[Tobias G]

Niddesa (Brief Description) of Paṭicca Samuppāda

#7 says: Another problem is translating saṅkhāra as “choices” and “volitional formations.” No one has explained what those words mean. Here is an instance where that question came up, and a “non-answer” was given: “Explaining sankhāra= “choices.” Here is another discussion that ended without a resolution: “The way I analyzed Saṅkhāra.”

I checked the discussion Explaining sankhāra=“choices” and I must say they come close enough to a good definition of “sankhara”, e.g.:

BrahmaliAjahn

….

Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Chayime, bhikkhave, cetanākāyā – rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā. Ime vuccanti bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.

And what, bhikkhus, are volitional formations? There are these six classes of volition: volition regarding forms, volition regarding sounds, volition regarding odours, volition regarding tastes, volition regarding tactile objects, volition regarding mental phenomena. This is called volitional formations. (SN 22.56/57)

Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati. Kiñca saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti? Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti. Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.

And why, bhikkhus, do you call them volitional formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. And what is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct conditioned volitional formations as volitional formations; they construct conditioned consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called volitional formations. (SN 22.79)

————————-

kstan1122

saṅkhāra = san + kara where san is the good and bad things we acquire and kara is the act of doing, so saṅkhāra is the action done with san, thus saṅkhāra is an intentional action that carries kamma.

saṅkhāra are the fifty cetasikas (good and bad) minus vedanā and saññā.

Here is the list of 52 cetasikas (mental factors) at a glance 4 .

Coemgenu suspects Puredhamma website behind the response from kstan1122 and pulls pretty bad about it:

…. The nicca in anicca has nothing to do with the adjective iccha (wishing) or the noun icchā (a wish) or the verb icchati (to wish).

The colloquial Sinhala pronunciation of it is actually a mispronunciation when judged by the phonetic descriptions in the ancient Pali grammars. When Sri Lankans pronounce Pali words their commonest mistake is to make aspirated consonants into non-aspirates and non-aspirated consonants into aspirates. This can be seen in the unorthodox romanization system used at the Pure Dhamma site:

gathi instead of gati
hethu-pala instead of hetu-phala.
micca-ditthi instead of micchā-diṭṭhi
satipattana instead of satipaṭṭhāna
Etc., etc.

… Conclusion

The Pure Dhamma website offers a variety of revisionist readings of the Pali Suttas based upon the site-owner’s (or his guru’s) claimed re-discovery of supposed hidden meanings of key Pali terms.
These proposed hidden meanings, when not presented merely as bald assertions, are defended by resort to Pali philological analysis.
But since the site-owner is demonstrably incompetent in both Indic philology in general and Pali in particular his arguments are undeserving of credence. Rather than leading to the true understanding of the Dhamma via the revelation of higher (but long-concealed) meanings, they lead only to baloney.

Lal, what do you say to this attack?

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Lal]

Well, I have responded to such “attacks” in many posts (in addition to my posts at Dhamma Wheel, but I stopped posting there.)

See, for example, “Distortion of Pāli Keywords in Paṭicca Samuppāda.“

• The person you quoted, “Coemgenu” is the one who was confused about how an Arahant can have the sense faculties because the “Patiloma Paticca Samuppada” (uddesa version) says, “When ignorance ceases, choices cease. When choices cease, consciousness ceases. When consciousness ceases, name and form cease. When name and form cease, the six sense fields cease.” (of course, if you understand the niddesa and patiniddesa versions you know that none of them cease to exist)
• He was confused because the translator should not have done that “word-by-word” translation of the udddesa version.
• Please read the above post carefully, and you can see my response.
• “Coemgenu” was the author of the discussion thread at Dhamma Wheel I pointed out in #5 there. He had no understanding of Paticca Samuppada. Of course, the translator did not either. 

It is fruitless to engage in discussions with such people. I no longer participate in the Dhamma Wheel discussions. However, I think many people are starting to understand these issues. Over half a million reads on the thread where I posted. So, there is hope!

• In any case, if anyone wants to clarify any issues raised, please feel free to ask questions. I don’t want anyone to have any doubts.
• If you have questions, ask them in your words. I am not going to respond to quotes from others. I have already responded to them. Also, see “Word-for-Word Translation of the Tipiṭaka.”
• These problems are entrenched even in Theravada. Many people are confused. 

P.S.

Regarding Coemgenu’s specific comment that you quoted:

“The colloquial Sinhala pronunciation of it is actually a mispronunciation when judged by the phonetic descriptions in the ancient Pali grammars. When Sri Lankans pronounce Pali words their commonest mistake is to make aspirated consonants into non-aspirates and non-aspirated consonants into aspirates. This can be seen in the unorthodox romanization system used at the Pure Dhamma site:

gathi instead of gati
hethu-pala instead of hetu-phala.
micca-ditthi instead of micchā-diṭṭhi
satipattana instead of satipaṭṭhāna
Etc., etc.”

He (and most translators) apparently have no understanding of the Sinhala or the Pali languages. This is a critical issue we have today. Many translators use Sanskrit roots to interpret Pali verses. That leads to massive confusion. 

• The Buddha expressly PROHIBITED even translating the Tipitaka to Sanskrit. See #13 of “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.” It is a good idea to read the complete post.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Tobi, LayDhammaFollower, Tobias G

[Lal]

I wanted to say a bit more about the quoted comment by “Coemgenu.”

The last of the quoted comment is:

“.. This can be seen in the unorthodox romanization system used at the Pure Dhamma site:

gathi instead of gati
hethu-pala instead of hetu-phala.
micca-ditthi instead of micchā-diṭṭhi
satipattana instead of satipaṭṭhāna
Etc., etc.”

1. The last three are wrong. I do have hetu-phala, micchā-diṭṭhi, and satipaṭṭhāna spelled like that in my posts. It is possible that I may have used hethu-pala, micca-ditthi, and satipattana in the very days when I did not pay much attention to this issue of the “Tipitaka English Convention” discussed below. But I don’t think those appear in any posts now.

• All current posts on the website are written per the “Tipitaka English Convention.”

2. I have sometimes used “gathi” (in parenthesis) to show the correct pronunciation of the Pali word “gati.”

3. Many people are unaware of the “Tipitaka English” convention adopted by Early European scholars (in the 1800s) when they started writing Pali texts with the English alphabet. 

• Tipitaka was written with the Sinhala alphabet during the last Buddhist Council attended by all Arahants over 2000 years ago.
• European scholars adopted a writing convention in the 1800s that did not match the implicated pronunciation. If they tried to write many Pali words showing the correct pronunciation, they would turn out to be very long. I described this in two posts starting with the post “Tipiṭaka English” Convention Adopted by Early European Scholars – Part 1.”
•  Let me quote #5 of the post:

  5. Now, let us see why the “Standard English” convention leads to long words written with the English (Latin) alphabet. Let us take a simple Pāli word, “citta.” In the original Tipiṭaka, it was written as “චිත්ත” in Sinhala.

  The “ch” sound in English is seen, for example, in “china” and “chain.” It takes two English letters to produce the “ච” sound. In the same way, the “ත” sound requires two letters, “th,” in English as in “Theme” or “both.”

  • Therefore, in “Standard English,” “චිත්ත” would be reproduced as “chiththa.”
  • As you can see, writing that word using “Standard English” would take eight letters instead of five in “citta.”
  • With more complex Pāli words, the corresponding “Standard English” reproduction would be cumbersome. That seems to be the second reason for using a different “Tipiṭaka English” convention; see below.
  • Of course, one must know this convention and pronounce “citta” as “chiththa.”
  • Another good example word is ” satipaṭṭhāna.” Per the convention, the “t” must be pronounced as “th” (as in thief) and “ṭ” as “t” (as in trip); in “ṭh,” the “t” sound is even more emphasized. I suggest going through the post carefully.
• Similarly, the Pali word “gati” was in the Tipitaka as “ගති.” If they wrote that in English letters with the correct pronunciation, it would be “gathi.” However, with the adopted “Tipiaka Convention,” it is written as “gati,” but now it rhymes like the “t” in “tree.” Even in the Sinhala language, one unaware of the “Tipiaka Convention” may mispronounce it in Sinhala as “ගටි.”
• I  often see this problem when some Sinhalese (putting English subtitles in Wahraka Desanas, for example) write “anicca” as “anichcha.” That is because that is how it sounds! They are unaware of the “Tipiaka Convention” for writing Pali words in English.
• That is why I used “gathi” in parenthesis with “gati” to show the correct pronunciation.
• The post “Tipiṭaka English” Convention Adopted by Early European Scholars – Part 1” (and the second part) was written several years ago. Thus, some of you may not be aware of it. That is why I thought of writing this in detail. I highly recommend reading those two posts to understand this critical issue.
• Please feel free to ask questions since this is important to understand.

P.S. It could be a good idea to consult “Pāli Glossary – (A-K)” and “Pāli Glossary – (L-Z)” to listen to the correct pronunciations.

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Tobias G]

Thank you, Lal, for the explanations!

The most important question for me is what is the meaning of the Pali terms or suttas? So far, I have not been able to find any really valid arguments among the critics as to why the Dhamma as taught by Waharaka Thero should be wrong. Above all, his explanations make sense and one understands the message of the Buddha.

The main criticism is that the Pali terms are wrongly interpreted/translated. It seems that they refer to the pronunciation as applied by Indology since time immemorial. Not really knowing Pali, I wonder where the correct translation of these terms comes from? It seems this Bikkhu Dhammanando is a connoisseur of Pali and gets the translations from the Indian context. Here are some examples from the Post “Explaining sankhāra=“choices”. 

——————— 

Pure Dhamma:

 

1. A key word, the meaning of which has been hidden for thousands of years, is “san” (pronounced like son).

Sad to say, saṃ is actually one of the most common prefixes in Pali and Sanskrit, as well as in many modern Indian languages. There is no mystery to the word at all. Functionally it’s simply the Indic equivalent of the Latin “com-”. Its range of meanings in both Pali and Sanskrit is well-known and well-documented and at no time has its meaning been “hidden”.

However, by asserting that the meaning of some key Pali term has been hidden or lost or misunderstood by lesser mortals, messianic revisionist Theravadins grant themselves the luxury of assigning whatever new meaning they like to it…

———————–

Pure Dhamma:

“San’ is basically the term for “good and bad things we acquire” while we exist anywhere in the 31 realms; see, “The Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“.

Not according to the texts, which consistently explain saṃ in the noun saṃsāra and in the verb saṃsarati as being a term used in the sense of abbocchinnaṃ an adverb meaning ‘continuously’ or ‘without interruption’. For example:

 

Khandhānañ’ ca paṭipāṭi, dhātu-āyatanāna ca,
Abbocchinnaṃ vattamānā, saṃsāro’ ti pavuccatī ti.

The process of the aggregates, elements and bases,
Proceeding without interruption is called ‘saṃsāra’.
(DA. ii. 496)

 

—————————-

Pure Dhamma:

2. There is also a reason for calling what we “pile up” as “san“. In Pali and Sinhala, the word for numbers is “sankhyä“, and sankhyä = “san” + “khyä“, meaning (add &multiply) + (subtract & divide), i.e., sankhya is what is used for addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. From this, “san” gives the idea of “piling up” (addition and multiplication); “khyä” gives the idea of “removal” (subtraction and division).

Therefore “san” is used to indicate things we do in the sansaric journey; see below for examples.

It’s correct that the saṃ- in saṃsāra and the saṅ- in saṅkhyā are one and the same verbal prefix. But from their sharing of the same prefix it doesn’t follow that the meaning of saṃsāra can be derived from the meaning of saṅkhyā.

We wouldn’t say, for example, that the meaning of ‘transport’ can be inferred from the meaning of ‘transgender’, or that the meaning of ‘confetti’ can shed light on the meaning of ‘community’ just because the two items in each pair happen to share the same Latin prefixes.

[Lal]

Yes. I think reading the thread at Sutta Central you quoted at the beginning is a good idea. I think I have seen it before, but I will reread it to refresh my memory. But a few critical points:

1. We must always keep in mind that the Pali words in the Tipiaka was written with the Sinhala alphabet over 2000 years ago.

2. Then the European (mainly British) scholars did two things: (i) Translated it to English with the help of Sinhalese, (ii) also wrote the Pali words with the English alphabet (example: AN 4.49: Vipallāsasutta—Mahāsaṅgīti Tipiṭaka Buddhavasse 2500 (suttacentral.net) These Pali texts were composed by the “Pali Text Society” in the 1800s; they are pretty reliable. On the other hand, the English translations at Sutta Central, in general, have many errors.

3. While doing the actual translation, they also used Mahayana texts. Remember that they had no idea about Buddha saying not to use Sanskrit. Most Mahayana texts were in Sanskrit. That is where most of the confusion came from. 

• There is no Pali word “anitya.” It is a Sanskrit word. There is no “anicca” in Sanskrit; it is a Pali word. But nowadays, they think both words mean the same!! The word “anitya” does not appear even once in the Tipitaka.

4. I have written about “san” in many posts: “What is “San”? Meaning of Sansāra (or Saṃsāra).”

• These are critical issues to sort out. 
• One should spend a good chunk of time reading the posts I recommended, especially if there are questions. Feel free to ask specific questions. It is a waste of time to keep rewriting the same stuff!

Tobias asked: 

“It’s correct that the saṃ- in saṃsāra and the saṅ- in saṅkhyā are one and the same verbal prefix. But from their sharing of the same prefix it doesn’t follow that the meaning of saṃsāra can be derived from the meaning of saṅkhyā.

We wouldn’t say, for example, that the meaning of ‘transport’ can be inferred from the meaning of ‘transgender’, or that the meaning of ‘confetti’ can shed light on the meaning of ‘community’ just because the two items in each pair happen to share the same Latin prefixes.”

***

The saṃ- in saṃsāra and the saṅ- in saṅkhyā are one and the same verbal prefix. However, one has to use common sense. Of course, we wouldn’t say, for example, that the meaning of ‘transport’ can be inferred from the meaning of ‘transgender.’ Such comparisons are made by foolish people whom the Buddha called “padaparama,” those who try to engage in debates instead of trying to understand meanings based on the context. 

I explained that in the post “What is “San”? Meaning of Sansāra (or Saṃsāra)” as follows:

1. A key Pāli word, which has been hidden for thousands of years, is “saṅ” (commonly pronounced like son). In Pāli/Sinhala languages, it is pronounced as  “සන්” (saṅ) or “සං” (“sang” with an “ng” sound at the end like in “song.”) “Saṅ” is the term for “good and bad things we acquire” through our moral/immoral deeds.

• Understanding this root allows one to easily see the meanings of many important Pāli words without looking for roots in Sanskrit.

2. There is a reason for calling what we “acquire or add” to be “saṅ.” In Pāli and Sinhala, the word for numbers is “sankhyā,” and sankhyā = “saṅ” + “khyā,” meaning add and subtract. Addition and subtraction involve sankhyā.  

• From this, “saṅ” suggests “acquiring or adding (to this world, or to stay in the rebirth process).” 
• In the same way, “khyā” implies “removal or subtraction.”

Saṅ – Adding/Helping Lengthen the Rebirth Process

3. Therefore, “saṅ” indicates things we do to lengthen our saṃsāric (or saṃsāric) journey. See below for examples.

• The word “saṃsāra” comes from “saṅ” + “sāra” where “sāra” means “good” or “beneficial.” Thus, one is trapped in the rebirth process because of the wrong view that “living in this world is beneficial.”
• These “saṅ” are nothing else but dasa akusala (that lead to rebirth in the apāyā) and also puñña kamma (that lead to rebirths in the “good realms”); see “Kusala and Akusala Kamma, Punna and Pāpa Kamma.”
• One may wonder why “saṅ” includes moral deeds or puñña kamma. That is because they also lead to rebirths (“add” to the saṃsāric journey).
• However, one MUST do puñña kamma to avoid rebirth in the apāyā.

The bottom line is the following: How do you understand Buddha Dhamma better?

• Just follow that, whichever it is. Each person needs to make that decision. This is what I kept repeating at Dhamma Wheel. The human mind is capable of understanding logic and reason.
• That is what the Buddha advised the Kalamas in the “Kesamutti Sutta (AN 3.65).”
• For example, do you understand “sankhara” better in which way? By reading the thread that Tobias provided (“Explaining sankhāra=“choices” ) OR by reading my posts like Saṅkhāra – An Introduction (with chart #7)? Stick with the version that makes sense to you.
• I will be happy to answer specific questions.

 

[Tobias G]

Where does the Pali language come from? Who spoke it? It is said that the Buddha spoke Magadhi. He lived in India, thus Pali must come from there, right?

Is Sanskrit close to Pali or is Sinhala closer to Pali?<br />
————————

I am just reading a text about Pali on Wikipedia:

Pali and Sanskrit are very closely related and the common characteristics of Pali and Sanskrit were always easily recognized by those in India who were familiar with both. A large part of Pali and Sanskrit word-stems are identical in form, differing only in details of inflection.

Technical terms from Sanskrit were converted into Pali by a set of conventional phonological transformations. These transformations mimicked a subset of the phonological developments that had occurred in Proto-Pali. Because of the prevalence of these transformations, it is not always possible to tell whether a given Pali word is a part of the old Prakrit lexicon, or a transformed borrowing from Sanskrit. The existence of a Sanskrit word regularly corresponding to a Pali word is not always secure evidence of the Pali etymology, since, in some cases, artificial Sanskrit words were created by back-formation from Prakrit words.

—————-

Wiki on Magadha Empire

…Beginning in the Theravada commentaries, the Pali language has been identified with Magahi, the language of the kingdom of Magadha, and this was taken to also be the language that the Buddha used during his life. In the 19th century, the British Orientalist Robert Caesar Childers argued that the true or geographical name of the Pali language was Magadhi Prakrit, and that because pāḷi means “line, row, series”, the early Buddhists extended the meaning of the term to mean “a series of books”, so pāḷibhāsā means “language of the texts”.<sup id=”cite_ref-29″ class=”reference”>[29]</sup> Nonetheless, Pali does retain some eastern features that have been referred to as Māgadhisms.<sup id=”cite_ref-Gethin2008_30-0″ class=”reference”>[30]</sup>

[Lal]

Pali seems to have evolved from the Magadhi. 

• I am not sure that the Buddha lived in India. It could have been Sri Lanka. But I will not get into a debate about it because it does not matter to me either way.
• The Sinhala language is very close to Pali. Many common words include sankhara, vinnana, gati, anusaya, asava, etc. 
• All the key terms in Paticca Samuppada in Sinhala are the same as in Pali.  
• As I noted, the Tipitaka was written in the Sinhala alphabet (over 2000 years ago.)
• Also, there is no evidence of the Pali language in India except for the inscriptions on the “Asoka pillars.” All documents that the British found in India were in Sanskrit; they were Mahayana texts. See “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.”
• I highly recommend the book “The Search of the Buddha” by Charles Allen (2003) — mentioned in the above post — for those interested. His family had been in India for generations serving in the British government, and he was born in India. Thus, he has recorded how various sites were discovered and restored over time.

[Tobias G]

Are the geographical stations of the Buddha’s wanderings over 45 years not known? Or why do you say that it is not certain whether the Buddha lived in India?

Also, the Magadhi Empire was in north-east India, so quite far away from Sri Lanka. What was the language in Sri Lanka at the time of the Buddha?

What is clear is that Pali or Magadhi (Prakrit) were spoken languages as opposed to Sanskrit, which had no native speakers but was a religious language. Therefore, the Buddha certainly did not want his teachings to be translated into Sanskrit. Although Wiki says about Pali:

…However, modern scholarship has regarded Pali as a mix of several Prakrit languages from around the 3rd century BCE, combined and partially Sanskritized. There is no attested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan with all the features of Pali.

[Lal]

Magadhi Empire may not be directly related to the Magadhi language. 

• māgadhi (māgadhi= “maga” + “adhi” = Noble path).

[DanielSt]

This video might be interesting to Tobias. It is a sermon by Waharaka Thero.

 

However I think Lal is entirely right that this is not relevant to spend much time on. 

 

Ultimately the only thing that matters is the understanding of the truth or real nature as anicca, dukkha and anatta and “see” reality and life in terms of that knowledge. Applying this knowledge into life and solving the problems that come from the ignorance of the truth (and the dukkhakhanda that comes as result). That understanding will make one’s faith unshakable and one can explain in one’s own words. 

 

The Buddha said himself, that seeing him can only be done through seeing the Dhamma, or, seeing PS. 

 

So then, we can never “really” see the Buddha through “where he(the person) came from”, etc. 

[Lal]

The video DanielSt posted above points to the problem of Sanskrit influence even in Sri Lanka.

I read: “This is the basis of artha-dharma. Artha Dharma and anartha-adharma…” 

It should be (in “pure Sinhala” and Pali): “This is the basis of attha-dhamma. Attha Dhamma and anattha-adhamma…” Of course, attha and anattha are a variation — stronger emphasize — of atta and anatta. Many people also use “Dharma” (Sanskrit) instead of “Dhamma” (Pali and Sinhala). Of course, many can understand either way, but the Sanskrit versions are too familiar.

• So, even Wahraka Thero had to use the “Sankritized Sinhala” to make it easier for most people to understand. He often lamented on that.

P.S. DanielST wrote: “The Buddha said himself, that seeing him can only be done through seeing the Dhamma, or, seeing PS. “

• Indeed!

[LayDhammaFollower]

@DanielSt said,

“The Buddha said himself, that seeing him can only be done through seeing the Dhamma, or, seeing PS.”

Can someone explain why this is so? How this should be understood?

[Jorg]

I understand it as this:
Buddha is referring to the absolute truth or a mind that has completely seen and experienced that truth, hence free from suffering, hence having attained Nibbana. When one comprehends the PS to a certain extent (by entering the noble path), one can see/experience that truth (to that same extent) and one “sees” the way to ultimate liberation/truth, or Nibbana. 

Edit: The responses below didn’t show up until after I posted this. They are a bit more detailed!

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[SengKiat]

@DanielSt said,

“The Buddha said himself, that seeing him can only be done through seeing the Dhamma, or, seeing PS.”

Can someone explain why this is so? How this should be understood?

To understand, read the two suttā below:

MN 28 The Longer Simile of the Elephant’s Footprint – Mahāhatthipadopamasutta
28.4 ← this is the link to the sutta below.
But the Buddha has said:
Vuttaṁ kho panetaṁ bhagavatā:
28.5
“One who sees dependent origination sees the teaching.
“yo paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passati so dhammaṁ passati;
28.6
One who sees the teaching sees dependent origination.”
yo dhammaṁ passati so paṭiccasamuppādaṁ passatī”ti.
28.7
And these five grasping aggregates are indeed dependently originated.
Paṭiccasamuppannā kho panime yadidaṁ pañcupādānakkhandhā.
28.8
The desire, clinging, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chando ālayo anunayo ajjhosānaṁ so dukkhasamudayo.
28.9
Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.’
Yo imesu pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu chandarāgavinayo chandarāgappahānaṁ, so dukkhanirodho’ti.

SN 22.87 With Vakkali – Vakkalisutta
3.2 ← this is the link to the sutta below.
One who sees the teaching sees me.
Yo kho, vakkali, dhammaṁ passati so maṁ passati;
3.3
One who sees me sees the teaching.
yo maṁ passati so dhammaṁ passati.
3.4
Seeing the teaching, you see me.
Dhammañhi, vakkali, passanto maṁ passati;
3.5
Seeing me, you see the teaching.
maṁ passanto dhammaṁ passati.

 

This is how Venerable Koṇḍañña “sees” the Dhamma:

SN 56.11 Rolling Forth the Wheel of Dhamma – Dhammacakkappavattanasutta
11.1 ← this is the link to the sutta below.
And while this discourse was being spoken, the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma arose in Venerable Koṇḍañña:
Imasmiñca pana veyyākaraṇasmiṁ bhaññamāne āyasmato koṇḍaññassa virajaṁ vītamalaṁ dhammacakkhuṁ udapādi:
11.2
“Whatever dhammā rises with saŋ, all such dhammā is stop from rising.”
“yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti.

2 users thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower, DanielSt

[DanielSt]

There is a difference between knowing “who the Buddha was” (where the person was born, how old he became and so on) and “what he is/was”, where, as I understand it, the deeper meaning of Buddha (bhava+uddha or “having extinguished further existence”) comes in. So, it refers to the qualities of “being free from defilements”, and also free from death and decay, in other words referring to the timeless quality of Nibbana. These qualities are independent of a person and still exist and always will. Of course, here I am referring to “Buddha” as a quality, it can also be done with Prefix “samma sam”(buddha). 

There are some intellectuals who know a lot about the person(for example there are some PhD in Buddhism – not that this is anything wrong or bad at all, it is certainly helpful) but unless there is an understanding of the 4NT, it is not really clear what he really came to teach and what his task was (because one does not see the real problem, i.e. that “wanting to play video game” (attachment to sankhata) is root problem and not “not being allowed to play the game” (dukkha vedana).

That’s why it is said that only a Sotapanna can start to see  some of the the “supreme qualities” of a Buddha (the unique qualities or culmnination of everything “pure”) due to the firstglimpse” of the 4 Noble Truths.

Here this article of Lal might be helpful. It might explain it in better words. 

 

Supreme Qualities of Buddha, Dhamma, Saṅgha

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[LayDhammaFollower]

Thank you @SengKiat, @DanielSt, and @Jorg for your explanations.

So, From the replies of @SengKiat, @DanielSt, and @Jorg, we can understand these points;

1. Buddha = Bhava + Uddha = that can only be seen via PS/4NT and tilakkhana.
   1. that can only be understood via understanding the dhamma/teachings of Buddha.
2. Arhants are also a disciple Buddha.
3. Mundane understanding of Buddha = Buddha as individual/person/identity/entity
   1. Of course, there is no such permanent entity. which can be realized only with the removal of sakkya ditthi.
4. At a deeper level Buddha is actually the state of mind. absolutely perfect pure mind without even single blemish.
   1. This is what is actually meant, when “Buddha” is spoken about.
5. Buddha is a 100% purified perfect mind process.
   1. again buddha is a process, not an entity.

=== == ===

@SengKiat, Can you clarify a bit more about what should be understood from the sutta cited?

I understand the sutta, but, not how Buddha is to be seen from those suttas.

Do the above 5 points in this reply covers the meaning of the statement “To see buddha, you need to see PS” and “when we see PS, we see Buddha”?

[SengKiat]

@SengKiat, Can you clarify a bit more about what should be understood from the sutta cited?

I understand the sutta, but, not how Buddha is to be seen from those suttas.

@LayDhammaFollower:

The two suttā (MN 28 and SN 22.87) is to be understood as what you have understand!

When you are able to understand the Dhamma, there is a figurative expression of saying you have “seen” the Buddha.

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[DanielSt]

Here is another analogy that might be helpful, that I learned from Ven. Amadassana Thero.

As a child, we have a very simply world view and many “adult things” don’t seem to matter to us. For example, the parents just give us food on the table, they buy us a smartphone (nowadays), they give us presents, and so on. 

So we easily get the feeling that “money grows on trees” and that we might be somehow special and deserving to get all this. 

For example, that all this delicious food we get from the supermarket is something all humans deserve and is simply “a given”.

So if someone asks me when I was a child: “Who is your father?” then I would have pointed to my father and said “he is”. So, I knew who my father was and also who the father of my friends were, and so on. And what job they had, and so on.

But when it comes to the question of “What is a father?” it is something one can only appreciate through a certain wisdom.

Here, in this example, I am referring to the mundane wisdom which we acquire later in life.

How? For example once I moved out of the parent’s house and I had to sustain my own life, then you have to go to the supermarket and then you have to pay for all these things that you enjoyed all your life. The different kinds of cheese, juices, and so on that was “granted”. That is when we realize that all these articles are not for free at all and that most of the money earned simply has to be spent on “food” and not on fancy extras (phone, games, etc.). I remember when I went to the supermarket with my mother the first time I was a teenager and spend 200€ (or $) for all week’s food for the family. It made me realize that all of this luxury was not free at all! Also, as one starts to work by oneself, one understands how much of a burden it is to work full-time and for so many years. So, at that point one might understand the “quality of the parents” because they worked for so many years and provided all these things that one “took for granted”. Then, one sees “what a father” is. Also, now that I understand that in life “nothing is for free”, I appreciate that my father tried to explain me the value of “hard work”. This is another value “a father” holds (teaching of important values to a child). As a child I might have protested and preferred to play video games, but now it is something I can “see as a quality in him” (or in any father).

So this process of “growing up” was how I corrected certain views about life and then I started to appreciate what my parents gave me. Actually the process of understanding Dhamma helps in this by a great deal, I think my gratefulness becomes only greater now.

The Buddha was the greatest “father” in this way.

One can also use this principle to reflect on other qualities, such as instead of “Who is the doctor?” to “What is a doctor?” , or “What is an architect?” , “What is a scientist?” and one will understand better their respective qualities. It is easy to say “Mrs Smith is a doctor” but only when one has a certain understanding of life is when one understands “what a doctor is”  (for that, one needs wisdom).

In the same way, understanding “what a Buddha is” needs one to have samma ditthi.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

LayDhammaFollower

[Lal]

Good discussion! Thank you all!

• Sadhu! Sadhu!! Sadhu!!!

[TripleGemStudent]

I came across the discussion about the language “Magadhi”

From a Venerable Waharaka Thero desana that I came across over a year or more ago. If my memory serves me correctly (I could have forgotten the exact details), but I believe it was mentioned that Magadhi is the Brahma’s language (in the Brahma’s realms), a universal language. It’s the language we living beings communicated with before we devolve into the lower realms. 

If I come across the desana again, I’ll post it here.

 

[LayDhammaFollower]

Greetings, @TripleGemStudent.

This is link to that desana:

Link to English transcript sermon where thero talks about magadhi and devolution of earth.

This is link to folder containing english transcripts of wahara thero sermons:

English Transcript folder.

This is link to the English transcript of sermon you are taking about:

Transcript

=== == ===

Many merits to Janith Fernando for making this videos and doing hard work to transcribe the sermons.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TripleGemStudent

[Author]

Posts