Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This is one of those things that we cannot really explain.
- Of course, anyone with even the slightest faith in the Buddha would have asked the Buddha to stay alive as long as possible. The maximum lifespan at that time was around 100-120 years.
- Venerable Ananda was a Sotapanna, so if he understood the question, he would definitely have asked the Buddha to stay alive as long as possible.
- Some say that Ven. Ananda’s mind was influenced by the Mara Devaputta. But I don’t want to speculate.
- This issue does not affect our efforts to attain Nibbana. It is better to focus on issues that are relevant to that goal.
First part of Jaro’s comment:
“Past valuing built an eye with its saññā built in. The saññā presents green as out there and beauty as belonging to the object. The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.
So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set. Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer. The loop also spans lifetimes, which no laboratory can observe. We cannot see our past births. Since the saññā is built in, nobody can uncover the trick from inside it; it took a Buddha. That is why this knowledge first reaches us as something heard, and only later as something seen.”
1. Now, let us look at the first part of the above quote.
- Jaro wrote: “The mind attaches, and the gratification wears off at the moment of contact. The frustration renews the value and the expectation, which generate kamma, which builds the next eye.”
- What I bolded above is the critical part in that sentence.
2. Then, Jaro followed up with: “So the green we see is produced by equipment our own past attaching ordered, and our response to it orders the next set.”
- I think what Jaro means there is, “Our current color experience arose from our attachment to such colors in previous lives. When we attach to colors in this life, that will lead another life to ‘see more colors’.”
- That is what maintains the rebirth process; that is correct!
3. Then, Jaro observed: “Physics has no term for an observer’s response feeding into the construction of the next observer.”
- In the ‘evolution of the eyes’ model proposed by physics/science, there is no such connection to the next life or rebirth.
- That is the basis of the theory of evolution. It cannot, and it does not even try to connect to future lives. Those scientists DO NOT believe in rebirth. Their model is based on a life that ends at the death of the physical body.
- This is the clear distinction between the two models. Evolution is not meant to explain the rebirth process; it rejects rebirth. It tries to explain how human eyes evolved, starting with primitive sentient life that did not even have the capability of vision. But my point is that science cannot explain how that starting with primitive sentient life came into existence.
4. Summary: We cannot even start to compare the two models because the model presented by science is based on a faulty foundation. Their claim that ‘eyes evolved over time starting with eyeless sentient beings‘ does not make sense because they cannot prove how those eyeless sentient beings came into existence (starting with inert matter) in the first place!
- What they are trying to do is like building a second story on a house without the first level.
- Eyes cannot evolve in sentient beings without there being sentient beings without eyes!
I will comment on the first part of your comment later today. But I wanted to comment on the following:
Jaro wrote: “A physicist will object that evolution also explains the eye, and that evolution is a loop too. It is, but it runs on differential survival across a species and has no regard for what any individual valued. “
The ‘evolution mechanism’ for the eyes put forth by a physicist (or modern science in general) can be rejected based on the necessary condition for that hypothesis. The necessary condition for the theory of evolution to hold is to show how that consciousness evolved first.
That is what I tried to explain with the following section in the post “Consciousness and Color Perception – Current Scientific Understanding”:
Explanation by Modern Science
6. Answer to the first question: Science says those sensors evolved as the human species evolved from the early lifeforms that did not have perception of light. The early lifeforms perceived only light energy, without color perception. However, as lifeforms evolved to be more complex, the sensors also ‘advanced’ to generate the ‘perception of various colors.’
- However, before being able to experience perception, the ability to be aware of the environment, i.e., consciousness, must be there. Therefore, to demonstrate the validity of the evolution of those millions of tiny sensors in the back of our eyes, science must first explain how conscious living beings evolved from inert matter; i.e., it must answer the second question first.
- Answer to the second question: Science cannot answer this question. Science cannot even answer a related third key question that comes up even before the issue of ‘color perception’.
- That third key question is: How did sentient life with the ‘ability to think’ evolve from inert matter?
- ‘Color perception’ (or ‘seeing things of various colors’) is secondary to consciousness, even though it is a critical part of the consciousness of advanced lifeforms like humans. There are many ‘lower lifeforms’ (like worms) who have consciousness, but cannot see, i.e., they have no ‘color perception’. How did the earliest microscopic lifeforms acquire the ‘ability to think’ or ‘become aware of their environment’? Modern science definitely cannot answer the second and third questions.
The Order of the Answers Should be Reversed
7. Their answer to the first question remains unconfirmed until they can answer the second and third questions, i.e., until they can prove that consciousness and perception emerged from inert matter (well before the evolution of ‘eyes’ with built-in millions of tiny sensors).
- I hope you see the reasonableness of that revised order. It is critical to understand that things must happen in that time sequence.
- The order in which the science needs to answer the questions: (i) How did primitive lifeforms evolve from inert matter? (ii) How did color perception evolve in more advanced lifeforms? (iii) How did the human eye with millions of tiny sensors evolve?
- Science cannot explain the first question in that logical time sequence. The video in #9 (by a scientist) explains the current status.
Summary: Before we can agree with the hypothesis that our eyes (with millions of tiny sensors) evolved, science must first show how consciousness and perception evolved from inert matter.
- I hope everyone understands this point. There is no point in talking about the ‘evolution of the eyes’ until the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ is solved by science.
Answers to Jaro’s two questions.
1. A specific set of ‘distorted saññā‘ is built into a living being in a given realm. For example, the set for a human is vastly different from that of a bat, and both are vastly different from that of a worm. We see objects with color perception; as the second video in the post explains, bats don’t see colors, but identify objects via sonar (detecting sound waves reflected by the objects). Worms have neither, but have enough sensory capacity to sustain their lives; they probably use smell to find food.
- That set of ‘distorted saññā‘ arises based on the gati associated with the realm. A human can cultivate any type of gati. They can cultivate gati (and thus, a set of ‘distorted saññā‘) suitable for a bat or a worm. They can cultivate anariya jhana (and thus, a set of ‘distorted saññā‘) suitable to be born a Brahma, too.
- Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda operating at a specific time runs according to the gati of the human at that time. For example, person A may get mad at someone and beat him to death; at that time he has animal gati. Person A is actually ‘born’ in that animal realm while engaging in that action, which may last for several minutes. Furthermore, kammic energy is generated and ‘stored’ in the vinnana dhatu that can bring him such an animal birth in the future; of course, that outcome is not guaranteed. If person A attains the Sotapanna stage, then that gati never appears in him after that, and therefore, that gati cannot be ‘grasped’ at a cuti-patisandhi moment of grasping a new existence in the future. For example, Angulimala killed many people and behaved like an animal in those instances. That kammic energy kept accumulating as he killed more people, and if he did not meet the Buddha and attain the Sotapanna stage, he could have been born in as an animal in the future. Are you familiar with how a new existence is ‘grasped’ at the end of the human bhava (existence)?
- The specific set of ‘distorted saññā‘ that comes into play with a given sensory event is a different mechanism. Any sensory event starts at the ‘dhatu‘ stage, and the corresponding ‘distorted saññā‘ automatically arises in the mind. A human can have six primary types of saññā: rupa saññā, sadda saññā, rasa saññā, gandha saññā, pottabbha saññā, and dhamma saññā. Each of those can trigger kama sankappa, vyapada sankappa, vihimsa sankappa, or their mundane opposites (nekkamma sankappa, avyapada sankappa, avihimsa sankappa). Which type of sankappa is automatically triggered depends on the specific arammana and the person’s remaining samyojana and gati at that time. Those are the six root causes that initiate an Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda process. See “Six Root Causes – Loka Samudaya (Arising of Suffering) and Loka Nirodhaya (Nibbāna).”
__________
2. Yes. One cannot experience the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage. It is an extremely fast process. One does not need to experience it to attain the Sotapanna stage.
- But one must understand the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage: how it is triggered and how it can grow and reach the upādāna stage for some sensory inputs (those that one attaches to with kama guna).
- It is also necessary to understand that kama guna (enticing qualities) are not associated with external sensory inputs (a beautiful woman, for example) but are in one’s own mind. See “Kāma Guṇa – Origin of Attachment (Tanhā).”
- Also, one doesn’t need to actively work to overcome the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage, either (unless one is Sotapanna and is trying to attain higher magga phala). That will become necessary only after attaining the Sotapanna stage. That is when one must cultivate Satipatthana to overcome the ‘purāṇa kamma’ stage and enter the Satipatthana Bhumi to cultivate Satta Bojjhanga to attain the Sakadagami and higher stages of Nibbana.
- If you need further details, please don’t hesitate to ask. Others can also ask questions about any unclear aspect in this comment or in the post.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Good questions. I will think about them and answer later today.
- I just revised #13 of that new post, “Consciousness and Color Perception – Current Scientific Understanding,” as follows.
13. There are two aspects to ‘clearly see with wisdom’ the ‘anatta nature’:
- To fully realize the implications of the fact that our sensory experiences are not real, one must also understand the origin of color perception. To see that, one must fully understand the complete ‘kamma generation process’ (including the ‘purāna kamma‘ stage) in Idappacayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda.
- One must also connect this to the issue of ‘suffering’. Any ‘pleasure’ experienced is temporary and leads to much more suffering in the cycle of rebirth.
- That is why understanding that color perception is illusory is not enough to ‘see the anatta nature’ as long as one believes that illusion arises in the brain.
- Regarding (ii): the ‘eye faculty’ in any existence depends on the ‘gati‘ (pronounced ‘gathi’) that led to that specific existence. See “Loka – Each Person Perceives the ‘External World’ Differently.”
- Thus, scientists and philosophers will never understand the ‘anatta nature’. They are trying to figure out how perception and consciousness can arise in inert matter, i.e., in the brain. They are on the wrong track.
- A brain made of atoms and molecules cannot generate consciousness or any type of perception, let alone the perception of light. Also see “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind.”
___________
Again, I will follow up with another comment later today. Please feel free to ask further questions. All are encouraged to ask questions. This is the only way I can decide which issues to address.
1 user thanked author for this post.
New:
Consciousness and Color Perception – Current Scientific Understanding
2 users thanked author for this post.
Excellent observations!
I think the following statement by Christian captures the critical issue that most people are unable to overcome: “what I mean here is that something being unreal is not ultimate reality/argument in the context of Sansara because things unreal can still be enjoyed,”
- This is why smokers cannot give up smoking, alcoholics cannot give up alcohol, or drug addicts cannot give up drugs.
- Most of them know that those habits are bad for their health, and they may even die if they keep up with those habits. But the ‘temporary enjoyment’ overcomes their reasoning.
- Upon attaining Buddhahood, the Buddha realized that it would not be easy to teach his newfound truth about the ‘sensory pleasures’ to people who are blinded by ‘sensory pleasures’. See “Brahmāyācana Sutta (SN 6.1)“.
- Anyway, I have realized it is a waste of time to keep arguing about certain aspects. This is also why I decided to stay away from other discussion forums like Dhamma Wheel.
P.S. The sad thing is that those ‘sensual pleasures’ are mind-made in two ways, which feed on each other: (i) Paticca Samuppada cannot generate matter with inherently colorful, tasteful, etc., qualities. So it ‘creates’ a world that seems attractive by inducing ‘distorted sanna‘ in all living beings via the ‘bhavanga state’ associated with each existence. (ii) That ‘mild sensation of liking’ generated via the ‘distorted sanna‘ is again amplified automatically in the ‘purana kamma‘ stage. Together, these two make the world seem ‘full of sensory attractions’. These are subtle but critical issues. I discussed the first in “Critical Role of Saññā in Mind Contamination” and the second in “Assāda (Sense Pleasure) Experienced Is Mostly Mind-Made.”
- This is why it is not that easy to comprehend the First Noble Truth, the ‘truth about suffering’.
- Furthermore, if one does not believe in rebirth, it is harder to see the logical steps. Most scientists and philosophers start with the assumption that life is limited to the current life and death is the ultimate end; so they can never ‘see the truth’ until they overcome their wrong view.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Good. Learn more about the Idappaccayata Paticca Samuppada process. It explains how the mirage of ‘distorted saññā‘ arises in all living beings. A recent post: “Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda – Bhava and Jāti Within a Lifetime .”
- That will remove any doubts about the Buddha’s teachings and eliminate the first three bonds (samyojana) that bind one to the rebirth process. Those three samyojana are about wrong views about the world, i.e., that the world offers lasting happiness.
- Any happiness that a puthujjana feels at times is equivalent to the elation felt by a deer in a desert seeing the mirage of water at a distance. So, they happily run toward it, but of course, die at the end exhausted by that effort. See “Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta (SN 22.95)“.
1 user thanked author for this post.
1. This is why I asked Jaro the following question:
Before I address your above comment, I would like to ask you a question. Which category do you fall into in the following categories regarding the rebirth process?
- My belief in the Buddha’s teachings does not depend on that question.
- I don’t believe in the rebirth process; I believe in the evolution of species, as most scientists/philosiphers do. However, I do see value in Buddha’s teachings in certain aspects.
- I do believe in the rebirth process, and I can see it must be true for Buddha’s teachings to be correct.
How would Christian and Cubibobi answer that question?
______
2. Christian wrote: “My point is that thinking that something is real = thinking that something is unreal;”
- That is the strangest statement I ever heard.
- The Noble Truths are about the ‘unreality of the foundation on which the world operates’. An untruth can never be equated to the truth.
- Actions (sankhara) based on an untruth can never avoid suffering; they inevitably lead to suffering. This is what is meant by ‘avijja paccaya sankhara’ in Paticca Samuppada.
Very good.
- Yes. Your understanding that venerable Nanda was a saddhanusari is correct. In contrast, Venerables Sariputta and Moggalana were ‘dhammānusārī‘, who saw the ‘anatta nature’ first.
- By the way, most scientists and philosophers who understand that colors, tastes, etc., are not ‘real’, can attain the Sotapanna stage easily if they learn the Idappaccayata Paticca Samuppada. See the discussion in the other thread: “Post on ‘Noble Truths on Suffering – World Operates on a Falsehood’”
______
You wrote: “This is reminding me of stages of 4th tetrad of anapanasati: anicca -> viraga -> nirodha -> patinissagga. So can we say, this was the sequence followed by venerable nanda? Irrespective of ven. nanda followed this sequence or not, can we say this is the sequence followed by saddhanusari?”
- Yes.
__________
You wrote: “In the SN 12.23: Upanisasutta, which is linked in that post, buddha says that ignorance is the vital condition for choices, meaning, choices are there because of ignorance only. I assume by ‘ignorance’ the buddha means ‘ignorance of noble truths’. So if one is truly practicing anapanasati or in other words trying to conduct himself in a way which involves purifying one’s conduct, speech and thinking or in yet another words, as per the true teachings of buddha (as per the four noble truths), one should eventually and inevitably realize anicca, dukkha, anatta (noble truths). Am I correct?”
- Yes. You are correct.
- In “ignorance is the vital condition for choices”, it is better to write that as “ignorance is the vital condition for sankhara“. ‘Choices’ is not the meaning of sankhara.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Great. Regarding your questions:
1. Yes. Many scientists (most neuroscientists) and most philosophers also know that color is not in electromagnetic radiation and that grass contains no green color. They have known that for years. But they have not ‘seen’ the anatta nature.
- That is because to ‘clearly see with wisdom’ the ‘anatta nature’, one must also understand the origin of color perception. To see that, one must fully understand the complete ‘kamma generation process’ (including the ‘purana kamma‘ stage) in Idappacayata Paticca Samuppada.
- That is why scientists and philosophers will never understand the ‘anatta nature’. They are trying to figure out how perception and consciousness evolved from inter matter. They have not been able to get there, and they never will. I will discuss that further in the next post.
2. Yes, the explanation of “attato” in the post “‘Attato Samanupassati’ and Sotapanna Stage” covers that neutral vedana.
- This is why an ‘almost pure mind’ at the very beginning, the ‘dhatu stage,’ is automatically defiled with all three types of vedana: sukha, dukkha, and neutral (adukkhamasukha). The following is from another relevant post, “A Mind ‘Starts’ at an Almost Pure (Pabhassara) State.”
“15. A mind ‘starts’ at a ‘pure (pabhassara)’ state called ‘citta.’ However, it arises with a ‘built-in distorted saññā‘ to automatically trigger avijjā in all realms. The ‘citta‘ state quickly degrades to the mano first and then to the viññāṇa state for a puthujjana.
- One must understand that process to see the ‘anatta nature’.
1 user thanked author for this post.
OK. Thank you!
Jaro wrote: “My understanding is that “eso me attā” is about value. It is not about colour, sweetness or beauty as such. In your post on “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā” you read attā as “of value to me,” which fits this. Even if colour were an intrinsic property of an object, the value would still come from the mind. Two people can look at the same person, and one feels joy while the other feels dislike.
The problem, as I see it: when we place colour, sweetness or beauty inside the object, we tend to place the value there too. “This is valuable to me” then feels like a fact about the object, and we set out to acquire it.”
__________
Let me point out the following.
1. In the post, “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā’ti – Connection to Taṇhā, Māna, Diṭṭhi,” I pointed out that ‘Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti‘ can be translated as ‘This is mine, I am this, this is for my benefit.’
- Those three in bold correspond to taṇhā, māna, and diṭṭhi. In #13 of that post: “Here, “etaṁ mama” means “it is mine” (based on taṇhā); “esohamasmi” means the sense of “me” (māna) based on that taṇhā; and “eso me attā” means the wrong view (diṭṭhi) that it is fruitful/beneficial for “me.”
- Note that one can draw such a conclusion only from sensory inputs that are mind-pleasing and that one would like more of.
- One would not consider anything that one dislikes (rotten food, for example) as ‘This is mine, I am this, this is for my benefit.”
2. On the other hand, the verse ‘rūpaṁ attato samanupassati‘, means to believe that any rūpa that we experience really exists in the external world. See “‘Attato Samanupassati’ and Sotapanna Stage.”
- This statement covers not only those things that one likes, but all sensory experiences.
- A puthujjana thinks even rotten food (in the example of #1 above) really exists (even though they do not like it).
- Therefore, there is a HUGE difference between ‘attā‘ in #1 above and ‘attato‘ in #2 above.
3. Therefore, in a broader sense, it is not just about those sensory experiences that we value. We attach (taṇhā) to those with a liking (kama raga).
- However, we also attach (taṇhā) to disliked things with dislike or anger (patigha).
- As we know, kama raga and patigha samyojana are eliminated together at the Anagami stage.
- In addition, we also attach (taṇhā), with a neutral vedana, to everything else in the world. This is where the verse ‘rūpaṁ attato samanupassati‘ comes into play. For example, when we see green grass, we take it for granted that there is nothing unusual about it. However, ‘green grass’ does not exist in the world!
4. Thus, the verse ‘rūpaṁ attato samanupassati‘ is a broader statement than the verse ‘Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti‘.
- It is critical to note the difference.
Before I address your above comment, I would like to ask you a question. Which category do you fall into in the following categories regarding the rebirth process?
- My belief in the Buddha’s teachings does not depend on that question.
- I don’t believe in the rebirth process; I believe in the evolution of species, as most scientists/philosiphers do. However, I do see value in Buddha’s teachings in certain aspects.
- I do believe in the rebirth process, and I can see it must be true for Buddha’s teachings to be correct.
If you feel uncomfortable making a choice, that is fine. If you do, I can understand your thought process and respond accordingly.
- By the way, I hope others will answer the above question too. It would help me understand whether I am getting my ideas across.
New:
Noble Truths on Suffering – World Operates on a Falsehood
Revised:
3 users thanked author for this post.
