May 23, 2018 at 12:31 am #15956AnonymousInactive
Bohoma stūtiyi, Lal! Meya itā hon̆da veb pōsṭaya! බොහොම ස්තූතියි! මෙය ඉතා හොඳ වෙබ් අඩවියකි!
(Thank you very much, Lal! This is a very good web post!)
In the translation it states:
““For a person who gets to samādhi, there is no need to wish (cetanā): : “May I know and see the true nature of things in this world (yathābhūta ñāna or comprehension of Tilakkhana)”. It is in the nature of things that a person who gets to samādhi will see the true nature of this world.”
Is this why even when told “the true nature of things”, one doesn’t comprehend it because one hasn’t reached samādhi? Is this true in all cases? It seems like all yogi should get there automatically…eventually…maybe as a Pacceka Buddha? Is the limiting factor whether or not one has heard true Dhamma?
May 23, 2018 at 12:35 am #15957AnonymousInactive
From the post “Na Cētanākaranīya Sutta“.
May 23, 2018 at 7:48 am #15974
I am glad to see that you are making progress in learning Sinhala, Diane. How are you learning it?
You said: “For a person who gets to samādhi, there is no need to wish (cetanā): : “May I know and see the true nature of things in this world (yathābhūta ñāna or comprehension of Tilakkhana)”. It is in the nature of things that a person who gets to samādhi will see the true nature of this world.”
Is this why even when told “the true nature of things”, one doesn’t comprehend it because one hasn’t reached samādhi?”
That is right. There are two conditions to be fulfilled to get to what is called “upacara samadhi” in order to attain magga phala:
- One must get rid of the 10 types of micca ditthi.
- One MUST hear Tilakkhana, the correct interpretation, from an Ariya.
Not that it is not jhana that is necessary to attain magga phala, but to get to “upacara samadhi“, which literally means “getting close to Nibbana“.
I have revised the post to make this clear. Thanks.
Furthermore, obviously a Buddha or a pacceka Buddha does not need to fulfill #2. That is what is special about Buddhas. They discover Tilakkhana by themselves.
May 23, 2018 at 9:33 am #15976AnonymousInactive
I’m learning how to speak Sinhala the Nemo phone app. It’s easy to listen and learn while doing mundane tasks (laundry, walking/riding to work, etc).
With regards to #1 above, like you’ve said before “it’s one thing to read and memorize”, but it’s a whole different thing to comprehend it and put it into action. Just like learning Sinhala, memorization (translating in your head) is like a covered mind (pancanīvarana), it will only get you so far. You need to change your gati (root thoughts and word associations) to attain success.
May 23, 2018 at 10:27 am #15978y notParticipant
‘Once one starts comprehending Tilakkhana (and becomes a Sōtapanna/Sōtapanna Anugāmi), one’s sila (moral conduct) will become UNBREAKABLE: It is called Ariyakānta sila.’
Yet, from the post: What is the only akusala removed by a Sotapanna (Introduction, right before # 1) :
.Thus, a Sōtapanna MAY — under some conditions — BREAK the five precepts. It is only an Arahant that will absolutely not break five precepts or engage in any of dasa akusala.’ Now the 5 precepts and Dasa Akusala constitute moral conduct, and only one (Miccha Ditthi) is completely removed at the Satopanna/Satopanna Anugami stage.
How to reconcile the two statements??
May 25, 2018 at 1:42 pm #16010
@ y not:
Moral conduct or sila of a normal human is breakable. When one is highly influenced by an external sense event, one’s morals may not hold. For example, one could be abiding by “not to steal” precept for most of one’s life, but could be tempted to steal on the spur of the moment if the possibility to gain a million dollars comes up.
Ariyakanta sila of a Sotapanna means a Sotapanna’s mind is not capable of doing an “apayagami action” (a deed of kammic consequences in getting a rebirth in the apayas), UNDER ANY CONDITION.
But we need to realize that a Sotapanna is capable of violating any precept that is not an “apayagami act”. Violation of any of the five precepts, in many cases, is not an apayagami act. For example, telling a lie is an akusala kamma, but it is not an apayagami act. (P.S. I should have said: For example, telling a lie is an akusala kamma, but not necessarily an apayagami act).
This is something hard for most people to understand: A Sotapanna’s “built-in capability” not to do any apayagami actions is rooted in his/her change of world view. Once it sinks in the mind that it is not worthwhile AND dangerous to do anything truly immoral (these are the apayagami actions), with the comprehension of the anicca nature, the mind will AUTOMATICALLY reject such actions.
One (a Sotapanna) does need to think and realize the danger involved in such action. No matter how enticing the sense input is, one WILL NOT be able to do an apayagami action. It comes mainly from getting rid of wrong views: The 10 types of micca ditthi AND the first glimpse of the anicca nature (that it is not possible maintain anything to one’s satisfaction in the samsaric time scale).
May 26, 2018 at 5:25 pm #16025SaketParticipant
@ Ven. Lal Sir,
Please kindly correct me if I am wrong.
You said: “Violation of any of the five precepts, in many cases, is not an apayagami act. For example, telling a lie is an akusala kamma, but it is not an apayagami act.”
That may be true but not always. Of course telling a lie is not an apayagami act in many cases. But telling a lie CAN BE an apayagami act in several other cases too.
(1) Cinca Manavika falsely accused Lord Buddha in front of monks and laypersons that she was pregnant with him. It is said that she was directly reborn in hell after that. So it means that “falsely accusing” an Arahant, a Pacceka Buddha or a Samma Sambuddha is a serious apayagami act.
(2) Falsely declaring one’s spiritual attainments to others for gaining money, name, fame, status in society, etc can also be an apayagami act. For example, falsely declaring that one has attained magga-phala is said to be a serious offence (parajika).
(3) Telling a lie to create schism in the Sangha is a heinous crime which leads to being reborn in the niraya. For example:
- Explaining what is Dhamma as not-Dhamma (and what is not-Dhamma as Dhamma).
Explaining what is Vinaya as not-Vinaya (and what is not-Vinaya as Vinaya).
Proclaiming what is said by the Tathagata as not said by the Tathagata (and what is not said by the Tathagata as being said by the Tathagata).
Similarly there can be many more cases where “telling a lie” can become an apayagami act.
Of course these all acts are done with micca ditthi.
May 27, 2018 at 5:54 pm #16050
You quoted me as saying:“Violation of any of the five precepts, in many cases, is not an apayagami act. For example, telling a lie is an akusala kamma, but it is not an apayagami act.”.
In the context of what I said, it should have been clear that it was a slip on my part. I should have said: For example, telling a lie is an akusala kamma, but not necessarily an apayagami act).
Anyway, I have made an addendum to my earlier post to clarify it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.