Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, this is a common problem. Although it may be a bit more pervasive in Nepal and Tibet, following rituals or having ingrained wrong views can be seen everywhere.
- We must be careful when handling such situations, especially those with magga phala, who must be cautious. Putting too much pressure on those with wrong views could make them angry with you, which could trigger bad vipaka for them (Ariya upavāda.)
- A good example is Cundasukara’s account. He was a butcher who killed pigs every day. He lived next to Jetavanaramaya, and the bhikkhus could hear the painful yelping of pigs being killed. They asked the Buddha why he would not try to teach Dhamma to Cundasukara. The Buddha explained as follows: Cundasukara is destined to be reborn in a bad realm, but if the Buddha tried to explain Dhamma and he got angry with the Buddha, he would be reborn in an even worse realm.
- This is why I stopped engaging in debates in online forums a few years ago. I could do more harm than good if I “trigger” anger in some people.
- So, we need to try to balance the two aspects. Of course, we must help others learn, but we must also be mindful of specific situations.
- Here is a related post: “Right Speech – How to avoid Accumulating Bad Kamma“
P.S. Good comment by Dawson.
Here is another way to look at it.
- Only a Buddha can discover the “correct worldview.”
- All others have wrong views until they learn the “correct worldview” from a Buddha or a true disciple of the Buddha (Ariya).
- Those Ariyas below the Arahant stage may have minor wrong views (but not the three samyojana of sakkaya ditthi, vicikiccha, silabbata paramasa).
I’m glad to hear that you have gotten rid of some wrong views. That is called “making progress.” We all started with many wrong views.
- You wrote: “In Chinese it is said, 天上天下无如佛, meaning, above in heaven and below on the earth there is nothing comparable to the Buddha.”
- Indeed! That is “real saddhā” or “faith that comes with understanding”!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. “gomayaṁ khipanti” means “pelting with cow-dung. See “Gomayapiṇḍa Sutta (SN 22.96).”
- However, it does not mean they pelted someone with cow dung to show displeasure in those early days. Cows were not on Earth in those early days. We don’t even know whether they had “dirt/mud” then.
- But the idea is that they were pelted with undesired things available at that time to displeasure for their “lowly deed,” i.e., sexual activity.
Taryal wrote: “And even today people in some countries, when carrying a bride off, pelt her with dirt, clods, or cow-dung.”
- In many other countries, it is customary to throw flowers (or rice or even money) at the bride (or the couple).
- Both those traditions may have evolved from “pelting undesirable things at those caught having sexual relations to show displeasure.”
It would be helpful if you can point out where in the sutta it appears: “Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”
I don’t think that is a reliable reference.
- I asked Grok; see my above comment. You can ask Chat GPT (or another AI), and report your findings.
- Also, don’t write comments that are not useful. Stick to the facts. I deleted such a comment.
P.S. I spent some time with Grok, and here is a better description.
The Vedas were primarily an oral tradition for a considerable period before they were written down. According to various sources:-
The Rigveda, which is considered the oldest among the Vedas, might have been composed orally between 1500 and 1000 BCE. However, it was not written down until much later. The oldest surviving manuscripts of the Vedas date to around the 11th century CE, with specific references to the Vajasaneyi Samhita from around 1050 AD.
-
Other sources suggest that the Vedas were likely first committed to writing between 500 BCE and 300 BCE, with some scholars proposing that the Brahmi script, which emerged around this time, might have been used. However, it’s widely acknowledged that the Vedas were passed down through oral tradition for centuries before this. The exact timing of when they were first written down is not precisely known due to the lack of early manuscripts.
Given the nature of oral transmission and the eventual written documentation, these dates provide a range rather than a singular event for when the Vedas were first written down.References:-
Witzel, M. (1995). “Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres.” In The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia (ed. G. Erdosy). Walter de Gruyter. This work discusses the oral tradition and the transition to written texts.
-
Staal, F. (2008). “Discovering the Vedas: Origins, Mantras, Rituals, Insights.” Penguin Books India. This book provides insights into the composition and preservation of the Vedas, including their oral tradition and later manuscript evidence.
-
Gonda, J. (1975). “Vedic Literature (Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas).” Otto Harrassowitz Verlag. Gonda’s work delves into the textual history of Vedic literature, offering scholarly perspectives on when these texts might have been written.
-
Oberlies, T. (1998). “Die Religion des Ṛgveda.” Wien: Institut für Indologie der Universität Wien. Oberlies discusses the dating of the Rigveda and its transition from oral to written form.
-
Kashikar, C.G. (1964). “A Survey of the Manuscripts of the Ṛgveda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 84, No. 1. This provides an overview of the oldest manuscripts of the Rigveda.
-
Biardeau, M. (1964). “Théorie de la Connaissance et Philosophie de la Parole dans le Brahmanisme Classique.” Mouton & Co., particularly for understanding the role of oral tradition in Vedic texts.
These references collectively provide a scholarly understanding of the timeline when the Vedas might have been written down, acknowledging the predominance of oral tradition before the advent of written manuscripts. Remember, exact dates are often speculative due to the nature of ancient texts and the absence of early written records.1 user thanked author for this post.
That is misleading.
- Writing the Vedas or the Tipitaka using those methods will take forever. Furthermore, wide distribution among the population would not be practical.
- Writing on leaves was perfected (so that the Tipitaka could be written on leaves) after the Parinibbana of the Buddha. Scholars guess that it happened about 200 to 500 years after the Buddha. Even that is not an easy task. You would realize that if you read the post “Preservation of the Dhamma.”
- I don’t think you guys are reading the posts that I suggest, so I won’t comment on this anymore.
- Don’t get attached to particular views. Have an open mind. Do some research.
P.S. I asked Grok, Elon Musk’s AI. It says:
“Written documentation of the Vedas is believed to have started around 500 BCE, but the oldest surviving manuscripts date back to the 11th century CE. This indicates that while there might have been attempts to write down the Vedas from around 500 BCE, the manuscripts we have today only trace back to the 11th century CE.”
” The Rig Vedas, which are the sacred texts of Hinduism, were written more than a millennium before the birth of Bodhisatta.”
- Does it actually say the text was written in the old days? Or was it composed?
- I understand that the Vedas were transmitted orally, like the Tipitaka, until about 2000 years ago.
The English translation is incomplete and does not give the main idea: “Aggañña Sutta (DN 27).”
- In those days, there were four “classes” of people: (khattiyā, brāhmaṇā, vessā, and suddā.) The English translation in the link lists them as aristocrats (kings and high-level administrators), brahmins (who were knowledgeable in the Vedas, performed religious rituals, and advised the aristocrats), peasants (middle/lower class population), and menials (lowest “class” who performed manual labor; they were prohibited from learning the Vedas or even to associate with others).
- The Buddha explained in the rest of the sutta that all four “classes” descended from the same “early humans” who populated the Earth after the “reformation” of it. They all had lived in the Abhssara Brahma realm during the period (billions of years) when the Earth was destroyed and then re-formed.
- After the Earth had reformed, they all returned to the newly-formed Earth. It happens automatically because, by that time, their lifetime in the Abhssara Brahma realm would have expired.
- All those “early humans” would have “Brahma-like” bodies (not physical, dense bodies like current humans.) They could travel through the air and did not even need to eat.
- Initially, a freely available “yogurt-like” substance appeared due to kammic energy. They taste that and attached to that taste. Then, their bodies become denser. Gradually, they start eating denser food, and their bodies get denser, too. That happens after millions of years when their “old gati” start coming back.
- Then, they start “hoarding the free food” for later consumption (due to greed). When their gati change, the environment changes accordingly, food becomes scarce, and some resort to stealing.
- That is discussed in the two posts: Aggañña Sutta Discussion – Introduction and Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)
- The degradation of moral values leads to engaging in akusala kamma. That leads to births in the lower realms. Even when born in the human realm, some will be born into “higher classes” and others to “lower classes.” That happens according to the types of kamma that they engage in. Those who engaged in the worst deeds were born in the lower realms, e.g., as animals. That is the main idea. For example, one can be born to a family of Brahmins; but if they lived immoral lives, their next birth could be a “lower caste/class” or even as an animal.
1. It is true that “just reading suttas” will not help.
- A Noble Person (Ariya) who understands the concepts in and out must explain those concepts in detail to a puthujjana. See “Sutta Interpretation – Uddēsa, Niddēsa, Paṭiniddēsa.”
- That can be done via oral discourses or writing (or a combination of them.)
2. The following single verse in the “Brahmāyu Sutta (MN 91)” provides an example: “Rasapaṭisaṁvedī kho pana so bhavaṁ gotamo āhāraṁ āhāreti, no ca rasarāgapaṭisaṁvedī” OR “He (the Buddha) eats experiencing the taste of food, but without experiencing greed for the taste.”
- There is no explanation in that sutta.
- To understand the explanation, one must explain why Buddha Dhamma is “sandiṭṭhika.” One becomes “sandiṭṭhiko” (comprehending how “san” or defilements arise, which happens at the Sotapanna stage) by understanding the meaning of the above verse.
- At least several suttas must be explained in detail. For example, in the “Upavāṇasandiṭṭhika Sutta (SN 35.70),” Venerable Upavāna asks the Buddha how one can become “sandiṭṭhika.” The Buddha explains that there are sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touches, and memories that come to a mind automatically generating “joyful sensations,” thus triggering attachment to them. That attachment CANNOT be forcefully suppressed. One must understand how that “distorted sanna” arises; as “Brahmāyu Sutta (MN 91)” states, it arises even in a Buddha! Once that is understood, one realizes that all such “temptations” are a mirage. That is how “kama raga” is removed from the mind; it cannot be stopped by sheer willpower, even though one must do that to the extent possible (so that one gets the mind to calm down and comprehend these deeper concepts.)
- Such an explanation requires many discourses or written posts. I have been thinking about doing a combination, which would be the best. However, I like to write down the essential explanations first so that such references can be cited even in an oral discourse.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“Buddha didn’t say “Look for the holy book and read on it” but look for a spiritual friend (Ariya):”
- There were no books to read at the time of the Buddha. Indeed, the Tipitaka or even the suttas were not available in written form. You did not seem to have read my comment.
- Writing on that scale became possible about 500 years after Buddha’s Parinibbana. That is when the Tipitaka was written down in Sri Lanka: “Preservation of the Dhamma.”
“.. in certain periods humans live for tens of thousands of years.”
- That refers to the lifetime of a human with a physical body. In the “Mahāpadāna Sutta (DN 14)“, our Buddha states that the lifetime of a human with a physical body changed from 80,000 years in the time of Buddha Vipassī to just around a hundred years in the time of his Buddha Sasana. The lifetime of a human with a physical body is still around a hundred years.
- The length of the lifetime of a human gandhabba (i.e., the duration of human existence) is variable. Even these days, it can be thousands or even millions of years. Thus in “Boy Who Remembered Pāli Suttas for 1500 Years“ the two consecutive lives with a human body have lifetimes of about 100 years. The gap between them is about 1500 years. The earlier life was during Buddhaghosa’s time (about 1500 years ago), and the next life (with a human body) is in the present.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The following rebirth account shows a 1500-yeas gap between two human births: “Boy Who Remembered Pāli Suttas for 1500 Years“
- Another fascinating account is in “Rebirth Account of Dorothy Eady.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
These are fundamental concepts that may take some time to sort out. I just revised the following post to make it a little better:
“How Do Sense Faculties Become Internal Āyatana?“
- Another related post is “Contact Between Āyatana Leads to Vipāka Viññāna.” It needs a rewrite, and I will try to do it in the next few days.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“Is this related to internal and external āyatana?”
- No. Both internal and external āyatana arise in the MIND.
1. The sensory faculties of an average human are “indriya.” They become “internal āyatana“ only if we use them with raga, dosa, or moha.
- When an “indriya“ becomes “internal āyatana,” it does not grasp an accurate representation of an external rūpa (sights, sounds, tastes, smells, touches, and memories). Thus, the mind experiences a “distorted version” of a given rupa. That “distorted version” of a given rupa is called an “external āyatana“ (for example, “my house,” “my friend,” etc.) Therefore, an external āyatana is a “distorted version” of a given external rūpa. That is why one attaches to it. For an Arahant, external rupās never become external āyatana; they are just external rupās.
- Note that an “external āyatana” arises in the mind. It is NOT the external rupa.
- There is no equivalent English word for āyatana.
2. The Buddha did not describe the mechanism of how external rupa arise due to the COLLECTIVE kammic energies generated by living beings. It is critical to realize that the physical objects in the external world do not arise due to one mind but due to ALL relevant minds. That is likely to be a very complex process, and we don’t need to understand it.
- To attain Nibbana, we must understand how an INDIVIDUAL MIND (specifically one’s own mind) attaches to worldly things.
- That is the process explained by Paticca Samuppada.
- Both internal āyatana and external āyatana arise in a given mind.
