[Lal]

Hello Lang,
Yes. Nibbana is a difficult to understand for many. The reason for that is that one needs to have knowledge/belief in rebirth and the wider world view of 31 realms in order to understand Nibbana.
Contrary to what most people believe, repeated rebirth in this world of 31 realms has much more suffering than any short periods of happiness, in the long run.

For most of us in the human realm happiness seems to be more frequent than any suffering. There is even more happiness in deva and brahma realms.

However, living being spend much more time in the four lowest realms compared to time they gte to spend in human and higher realms. This may be hard to believe, but the Buddha said that it is indeed the case; see, “How the Buddha Described the Chance of Rebirth in the Human Realm“.
– That is because most beings do immoral things to enjoy life, and anyone who has not attained a magga phala CAN BE tempted to immoral things if the temptation is high enough.

Now, Nibbana and “this world of 31 realms” are totally detached. The Buddha said that Nibbana exists, but it cannot be described by the terminology of “this world”. Furthermore, and most importantly, there is no a trace of suffering in Nibbana.

When one attains Parinibbana, one will be totally removed from this suffering-filled world and one will be in Nibbana. More details at, “Nibbana“.

This is a bit easier to understand in terms of the four ultimate entities: rupa, citta, cetasika, and Nibbana.
– The first three belong to “this world” and Nibbana is totally detached from “this world”. In other words, Nibbana and “this world’ are mutually exclusive. One can be either in “this world” or in Nibbana.
– So, it is true that citta, cetasika, and rupa do not exist in Nibbana.

But other than the fact that there is no suffering in Nibbana, we do not know what would be the “experience of Nibbana”. Only those who can get to Nirodha Samapatti can “experience” Nibbana while in this world (only up to 7 days).
– Even though beings in the asanna realm do not experience citta vithi as you mentioned, they “come back to this world” when their lifetime expires. Thus even though suffering stops for the duration of that lifetime, their suffering does not end.

On the other hand, when one merges with Nibbana (at Parinibbana), there is no coming to “this world” that is filled with suffering. Suffering is stopped permanently.

[Lal]

Thanks for posting this sutta, y not.
It is an important short sutta that actually explains what sakkāya ditthi is.

The following is my translation of the sutta. The Pali version is “Catut­tha­abhab­baṭ­ṭhāna Sutta (AN 6.95)“.

“A Sotapanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view (diṭṭhisampanno puggalo) is unable (abhabbo) to fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself (sayaṃkataṃ), or that they’re made by another (paraṃkataṃ), or that they’re made by both (sayaṃkatañca paraṃkatañca). Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both (asayaṃkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṃ).
Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view has clearly seen that phenomena arise due to causes and conditions (according to Paticca Samuppāda). Those are the six things that a Sotapanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view will not fall back to”.

This is exactly what we have been discussing in the most recent posts and the one I will be posting in a few days about Sakkāya Ditthi:
1. There is no “attā” or a “soul” or an “ātma” doing those things.
2. Those kamma vipāka (pleasure or pain ) materialize due to two things:
– Causes were created in the past based on the “gati” of the lifestream AT THAT TIME.
– And those vipāka materialized when suitable CONDITIONS were present (at a later time).
– That process is described by Paticca Samuppāda.
3. This is why understanding “gati” is so important. One may have had “bad gati” in the past and those can bring “bad vipāka” now EVEN IF one has “good gati” now.
This is why even the Buddha had to bear bad kamma vipāka. Even though he had “no gati left”, he had to endure the results of past kamma done when he had “bad gati”.

If one can clearly understand this, one has removed or at least getting close to removing sakkāya ditthi.

Recent relevant posts:
Anattā in Anattalakkahana Sutta – No Soul or an Ātma

Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85) – Arahanthood Is Not Annihilation but End of Suffering

Idappaccayatā Paticca Samuppāda and “uppatti Paticca Samuppada” in that section.

Kamma are Done with Sankhāra – Types of Sankhāra

This will become even more clear (hopefully) with the upcoming post on sakkāya ditthi.

[Lal]

y not has written to me and saying that he was unable to post the following comment here. I am sorry about that and do not know why that is. If anyone else is having problems posting, please let me know: [email protected].

Here is the comment by y not:

95. Things that can’t be done (4) Catutthaabhabbaṭṭhānasutta: “Things That Can’t Be Done (4th) AN 6.95)”

A person accomplished in view can’t fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, or that they’re made by another, or that they’re made by both. Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not made by oneself, by another, or by both.

Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view ‘has clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes.’ These are the six things that can’t be done.”

Chayimāni, bhikkhave, abhabbaṭṭhānāni. Katamāni cha? Abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṃkataṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo paraṃkataṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo sayaṃkatañca paraṃkatañca sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṃkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ, abhabbo diṭṭhisampanno puggalo asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ paccāgantuṃ. Taṃ kissa hetu? Tathā hissa, bhikkhave, diṭṭhisampannassa puggalassa hetu ca sudiṭṭho hetusamuppannā ca dhammā. Imāni kho, bhikkhave, cha abhabbaṭṭhānānī”ti.

Ekādasamaṃ.
Sītivaggo navamo.
Sītibhāvaṃ āvaraṇaṃ,
voropitā sussūsati;
Appahāya pahīnābhabbo,

The wording here is different from DN 33, AND this sutta is talking about Satopannas (Ditthisampanno). If he has ‘clearly seen causes and the phenomena that arise from causes’ who else created the causes but he (‘he’ in the conventional sense) for as such the ‘he’ who created those causes in the past was other than the one who now ‘sees the phenomena that arise from those causes’, and in another way, the same one. In the sense that, we know that this life is a result of a past kamma, but, other than through abhinna powers, we know nothing of the cause, we cannot recollect it. All we do know is that effects arise from causes.

Perhaps this sutta may provide someone a hint or two in clarifying DN 33 ??
So, keeping to the sutta and applying it also to DN 33:

For a new existence, intention (DN 33) and for the experiencing of pleasure and pain (AN 6.95)

Did I create the cause? -No
Did someone else create the cause? -No
Did both I and someone else create the cause? -No
Did no one create the cause (by pure chance)? – No

Am I somewhere?

[Lal]

In order to make it more clear, I will translate the whole verse containing that fragment:

“Katamesu catūsu? Idhānanda, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. Tassa kāye kāyānupassino viharato kāyārammaṇo vā uppajjati kāyasmiṃ pariḷāho, cetaso vā līnattaṃ, bahiddhā vā cittaṃ vikkhipati. Tenānanda, bhikkhunā kismiñcideva pasādanīye nimitte cittaṃ paṇidahitabbaṃ. Tassa kismiñcideva pasādanīye nimitte cittaṃ paṇidahato pāmojjaṃ jāyati. Pamuditassa pīti jāyati. Pītimanassa kāyo passambhati. Passaddhakāyo sukhaṃ vedayati. Sukhino cittaṃ samādhiyati. So iti paṭisañcikkhati: ‘yassa khvāhaṃ atthāya cittaṃ paṇidahiṃ, so me attho abhinipphanno. Handa dāni paṭisaṃharāmī’ti. So paṭisaṃharati ceva na ca vitakketi na ca vicāreti. ‘Avitakkomhi avicāro, ajjhattaṃ satimā sukhamasmī’ti pajānāti“.

Translated:
“What four? Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu having removed covetousness and displeasure (abhijjhādomanassaṃ) regard to the world, dwells contemplating the body and its actions (kāye kāyānupassī) with comprehension and mindfulness. If there arises in him any distracting thoughts or sluggishness of the mind, he should focus his mind on an inspiring sign (pasādanīye nimitta). Then joy will arise in him which will intensify to rapture. When the mind is uplifted by rapture, the body becomes tranquil. One tranquil in body experiences bodily sukha, which leads to samādhi. He reflects thus: ‘I have fully accomplished the goal of attaining citta pasāda by focusing on fruitful actions/thoughts. Let me now withdraw from that inspiring sign (focus or nimitta). So he withdraws the mind from that nimitta and does not maintain that focus (vitakka) or examine it in detail (vicāra) anymore. He understands: ‘Without even focusing or examining such a good nimitta, internally concentrated (ajjhattam satimā), I realize that I am happy“.

The point is that once he gets to samādhi, there is no need to focus on a nimitta to keep experiencing the joy in the mind and sukha in the body.

[Lal]

1. First, “reincarnation” is a bad translation for “attabhāvapaṭilābha”.
– Reincarnation implies an “everlasting entity” taking different forms in different births.
As we discussed in the post, “Anattā in Anattalakkahana Sutta – No Soul or an Ātma”, “atta” has a mundane meaning and a transcendental (lokuttara) meaning.

2. In the mundane sense, “attabhāva” can imply a certain birth or existence, say as a human, a deva, or an animal. Even when a human is reborn he can be said to have “another attabhava”.

– However, as we saw in that post, in reality there is “attā” like a “soul” being reborn (this is again why reincarnation is a bad translation).

3. Therefore, one needs to be careful in determining in what sense the term “attabhāva” is used in a particular instance.
– In the sutta that y not referred to (“Saṅgīti Sutta (DN 33)“), Ven. Sariputta just listed those four types of “attabhāva”, likely to be in the lokuttara sense; he did not elaborate on the four categories. I don’t have time to look into that right now. May be others can comment on that.
– English translation at the same website: “The Recital (DN 33)“.

4. The Buddha provided explanations for both mundane and lokuttara versions in the “Poṭṭha­pāda Sutta (DN 9)“.
– English translation there: “To Poṭṭhapada (DN 9)“. I have not read that, so I am not sure how good the translation is.

[Lal]

You may need to consult a medical professional.

[Lal]

Hi Student!

What do you mean by “disappear”? You cannot see yourself? Others cannot see you?

I just saw your second comment. Still not clear.

[Lal]

The post Christian is referring to: “Karaniya Metta Sutta – Metta Bhavana“.
– Please always provide a link to the post, if the question is about a post.

At the end of the #10 verse is, “..Na hi jātug­abba­seyyam punaretī”ti.

“gabba” is womb. So, this part of the verse is: “will not again have a birth involving a womb”.

All the realms above the human realm involve ONLY instantaneous (opapatika) births. This includes the deva realms and the brahma realms. None of those births require a mother’s womb.

When one attains the Sakadagami stage, one will never be reborn in a realm below the deva realms. Of course Anagamis will only be born in the brahma realms reserved for them, and Arahants will not be reborn in any realms in this world.
– Thus all Ariyas at and above the Sakadagami stage would qualify. I slightly re-worded the translation to emphasize this point.

[Lal]

Good suggestion, Christian! It is a good sutta to discuss.

However, before that I need to finish a few posts on the anatta nature and how that is related to getting rid of sakkaya ditthi. The post on published on May 31 just discusses only one aspect of anatta nature.

I hope to publish the second post on the anatta nature within the next few days.

[Lal]

On May 22, 2019 at 5:32 am, I briefly commented on what is meant by sakkāya ditthi, and promised to explain it in more detail.

Update on September 24, 2023: I think there is a better way to explain the anicca nature of this world. That is what someone needs to understand to become a Sotapanna by removing sakkaya ditthi. See “Anicca Nature- Chasing Worldly Pleasures Is Pointless.”

Recently published post: “Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85) – Arahanthood Is Not Annihilation but End of Suffering” also discusses this basic point that there is no everlasting “attā” that attains Nibbāna”.
– Rather attaining Nibbāna means just stopping any future suffering for a given lifestream.

P.S. A few more posts will be published on this topic. I will add them here as they are published in this section:
“Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta“.
– The last two posts are under the subsection: “Sotapanna Stage and Tilakkhana” there.

[Lal]

Hello Lvalio!
You wrote: “So you think that Jesus was an Arahant? Or did I misunderstand the phrase?”

To be an Arahant one needs to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.
– There are documentaries saying that Jesus may have been exposed to Buddha Dhamma. But it is not likely to be significant exposure.
– I am not sure what Anchal meant by his comment on Jesus.

[Lal]

Same words can have different meanings based on the context. This is true even in other languages.

In English, the word “right” in “turn right” and “you are right” have very different meanings, for example.

I do not see a simple breakdown for “anuloma/patiloma” to yield “forward/backward” meanings.

[Lal]

Yes, Tobias.

This is a common occurrence in Pali sandhi (combining words).

For example, Dhammacakka Pavattana are combined to yield Dhammacakkappavattana.
– Pancakkhandha is the combination of panca with khandha with an additional k in tying up the two words.

P.S. Sometimes a letter is removed in the process of combining words.
– For example, in Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta there is a key verse: “yampicaam nalabhati tampi dukkham“.
– Here “yam pi iccam” combimed to yield “yampiccam” and an “i” was dropped.

It is easier to pronounce that way.

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “At least it is not a stretch to translate “upasampannassa” and “Anupasampannassa” to “ordained” and “not ordained”. And those translation from the well known monks are indeed fine.”

That is not correct.
– “upasampannassa” means one with “upasampada”.
– “Anupasampannassa” means a “samanera”.
Both are ordained, i.e., both are bhikkhus. One could say that an “upasampannassa” has “higher ordination”.

Puthujjana wrote: “Lal wrote:
I have given sutta references for that on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.
As from the translation from English and Chinese, these sutta from my understanding, is self declare..,”

That is not correct either. What is the point/meaning of “declaring to oneself”?

Puthujjana wrote:
“So, I assume my previous conclusion still stand.
So in conclusion, a Bhikkhu who claim attainment to lay people is breaking precept, whether truthfully ((pācittiya 8) or falsely claim (pārājika 4).”

No. It does not. I have explained above that there is huge difference between pārājika 4 and pācittiya 8. Furthermore, even pācittiya 8 depends on the circumstances.
– By the way, none of those rules apply to lay people.
– However, declaring non-existent attainments cannot be good for lay people either. It is just that the outcomes are not stated as for bhikkhus.

In any case, if you are happy with your conclusions that is fine.
P.S. I am glad that we had this discussion. I learnt a few things. I had not looked at the Vinaya Piṭaka except for a couple of occasions.
– More than the Vinaya rules, those background stories are informative for the lay people.
– Many details about Buddha’s life are found only in the Vinaya Piṭaka; see, “‘The Life of the Buddha’ by Bhikkhu Nānamoli“.

[Lal]

Puthujjana wrote: “Anupasampannassa here, is unlikely to render as “not attained”, but “not ordained” fit well, right?”

Here is what I found so far: “sāmaṇera” is one who is just ordained, i.e., became a bhikkhu.
“upasampadā” is a higher level which is attained with seniority and other qualifications.

It seems “upasampannassa” is used to indicate one who has attained upasampadā.
“Anupasampannassa” is still a sāmaṇera.

But any bhikkhu commits a parajika offense (which is one of 4 most serious offenses) by declaring a supermundane attainment like jhana or magga phala (Uttarimanussadhamma) knowing that he does not have jhana or magga phala.

Here is the definition from 1. Pārājikakaṇḍa:
“Asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapanto kati āpattiyo āpajjati? Asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapanto tisso āpattiyo āpajjati. Pāpiccho icchāpakato asantaṃ abhūtaṃ uttari­manus­sa­dhammaṃ ullapati, āpatti pārājikassa..”

Now, for the minor offense of pācittiya seems to involve who tells whom, and seems to be bit complicated.
– It also involves speaking of attainments by others (which no one would know except for a Buddha).
– However, a pācittiya offense can be overcome by confessing it to an assembly of bhikkhus.

But a pārājika offense cannot be overcome; one who committed a pārājika offense stops being a bhikkhu. He has to give up robes. Even if he does not give up robes he would not be a bhikkhu in the Buddha Sasana.

That is my understanding so far. I do not want to get into those pācittiya offenses. They seem to be complicated and are not beneficial to us for this discussion.

So, the bottom line is that any bhikkhu (or a lay person) can declare an attainment if desired. But if it is done without really having such attainments that is a pārājika offense.
– I have given sutta references for that on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.
– I must note that there many instances of declaring such attainments in the Tipitaka. For example, the first three Buddhist Councils (Sangayana) involved only Arahants. Without declaring Arahanthood by oneself, how would others know?

P.S. Thanks for posting the Sutta Central guide.
But unfortunately they translate anicca and anatta as “impermanence” and “no-self”. There are more as I have pointed out.
That is why I always give the link to the Pali version. One can get a translation (sometimes to several languages) by clicking on the “hamburger menu”) on top left. So, yes, they are good resource, but one needs to be careful.

[Author]

Posts