[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.

[Lal]

Let me look into this a bit more to make sure.

[Lal]

y not wrote: “Yes it is not clear- there ‘attainments’are mentioned, not magga phala specifically.”

Yes. I did: “Uttarimanussadhamma does mean magga phala or jhana.” on May 27, 2019 at 7:24 am.

I cannot keep repeating the same stuff in each every post. You should go back read my eralier responses before commenting.

[Lal]

Regarding puthujjana’s questions:

“Indeed, after some research, it is true that upasampannassa actually did mean attained, processed of. However, it also have another meaning base on 3 Pali dictionary, which is ordained.”

I guess it could be used that way. But that would be a stretch.
– However, it is really bad to translate “anupasampannassa” as “truthfully”.

But your comments at the end do make sense.
“Question:
1. Bhikkhu who had not lied regarding their attainment committed pārājika and expel from the community and Bhikkhu who lied regarding their attainment committed only pācittiya?
2. Meaning of bhūta indeed included ghost, but is has other meaning as well, why we should choose ghost in this context and not just “existed” ?”

Just based on the fact that pārājika is the worst offense, it appears that the bhikkhus in the second case (pārājika) the ones who admitted to falsely claiming the attainments.

Since there were just words “bhutam” and “abhutam” there in the two cases, “bhutam” seems to mean “correct” in the sense that “it did materialize”, and “abhutam” means “did not”. As I mentioned earlier, “bhuta” means to “come into existence” (However, as I said there, those bhuta are not stable).
– It would have been helpful if clear-cut words like taccha/ataccha were used to indicate true/false.

We may be able to get more clarity by looking at the use of the words bhutam/abhutam in other situations.

Here is one such example:
Tatiyanibbānapaṭisaṃyutta Sutta (Udāna 8.3):
“Evaṃ me sutaṃ— ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā sāvatthiyaṃ viharati jetavane anātha¬piṇḍi¬kassa ārāme. Tena kho pana samayena bhagavā bhikkhū nib¬bā¬na¬paṭi¬saṃ¬yuttāya dhammiyā kathāya sandasseti samādapeti samuttejeti sampahaṃseti. Tedha bhikkhū aṭṭhiṃ katvā, manasi katvā, sabbaṃ cetaso samannāharitvā, ohitasotā dhammaṃ suṇanti.
Atha kho bhagavā etamatthaṃ viditvā tāyaṃ velāyaṃ imaṃ udānaṃ udānesi:
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. No cetaṃ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyetha. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ, tasmā jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṃ paññāyatī”ti.

(It is to be noted that translations to other languages are available by clicking on the “hamburger icon” at top left on the menu bar there; but I have seen several incorrect translations like on this topic for the Vinaya rules).

In the above case “abhutam” is used in the “good sense” since it is a description of Nibbana. Here it actually means that Nibbana is not reached via the “formation” of something.
– As we know, patavi, apo,tejo, vayo and anything in “this world” arises via gati (mental energy) as the root cause, and thus are not stable (but Nibbana is).

[Lal]

y not wrote: “Does the fact that they lied mean that those Bhikkhus had not attained any magga phala? Or, conversely, are Ariya incapable even of such a thing?”
AND “It may be that you have touched upon this point in a post or in a reply to a question somewhere already. I am not sure.”

Yes. I did mention that at the end of my post. If it is not clear there, yes, that is an important point.
– Furthermore, they themselves admitted to the Buddha that they did not have magga phala/jhana.

[Lal]

Since this is an important issue regarding a Vinaya rule, I thought of taking a closer look at the issue.

Most Vinaya rules were setup to handle particular situations where one or more bhikkhus had done things that were not appropriate. The link given by y not provides the background for the Vinaya rule in question here.

The training rule on telling truthfully
– I am reproducing that below so that we can discuss it.

At one time the Buddha was staying at Vesālī in the hall with the peaked roof in the Great Wood. At that time a number of monks who were friends had entered the rains on the banks of the river Vaggumudā. Just then Vajjī was short of food and afflicted with hunger, with crops blighted and turned to straw, and it was not easy to get by on almsfood.

The monks considered the difficult circumstances, and they thought, “How can we remain united and in harmony, have a comfortable rains, and get almsfood without problems?”
Some said, “We could do work for the lay people, and they’ll give something in return. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood.”

Some said, “There’s no need to do work for the lay people. Let’s instead take messages for them, and they’ll give something in return. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood.”

Some said, “There’s no need to do work for the lay people, nor to take messages for them. Let’s instead praise one another’s superhuman qualities to the lay people, ‘Such a monk has the first absorption, such a monk the second absorption, such a monk the third, such a monk the fourth; such a monk is a stream-enterer, such a monk a once-returner, such a non-returner, such a perfected one; such a monk has the three true insights, and such the six direct knowledges.’ Then they’ll give to us. In this way we’ll be united and in harmony, and we’ll spend the rains in comfort and have no problems getting almsfood. Indeed, this is the better way, that we praise one another’s superhuman qualities to the lay people.”

Then they praised each other’s superhuman qualities to the lay people, “Such a monk has the first absorption … such a monk has the six direct knowledges.” And those people thought, “We’re fortunate that such monks have come to us for the rains. Such monks as these, who are virtuous and of good character, have never before entered the rains with us.” And they gave such food and drink to those monks that they did not even eat and drink themselves, or give to their parents, to their wives and children, to their slaves, servants, and workers, to their friends and companions, or to their relatives. In this way those monks became handsome, with rounded features, bright faces, and clear skin.

Now it was the custom for monks who had finished keeping the rains to go and see the Master. So when the rainy-season residence was completed and the three months had elapsed, those monks put their dwellings in order, took their bowls and robes, and departed for Vesālī. When they eventually arrived at Vesālī, they went to the hall with the peaked roof in the Great Wood. There they approached the Master, bowed down to him, and sat down to one side.
At that time the monks who had completed the rainy-season residence in that region were thin, haggard and pale, their veins protruding all over their limbs. But the monks from the banks of the Vaggumudā were handsome, with rounded features, bright faces, and clear skin.

It is the custom for Buddhas to greet newly arrived monks, and so the Master said to them, “I hope you’re keeping well, monks, I hope you’re comfortable; I hope you spent the rains at ease, in concord and harmony, without dispute, and that you had no trouble getting almsfood?”
“We’re keeping well, Master, we’re comfortable; we spent the rains at ease, in concord and harmony, without dispute, and we had no trouble getting almsfood.”

Buddhas sometimes ask knowing, and knowing sometimes do not ask; they ask knowing the right time to ask, and they ask knowing the right time not to ask. Buddhas ask when it is beneficial, not when it is unbeneficial; in regard to what is unbeneficial, the Buddhas have destroyed the bridge. Buddhas question the monks for two reasons: to give a teaching or to lay down a training rule.

And the Master said to those monks, “In what way, monks, did you spend the rains at ease, without having any trouble getting almsfood?”
And they told the Master what had happened.
“But had you really achieved those superhuman qualities?”
“Yes, Master.”
The Buddha rebuked them, “Monks, how can you for the sake of your stomachs praise one another’s superhuman qualities to lay people? This will not give rise to confidence in those without it … And, monks, this training rule should be recited thus:
Final ruling
‘If a monk truthfully tells a person who is not fully ordained of a superhuman quality, he commits an offense entailing confession.’”

That is exactly how it appears at that website.
I have highlighted the incorrect translation of a segment of the “story behind the rule”, as well as the reported “Final Ruling”.

In the Pali version, this is how that particular section is: “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ. “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti? “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.”
The first part “Atha kho te bhikkhū bhagavato etamatthaṃ ārocesuṃ” does mean “And they (bhikkhus) told the Master what had happened”.

However, the correct translation of the rest “Kacci pana vo, bhikkhave, bhūtan”ti?” “Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti SHOULD BE:
“Bhikkhus, was that a lie? (meaning the attainments that they claimed)”. And the bhikkhus replied that indeed they had lied (“Bhūtaṃ, bhagavā”ti.).

Here, both English and Chinese translators (per account of Puthujjana) had incorrectly translated the question by the Buddha and the answer by the bhikkhus.

Bhuta means something that does not have real existence, and here it means a lie.
– Even today, the Sinhala word for ghost is “a bhuta”, since most people do not believe in the existence of ghosts.
– Patavi, apo, tejo, vayo are called “cattari maha bhutani” because their origins are the non-matter, i.e., gati and are really mind-created; see, “The Origin of Matter – Suddhātthaka ”. They all are going to be destroyed at the end of the Maha Kappa.

However, this real meaning of the bhuta in this context is not appreciated by most people today. Thus the wrong translation.

One can see that the real explanation based on the story makes more sense, and thus the Vinaya rule should be (and is per correct translation of “Yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ āroceyya bhūtasmiṃ, pācittiyan”ti.
– The key is “anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ” which means a bhikkhu who has NOT attained those claimed attainments (uttarimanussadhamma).
– Anupasampannassa comes from “na + upasampannassa” or “not attained”, just like Anāgāmi comes from “na + āgāmi” or “not coming back (to kāma loka)”.

Those bhikkhus falsely declared attainments in order to be treated well.
– A related key point is that one with such attainments would not have made such declarations with the intention of getting a better treatment (even if they had attainments). They knew that people offered the best they had to them (because of the declared attainments) even without feeding their families properly.

The correct rule is: “‘If a bhikkhu untruthfully declares a high-achievement (i.e., magga phala or jhana), he commits an offense’”

[Lal]

I am just curious. What is the Chinese translation of the following verse in SN 55. 8, SN 55.10, SN 12.42, AN 9.27, ..
For example, in AN 9.27, the last verse is: “Yato kho, gahapati, ariyasāvakassa imāni pañca bhayāni verāni vūpasantāni honti, imehi ca catūhi sotāpattiyaṅgehi samannāgato hoti, so ākaṅkhamāno attanāva attānaṃ byākareyya: ‘khīṇanirayomhi khīṇatiracchānayoni khīṇapettivisayo khīṇāpāyaduggativinipāto; sotāpannohamasmi avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyaṇo’”ti.

[Lal]

Puthujjana asked: “Does “upasampannassa” related to “upasampada”?”

No. They are different. But that could be the confusion in those translations.

“Upasamapadā” is a “higher state” (not a magga phala, but given with seniority and other mundane qualifications) to bhikkhus.
– When one becomes a bhikkhu first level is “Sāmanera”, and then “upasampadā”.

[Author]

Posts