- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Afaik, beings of invisible realm use sanna to communicate, so it seems they use the language of their last life, isnt it? For example, an english man dies then reborn as deva, everything will be automatically translated to english for him to understand, even when communicate with amimal. And for someone to read other’s mind, everything is automatically translated to his language.
So it seem raw information is not available, i.e the real words used by those beings are not transmitted but only its meanings.
Or can it be retrieved, e.g a french buddha read the source languge of an english brahma? I guess the range and power of the buddha is higher than savaka arahant, but do u have answer for this topic? -
The way beings in different realms communicate does not involve a language.
When we speak, in addition to the sound coming out, our thoughts “emit” the idea to the external world too. That idea can be grasped by those beings.
That is how we “hear” in dreams. While we dream we can hear those in the dream say. But we don’t hear anything through our ears.
I think you can get the basic idea by thinking about the following.
Consider someone who knows two (or more) languages well. When that person dreams, he does not hear with one of those languages. He just understands what someone in the dream says.
Another point is that Brahmas in Brahma realms do not have dense bodies like ours. They cannot “speak” as we do. They hear in the above way, just with their thoughts. They don’t have languages.
This was discussed in the post published today, with references to previous posts: “Mental Body Versus the Physical Body.”
-
-
“idea must be translated to language for him to understand.”
No. That is not correct.
As I pointed out, Brahmas do not have languages. How can they learn languages if they cannot speak? They just grasp the idea with the mind.
– We also grasp the idea when we hear in our dreams. There is no language involved. -
At one time, I ‘spoke’ three words (in my own language). Then I found myself out of the dream and so could register the words in the conscious mind. In a few other dreams words were spoken, both to me and by me, but the ‘people’ there, unlike in the first case, were not ones that had impacted on my life, so I remembered what was ‘said’ for only a couple of days.
In by far the majority of cases no words are spoken, only a simple but unmistakable message is transmitted.
* Afterthought: It is also possible that I actually spoke, i.e vocally, while dreaming; as when we tell someone that they were ‘talking in their dreams’. I have no way of telling.
-
Consider someone who knows two (or more) languages well. When that person dreams, he does not hear with one of those languages. He just understands what someone in the dream says.
Hi Lal, I know 2+ languages and have had many dreams where I speak in different languages. By that I mean that I could almost literally hear myself speak and notice that I’m making a “conscious effort” to use one foreign language or other (i.e. in the dream I know that I’m speaking a foreign language).
What did you base your opinion on? Own experience or some research?
-
I know that I can only get an impression of what they are saying in a dream. It is not an opinion.
How would it be possible to hear words? There is no sound coming through the ears!
Anyway, there is no point in arguing about it. If you THINK that you are hearing actual words, that is fine with me. I am just saying it cannot possibly happen. It is the mind that “sees” and “hears” in a dream (your eyes are definitely closed).
-
‘There is no sound coming through the ears!’
So it must be the gandhabba that is hearing directly. (But you have it Lal:”It is the mind that “sees” and “hears” in a dream”). No need of physical ears there. I know that I have heard..or, let me say, I know that words were transmitted and I received those words in a dream; or, that I ‘spoke’
words that I ‘heard’ myself speaking.In contrast with Sumbodhi, in my case the words are in my own language though I can speak 4 others. Only on one occasion that I remember were the words in a foreign language (Italian).
-
-
cubibobi asked: “Is it correct to say that the sounds coming out is vaci sankhara, and the ideas emitted from the thoughts mano sankhara?”
No. Mano sankhara arise automatically due to our gati.
Vaci sankhara are what we CONSCIOUSLY think and speak.
See, “Sankhāra – What It Really Means” and “Correct Meaning of Vacī Sankhāra.”Please feel free to ask questions, if not clear.
-
So, we can never “see” mano sankhara, but we can see the effect of it.
Let’s say that an unwholesome conscious thought is present, such as a thought of violence toward someone; then we know that there is unwholesome mano sankhara behind it.
On the other hand, if we observe a wholesome thought in ourselves, such as a thought of generosity, then we know that wholesome mano sankhara is happening.
-
It is better to think about the whole process in the following way:
It is mano sankhara that arise first. Those are the “first thoughts” that come to the mind when we first see, hear, taste, smell, etc.
– They arise due to our gati (habits/character) and are automatic.
– For example, if one sees an object, a liking for that may register in the mind as soon as one sees it. That liking is registered as mano sankhara. (But another person with different gati may not generate any mano sankhara, since he/she may not have an attraction/liking for it)Then one starts thinking about that object. That is the vaci sankhara stage.
– If one really likes that object, one may speak about it. That speaking is also done with vaci sankhara.If one gets really attached to that object, one may take bodily actions. For example, one may buy it by paying for it. Such bodily actions are done with kaya sankhara.
Now if you read those posts again, you may be able to really grasp the concepts.
-
Got it. Thank you!
I was trying to ask (in an unclear way) whether or not we can be conscious of mano sankhara (as in whether or not mano sankhara is noticeable), and it looks like they are, although they are automatic due to gati. Take the example of seeing an object and the initial liking of it; although that liking is automatic, it is noticeable and observable.
This is good news, right? since if we can notice gati, then we can work to reduce bad ones and cultivate good ones. Elsewhere in other forums, I shared that I am now mainly working on removing miccha ditthi to get to the sotapanna stage. Nowadays, quite often I can “catch” miccha ditthi, which is a mano sankhara, when it happens, and then counter it.
Best.
-
“I was trying to ask (in an unclear way) whether or not we can be conscious of mano sankhara (as in whether or not mano sankhara is noticeable)..”
The easiest way to remember is as follows. If one starts thinking about something that means those “thoughts” are vaci sankhara.
Another way to look at it is the following. Mano sankhara are DEFINED as “vedana and sanna” in the Cula Vedalla Sutta (MN 44.) We know that both those are “universal cetasika” meaning they are in ALL citta.
– Thus all our thoughts (other than vaci sankhara and kaya sankhara) are mano sankhara.
– We MAY NOT even be of AWARE of some mano sankhara. The transition from mano sankhara to vaci sankhara is a grey area.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.