[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya

  Dear followers of the Pure Dhamma. It is with much gratitude that this follower found this wonderful website. As a new follower, there are many questions and misunderstandings. Thank you to those who read this forum, and share their understanding with others.

  Having so many questions, they will be asked a few at a time.

  Question 1: What does a Brahma look like? Like a man or like the sun? Or something from a Hollywood movie?

  Question 2: In the picture of Venerable Waharaka, the monk is looking at the camera. Why did he look at the camera? Is it a form of desire to look at the camera?

  Question 3: In the myths about stream-enterers article, it says that one day Venerable Sariputta did not know that the person he was talking to was an arhat. In the article about how to know if you have become a stream-enterer, it says, ”The ONLY WAY to come to this realization is to comprehend the true nature of this world of 31 realms: anicca, dukkha, and anatta. And those do not mean impermanence, suffering, and “no-self.” ” The question is why the monk did not just ask the man to give definitions of the true nature of the world and thus be able to know from the quality of his responses whether he is an arhat.

  Much gratitude and appreciation to the followers of the Buddha, expounds of the Dhamma and lovers of the Sangha. 🙏☸️

Namo Buddhaya

 

 

[Lal]

Welcome to the forum, HugoZyl!

Question 1: A Brahma has no physical body like ours, a tiny ant, or even a virus/bacteria. A Brahma has only a “mental body” that cannot be seen with our eyes. Of course, that is hard to imagine for us.

Question 2: I don’t understand the question. Yes, it is possible that he intended to look at the camera. Is there anything wrong with that? It is likely that you equated “intention” with “tanha.” The Pali word tanha means “intention with greed/anger.” There can be “intention” without greed/anger, as in that specific case, to teach others.

Question 3: The “true nature of this world” is an understanding. It may not be possible to describe it in words unless one goes into a long explanation. I think the person in question was on his deathbed, i.e., close to dying. There was no time to have a lengthy discussion. 

[Lal]

Regarding Question 1, I should clarify my answer to provide a better visualization.

1. The amount of “matter” in a Brahma‘s “body” is much smaller than that of a tiny ant or even a virus/bacteria. That is correct.

• However, in a given Brahma realm, each Brahma would have “identifiable features,” just like we can see the difference between any two people. 
• Even though a “Brahma body” has very little “matter,” it could spread over a sizeable spatial dimension.
• For example, when the Buddha visited Baka Brahma, he went there not in his “human body” but only in his “mental body,” which is as subtle/fine as a “Brahma body.” See “Brahmanimantanika Sutta (MN 49).” 
• Therefore, I did not mean that a Brahma is smaller than a virus or bacteria in “geometrical size.” 
• Other realms are very different from the human or animal realms that we can “see.”

2. There is a sutta (I forget the name) in which Ven. Sariputta (or Ven. Moggalana) describes an encounter with a particular Brahma. He says that Brahma‘s body is extended over a large area.

• Only those with supernormal powers (iddhi powers) can “see” such subtle “bodies.”

3. To get an idea of what I am talking about, please read “Gulliver’s Travels” by Jonathan Swift. I read that book when I was small but still remember Gulliver’s encounters with giants and miniature humans.  

• Even Gulliver’s experiences do not provide the correct visualization but could help get some idea.

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya

  Dear brother in Dhamma. There is much appreciation for your quick, kind and detailed responses. From where I am sitting, it says that you wrote that last reply at one o’clock in the morning. You certainly did not have to lose sleep on this humble beginner’s behalf. Thank you. 🙏

  Question 4: Due to my ignorance, I find the article on the wrong interpretations of anicca, dukkha and anatta difficult to follow. You share that anicca is not impermanence but ”Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).” What is the difference between that quote and impermanence? All beings want satisfaction. No being can maintain the world to his satisfaction. Thus, in one word, ”impermanence”. 

  Question 5: From the same article, translating ”anatta” to ”no-self” is a poor translation, yes, and people who have only heard of the Buddhist concept are confused thereby, but dedicated practitioners, for the most part, understand perfectly well that it means the same as explained in the article. To use a comparison: peanuts are not nuts. All biologists know this. Some average people may perhaps not know it but that is not a problem. We do not have to rename ”peanuts”.

  Question 6: Same article, ”Thus if a headache becomes impermanent (i.e., if it goes away,) that will lead to happiness. Thus, impermanence does not necessarily lead to suffering.” But happiness is suffering, is it not? 

  Question 7: Would you please share your opinion about following situation. I recently went to the hospital where they took blood. I was very scared of the needle, and as it entered my flesh, I prayed that the Buddha would have mercy on me. I sweated a lot and felt nauseous. What does this say about my mental state?

  Once again, A thousand thanks to all who turn the wheel of the Dhamma with patience, understanding and kindness. May all reach the other shore. ☸️

Namo Buddhaya

 

[Waisaka]

Namo Buddhaya 

As we know, the Buddha taught the Dhamma for living beings to see the world in themselves, not judging from external things to achieve purity

Anicca is one package with dukkha and anatta, that’s why we call it tilakkhana..

Like the analogy of a puddle of water evaporating, is there any suffering there? Water evaporates because of one of the characteristics of anicca, but it will not be suffering for us if we ignore it, day and night, rain and shine, and so on. 

Suffering (dukkha) comes when attached to the sense input (puddle of water) when you are dissatisfied the water changes because it evaporates (anicca), even though the puddle of water is not yours, you cannot control it or use it as a hold, protection (anatta). 

 

Try to reflect, if you only use the simple translation example on anicca, dukkha, anatta only on this puddle of water..

Where is the suffering and non-self in this water? 

__________

 I would like to know your opinion about

Sabbe shankara anicca

Sabbe shankara dukkha

Sabbe dhamma anatta

The above 3 things would be strange if we do not see them in internal form (mental formation)

Sorry my English is bad, I hope my message can be captured well and correctly. 

With metta waisaka

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya

  Dear brother Waisaka in the precious Dhamma. 

  Much gratitude for your wonderful attempts to help another understand what is what. Also I would just like to share that your English is much better than most other second language speakers. 😊

  I only recently became a follower of Buddhism. My understanding is limited. But I will of course share the little that I have to share. 

  If it perhaps has relevance, I started to follow the Dhamma after reading ‘Handbook for Mankind’ by Buddhadasa from Thailand which affected me greatly. 

  Quote, ”see the world in themselves.” I know nothing of this.

  Quote, ”Where is the suffering and non-self in this water?” According to my limited understanding, if I am reborn as a puddle of water, I will identify with the puddle (anatta) because it gives me pleasure when someone steps in me (an example of feeling) and therefore due to evaporation (anicca), I will experience suffering (dukkha) because my death is close.

  Quote, ”if we do not see them in internal form.” But is seeing an internal form not just grasping? Internal, external, tall, short, fat, thin… These are concepts based on desire which lead to suffering. If there is a real internal form, it must be permanent, satisfying and a self-identity. 

  These humble replies are mostly just repeating what I read in Handbook for Mankind.

  Thank you for your time and love.

Namo Buddhaya

[Waisaka]

Okay, brother Hugo..

I mean, there are two types of RUPA, external and internal..

External rupa will run as it should.

Like a stone in the river, it will not cause us suffering.

Internal rupa is the form of the stone in your mind, and when you generate tanha on the object of the stone in your mind.. For example, you want the stone not to be carried away by the river current, but in reality, sooner or later, it can be carried away by the river current. Then there arises a feeling of dislike (dukkha) when you face the reality that does not match your expectations (anicca), impermanent, changing, wavering…

In fact, the stone is not yours, and you cannot control it (anatta).

 Another extreme example:

When the weather is fine, you are very happy, but we cannot control the weather according to our wishes (anicca), when the weather changes you become sad and can even cause anger (dukkha) which will be vented on others, thus causing negative karma, which can result in you being reborn in the animal realm (dukkha), and you cannot control the weather because it is not yours (anatta), and in the end you are also helpless in the process of being reborn in a lower realm (anatta).

You cannot become a puddle of water, a rock, or the weather. We are living beings. Unlike living “things,” living beings have a mental body. So you cannot compare if you were born in a puddle of water.

Why can’t we get out of the flow of samsara? We always do something in vain, fruitless, and with no results (anicca). When it is anicca, then dukkha and anatta follow.

______

I also admire Bhante Buddhadhasa, his writings on the prison of life, and the section “attaching to the scriptures.”

 From there you can contemplate the scriptures even if you have tanha with defilements (lobha, dosa, moha), the scriptures will become anicca, dukkha, anatta.

Although the scriptures are neutral, but when the scriptures are in your mind (internal Rupa) it can be the cause of your staying in samsara.

Try to contemplate carefully.

The saying goes, when studying, empty the cup first when receiving teachings.

You temporarily abandon the old concept, briefly translated as impermanence, suffering, no self.

With the concept explained by Mr. Lal.

I also started learning from the beginning like you, recognizing this simple translation, but my progress was difficult to develop at that time..

With metta vaisaka.

1 user thanked author for this post.

HugoZyl

[HugoZyl]

I will meditate on what you shared. Thank you 🙏

Namo Buddhaya

[Lal]

Thank you, Waisaka!

• This website has posts suitable for people with different levels of understanding. The current series of weekly posts may not be understandable to some, but my goal is to preserve what I have learned for future generations.
• For beginners, the following sections could be a good start: “Three Levels of Practice,” “Living Dhamma,” and “Bhāvanā (Meditation).”
• After reading some posts in those sections, one can explore other sections. Each person is different and may understand Buddha’s teachings at different levels. That is why this forum is a good resource. One can ask questions regarding posts in any section, and others can share their experience/knowledge. One can also make comments to get input from others.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Waisaka

[Lal]

I live in the United States, and you are likely to be in a different time zone. So when I replied, it was not one o’clock in the morning for me.

____

” You share that anicca is not impermanence but ”Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).” What is the difference between that quote and impermanence?”

• Impermanence means “not stable, subject to change and eventual destruction.” The way you are looking at it, you are probably thinking about an object (inert or living). Of course, everything in this world (inert or living) is impermanent. But that is just one manifestation of the anicca nature.
• Anicca means much more than that. It is a statement about the “nature of the world.” For example, those who do not comprehend the anicca nature seek happiness in worldly pleasures. 
• If interested, read about different aspects of anicca nature here: “Anicca – True Meaning.”

____

More on anatta nature: “Anatta – A Systematic Analysis.”

• Buddha’s teachings are much more profound than many today perceive them to be. It takes an effort to understand the deeper meanings of words like anicca, dukkha, and anatta.

______

Question 7: Many people are scared of poking with a needle. Some are not. I don’t think you need to worry about that. 

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya ☸️

  Gratitude and appreciation to the dear brothers and sisters in Dhamma.

  Question 8: Quote, 

• Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).
• When one strives to achieve that, it leads to suffering (dukkha). 
• Thus, one’s efforts are not only unfruitful, but one becomes helpless in the rebirth process (anatta).

  With these definitions, would you say that the average person already knows these things, though just subconsciously? If you ask a man on the street if things can be maintained according to his satisfaction, he will answer ”no”. If you ask him whether striving to achieve the impossible leads to suffering, he will say ”yes”. If you ask him whether we are helpless in the rebirth process, his answer will depend on his culture and religion. So everyone knows anicca and dukkha, and perhaps 25% of people know anatta.

  Question 9: Are the Divine Beings like Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Bodhisatta Avalokitesvara and Buddha Amitabha examples of Brahmas?

  Much appreciation for your patience with beginners. 🙏

Namo Buddhaya

[Lal]

Question 8: Yes. Some people may think they can understand the concepts of anicca, dukkha, and anatta, as quoted.

• However, they may not understand it enough to do something about it.
• Superficially understanding them is not enough. One must strive to remove the conditions that keep one bound to the world of anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature.
• If that motivation comes at some point, that is when one has fully comprehended the anicca, dukkha, and anatta of the world. That is when one becomes a Sotapanna. 

 Question 9: Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva (in Hinduism) are Devas. 

• I am not familiar with Bodhisatta Avalokitesvara. However, a Bodhisatta would generally be in a Deva realm until the time of being born a human before attaining Buddhahood.
• I am also not familiar with Buddha Amitabha. If it is a past Buddha (who has passed away), he would not be in any realm of the world. A Buddha or an Arahant will not be reborn in any realm of the 31 realms of the world. Remember that any realm of the world is of anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature. The idea is to attain Nibbana and be free of even a trace of suffering (dukkha.)

[taryal]

“Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva (in Hinduism) are Devas.”

Ironic that worshipping devas won’t cause salvation.

“I am also not familiar with Buddha Amitabha. If it is a past Buddha (who has passed away), he would not be in any realm of the world.”

Well, not in the realm of Mahayana. Amitabha is expected to “save” you by taking you to the Pure Land if you have faith in him. Many Pure Land followers are convinced that it is not possible to purify the mind by using one’s own efforts so they chant different Buddha names hoping to be born in the Pure Land and be enlightened there.

[y not]

Well, taryal, then if follows that they have no confidence in the Buddha’s word. If they have not heard it, and heard instead a distorted and ultimately false version of it, well….that explains it for me.  The Buddha was questioned on more than one occasion, even by devas, as to how  ‘total elimination of the taints/hindrances ‘( I can think of no better way to put it right now) by one’s own efforts ,leading to perfection, be possible.  Even they must have been trying, and saw the great difficulties.  I believe they ‘confronted ‘ the Buddha with the question not to challenge Him  in the spirit of confrontation, but to be instructed by Him. The Buddha’s reply was (in brief,  in my own words): there are perfected ones now here with me.  Implication: it is possible because the proof is right here. 

[y not]

I should have given some background.  The advent and rise of the Mahayana and its subsequent branches was due primarily, if not exclusively, to the fact that some were of the idea that the Dhamma in its original and pure form was beyond the capacity of the common people.  And they happen to be right !  The Buddha himself  had said that it is difficult. In  fact it had taken the prompting of Brahma Sahampati  to convince Him to teach for the sake of the very few who would understand.  Toward the end of  AN 7.72, the Buddha states  what kind of mindset a bhikkhus has to develop in order to be finally freed from defilements . The sutta  is a ghastly account of how to develop that mindset. No wonder 60 of those monks ‘spewed hot blood’. 

So, ‘out of compassion’ a smoother path had to be devised for the common folk. The deeper aspects of Dhamma were declared  optional and unnecessary. Only have faith, and ” hey presto ” the Pure Land is yours!!  It is the same for those who are told “Have faith in Jesus” and salvation is yours.  The (relatively) few who have striven so hard, life after life, to be freed from the shackles of raga, dvesha and moha and from all taints and defilements  attain the Best at the end.   And those who only believe attain the Best at the very start- having done nothing .Where is the justice?  Now we will be told ” believing also is a cause.”!!   A philosophy for the people has to be invented too. Those who have seen Dhamma, even ever so little, will easily see through it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[HugoZyl]

@taryal @y not

Namo Buddhaya ☸️

  Dear brothers and sisters in Dhamma. 

  I would like to quote from Handbook for Mankind by Bhuddhadasa, ”Every normal person wishes to gain knowledge but if the knowledge he gains is false, then the more he knows, the more deluded he becomes. Thus more kinds of knowledge can blind the eyes. We have to be careful with this word ‘enlightenment’. The ‘light’ may be the glare of ignorance which blinds and deludes the eye and gives rise to overconfidence. Blinded by the glare of ignorance, we are unable to think straight and so are in no position to defeat suffering.”

  I am just a beginner but I would like to share a little bit in the glorification of the Lords Vishnu and Jesus. They may just be ‘devas’ but they have done more for us than any ‘man’ in the history of the world. 

  How many orphans, how many widows, how many suffering men, how many devout simple people, how many on their deathbeds, how many suffering sickness, have found peace in their hearts by the mercy of those ‘devas’? 

  It may not be ‘salvation’ according to your high standard; it might seem low and humble and uneducated to your high levels but there is no man in the history of the world who has done so much to help us as the Lord Jesus Christ, no heavenly being as the Lord Vishnu, no ‘fake’ Buddha as Lord Amitabha, no ‘Brahma’ as Lord Allah.

  You may think so highly of passionlessness, defilementlessness and fearlessness but the truth is that the one who is the most passionless, defilementless and fearless is a CORPSE. 

  When a good man, woman or child is lying on their deathbeds full of uncertainty and worry, they are not going to care about Buddha, Dhamma or Sangha but rather they are going to plead for mercy from the Lords Allah, Jesus, Vishnu or Amitabha.

  In love,

Namo Buddhaya

 

[Waisaka]

@HugoZyl

Hi brother Hugo,

I know what you mean. Believing in these gods as long as you do good is better than doing actions that harm other beings, but this is only a temporary cure.

When you are about to die, you only remember these gods compared to Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

That’s normal because (sorry) ordinary people don’t understand the path of Lokutarra (higher path). They only understand lokiya (the mundane).

So they ask for protection from entities so that their hearts are calm in undergoing death, like a Placebo effect..

Let’s say you reach heaven, but that will have an end..

And most likely will end up in an Apaya realm again when the time in heaven is over..

And so on you go around in Samsara..

In my opinion, our wrong benchmark in undergoing spirituality is the increase in MOHA, LOBHA, DOSA

There is nothing wrong with every being seeking its spiritual goal, depending on their comfort level/understanding; the important thing is that you do not harm other beings.

If you want to be a god, brahma, arupa bharma, that’s the choice of each being.

If you harm other beings, you yourself will also suffer; this is worse.

Worldly happiness is when you get something conditions, but there is supramundane happiness by letting go..

If you are tired and want to be free from all these conditions, Buddha offers medicine (the eight-fold noble path), which leads to NIBBANA.

With metta waisaka 🙏

[Yash RS]

Thinking about the existence of a merciful and loving  God, Devas,etc. provides Hope to the person. But what does hope bring? It brings nothing. You can stop your fears and worries temporarily but that is not the solution to the problem.

This is the reason that Man has tried to find a loving God so that his fears and worries are suppressed. 

Buddha Dhamma makes one independent and free completely.

 

[y not]

taryal,

 

Thank you for being so open and straightforward. Having a clear idea of the position of the other makes the possibility of misunderstanding less likely.

 

I cannot write at any length at the moment. I will be transferring to a home tomorrow as my condition has now reached a stage where constant nursing attention in required. Trusting that I will have more time on my hands  – if there is still time.  

 

May you attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana !

5 users thanked author for this post.

pathfinder, Jittananto, dosakkhayo, Yash RS, taryal

[Lal]

We all wish you well, y not.

• We hope to see you back in the forum soon. 
• May you also attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana!

5 users thanked author for this post.

Jittananto, dosakkhayo, Yash RS, taryal, y not

[taryal]

Hi y not,

Sorry for responding late. I’ve been busy looking for a job but the tech market hasn’t been so generous towards early grads like me. But I also wish you well and hope to see you soon!

I agree with what you said above. Humans generally seem to have a propensity to latch onto the “easy” routes. Why bother spending multiple lives straining your mind in search of the truth when you can “choose” to have faith that guarantees ticket to heaven? So it doesn’t seem unusual to think that Buddha’s prediction that Dhamma will flourish only for about 5 centuries became true.

In my country of Nepal, there is always a buzz regarding Buddha’s birthplace. If you go there and say “Buddha was born in India”, you could be abused. But if you ask them, “What did Buddha teach?”, then I can assure you that 99.9% wouldn’t have a clue. Growing up, I used to be a “believer” of divine like everyone else but after I was old enough to think for myself, I understood that worshipping an imaginary “sugar daddy” won’t bring any lasting peace. While your family and friends are headed to temple, worshipping statues and bathing in water alleged to be “sacred”, it was tough being the only one who didn’t (willingly) follow such hoax. I used to think that being an Atheist is hard. But now guess what I’ve realized, being a Buddhist is harder!

[taryal]

Hello HugoZyl,

Thank you for your post. I will just add one point, complementary to what Waisaka and Yash have already said.

If Amitabha, for example, could take suffering beings to the Pure Land, do you think an uncountable number of them would still be in samsara? Believing in a divine being that looks after you might give you “momentary” peace, but what do you think, can it be maintained to your satisfaction? If someone wants to believe that Bible is the “word of God” because it makes them “feel” good, would it be appropriate for them to believe that the Universe is only a few thousand years old?

Whether one chooses to cling to the shallow comfort of a so-called “divine” being or puts in the work to end suffering at its root by embracing truth is a personal decision. However, I strongly believe that true compassion lies in helping others move closer to the truth. Consoling someone who holds a wrong view may only serve to perpetuate their suffering.

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya

  Dear ones in the Dhamma. Thank you so much for all your kind replies. 🙏 I have in my humble understanding taken a few days to try to consider carefully what you wrote.

  Firstly, I wish to thank those who have limited time, health or opportunity for making efforts to write something here.

  I would like to share how it appears to me… please feel free to disagree. 

  There are 2 ways: the path of devotion and the path of knowledge. Or perhaps it’s better to use the terms, path of self-surrender and path of no-self-concept (anatta). 

  The dear ones on this website are all on the latter path. But let’s look for just a few minutes at the former one.

  If a person completely surrenders himself to ‘God’, whatever that word may mean, it is basically the same thing as the Dhamma. Morality, concentration, insight – the same thing. 4 Noble Truths – the same thing. Ending suffering through ending clinging through ending selfish desire – the same thing. BUT we can’t look at the average path-1 person to see this, you have to look at the Saints. Similarly, you can’t look at the average path-2 person to see the real Dhamma, you have to look at people like we have on this website 🙃.

  If we say there is no Pure Land of Amitabha, we are saying it because we’ve only seen the average person trying it. Same thing with the Kingdom of God or the Paradise of Allah or the Vaikuntha of Vishnu. If we read the life of a character like Shinran Shonin (Pure Land), Saint Francis (Christian), Shirdi Sai Baba (Hindu) or Tajuddin Baba (Islam), it reads very similar to the life of the Buddha (Not the teaching, but the amazingness). Of course there are cultural and geographic differences. There is nothing the Buddha could do which another character could not do. There are things other characters did do which the Buddha did not do! 

  Those dear followers of the Buddha’s Dhamma are doing the greatest thing a being can do. Yes! But I think we have to realize there is an enormous difference between a common person talking about heaven, a follower of the Buddha talking about heaven and a Saint talking about heaven. It is not the same thing at all. The common person’s heaven is pleasure. The Buddhist’s heaven is as we understand it. The Saint’s heaven is Nibbana. Any criticism of strange things Christian people do, you can also make of Hindus and Muslims, AND Buddhists, of course.

  That is my humble understanding which is certainly vulnerable to wrong views and wrong insight but it is the impression in this person’s mind.

  Thank you 🙏

Namo Buddhaya

[y not]

Dear friends in the Dhamma:

 

Telling by some of the responses to my comment #52165, I realize that I failed in getting my meaning across correctly.

 

By ………. “was beyond the capacity of the common people“(first para), and “…….had to be devised for the common folk“(second para) no ideas of social, class or caste distinctions were intended. The Buddha put it perfectly:  ‘only few would understand’  Why? Because of (the lack of) merits, the eligibility. Few are those who at any time are ready for the Teaching.  Nothing to do with my or anyone else’s high standards or high levels;  with the  low , humble and uneducated.  As a matter of fact, conceit is one of the hindrances, and one of the hardest to remove, at that.

 

On a personal note. I find I am settling in nicely here. The nursing staff are wonderful. Mostly Asian.

 

 I thank all those who have wished me well, irrespective of their views. I am certain that the intentions are all of goodwill:  that all may ultimately find the Path to Eternal Bliss

 

May all attain the Deathless.

 

 

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya 

  Pleasant and loving regards to the noble ones who have received the holy teaching.

  Question 10: If you were walking on the street with an Arhat, and you asked him to wait outside while you went into a shop to buy something, but then climbed out a back window and went home, would the Arhat wait there on the street till he died of hunger?

  Question 11: In the context of Dhamma, are plants animals? Plants can feel, they can react, they can communicate, they can change, and one plant can even walk (walking palm trees).

  Appreciation and humility 🙏

Namo Buddhaya ☸️

[Lal]

 Question 10: I don’t understand the point. Such questions are a waste of time.

Question 11: Plants are not animals because plants cannot think. However, they respond to environmental effects. Just because we can make a robot move and do tasks does not mean a robot can think.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Waisaka

[Waisaka]

Question 10: The Arahants are not empty shells. Your question is a bit strange. If the moment is true, then the arahant will check on you, and then make a wise decision.

With metta Waisaka

[HugoZyl]

Namo Buddhaya

  Peace and love to all the dear ones in Dhamma. 

  Concerning question 10; in my humble opinion, the question has value because Arahants are the end product of the process of Dhamma. We must have some understanding of them, otherwise we will not follow the process. The Buddha himself said no one of us in 2024 can become Him, thus we look at the Arahants as rolemodels. Please excuse my question for sounding disrespectful or unneeded. The question simply wanted to find out: If he makes a choice, he must be motivated to make the choice so what is motivating him? Or, in other words, question 12…

  Question 12: Have you ever seen a video of Ramana Maharshi? He looks like an Arahant, doesn’t he? No will, no desire, no motivation… no clothes! Yet, the people who stood around him would feel their minds calming and being able to realize the nature of reality. My simple mind cannot imagine anything more “Arahant” than that. 

  @Lal  Dear sir. If one may be allowed to offer some humble feedback to your excellent website. It appears that when you get emotional you make short replies; when you are not emotional you make long replies. But perhaps it would be better for your Dhamma practice if when you’re emotional you make long replies and when you are unemotional you make short replies. It would show you more of the mud in your glass of water. This is meant with great love and respect.

Namo Buddhaya ☸️

[Waisaka]

Hi Hugo, no defense for anyone.

Sometimes, written messages do not represent the emotions of the person who wrote them; they may come from the reader.

For example, when words use all capital letters, is it emphasis or anger? It all depends on the context.

I think we are all learning together here, and no one is expressing anger in this discussion.

Our goal is to eliminate sin (defilements), and it would be very funny if we discussed it with emotion.

Arahants are not empty shells; Arahants are like normal humans (outward appearance), but they have eliminated ditthi, sanna, and citta vipallasa. Every decision-making uses wisdom, and their actions only become kiriya and no longer become kamma (karma).

If you want to follow or understand a little about Arahants, you must start from the earliest sotapanna stage, eliminating miccha ditthi (ditthi vipallasa), then trying to eliminate sanna vipallasa, and finally citta vipallasa. As far as I know, even when 2 Arahants meet, they do not know that the other person is an Arahant unless they admit to it (or the Buddha says so).

We will not understand how Arahants are if we still have vipallasa.

The easiest example is sanna vipallasa; you think Mr. Lal’s writing is short if he is emotional, when in fact, his text is neutral, but you believe it is emotional.

With metta waisaka 

[Lal]

Hello Hugo, 

No. I don’t get mad at any comment or commenter. I try to respond in detail to questions that can help the questioner and the wider audience. I try to avoid issues that do not benefit anyone (in my opinion).

• I think Waisaka made some wise comments above.

You wrote: “Question 12: Have you ever seen a video of Ramana Maharshi? He looks like an Arahant, doesn’t he? No will, no desire, no motivation… no clothes! Yet, the people who stood around him would feel their minds calming and being able to realize the nature of reality. My simple mind cannot imagine anything more “Arahant” than that.”

• I can only say, “Don’t judge a book by its cover.”
• That is a commonly used phrase. It means one should not judge the worth or value of something or someone solely by their outward appearance. 

P.S. To judge the usefulness of a book, one must read the book. In the same way, one must listen (or read) what someone says to understand its value. 

• For example, consider a beautifully decorated bowl. We don’t know what is inside until we open its lid and examine the content. If it contains feces (or urine), it is worthless. On the other hand, a rusted bowl is valuable if it contains a gem.

[Author]

Posts