Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What I stated above is essentially correct.
In the analysis of rupa in the post, “Rupa (Material Form) – Table” everything is put into “fundamental categories.”
Everything in our physical body (except for the pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu) are made exclusively from the four great elements (maha bhuta): patavi, apo, tejo, vayo.
Five pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu are made of the smallest units of patavi, apo, tejo, vayo, vanna, sadda, gandha, and rasa PLUS the energies imparted by the kammic energy (Those are the only “live” things in the body). See, “The Origin of Matter – Suddhātthaka.”
– That is why the physical body becomes inert when the gandhabba leaves at the death of the physical body.
– As Tobias pointed out, it is the jivitindriya that gives “life” to body parts in a “live person.” There are few other elements like jivitindriya that also contribute (itthi/purisa, and oja). All those are in the manomaya kaya or the gandhabba and created at the beginning of the human bhava (cuti-patisandhi moment) by kammic energy. Those are also listed in that post on the analysis of rupa.That the pasada rupa are the “real” sensory elements (and not the physical eyes, ears, etc) is discussed in #12 of “Buddhist Worldview – Introduction.”
OK. I had a bit of time to think about it. Here are two things to think about:
1. The categorization of rupa in the post, “Rupa (Material Form) – Table” is at the fundamental level.
– On that level “internal rupa” are in a category by themselves. Those are the pasada rupa responsible for actual sensing.
– Our physical bodies are made of the four great elements (maha bhuta): patavi, apo, tejo, vayo. Those “elements” do not belong to “us”.2. However, a live person has control over his/her body IN CERTAIN aspects.
– For example, we can use our bodies to moral deeds or immoral deeds.
– Therefore, in Kāyānupassanā, for example, “Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” refers to one’s physical body. That means stopping it for immoral deeds and to use it for moral deeds.So, it depends on the context.
– In the absolute categorization, internal rupa would be pasada rupa.
– But in the context of Kāyānupassanā, for example, ajjhatta kāya refers to ones’s own physical body.Good point. May be that is why I had it that way.
But we need to take time and review the case for both sides. If anyone has ideas, please post.
Tobias asked: “Is the physical body external rupa?”
The physical body, as well as pasada rūpa, are internal rupa.
– Pasada rūpa (cakkhu, sōta, ghāna, jivhā, and kāya) cannot function without physical eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and the physical body.I see your point. I need to revise the post. Thanks.
sumbodhi wrote: ” I think it’s still worthwhile to explore connections between the ‘newest’ science and Dhamma as it might be easier to explain to wider public using “modern” terminology.”
Yes. I do that whenever possible. New findings of science are compatible with Buddha Dhamma in many cases. The exception is “mental phenomena.” Science is clueless in saying that thoughts arise in an inert brain.
See, “Dhamma and Science”sumbodhi: “Of course such comparisons are only helpful as an introduction but still helpful to some. I have only been reading about Buddha Dhamma for 3 months now and at first your web-page seemed very technical, especially with so many Pāḷi words.”
Yes. I struggle with trying to find middle ground. You are on one end of the spectrum. At the other end are those ask for Tipitaka references and explanations.
In any case, one NEEDS to learn the meanings of the key Pali words, if one is truly interested in learning Buddha Dhamma. Some Pali words like anicca, anatta, sankhara, vinnana DO NOT have exact translations to English. The first sub-sections in the following section could be helpful:
“Living Dhamma.”Also, “Moral Living and Fundamentals“
“However you mention suddhātthaka aren’t electrically charged, which means suddhātthaka is another sort of particle possibly outside of the standard model.”
Yes. Science is still far away from “getting the whole picture”.
“By the way, where does the suddhātthaka scale come from? Is it explicitly mentioned in Tipitaka?”
Yes. It is not in the suttas. It is in Abhidhamma Piṭaka. I need to spend some time at some point in getting to those details.
– But discussing Paticca Samuppada has priority. That is what is done in the “Origin of Life” series.“We won’t be able to create a conscious robot because even if we created the body (or whatever bearer) consciousness must always come from gandhabba which we can never create (probably not?).”
Yes. We need to leave out, “probably not.” It can NEVER happen. Sentient life arises ONLY as a kamma vipaka.
Of course, the Paticca Samuppada step, “upadana paccaya bhava” MUST happen too.
– An Arahant may have kammic energies from kamma done in this life or past lives that COULD give rise to another existence (bhava).
– But an Arahant’s mind would NOT go through the “tanha paccaya upadana” step, and thus “upadana paccaya bhava” step.
– That what we will be discussing next in the “Origin of Life” series.Consciousness ARISE in the mental body (manomaya kaya or gandhabba for humans and animals.)
The gandhabba is the essential part, not the physical body.
– When one gets a human bhava, one gets a corresponding mental body (gandhabba). That can last many thousands of years.
“Bhava and Jāti – States of Existence and Births Therein”– Within that time gandhabba can be born with a physical human body many times. When one physical body dies, the gandhabba comes out of that dead body and waits for another suitable womb with a compatible zygote.
These concepts are explained in:“Buddhist Explanations of Conception, Abortion, and Contraception”
“Cloning and Gandhabba”The key point is that a gandhabba can NEVER be created in a laboratory. A sentient life ALWAYS comes from a pre-existing sentient life.
– Modern science (a laboratory) may be able to create a “zygote-like” entity (which is just the right “chemical composition”) for the gandhabba to start making a new physical body. In fact, cloning is a crude form of that.
– But a gandhabba only comes a previous existing life (in any of the 31 realms.)
– For example when a deva or a brahma dies and if the next birth is as human, then at that instant a “human gandhabba” is created by kammic energy.sumbodhi wrote: “altho sub-suddhātthakā levels seem more like ‘fields’ to me.”
That is correct. Even the suddhātthaka level is below the “atoms” in modern science.
– As I pointed out in the post, “Mystical Phenomena in Buddhism?,” some of the “mystical phenomena” can be explained by learning about such details.
– For example, our physical bodies (as well as walls) are mostly empty as explained there. One with iddhi powers can “reduce the body” to suddhātthaka level and then go through the “mostly empty walls.” I hope you can get the idea.So, that explanation does not involve QM (Quantum Mechanics).
– Teleporting (in Buddha Dhamma) is similar.Traveling to Brahma loka is normally done with just the mental body (manomaya kaya or gandhabba.) That manomaya kaya has only a few suddhātthaka.
Anyway, I mention these only to show that these phenomena are NOT “magical” once one understands the concepts.
– Modern science is far behind.sumbodhi asked: “Regarding the experiments – since phenomena are conditioned does that mean that we actually create the conditions for the results to manifest rather than ‘magically’ make them happen?”
“Magic” implies things can happen without causes and conditions. For anything to happen there must be CAUSES and CONDITIONS.
– For example, for a tree to come to exist there must be a seed AND there must be suitable conditions (like good soil, water, and sunlight) for the seed to germinate and grow.sumbodhi asked: “I read the mind actually creates suddhātthakā in minute quantities, but do they pop into existence just like that and not as a result of conditions? Would our mind be the direct ‘condition’ then? Would the results in the experiments be related to the experimenter’s creating suddhātthakā?”
Yes. Our minds do create suddhātthakā in minute quantities.
– There are always six root causes: lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha.
– The conditions are per Paticca Samuppada. That is why Paticca Samuppada is sometimes translated as “Conditional Arising.”
– However, there is no simple explanation.That is why I started the “Origin of Life” series. It will also address your other question under the other topic of consciousness and matter.
– Both questions involve getting to the heart of the Buddha Dhamma.
– It may take some time to go through the required steps. But both those questions will be answered at the end.This hypothesis says that the mind arises out of matter. It is captured clearly in the following paragraph from the article:
“This means that mind is matter, and that even elementary particles exhibit incredibly basic forms of consciousness. Before you write that off, consider this. Consciousness can vary in complexity. We have good reason to think that the conscious experiences of a horse are much less complex than those of a human being, and that the conscious experiences of a rabbit are less sophisticated than those of a horse. As organisms become simpler, there may be a point where consciousness suddenly switches off – but it’s also possible that it just fades but never disappears completely, meaning even an electron has a tiny element of consciousness.”
That is complete nonsense.
Matter can NEVER give rise to consciousness. The matter is inert. How can joy and sadness arise in the matter?
– Consciousness in an electron? How do these people come up with such crazy ideas?This is also why it will NEVER be possible to make a “conscious robot” or any type of artificial intelligence.
– Any machine, no matter how sophisticated, is nothing more than a fancy computer. A computer is as good as its parts and the human designer who programmed it.If anyone can refute those facts, I would be interested in discussing further.
1 user thanked author for this post.
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.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.“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.
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.”
