What stays after death?

  • This topic has 21 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by Lal.
Viewing 20 reply threads
  • Author
    • #33175

      I’m not sure where I should post it (here or Abhidhamma) eventually we can move this topic to proper section. I would like to ask and clarify about my understanding of the rebirth process. What is that which stays after death and what make us “us” after we grab bhava and jati.

      Can Lal or anybody “paint” the picture for me, so I can understand this aspect better?

      I made “general idea” of rebirth process and not get to all bolts on the image but my point it which aspects “move further” in life stream and rebirth process? Like you would want to put finger on some object that rebirth what it would be?

      It holds awareness that is not like human or is just blank like in assana satta realms when there is just function of this object? For example, it would be like there are factors of rain to become, there’s need to be certain weather, climate, hotness and all the factors that make rain to happen but none of those things are aware of the process but just conjunction of cause and effect that at the end of the process may give “life” to beings but neither are the same “I” that happened in the process (but can not be told that neither they aren’t). Sorry if I poorly explained it, but I hope you catch my drift, I’m trying to pinpoint “what is that object” that keeps repeating itself as “I”. Because as I understand after you die there is no more “I” but memory of process in nama gotta.

      Thanks for any clarification :)

    • #33179

      1. I think this is a good opportunity to go through the process step-by-step. I will start with a lifestream X. That lifestream was in a Deva realm (thus we can call it Deva X), expired the life there, and just grasped a human existence (human bhava).

      2. When that Deva X disappeared from the Brahma realm, a human gandhabba (same lifestream X) appeared in the human realm. It is a “manomaya kaya” with a hadaya vatthu and five pasada rupa. Suppose this human bhava has kammic energy to last 1000 years.

      3. That human gandhabba was drawn to a womb after 10 years and thus born with a human body. Let us call that human X1. Then X1 lived with that human body for 100 years and died. During that life, he killed someone and thus gained kammic energy to support existence in a niraya (hell).

      4. When X1’s physical body died, the gandhabba came out. After 10 more years, it was again drawn into a womb, and now there is human X2. This human X2 cultivated anariya jhana during this life and died after 100 years.

      5. Now, X’s lifestream still has many years of kammic energy left for the human bhava. However, cultivating an anariya jhana is an anatariya kamma. It brings vipaka immediately when that physical body X2 dies.

      6.Therefore, the human bhava ends, and X grasps a Brahma bhava. That means the set of hadaya vatthu/5 pasada rupa disappears and a NEW SET of hadaya vatthu/2 pasada rupa corresponding to the Brahma Bhava appears in that Brahma realm. This is Brahma X now.

      7. Note that the kammic energy to get a niraya existence (while as human X1) still associated with that lifestream. However, it was not an anantariya kamma. This kammic energy still can bring a niraya existence in the future.

      I will stop here for now. Let us discuss any questions up to this point.

    • #33180
      Sotapanna anugami

      Just saw Lal sir’s post actually I was writing before this post, Yes we can discuss this approach but I think ‘Time’ should be kept out of the question because this life stream X never started!, it must have graped human bhava because of some kamma bija in rupakkhanda. This is what I have explained in brief.

      The reality is complex people tend to see it that it started somewhere but that’s not the case.
      What I have understood is that we can put existence into Rupakkhanda and its analysis Vinnanakkhanda, and there is a Sanna cetasika which recognizes ‘things’ actually vedana also recognizes but there ‘recognition’ is different that’s why sanna is sanna and vedana is vedana.

      I think this concept of something carried after death or perpetuating from one life to another shouldn’t be seen this way because no satisfactory answer we will get. why? because this one life to another is just one among many ‘illusions’ or rather ‘obvious perceptions’ which one gets when one see something at first glance like some may come across sense pleasures and say that these are created by god for man to enjoy but reality is VERY different.

      Time is a big illusion, because we just created an extra entity for course of events happening to describe it. The sanna cetasika is what recognises things as ‘I’. Its takes the physical body as ‘I’ until someone sees his past life, when one sees the past life one sees another body and it thinks previously I was that now I am this but the point to be noted is that there are just two bodies and its upto ‘sanna’ to place what should be taken as ‘I’

      Basically Rupakkhanda and its recognition Vinnanakhanda exists without any time like past, present or future. Just that Rupa makes contact with pasada rupa that making contact ‘phassa’ is Nama, so what can we say, Rupa is manifesting into Nama and Nama into Rupa. Rupakkhanda and Vinnanakkhanda is manifestation of one another, actually this concept of ‘one’ existing entity or in other words what ‘exists’ and what ‘do not exists’ cannot be resolved.

      Now regarding your question its early people on the path think that even if I were to born again I will NOT be the same, so why to leave sensuality? This is like a paradox if NOTHING remains same in a given lifestream so how can we say that the two lifestreams are one? This thing cannot be resolved as I explained in brief, actually one can get insights if one has understood abhidhamma.

      For Christian, I know you know these things should not be ‘speculated’ upon. And in general, If one really wants to understand ‘the existence’ reading abhidhamma would be enough. Then one will know that keeping the ‘reference frame’ right is important, when we say of a life stream that it is ever changing then how can we say there is a ‘perpetuation’ even? These two ‘contradictory’ statements are arising because we have kept the ‘reference frame’ wrong.
      For ex: If one keeps ‘reference frame’ that a loving god created the world then why the world has suffering? This topic can be debated endlessly and creationalists may even provide ‘arguments’ in favour but as we know no satisfactory answer we will get. Why? Because reference frame is wrong.

      Similarly world should always be seen terms of paramatthas rupa, citta, cetasika otherwise even Dhamma concepts MAY look contradictory. The right reference frame is to talk in terms of Paramatthas and without ‘time’ involved.

      I will take a point of asanna satta you mentioned, thoughtless logs but how do we know? maybe any finer glowing body in our imagination which is made of the rupa we came in contact with eye base, and its recognition as ‘finer’. Someone with divine eye may see them, for that person they are still rupa and its recognition. If we think what might be happening with that asanna brahma, its still rupa and vinnana in our mind ( I used ‘our mind’ to emphasize, in reality, it is again rupa and vinnana).

      Long story short, right reference is important because ANY reference other than paramatthas WILL bring contradictions and those cannot be resolved.

    • #33181

      The question is what is that X that transmigrates from each bhava in that lifestream, can we find any answer anywhere in Tipitaka as if not we are having “missing link” as in darwin theory and do that X have any awareness that we can relate or is just energy-process, conduct of cause and effect that happens as with nature? (like the rain example that ends up giving base for life on earth for example)

    • #33183

      Sotapanna Anugami: ” Yes we can discuss this approach but I think ‘Time’ should be kept out of the question because this life stream X never started!”

      I do not understand that statement. The Buddha said there is no discernible beginning to the rebirth process.
      – In fact, the principle of “cause and effect” (Paticca Samuppada) enforces that there cannot be a “beginning.”
      – One can only end that process by cultivating panna (wisdom) eliminating avijja. That is Arahanthood and subsequent Parinibbana. The samsaric process ends there.

      Christian: “The question is what is that X that transmigrates from each bhava in that lifestream..”

      There is NOTHING (like a soul) that transmigrates! That is a critical point to understand!
      – That is why the Buddha said it is wrong to say that there is a “self”. This is called “sassata ditthi” or the view that a living being transmigrates among different realms.
      – However, as long as a mind has avijja, it ACTS AS IF it is a living being. No one can deny that all of us exist. That is why the Buddha said, it is wrong to say “there is no-self” either. This is “uccheda ditthi“. This is the materialistic view that life ends at the death of the physical body.
      – For details, see the first several posts in, “Views on Life.”

      Paticca Samuppada is just a process. As long as there are causes (avijja) AND conditions (most importantly tanha), there will be more jati (of a living being) followed by “jara, marana, soka, perideva..”

      – When a given bhava ends, the lifestream grasps a new bhava at the “upadana paccaya bhava” step.
      – When avijja is eliminated in ANY MIND that mind will not go through “tanha paccaya upadana” and “upadana paccaya bhava” steps. That is when the whole process ends and the rebirth process stops.

      Take time and think deeply about the above. Don’t rush to respond. Take a day or two.

      P.S. It is kammic energy that fuels a new bhava.
      – If that energy is due to a good kamma, it will fuel a “good bhava” in one of the “good realms”.
      – If it is a bad kamma, it will lead to a bad bhava (and births) in a bad realm (apaya).
      – There is no END to that process until one SEES the futility AND danger of it. One must also SEE that most future births are in the apayas.

    • #33185
      Sotapanna anugami

      There is a ball kept on a table in front of a person. The person can see the ball. Then the ball disappeared. Then the person will say that there was a ball on this table in the past.
      Here, we have to introduce an ‘entity’ that ball was ‘in’. That entity is called ‘time’.

      But with abhidhamma, we say earlier ‘varna rupa’ made contact with ‘cakku pasada rupa’ and what ‘recognized’ that varna rupa is cakku vinnana. After the ball disappeared,
      when the person recalls dhamma is making contact with mana indriya, vaci sankhara and mano vinnana is recognizing and saying, “the ball was there in the past.”

      Vinnana is defiled consciousness so its better to use the term ‘Citta & Cetasika’.

      What we are discussing is ‘perpetuation’ of lifestream, for perpetuation we have to introduce ‘time’ like in the example for explaining the disappearence of the ball we have to impart the concept of time. But with abhidhamma, concept of time is not required because whatever is recognized is ‘Rupa’ and recognition is ‘Nama’ and a being is this inter-manisfestation of both. If we discuss based on any reference other than Paramatthas, as in case of X, concept of ‘transmigration’ of any ‘entity’ in an ‘entity” comes into picture where entity is soul, entity’ is time.

      This is what I have tried to explain in my above post that why a discussion on lifestream’s perpetuation will never come at any satisfactory conclusion because we then will be introducing those ‘entities’ which do not ‘exist’ by their own nature, like that of Paramatthas.

      Thank You :)

    • #33188
      Sotapanna anugami

      – Actually, One can talk about lifestreams grasping other bhava but that can only be known to a limited extent and can only be fully grasped by a Sammasambuddha.
      -This ‘overall’ perception of lifestream grasping one bhava to another in this beginning less samsara, one should know that cannot be fully/exactly grasped and that’s why these shouldn’t be speculated at.
      – And if one wants to know and contemplate the reality one should always do in terms of Paramatthas or one might end up ‘confused’ or with a wrong view of a ‘soul’ or that of annhilation like Ven Yamaka.
      – Neverthless, discussion started by Lal sir can be pursued but as the question of christian is ‘exactly’ asking to ‘pinpoint’ the reality, I think then contemplating only in terms ‘absolute realities’ or Paramatthas should be done.
      – I think its better to comprehend this oneself if one wants to because the insights are difficult to put into those words which will convey the ‘essence or idea’ and if one has not comprehended oneself then reading many times may not do any good as mentioned by Christian that one cannot learn dhamma even from this site because essentially its just written text but that comprehension should be based on Paramatthas ( I know I repeated it way too much but this is what I found, focus on purifying the mind not to speculate, if you want to speculate do it in terms of ultimate realities then arisen ‘question’ should be resolved.:)

      With Metta

    • #33191

      “However, as long as a mind has avijja, it ACTS AS IF it is a living being.” – that very good point and I get this, also I get this there is no soul and neither self nor nonself. As I understand for now it’s the mind under avijja that goes thru this process. :)

    • #33192
      Sotapanna anugami

      I come up with an analogy that is crude but people with decent grip on dhamma will catch up.
      There is a driver driving a bus, the bus has many goods kept inside, the driver has money to buy different goods and when the bus runs out of fuel new bus is bought and driver again starts to drive it.

      The bus is the physical body, goods kept inside are the ‘Rupakkhanda and its analysis Vinnakkhanda’ and the money is ‘gati & anusayas’.
      A person makes contact with rupa and it is ‘filtered’ with his gati, in this crude analogy its money that is an intermediary between. The goods have a spacial location but Rupakkhanda and Vinnanakhanda have no spacial location.
      When the driver drops all the money, he runs the bus until it has fuel and then comes out of the bus but has no money to ‘buy’ a new bus. This is when a being attains Nibbana, when ‘filter’ of gati and anusaya is removed.
      But here comes the missing link, who is the driver?
      This questions comes when some percipient like one reading this, looks/observes evolution of a lifestream from a perspective of a third person. When this questions comes one should take the awareness to oneself and see the things with first person perspective, here one will see one is doing vaci sankhara i.e. recalling the existing rupakkhanda or making contact with any outside rupa, now is the citta (which analyzes ‘what’ is presented to the senses) has a cetasika called Sanna which determines ‘what’ is recognized, so it places the value this is this, that is that, but it also has to determine ‘who’ is recalling? This ‘who’ is generally taken as physical body but the keypoint is that there is just Rupa and that ‘who’ can be placed on anything by the sanna, on what it will be placed is determined by the ‘filter’ or ‘gati’.
      This is the reason I think why ‘Sanna’ is distinguished from other cetasikas in abhidhamma. Until there is Sanna and Tanha for Vedana there is bondange which is a suffering, and of course one get those because of ‘avijja’ at the previous cuti patisandhi moment. That is the why the only security from bondage is sannavedaitynirodha, the real and only happiness.

      I am remembering that this driver bus analogy is discussed somewhere at this site. The thing one must know is that there is nothing which is unchanging in a lifestream and that is why it is possible for each and every lifestream to attain Nibbana by removing the gati via changing it towards good and cultivating Panna. And that is why Vyapada and Mana are ‘bonds’ even because they all arise out of delusion that there is a being which should be hated for his ‘bad’ actions and I am good for this this things.
      If being has to be pinpointed it can be done to its ‘gati’ but that gati can also be changed, so the being cannot be pinpointed. This is a complex issue arising out of considering things with Third Persons perspective. This pinpointing is done by Sanna Cetasika and it can be done on anything (but nothing is absolute or unchanging) and Nibbana is of course realizing ‘Nothing’ is worth considering oneself i.e. placing value as ‘I’.
      I hope I conveyed what I wanted to.

      With Metta.

    • #33196

      The thing is, there is a missing link. You can not disappear and appear as someone else out of the blue (even if you appear out of blue in deva realms there must be cause for it and object, a mechanism that you came from). If that would be the truth, you could just live your life as you want, fell dead and there will be “someone else” worried about suffering so there need to be an aspect of “I” that suffers thru lifetimes and “I” that is liberated but that obviously wrong view and leads to nowhere. There need to be as exact and as precise an explanation on that topic as is crucial to understand (unless we lacking information/understanding of it). Even if the perception of “I” is wrong it does not disappear. If we follow this we have a mind under avijja that takes the perception of “self” based on skandas but an underlying layer of that which sums up to be mind – that takes the “I” in the rebirth process and experiences suffering. My point and question what is that take rebirth before taking a form and “I”. If we take the mind – it will be as a “soul” from that perspective. Hope you understand better now where is the “lacking” puzzle here that I’m looking for :)

    • #33197
      Sotapanna anugami

      ” If that would be the truth, you could just live your life as you want, fell dead and there will be “someone else” worried about suffering so there need to be an aspect of “I” that suffers thru lifetimes ”

      Actually yes, this is the case with early people who start on the path that if NOTHING in me will be there in future lives so why should I worry, let me ‘enjoy’ my life and die. This is why I think Buddha Dhamma should not be seen as a ‘religion’ because I think its better to say its training for people who can comprehend what ‘suffering’ is. Different people have different ‘notion’ of suffering so what can we do? That is why its not easy for people to persevere who lack ‘Panna’ or don’t have any past gati built up as said by Lal sir on this site. Those people can be given push by Buddha or an ariya with abhinna like when Buddha made a person to see a female deva.

      If one imagines a lifestream travelling from life after life in this rebirth process, as I explained it is not possible to grasp the complete picture because those entities like ‘time’ comes into picture which do not exist by there own nature. Here we have to take word of the Buddha that only 4 things exists by their own nature Rupa, Citta, Cetasika and Nibbana. There is no problem if we take ‘time’ into consideration but that picture cannot be grasped fully there will be missing links if one sees things and world from Third Persons perspective like a lifestream in rebirth process. By taking time into consideration I mean that if we imagine that this this will happen to me in ‘future’, but its hard to fanthom that and of course there will be missing links but ‘seeing’ that fanthoming for future is still ‘here & now’ why? because Vaci Sankhara is going on and Sanna is taking ‘I’ as one’s body. This time we only took Paramatthas into picture, other beings their body, vaci vinnati, kaya vinnati are all rupa for us but fanthoming can be done like what must be happening to them? but that CANNOT be grasped fully and exactly moreover, it may lead to contradictions let alone missing links. why? entities other than paramatthas are considered.

      But if one sees things and world from FPP or from Paramatthas then there will be no missing links let alone contradictions.
      P.S. One can say that any being is flux of Rupa, Citta, Cetasika or is Nibbana. It always existed initially as flux of rupa,citta,cetasika now as nibbana because nibbana exists by its own nature just as other paramatthas.

      That should do :)

    • #33199

      1. There are many ways to describe “sakkaya ditthi“, the wrong idea that EITHER there is a “me” traveling samsara OR there is nothing in “me” other than my physical body and thus
      “I” will not exist after the death of this physical body.

      The critical point is to understand that BOTH those views are not correct.

      The present life arose due to a set of actions in the past that were taken with one of those views.

      As long as those views are not broken, ANY lifeform will exist in one of the 31 realms.

      The problem is that most of the existence in the rebirth process WILL BE in the four lowest realms. And thus, there will be much suffering, until sakkaya ditthi is removed.

      There are 10 bonds (samyojana) that keep a lifestream bound to the rebirth process. The first that needs to be removed is sakkaya ditthi.
      – When that breaks, it will be followed immediately by the breaking of two more bonds (samyojana). One is to realize that following rituals is useless to progress on the path (silabbata paramasa). The other is vicikicca, any doubts about the path or in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.

      When these bonds start to break one is a Sotapanna Anugami. When all three are completely broken, one would attain the Sotapanna stage.

      My advice is to focus on the very fundamental process described in my above two posts. Of course, that approach would work only if one has understood the concept of gandhabba.
      One could take that process to include a set of hadaya vatthu/pasada rupa for an animal or a hell being. Which of those temporary existences (Deva, human, Brahma, animal, hell-being, etc.) is the “real me”? There is no “me” in any of them. However, there is a living being existing at each time (mostly experiencing suffering when averaged over long times).

      2. There are other ways to get rid of sakkaya ditthi. The key is to realize the unfruitfulness AND dangers in the rebirth process.
      – Then one should focus on the Paticca Samuppada process to see the “jati paccaya jara, marana, etc (suffering)” starts with “avijja paccaya sankhara.”
      – The BASIS of that avijja is the wrong idea that EITHER there is a “me” traveling samsara OR there is nothing in “me” other than my physical body and thus “I” will not exist after the death of this physical body.
      – That is what was first stated in #1 above.

      Ask questions (if there are any) based on those two approaches. The first one is cleaner if one has grasped the concept of gandhabba.

    • #33200

      Okay, I see we do not understand each other in the sense that I read and know most of the things we said here (even thru limited insight) but the thing is if we want to pin point “what takes rebirth” even as an object or manufacture of rebirth which is neither self nor nonself what would you pin point it towards? For example, the mind is behind everything so it would be the mind under wrong views that take rebirth which is manufacturer or creator of this life or that life or even lifestream(?) and we have a small window being human (or being born in the times when Buddha is alive) to get rid of this ignorance so mind attains Nibbana, agree?

    • #33201

      Christian: Your statements are very long. Can you break it down into short questions? As I keep saying, don’t rush into replying. Take time to read all that was discussed above.

      Rebirth in an existence happens when kammic energy creates a set of NEW hadaya vatthu/pasada rupa for that existence. That is based on a particular kamma bija. There could be numerous kamma bija accumulated in previous lives. The strongest one comes to the mind in the last citta vithi.

      Then a new citta vithi starts in the new existence based on the NEW set of hadaya vatthu/pasada rupa.

      That is why an animal thinks differently from a human being (even if belonging to the same lifestream). The hadaya vatthu/pasada rupa combinations WILL BE different.
      – That is also why there is no “I” in a real sense.
      – Of course, the animal thinks “I exist” and the human thinks “I exist”. Who is the real “I” or “me”?
      – On the other hand, there is a living-being saying “I exist.” We cannot deny that either.

      That is why it is necessary to see that all this (rebirths in the samsaric journey) is a series of events per Paticca Samuppada.
      – As long as avijja is there, there will be a “living being” in some form. The problem is that in most cases, that existence is in an apaya.

    • #33205

      Let me provide the suttas that describe Sakkāya Diṭṭhi:

      In the “Cūḷavedalla Sutta (MN 44)” Ven. Dhammadinna explains it to her former husband Visakha:

      “..Kathaṃ panāyye, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti? “Idhāvuso visākha, assutavā puthujjano, ariyānaṃ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṃ adassāvī sap­purisa­dhammassa akovido sap­purisa­dhamme avinīto, rūpaṃ attato samanupassati, rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā rūpaṃ, rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Vedanaṃ … pe … saññaṃsaṅkhāreviññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, viññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ, attani vā viññāṇaṃ, viññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī”ti.

      Translated: “..how does sakkāya diṭṭhi come about?” “It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not been exposed to the teaching of the noble ones. They have a wrong vision about rūpa (material form) in 4 ways: regard rūpa as “mine”, or “I” as rūpa, or rūpa to be “in me”, or “I” to be “in rūpa.” [My comment: Those are the ones with uccheda diṭṭhi; see my post above on January 31, 2021, at 9:13 am. These are 4 ways]. Then there are others who regard each of the mental factors vedana (feeling) … sañña (perception) … saṅkhāra  ( ways of thinking) … viññāṇa (consciousness) as “mine”, or “I” as those, or them to be “in me”, or “I’ to be “in them”. [My comment: Those are the ones with sassata diṭṭhi; see my post above on January 31, 2021, at 9:13 am]. Thus they have sakkaya diṭṭhi in 16 different possible ways]. That’s how sakkāya diṭṭhi (sometimes translated as identity view) comes about in 20 ways.”

      Per my posts above, it is easy to this when one can see a lifestream switching from bhava to bhava

      – When in a human bhava, one has the form of a human. And one’s “mental entities” are those in the broad category of humans.
      – When born an animal, the form would be that of that particular animal. That animal would not have the “higher level of consciousness” of a human.
      – Born a Deva or Brahma those would be again different.

      That is why those 20 views are wrong. 

      In each bhava, those entities arise according to causes and conditions that led to the arising of that bhava described by Paticca Samuppada: “avijja paccaya sankhara” leading to “bhava paccaya jati“.

      Apuñña abhisaṅkhāra would lead to births in the apayas.
      Puñña abhisaṅkhāra would lead to births in the human, Deva, and 16 rupāvacara Brahma realms.
      Āneñja abhisaṅkhāra lead to births in the arupāvacara Brahma realms.

      See the recently re-written post: “Saṅkhāra – What It Really Means” for details on different types of saṅkhāra.

      The above description of Sakkāya Diṭṭhi is discussed in many suttas: “79 results for attato AND Samanupassati

    • #33229

      I just published a new post, “Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – Wrong View of “Me” and “Mine” that addresses some of the issues raised.

      It is critical to understand the concept of sakkāya diṭṭhi. Please feel free to ask questions.
      – It is always good to cite the bullet # that is not clear. That way, it would be easier for me to see how to address the question. Of course, that does not apply all the time.

    • #33234

      Just revised the new post of yesterday “Sakkāya Diṭṭhi – Wrong View of “Me” and “Mine” to add #9 and #10.

    • #33237

      Thank you for your answer and input, I understand neither self nor non-self and can explain it too, which I would do different way on the podcast that I’m starting, the thing is that I was asking about “what makes you rebirth” not in the sense of self but as an object that “bounds you” into such and such existence. It’s our mind that goes thru this process and that what I mean, here the “mind” can sound vague and not direct because many people may think that the mind is this or that but for cultivators and Dhamma practitioners “mind” should be evident.

    • #33238

      If we had to give an answer to “what makes you reborn” then the answer has to be the mind, as you indicated here.

      From Abhidhamma, we know the description of “mind”:

      hadaya vatthu + a set of pasada rupā

      From this citta vithī flow (pasada rupā pinging the hadaya vatthu, making it vibrate), with each citta arising with a set of cetasikā.

      For an arahant, cittā are pure, and the flow of citta vithī stops at the end of the arahant’s life.

      For a non arahant ariya, cittā are “pure enough”, and citta vithī are abound to end after a certain number of bhava (depending on what magga phala it is).

      For a puthujjana, cittā are contaminated to the point where there is no end in sight for the flow of citta vithī.

      Isn’t this enough? Do we need to get deeper than cittā and cetasikā?


      • #33239

        Yes, exactly – it happens that I figure it out :) I think that’s all

    • #38649

      In this post, we will discuss how “20 types of sakkāya diṭṭhi” is reached by getting rid of 5 types of wrong views on the five aggregates based on ucchēda diṭṭhi and 15 types of wrong views on the five aggregates based on sassata diṭṭhi.”

      Hi Lal, fairly recently you corrected a post regarding the 20 types of sakkaya ditthi, stating that the above statement from “sakkaya-ditthi-deeper-wrong-views” #2, is correct.

      I realize that the reference you made in your reply of feb 2 2021 above (of Ven. Dhammadinna teaching her ex-husband Cūḷavedalla Sutta MN 44) is from last year and from before you applied the corrections. So can I assume then that the correct translation of that verse is also 15 + 5 instead of 16 + 4 and, therefore, consistent?

      To some of the other posters, I understand that English may not be your mother tongue, so therefore it would help if you structure your text a bit more clearly: make shorter sentences, add paragraphs, and above all, apply more punctuation. There’s clearly some value to many of the posts here, and I’ve read them all with great interest. It’s a shame if your meaning doesn’t come across the way you intend it (unnecessarily).

    • #38650

      Yes. The first quote you give is correct.

      Yes. Communicating one’s thoughts to others is not easy. But we should try our best.

Viewing 20 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.