Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
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“.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.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.
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).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.
