Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Another relevant important thing to contemplate is the following:
Human body can endure pain in a limited range. It cannot endure the types of pain that can be endured in some lower realms. If subjected to such suffering, the human body will perish momentarily.
In the same way, a human body cannot experience the pleasures that can be experienced by a deva body.
Therefore, it is only a limited range of pain or pleasure that can be experienced in a given realm.
We all are likely to have done both good and bad kamma in the past. Those really bad kamma will bring vipaka only when we are born in the lower realms.
– Those really good kamma will bring highly-pleasurable vipaka only when we are born in a deva realm (Of course, when one dies there all that pleasure will turn to much suffering).However, if one cultivates panna and attains the Sotapanna stage, one will never be born in an apaya to experience those bad vipaka. Then those “bad kamma” done in the past will become “ahosi kamma”, i.e., they will never again bring vipaka.
– This is why Buddha Dhamma is called a “hetu-phala vāda”, not a “kamma-phala vāda”. Kamma plays an important role, but kamma vipaka can be overcome by removing the CONDITIONS to bring those vipaka to fruition. Those CONDITIONS are in Paticca Samuppada.
– It is essentially the “upādāna paccayā bhava” that can stop a future bhava (and thus jāti or births) from arising. That step will not go through certain types of bhava, depending on whether one has attained Sotapanna, Sakadagami, etc stages of Nibbana. Of course, no bhava will be grasped by an Arahant.Buddha never denied that one can have pleasurable experiences in human and higher realms. However, birth in any realm will end up in much suffering in the long run. Any and all suffering will be stopped only when the rebirth process is stopped (mainly because in the long run, one WILL BE born mostly in the apayas; see, “How the Buddha Described the Chance of Rebirth in the Human Realm“).
– This is the key message of the Buddha. This may not be easy to understand, but this is what is explained in the First Noble Truth.Rishi’s observation is quite right.
Without a past kamma (a kamma beeja) no good or bad thing can happen.
But the key point is that certain conditions must be satisfied for those kamma beeja to bring vipaka.
In particular, for a rebirth to occur at the cuti-patisandhi moment, “upadana paccaya bhava” must be satisfied. When one attains the Arahanthood, both avijja and tanha are completely removed and thus there will be no upadana for any kind of bhava in the 31 realms.
– Therefore, while there may be many kamma beeja from the past that could give rise to a new bhava (and birth), none of those will be grasped (upadana) at the cuti-patisandhi moment of an Arahant.Even in regular kamma vipaka during a lifetime, one can live in such way as not to provide conditions for bad kamma beeja to bring fruits.
– For example, if one goes to a bad neighborhood at night, one may be setting up conditions for some bad kamma vipaka to materialize.
– Or, if one gets really drunk, one may be getting into arguments and even fights.
– I really cannot understand why people keep re-building houses in flood zones. They are likely to face the same situation again. It is again setting up conditions for another possible future disaster.One should really contemplate on this point.
Siebe wrote: “An arahant does feel pain as a burden because he/she does not experience it as me and mine anymore.”
This is totally incorrect.
Did not the Buddha feel pain when injured by Devadatta? Did he not suffer from back pains? Did he not have another ailment (lohitapakkanti) close to Parinibbana?
– You are probably quite familiar with the sutta references for those.This seems like similar to the topic on Sakkaya Ditthi. No point in trying to discuss deep suttas using superficial/incorrect translations.
Just understand that an Arahant is not reborn in the 31 realms (which are filled with suffering) after death. That is what really matters.
I have no more comments on this.
Siebe wrote: “-according the sutta’s the buddha did not teach an arahant does not exist anymore after death. He also did not teach he does exist, nor did he teach that he both exist and not-exist, nor did he take the stand of nor-existing nor not-existing.”
This is a deep point.
In an ultimate sense, it is not possible to say “a person exists” because all five aggregates keep changing (a man is not the same compared to when he was a baby, both mentally and physically).
On the other hand, it is not possible to say that man “does not exist”. Obviously there is a man who lives.
This is why the Buddha rejected both those extreme views. At every moment a living being (or any sankata) has an existence that is dictated by Paticca Samuppada.
Furthermore, there is a continuation of this Paticca Samuppada process after death for a normal human (because there are causes and conditions to sustain that process)
– However, an Arahant has stopped the CONDITIONS for that process to proceed to at the moment of death (cuti-patisandhi), even though there will still be causes (past kamma) left. Therefore, that rebirth process is stopped for an Arahant.y not wrote: “I think in its category/essence, moral or immoral, it is kusala; punna is inherent in kusala and is the fruit or manifestation of it. So I would say that kusala becomes punna, rather than the other way round.”
This is not correct.
– One who does punna kamma gains merits to be born in “good realms”. That is one who has not comprehended Tilakkhana.
– One who does kusala kamma is doing good deeds with the knowledge and understanding that he/she is not doing those to have “good births”, but to attain Nibbana (i.e., to stop the rebirth process).
– Basically one doing kusala kamma is an attha purisa puggala.The word “kusala” comes from “ku” + “sala’, where “ku” (for “kunu”) are defilements, and “sala” means to get rid of. Thus “kusala” means to “get rid of defilements”.
– Even meritorious deeds, done with any hidden expectation of a “return” is not a kusala. But it is not an akusala (immoral deed) either.
– It is a punna kamma, that will bring joy to the heart and “good results in a mundane sense, i.e., good births or good kamma vipaka like being born with health and wealth.What I discussed above needs some background in Abhidhamma:
“Gandhabba (Manomaya Kaya)- Introduction”
and other posts in the Abhidhamma section.Yes. The second error seems to have done by “copying and pasting”.
For the first one, it is a bit more involved. Please see the corrected version. I just made both corrections.
Thanks, Tobias.
“It does seem, however, that bhikkhu and bhauddhayā mean the same thing: one who strives to stop bhava; but bhikkhu is someone who has left home, and bhauddhayā is a householder, correct?”
Yes. That is correct.
Another related word is “sangha”: “san” + “gha” where “gha” also means to remove. Thus “sangha” is someone who has started removing “san”, i.e., one who is Sotapanna Anugami or above (attha purisa puggala).
– Thus a bhikkhu is not necessarily included in “Sangha”. A bhauddhayā could be included in Sangha if he/she is an attha purisa puggala.
– However, these days, “Sangha” is being used just for bhikkhus. That is not quite correct.Yes, Lang. The last one should be:
manō sankhāra → vaci sankhāra → kāya sankhāra → kāya kammaMost of the time one consciously thinks about doing something before acting on it.
See, “Correct Meaning of Vacī Sankhāra“.
– Many people acquire more bad kamma with vaci sankhara (by consciously thinking about it for hours and hours) than with kaya sankhara. This is an important point.When I said, “The mind is forever released from the material body” That meant the mind (or more precisely citta) cannot arise after that.
The word “mind” has been used in English language as something that always exists. The problem arises when we try to find English words to match Pali words.
The following is a better description;
When a new bhava starts at a cuti-patisandhi moment, a hadaya vatthu for the new bhava is generated by kammic energy. That hadaya vatthu is where citta arise. But citta are not there all the time. For example when we are unconscious, there are no citta vithi, and the “mind” is in the bhavanga state.
– Even in between citta vithi (where thoughts arise), the “mind” is in the bhavanga state.Therefore, what is absolutely correct say is that a new hadaya vatthu will not be created at the cuti-patisandhi moment for an Arahant, instead of saying “The mind is forever released from the material body”.
– There will be no new hadaya vatthu for an Arahant at death (i.e., at the cuti-patisandhi moment), so no citta can arise (and thus no mind to speak of).After thinking about it more, I think what Tien has described could also be upacāra samādhi.
Unlike jhānās (which are limited in number), samādhi can be many varieties. There can even be miccā samādhi.
– When one gets fully absorbed in an ārammana (topic), one may not hear, see, etc.
– A simple example is when one is fully absorbed in reading a book, one may not hear, see, etc.This is discussed in, “What is Samadhi? – Three Kinds of Mindfulness“.
Magga phala and jhāna are two different things. I think Chrisitian is talking about jhanas. It is not necessary to get to jhana to attain magga phala. We all have attained jhana in previous lives.
– It is easy to attain jhana for those who had cultivated them in recent previous lives or were born in brahma realms in recent previous lives.
– One can attain magga phala without jhana (via upacara samadhi).
– One who has anaraiya jhana does not have a magga phala.
– One with magga phala may or may not be able to get to a jhana easily.
More details at: “Samādhi, Jhāna (Dhyāna), Magga Phala“.Thanks to y not for the reference.
Yes. Lang is quite correct.
The translation of “bhikkhu” as “mendicant” or “beggar” is very bad. Mendicant also means “beggar”.It is quite inappropriate to call a bhikkhu a “beggar”. It is those bhikkhus who assure the continuation of the Buddha Sasana. We need to hold bhikkhus in high regard.
– I am surprised that most of those bad translations are used by bhikkhus themselves!I think the word “bhikkhu” comes from “bhava” + “khaya”. It could also be “bhaya” + “khaya”.
– “Bhaya” means “danger” or “afraid”. “Khaya” is to remove.
– Thus is bhikkhu is one who is striving to remove “bhava” (that gives rise to jati) is one who is striving to attain Nibbana (end the rebirth process filled with suffering).
– In the same way, one who is working to remove the sansaric bhaya or the danger associated with the rebirth process could be “bhikkhu”.“Do you think it is possible, for a normal human being (without magga phala), to act like an arahant on a certain occasion?”
If you mean whether a normal person can act wisely in a certain situation, yes.
“Is his/her behaviour always driven by abhisankhara, avijja and tanha/”
No. It is under “tempting situations” one acts like that. It depends on one’s anusaya.
“It is possible a normal person can act occasionaly with punna kiriya? ‘
Of course.
“Is purity of mind something that cannot be present in a normal person on a certain moment?”
There is no “fixed” mind. Mind (or more correctly thoughts or citta) arise when an external sense input comes in through one of the six senses, including the mana indriya.
See, “Do I Have “A Mind” That Is Fixed and “Mine”?”“Is purity of mind something that cannot be present in a normal person on a certain moment? Can a normal person act with wisdom. ”
Yes.Also see, “‘Self’ and “no-self”: A Simple Analysis – Do We Always Act with Avijja?“
