Mine? It is enough to have aveccappasada in the Buddha. The road ahead is long and hard enough without having to worry about concepts which are inconceivable to us at the moment. Get on the Path if you are not already on It and in time, IN TIME, those concepts will become not only conceivable but realisable. It is guaranteed. We have the Buddha’s word for it.
Alright Christian. AN 4.102
-
-
Y not,
An arahant does feel pain as a burden because he/she does not experience it as me and mine anymore. Therefor the pain does not become a burden. Yes, in a sense an arahant is dissociated from the pain when there is no more I and mine-making of the pain. Meditation masters tell this from their own experience. One can experience intense pains without any re-action in mind. One can be totally unshaken with intense pains.
In a certain sense this is a kind of dissociation from the pain, but not in a sense one does not feel the pain. One is dissociated from the pain because everything that causes association with the pain, i.e. avijja, tanha, ditthi and mana, do not arise anymore.
One of the most important ways of assocation with whatever we experience is sakkaya ditthi . These must end first.
If, like an arahant, there is no association anymore with whatever is experienced, then at that moment, it becomes perfectly clear that mind, as that which experiences, and object of mind, as that what is being experienced, do not really mix.
The causes for mixing up mind and mind-objects are gone.
Siebe
-
Siebe wrote: “An arahant does feel pain as a burden because he/she does not experience it as me and mine anymore.”
This is totally incorrect.
Did not the Buddha feel pain when injured by Devadatta? Did he not suffer from back pains? Did he not have another ailment (lohitapakkanti) close to Parinibbana?
– You are probably quite familiar with the sutta references for those.
-
-
-
What lies beyond Nibbana? AN 4.174
Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “…is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “…is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?”
[Sariputta:] “Don’t say that, my friend.”
[Maha Kotthita:] “Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Being asked if … there is not anything else … there both is & is not anything else … there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, ‘Don’t say that, my friend.’ Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?”
[Sariputta:] “The statement, ‘With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification.[1] The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else … is it the case that there both is & is not anything else … is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ objectifies non-objectification. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far objectification goes. However far objectification goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of objectification.
-
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, “‘One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the Dhamma’: thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who dwells in the Dhamma?”
“Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects seclusion. He doesn’t commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
“Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn’t commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
“Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn’t commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
“Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects seclusion. He doesn’t commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
“Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He doesn’t spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn’t neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
“Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don’t be heedless. Don’t later fall into regret. This is our message to you.”
Dhamma-viharin Sutta
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.