[Lal]

I do not get into discussing other people’s mindsets. That is because of the limited power of words.
– When someone tries to explain their experience, it may be hard to put into words.
– Then the one who is listening may not get the same idea. The worst is, when that second person tries to give his/her opinion, that has the same problem of expressing their own thoughts.

I will think about this a little bit more, Christian. But my inclination is that it is not fruitful to “analyze” someone else’s reporting of their experiences. Of course, we can point out major issues.
– For example, we know how to differentiate an Ariya jhana from an anariya jhana, as I discussed above. But it is only that person who would really know which one it is. There is no point in either denying or confirming their statements. It does not serve any real purpose.

When I started the website, I used to discuss a few of my experiences. Then I realized that it may not be a good idea.
– Rather, I try to point out examples from the Tipitaka. That way, I don’t need to get involved.
– What is really important is to discuss the concepts, not so much one’s own experience. Of course, it is fine to report one’s progress, if one thinks that it will be beneficial in motivating others. But that should be done with restraint.

[Lal]

That is a good question, sumbodhi.

Such effects require at least a “focused mind.” The more concentrated or focused the mind is, it gets easier for such phenomena to materialize.

This is why faith or saddha (a genuine belief) in whatever one is thinking about matters.
The person who reported this experiment is likely to have had a real determination to see the effect. Therefore, his/her javana power would be intense.
– On the other hand, one who does not believe in such an effect may conduct the same experiment, and his/her GOAL is to show that it is a foolish idea. So, they do not “put a real effort” into their thoughts while doing the experiment.

We can confirm this by thinking about our own experiences. Think about two different cases. In one, we really want to get something done. In the other, we just want to get something done because a parent is asking to do it and we had no choice.
– In the first case, we are enthusiastic and our minds work at “full potential.” In the latter, we just “go through the motions” without any real effort.

Of course, someone who can get into jhana samapatti (Ariya or anariya) would have “more javana power” in their thoughts (citta). In a jhana samapatti, citta with the “same focus” or “arammana” can flow uninterrupted. Thus the “intention” is fully focused.
– That is why such yogis can even do “supernormal” things, like making a flower with their mind power.
– An analogy, in this case, is comparing an oil lamp to a laser beam. An oil lamp just put out a little light. In a laser beam, light energy concentrated. It can cut a metal sheet. The mind power of an average person (even when focused) is like that of the oil lamp. That of one in a jhana samapatti is like a laser beam.

[Lal]

“After many of such occurrences, I feel like I’m receiving too much from whatever force there might be, so I ask them to just let me do my own practice. Then from that day, surely enough those convenient coincidences have stopped.”

I think you made the right decision, Tien.

I am not sure whether you really saw devas or not. But there are “well-intentioned beings” who do help out those who live moral lives. We don’t need to ask for their help.

There is a deeper aspect to this. As I have discussed in many posts, people with similar “gati” (character/habits) tend to associate with each other. That holds for all living beings.

The down-side of this is that there are beings out there (below the deva level) who have “bad gati” and they tend to try to influence those people with similar bad gati.
– Such bad beings also tend to be attracted to physically dirty environments too. That is why we need to keep living spaces clean.
– I discussed a little bit about that in, “What Does Buddha Dhamma Say about Creator, Satan, Angels, and Demons?.”
– A basic discussion on gati at, “The Law of Attraction, Habits, Character (Gati), and Cravings (Asavas).”

2 users thanked author for this post.

Jittananto, namo0804

[Lal]

y not: “But if a person hates someone, it is not because he loves somebody else.”

If you trace back to the root cause of why one hates another, you will be able to see that it was greed and/or avijja. Hate does not arise by itself. All attachments arise due to the wrong views and wrong perceptions that things in this world lead to happiness. But it is, of course, not easy to “see”.

Siebe: “In that sense i think craving is not bad as cause. Craving as in delight seeking.”

Yes. That is because of what I mentioned above too.
– The Buddha said, “My Dhamma is hard to “see”. It takes a real effort.

One way is to comprehend Paticca Samuppada. “Tanha paccaya upadana” ends up in “jati paccaya jara, marana, soka, parideva, dukkha, domanassa..” or the “whole mass of suffering.”

[Lal]

Good point, Siebe.

The confusion arises because of the wrong translation of taṇhā as “craving.”

In SN 56.11, the Pali verse is: “Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, duk­kha­sa­muda­yaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandi­rāga­saha­gatā tatra­tat­rā­bhinan­dinī, seyyathidaṃ
—kāma taṇhā, bhava taṇhā, vibhava taṇhā.

As you point out, the translation you quote is “Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering:
it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. SN56.11″

As I have pointed out in recent posts, taṇhā is “getting attached” to something. One could get attached via anger too. One gets attached via greed (craving) or anger because of the ignorance of the Noble Truths. The first stage of understanding those truths is to get rid of sakkāya ditthi.

P.S. Yes. I am glad to see that Johnny has the right idea. I will write more about it in the next post.

[Lal]

OK, Christian.

The “very advanced testimonial” that you posted is interesting. I have seen many similar accounts. But the problem is, those experiences do not say anything about Nibbana. They are jhanic experiences.

Now if they are Ariya jhanas, then it has to do with Nibbana.
– It is very easy to determine (for oneself) whether they are Ariya jhanas. If one does not generate ANY kama raga (say even while watching an X-rated movie), then those are likely to be Ariya jhana.

Even the first Ariya jhana REQUIRES ELIMINATION (not just suppression) of kama raga.

If you can post a video of someone saying that they have such jhanic experiences AND also do not have have any kama raga left, please do so. (But again, there are people who have declared themselves to be Arahants. So, I am not sure whether we can take anyone’s word. This is why declaring these accomplishments do not serve benefits to others.)
– Other than Ariya jhana, it is not a big deal to get into a jhana, even the arupa jhana (for those who had cultivated jhana in recent previous lives).
– However, I am not saying that getting to jhana is bad. I am just saying that getting to jhana is more like a habit from previous lives. It is easy for those who had cultivated jhanas in recent previous lives, to get into jhana.
– It is like someone who learned to ride a bike as a child. Even if that child did not get to ride a bike for many years, he could easily remember how to ride it later on as an adult. But it would be hard for an adult to learn to ride a bike if he had never ridden one.

This is why I believe putting emphasis on jhanas is a bad idea. There could be people who even get to magga phala but cannot cultivate jhana. They could be discouraged because they may be under the impression that it is essential to cultivate jhana to attain magga phala.

We need to remember that Devadatta attained all those jhanas, and was also able to perform “miracles”, like appearing on the lap of Prince Ajasattu in the form of a baby (or a snake?.) But he ended up in the apayas.

I have explained this in many posts. The bottom line is that jhanas and magga phala are two different things. We should not confuse jhanic experiences having anything to do with magga phala.
– Furthermore, the Buddha himself practiced the highest jhana soon after he gave up the “householder life.” It took him six years to get to the Buddhahood.

[Lal]

Good question.

Yes. Tanha (getting attached to an arammanna) happens instantaneously. That is what is discussed in the first half of the Chacakka Sutta.

One starts thinking about that arammana only after that in the “tanha paccaya upadana” step in Paticca Samuppada.
– Once one is attached, one starts thinking about it and those are vaci sankhara. The one may do bodily actions with kaya sankhara too. That is “avijja paccaya sankhara”, which then leads to ALL the remaining steps in Paticca Samuppada. That ends up in “jati paccaya jara, marana, etc..” or the “whole mass of suffering”.
– Therefore, “tanha paccaya upadana” is really the INITIATION of the Paticca Samuppada process.

I will discuss that in detail in the next post.

[Lal]

Christian wrote: “I can not explain how Nibbana can be just Nibbana without consciousness etc. but this is how it is.”

What needs to be explained is how to get to Nibbana.

By the way, one cannot experience ultimate Nibbana (the status after Parinibbana) without getting to Nirodha Samapatti. Are you saying that you can get to Nirodha Samapatti?

[Lal]

Nibbana itself is very easy to DEFINE.

It is in many many suttas: “rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo— idaṃ vuccati nibbānan”ti.
– Removing greed, anger, and ignorance (about the Four Noble Truths) will get one to Nibbana.

In order to get there, one needs to realize that there no real “experiencer.”

1. Things happen due to past causes. Life is a series of events. One has control over SOME kamma vipaka, by paying attention and by avoiding conditions for them to appear. But some kamma vipaka cannot be avoided (strong ones) UNTIL one attains Parinibbana.
– When one has sakkāya diṭṭhi, one keeps accumulating causes (hetu or kamma bija) for future existences. Under highly-tempting conditions, one may even do apāyagāmi deeds. That possibility WILL BE there UNTIL one gets rid of sakkāya diṭṭhi.

P.S. When quoting others, please say who said what.

P.P.S. To add to #1 above:

2. Taking control over those CONDITIONS is the key to stop making NEW CAUSES for future suffering. That is what is discussed in the Paticca Samuppada.
– Once the main result has arisen (like our present human body), it HAS TO run its course.
– But we can STOP such future existence from arising by comprehending Paticca Samuppada.
– This is why Paticca Samuppada is sometimes translated as “Conditional Arising” or “Dependent Origination.” Results can be STOPPED from appearing by either removing causes OR conditions. Thus even if kamma bija are there, they can be PREVENTED from “germinating” by removing the conditions for them to appear. For future existences, that is done by stopping the “tanha paccaya upadana” step.
– That cannot be done by sheer will-power. It comes through Samma Diṭṭhi, the correct world view (anicca, dukkha, anatta nature.)
– That is what we will be discussing in the upcoming posts.

[Lal]

Cristian wrote: “f you ask me, this forum topic has come to appear more like a Mahāyāna inquiry into emptiness, nothingness, sunnyata: no experiencer? The same old questions about Nibbana come up. Who is it, apart from the pancakkhandhas, that experiences? The manomayakaya shorn of all that is positive and negative, with only what is neutral remaining”

Are you quoting someone else or are you saying that?

[Lal]

Yes. That is correct, Siebe.

Regarding the first part, the following explanation by Ven. Nagasena (to King Milinda) gives the idea too.
“The chariot simile” from Sutta Central.

I only recently found that Sutta Central has the full English translation of “Milinda Panha”
– King Milinda was a Greek King who ruled part of India about 200 years after the Buddha. He was a Buddhist. He had frequent conversations with an Arahant, Ven. Nagasena. This Milinda Panha (Questions of Milinda) captures those questions by Milinda and answers by Ven. Nagasena.

Of course, some Pali words are translated incorrectly. But one can get a good idea.

[Lal]

I have done some significant revisions to the post in question: “An Apparent “Self” Is Involved in Kamma Generation.”

Those interested should re-read the revised post.

One major change was to add #5 under a new heading, as follows:

Attā Translated as “Self” Is Not Correct

5. The Pāli word “attā” does not really mean “self” even though I used that translation above. That translation is quite common these days. We will go with that until we finish discussing Paticca Samuppāda. If I try to discuss the real meaning of attā right now, that could lead to confusion.

That is in fact why the Buddha refused to answer Vaccagotta’s question about whether or not there is an “attā.” See, “Ānanda Sutta (SN 44.10).”

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha asked “kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā” ti?” OR “Master Gotama, is it correct to say that there is an “attā”?”.

Note that “atthattā” is “atthi attā” where “atthi” means “exists.” Vaccagotta meant in this case “attā” to be “self.” Thus, Vacchagotta meant: “Is it correct to say that a “self” exists?”

The Buddha remained silent, and Vacchagotta asked the question again in the negative form. The second time, he asked: “Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā” ti?” or, “Master Gotama, is it not correct to say that there is a “self”?”.
– Seeing that the Buddha is refusing to answer his question, Vacchagotta got up and left.

Note that “natthattā” is made up of three words: “naatthi attā,” which negates “atthattā.”Just as these days, many people were confused about the Pali word “attā” and the Sanskrit word “ātma.” The latter meaning is closer to a “soul.”

I will discuss this sutta when I will come back to discuss “attā” in detail, after discussing Paticca Samuppāda.

[Lal]

Those two posts that I referred to above are very important. I hope everyone will take the time to read them carefully.

The first post explains that tanha is not craving: “Tanhā – How We Attach Via Greed, Hate, and Ignorance.”

It is a common mistake to translate “tanhā” as “craving.” The translation that Johnny referred to translates tanhā as craving.
– Tanhā means “getting attached to” sensory input and that happens within a FRACTION OF A SECOND.
– That is a key message of the Chachakka Sutta that we have been discussing recently: “Worldview of the Buddha.”

I have revised the second post mentioned above:
“Difference Between Tanhā and Upādāna”

These are important concepts to understand. But it requires spending time to think, not merely to read.

P.S. The key point is that “tanhā” happens instantly, the moment you see, hear,..something. Then one thinks, speaks, and takes actions based on “craving” for it. That second step happens over time. That is the “upādāna” step.

[Lal]

Johnny wrote: “It appears tenable that kamma is a natural byproduct of craving. I think that’s why the second noble truth is tanhā and never upādāna. Because by the time one performs kamma/sankhara/upādāna, it’s already too late.”

Tanha is not craving: Tanhā – How We Attach Via Greed, Hate, and Ignorance

Tanha is removed via stopping upadana by getting rid of avijja:
Difference Between Tanhā and Upādāna

These concepts require a lot of thinking. Please feel free to ask questions.

[Lal]

What Lang wrote is correct.

However, what needs to be really done is to realize the following:
1. To understand WHY there is no “self” or a “soul” involved in the initial sensory event.
2. That the response to those initial sensory events with the idea of a “self” leads to suffering in the long-term.
– We have not yet discussed how that suffering arises via Paticca Samuppada. (but some may be able to make that connection on their own).
– In any case, the next few posts will make that connection clear.

Stated in another way, there will be suffering as long there one has the view that it is WORTHWHILE to take good sensory inputs as “mine” and TRY TO ENJOY THEM, especially by doing immoral deeds. An extreme case is where one kills or steals in order to get money and buy luxury items and live a “good life.”
– Same works the other way too. We tend to dislike other sensory events and MAY TRY to do IMMORAL THINGS in order to stop those. For example, as an extreme case, some people try to hurt or even kill their enemies.

Tobias asked: “Why is anattā “not-self”?.”

I said it is the WRONG APPROACH to say that there is “no-self” OR there is a “self”.
– Please read the post carefully. I emphasized that point at the very end.
– We need to realize that suffering arises because of the idea of a “self.” One does immoral things BECAUSE of that.
– In a strict sense, it is correct to say that anattā implies “no-self.” But we cannot START there BECAUSE just saying that will not help. One will be just fooling “oneself.” We are under the perception of a “self.” We need to SEE the bad consequences of that perception by SEEING the dangers of that view.

Basically one is “anattā” (with no refuge) AS LONG AS one has the wrong view of sakkaya ditthi.
– One starts becoming an “attā” (one with refuge) when one starts realizing the true nature (that there is no “experiencer.” Then one will be free of the apayas.
– However, the perception of a “self” goes away only at the Arahant stage, and at that time one will have the full refuge of NO SUFFERING AT ALL (after the Parinibbana.)

I am glad that both of you thought about it. It is not possible to write all this in a post. When we go through the next few posts, this will hopefully become clear.
– This is why the Buddha said, “my Dhamma is difficult to understand.” That Dhamma cannot be UNDERSTOOD by repeating verses to oneself. One needs to “see-through” the true nature.
– The procedure of repeating verses (which most people call meditation) becomes useful after “SEEING” the true nature. Then, in order to remove the wrong perception and get to higher magga phala, such “formal meditations with repeating verses” will be more effective.
– That is why “bhavanaya pahatabba” comes at the end in the Sabbasava Sutta. First one needs to get to “dassanena pahatabba” or “removal by vision” or Samma Ditthi.
– Of course, one who has removed sakkaya ditthi needs to do those formal meditations. That will help remove the “wrong perceptions” (sanna vipallasa).

An analogy is a smoker. A smoker first needs to “SEE” the bad consequences of smoking. But unless one keeps recalling that frequently, it may be hard to break the “old habit” completely (by removing the sanna).
– Of course, there is a difference at the Sotapanna stage. Even if one may be tempted to do “some immoral things” one WILL NEVER BE CAPABLE of doing apayagami deeds after removing sakkaya ditthi.

P.S. Here is what I stated at the very end of the post:

17. In other words, the wrong views about a “self” (sakkāya diṭṭhi) go away at the Sōtapanna stage. But the perception of a “self” (asmi māna) goes away in stages and disappear only at the Arahant stage.
– Only an Arahant has no saññā vipallāsa and asmi māna.
– That is also why we CANNOT say that “there is no-self.” Until the attainment of Arahanthood, there is a perception of a “self.”
– It is a wrong approach to analyze sensory experiences based on a “self” or “no-self.” Instead, we can explain everything in terms of causes and effects or Paticca Samuppāda. We will discuss this in the future.

[Author]

Posts