[Lal]

I think it is a good idea to start with #4 above.

• To quote the relevant point: “When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”

First, look at the evidence in the above two posts that seeing, hearing, etc., can happen while the physical body is “effectively dead” and the brain activity is absent.

• That leads to the conclusion that the Buddha was right. There is a mental body (gandhabba) associated with the physical body. Furthermore, the mental body is primary, and the physical body (born when a gandhabba enters a womb) is secondary. The death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of human existence; in most cases, gandhabba comes out of the dead body and gets into another womb to make another physical body. 
• In other words, the physical human body has a maximum lifetime of about 100 years, while the mental body may live for thousands of years.

Once one is convinced of the LOGICAL necessity for a mental body, one would be motivated to take the account of the pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) more seriously.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

This is a complex topic. I will summarize the main points related to your questions. 

1. Everything in this world (living and lifeless) is made of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka.) A pure octad is made of eight components, as I described above. It is a complex account, but all eight components have “seeds” in mental power.

• Four arise due to avijja (ignorance about Buddha’s teachings), and the other four due to craving (tanha). Defiled minds create them with rage, dosa, and avijja. See “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”
• It may seem impossible, but it can be explained in detail with a good background in Abhidhamma.

2. The proportions of the eight components define an infinite variety of inert things in the world. For example, rocks primarily have the pathavi component, and water primarily has the apo component. On the other hand, sugar would have pathavi (giving hardness) and rasa (giving sweetness.)

• I provided brief explanations in “Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals” and “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”

3. Lagrade wrote, “I’ve read that the essence of a human (and animal) is in the gandhabba which contains 6 pure octads (for 5 pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu).”

• That is correct. Thus, a gandhabba is primarily made of six suddhāṭṭhaka.
• But they have two other components each to make them “alive.” Here, a suddhāṭṭhaka combines with a jivita rupa and another unit created by kammic energy to become a dasaka.
• P.S. The jivita rupa component is in all “live entities” and the tenth component carries out a specific task. 
• For example, a cakkhu pasada (together with the other nine units) creates a cakkhu dasaka responsible for seeing. That tenth component of cakkhu pasada makes it possible to “see.” The tenth component in the seat of the mind, hadaya vatthu, makes it able to create thoughts (citta.) See “Rupa Kalāpa (Grouping of Matter)” for some details.
• Those basic kammic laws cannot be explained further. They are nature’s laws, just like laws of gravity. Like scientists discover the laws of gravitation, a Buddha discovers the laws of kamma.
• The laws of kamma make it possible for cakkhu pasada rupa “to see,” or a hadaya vatthu to become the “seat of the mind,” for example.

4. As explained in #3 above, Our mental body is the gandhabba, made of six types of dasaka. 

• That is where all the “action” takes place. Our physical sensory faculties (like the eyes, nose, etc.) are only the “doors” to the external world. The brain processes the signals coming through them and passes them over to the corresponding pasada rupa. 
• That is explained in “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
• When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”

This is a complex subject. One needs to have a good knowledge of Abhidhamma to fully understand, but one should be able to get the general idea.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[Lal]

It is good to remember the two rules mentioned in #1 of my previous comment quoted below:

• The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
• In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.

The second rule applies in “‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. .” It rhymes better to say “Cakkhu attā’ti” rather than “Cakkhu atta’ti” just like in “vedanā anattā” (mentioned in my previous comment.)

• “‘cakkhu is beneficial‘ does not hold..”
• In this case, “cakkhu” means “cakkhayatana,” not physical eyes or cakkhu indriya. 
• “Cakkhayatana” is when one using cakkhu indriya as an “ayatana,” i.e., to enjoy sights. In the case of an Arahant, it is  always used as cakkhu indriya and not cakkhayatana.
• The difference between cakkhu indriya and cakkhayatana is explained in “How Do Sense Faculties Become Internal Āyatana?“

P.S. It is possible (in most cases) to get an idea of “which of the two rules should apply” in a given situation by reading through the whole sutta (taking a quick scan). 

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

I am rewriting an old post to explain different meanings of atta, anatta, attā, and anattā. The following is an extraction from it. Please ask any remaining questions so I can answer them in that post.

Introduction

1. It is crucial to understand the usage of the Pali words atta, anatta, attā, and anattā in the context of a given sutta. 

• The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
• In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.

Attā as “a Person” 

2. The word “attā” (pronounced with a “long a at the end”) is used as “a person” only in the conventional sense. To communicate with others, we may say things like, “One needs to defend oneself.” Here, “a person” exists only in the conventional sense. In Sinhala, it is written as “අත්තා.” That is how it appears in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.

• There is no single Pāli word to express the negation of that, i.e., “not attā.” If there were to be such a word, that would be “non-person.” It just cannot be used that way.
• The other words to denote “me” or “self” are “mama,” “asmi,” or “mē.”
• Even though attā has this meaning as a “person,” anatta is never used as the opposite of that “attā.”
• Note that “attā” is pronounced with a “long a” as in “father.” 

Atta as “Beneficial” or “Meaningful”

3. The word “atta” (pronounced with a “short a at the end” as in “cut” or “but”) embeds several meanings, including “beneficial” or “with essence.” The negation is “anatta.”

• In Sinhala, they are written as “අත්ත” and “අනත්ත.” That is how they appear in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.
• Anatta is the negation of “atta“: “na” + atta” (which rhymes as “anatta“): there is no benefit/does not hold anything fruitful. 
• Such a word combination applies to “Anāgāmi” too. It comes from “na” + āgāmi” where “āgāmi” means “to come back; thus, “Anāgāmi” means “not coming back (to the kama loka).
• There also “na” + āgāmi” rhymes as “Anāgāmi.“

4. One who is engaged in things that are of “anatta nature” will become “anātha” (helpless), the opposite of “nātha.” As was mentioned in the post “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō,” “nātha” is another word for Nibbāna.

• One trying to find refuge in this world will become truly helpless in the long run. On the other hand, the only refuge (“nātha“) is Nibbāna, i.e., overcoming the rebirth process.

5. Therefore, a critical mistake Is made by trying to translate anatta as the opposite of  “attā” with the conventional meaning of “a person” or “self.”

• The word anatta was ALWAYS used with the deep meaning of “no benefit or no essence.” Anatta indicates there is no benefit in seeking lasting happiness in this world of 31 realms. Sometimes, it is also written as “anattā” with a “long a,” as in “vedanā anattā.”
• As discussed above, attā ( in the conventional sense) indicates “a person.” The words atta, anatta, and anattā are never used in the context of that meaning.

[Lal]

It means something like “One who gives/feeds those who are poor/helpless.”

• Here “anātha” means “helpless,” and “piṇḍaka” means “food.”
• Also see “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Waisaka

[Lal]

1. The following recent post could help get some ideas. I revised it a bit, too: “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā’ti – What Does It Mean?“

2. Also, “ā” can mean different things in different contexts. 

• It indicates plural for “things” or “people”; manusso is one person, and manussā is many people. 
• However, “anattā” is the same as “anatta.” It indicates the characteristic of anatta nature. It is mainly used as “anattā” because it rhymes better as in “vedanā anattā.”
• This is why I say we need to be careful with grammar.
• It may take some time to get used to these aspects.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

1. Pathfinder: “Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”

• See “Anattadhamma Sutta (SN 23.18)” and “Anatta Sutta (SN 22.14)“
• Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are characteristics (lakkhana) as explained in “Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59).”
• Of course, the English translations in those links are incorrect.

2. However, the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature (of anything associated with our mental or physical bodies) leads to the conclusion that there is no unchanging “soul-type entity” (no permanent “self” or soul) that goes through the rebirth process.

• The error in my old post was also due to referring to that aspect. But that is not quite right. 

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

I did not realize that I had not updated that section of the post, even though I had made some revisions to #2 even recently. 

• I need to revise it. Sorry about the confusion.
•  I know that some old posts need revision. I should maybe start going through old posts and updating them before writing new ones. 
• Thanks for pointing it out.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

Yes. You are correct in that case. I revised it as follows:

3. Pāli is a phonetic language. The Tipiṭaka was faithfully transmitted for hundreds of years because verses were formulated for easy memorization. Grammar rules are different in Pāli. That is clear in verses “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi” and “Dhamman Saranam gacchāmi,” for example.

• There is no apparent subject in the above verse. The first, of course, means, “I take refuge in the Buddha,” but “I” is missing in “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi”  because it is taken into account as “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Lal]

First of all, ChatGPT learns “grammar” from what is fed to it by its programmers. See “Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?“

• Pali grammar is a complex subject. I don’t want to get into a discussion on that. Of course, I am not discouraging anyone from learning Pali (learning the meanings of critical Pali words is essential), but relying too much on “adopted grammar rules” could become a problem. 
• I suggest trying to understand a verse’s meaning in the context of a given sutta. 
• Of course, each person can decide how to proceed. 

As I see it, AI bots like ChatGPT are great resources but have limits. They are good at summarizing information. They can look through all available resources and summarize them. But we need to be careful because their capabilities are limited by the resources available to them (fed by their programmers).”Artificial intelligence” (AI) is a misnomer; there cannot be any “intelligence” in a computer program!

[Lal]

You wrote: “The sentence becomes ‘giving a gift of mental adornation and mental pre-requisites’ instead of ‘with a pre-requisite of a clear mind’. Meaning ‘we should give dhamma’ instead of previous interpretation ‘we should give with a clear mind'”

• Is the sutta about “giving dhamma” to another? In other words, is it about teaching Dhamma to others?
• My point was that the merits of giving depend on the giver’s mindset. I think the sutta also tried to convey that idea in the context of that sutta.
• Of course, giving Dhamma is the best giving!

[Lal]

I am glad to see that ChatGPT can analyze Pali grammar!

• But I don’t understand the point of this “analysis.” Does it change the meaning of the sutta (in a way different than I explained)?

[Lal]

Thank you, TGS. It makes it easier to find suttas.

[Lal]

1. “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” = citta alaṅkāra citta parikkhāra; when combining two words, one ending in a and the other starting with a, the combined word has a “long a” or ā.

So, the Pali word there is “alaṅkāra.” The mundane meaning can be ‘ornament’ / ‘decoration’ but here, it refers to a citta devoid of defilements and also with comprehension of Tilakkhana/PS. 

• parikkhāra means more like “pre-requisite.”
• P.S. “Prerequisite” emphasizes a preceding condition or order, whereas “Requisite” speaks to the fundamental necessity of something.

2. Thus, “api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti” conveys the idea: “instead (compared to the dāna in the previous verses), with a “cleansed mind.” 

3. The same is stated in the “Paṭhamadāna Sutta (AN 8.31).”

• The word “parikkhāra” is correctly translated as “pre-requisite” in the “Subha Sutta (MN 99).”

[Lal]

I looked into the question 1 from Pathfinder on Cosmic Expansion:

I asked Grok (Elon Musks’ AI bot): Are there alternate explanations for the red shift measurements on the receding galaxies?

Answer:

Yes, while the prevailing explanation for the redshift of light from distant galaxies is the expanding universe model, there are indeed alternative theories and explanations for this phenomenon. Here are some of them:

1. Tired Light: This theory posits that photons lose energy as they travel through space due to interactions with matter or other photons, thereby shifting to longer (redder) wavelengths. This idea does not require the expansion of space and suggests that the universe might not be expanding but could be static or even contracting.
2. Quantum Effects: Some theories suggest quantum effects might cause redshift. For instance, the interaction of light with virtual particles in the vacuum could result in energy loss over vast distances.
3. Variable Speed of Light (VSL): Proponents of this theory argue that the speed of light might not be constant but could have been higher in the early universe. If light slowed down over time, this could explain redshift without needing expansion.
4. Plasma Redshift: Proposed by Halton Arp among others, this idea suggests that redshift might occur due to the interaction of photons with plasma in intergalactic space. This could potentially explain why some quasars appear redshifted but seem to be associated with much closer galaxies.
5. Gravitational Redshift: While normally associated with the gravitational field of massive objects like black holes, some models consider the cumulative effect of gravitational fields over cosmic distances might contribute to observed redshift.
6. Cosmic Fatigue: A less mainstream but intriguing idea where photons lose energy due to some intrinsic ‘fatigue’ over time and distance, not necessarily explained by current physics.
7. Modified Gravity Theories: Some theories modify general relativity to account for large-scale phenomena without dark matter or dark energy, which might also offer different interpretations of redshift.

Each of these alternative explanations has its challenges when it comes to explaining all astronomical observations comprehensively, particularly when compared to the Lambda-CDM model (which includes dark energy causing the acceleration of expansion). The standard model accounts for a wide range of observations, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements, and large-scale structure formation, in addition to redshift.

However, the exploration of these alternatives often pushes the boundaries of our understanding of physics, potentially opening up new avenues for research. They might not currently offer as cohesive an explanation as the expanding universe theory, but they highlight that science is an ever-evolving field where anomalies and alternative models can lead to significant breakthroughs or at least refine our understanding of the universe.

_________

Regarding Question 3: Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation:

I asked: Could the microwave background be due to something other than the “Big Bang”? Are there alternate explanations?

Grok’s Answer:

Indeed, while the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is widely accepted as relic radiation from the Big Bang, there have been alternative explanations proposed over the years for its origin. Here are some of those alternate theories:

1. Steady State Theory: Before the CMB was discovered, and even for some time afterward, the Steady State Theory was a contender. This theory proposed that the universe had no beginning as it is eternal, and new matter is created as the universe expands to maintain a constant density over time. The CMB could be explained as the result of matter creation processes or as the equilibrium temperature of a universe that’s infinitely old.
2. Infinite Universe Models: Some models, like those involving infinite or cyclic universes, might suggest that the CMB is simply the background temperature of an infinitely large universe, where over time, radiation and matter reach a sort of thermal equilibrium.
3. Tired Light Revisited: If we consider the “tired light” hypothesis, where photons lose energy over time due to interactions with intergalactic medium or other unknown phenomena, this could result in a universe where all light eventually red-shifts to the microwave spectrum, creating what we observe as the CMB.
4. Plasma Universe: Within plasma cosmology, which views the universe as being dominated by electromagnetic forces rather than gravity, the CMB might be explained by the thermal radiation from a pervasive cosmic plasma rather than from a singular event like the Big Bang.
5. Multiverse Hypotheses: In some multiverse scenarios, our observable universe could be a bubble in a much larger cosmos. The CMB could then be interpreted as the thermal radiation from the boundary of this bubble or from interactions with adjacent universes.
6. Alternative Cosmological Models: Some theories, like those involving varying physical constants over time, might suggest that what we perceive as the CMB could be the result of these changes affecting how radiation propagates through space over cosmic scales.
7. Quantum Zero-Point Radiation: Some fringe theories propose that the CMB could be a manifestation of quantum zero-point energy, where the universe itself has a non-zero energy state even at absolute zero temperature.

The challenge with many of these alternatives is that they often struggle to explain the detailed characteristics of the CMB, such as its spectrum, which is extraordinarily close to that of a blackbody, the slight variations in temperature (anisotropies) that correspond well with models of inflation and structure formation in the Big Bang theory, and its uniformity from all directions in the sky (isotropy).

However, these alternative explanations serve an important role in science. They push the boundaries of our understanding and invite rigorous testing and examination. They are crucial for ensuring that the Big Bang theory, and by extension, our understanding of the CMB, continue to be scrutinized and potentially refined or even overturned if new evidence strongly supports a different model.

While currently, the CMB’s characteristics, particularly its blackbody spectrum and the precise pattern of anisotropies, fit the Big Bang model exceptionally well, the scientific process always leaves room for new data or interpretations that could shift our understanding.

_______

I don’t think Question 2 is critical either way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

pathfinder

[Author]

Posts