Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What y not says above is correct in general.
I want to emphasize two points:
1. Having sakkaya ditthi is just one part of avijjā. But it is a big part. Removal of sakkaya ditthi basically prevents one from committing apāyagāmi deeds.
2. Removal of sakkaya ditthi is just removing a “wrong vision” about a “self.” That DOES NOT remove the “wrong saññā” about a “self”.
– Even though one realizes that it is not correct to say that “things are happening to a self,” one still has the “distorted saññā” of a “self.”
– That perception of a “me” is “asmi māna.” That wrong perception decreases in stages and is removed at the Arahant stage.P.S. I have revised the post in question:
1. #5 in the original post was split into #5 and #6.
2. An addition was made to new #11 about wrong perceptions.
3. Few other minor revisions.I have re-written the post, “Our Two Worlds: Material and Immaterial.”
Hopefully, it will help further clarify these concepts. Let me know if there are any unresolved issues.
Yes. That is my understanding. At least they started the process, using the convention that I described above.
EDITED: OK. I got confused, and after seeing the comment by y not below, I realized what Tobias (may be) asking.
The scripts are the same for English and Latin. That is why I got confused.
The conversion from Sinhala to English script was done by early European scholars like Rhys Davis, Eugene Burnouf, and others, who learned Pali as well as Sanskrit. They also TRANSLATED Tipitaka to English. See, “Misinterpretation of Anicca and Anatta by Early European Scholars.”
They were also confused by Pali words like anicca and anatta, which they thought the same as anitya and anatma in Sanskrit. That is why the English TRANSLATIONS are not reliable.
– However, Pali Tipitaka in English SCRIPT is correct. But there is some confusion about the spelling of some words. For example, the Pali word anicca is pronounced as “anichcha” where “ch” sound is the same as in “chicken” or “choice”. But it is written with just “c”. That was done to prevent words from getting too long.Welcome to the forum, Adomsonh!
It seems that your comment is on a statement by Christian at the beginning of this thread. I will let Christian address it as he thinks appropriate.
Siebe has sent me an email clarifying what he was trying to say in the first question above.
Sieber wrote in the email the following:
“I read this post: https://puredhamma.net/living-dhamma/rupa-aggregate/what-are-rupa-dhamma-are-rupa-too/
Under point 8 you say….”Kamma beeja — that are generated by our minds (via our thoughts) — are also part of dhammā.
so, there are dhamma generated by our minds, that’s what i said.
and in point 17 you say:…”The basis for making dhammā are our thoughts with javana citta. Those javana generate “kamma beeja” and they give rise to future kamma vipāka. So, those kamma beeja are dhammā. They are very tiny packets of energy below the suddhāshtaka stage.”
That is all correct, Siebe.
Yes. kamma beeja are created by javana citta, and they are part of dhamma.But that is not how you worded your question in your earlier post. That question, in full, was: “From reading the posts it seems dhamma can also come from the mind while produced in javana citta? Can those dhamma that are created in javana citta’s contact mana indriya?”
I am not going to try to analyze what you meant there, Siebe. But it confused me.
Anyway, what you wrote in the email is correct.P.S. I hope everyone will take a bit of time to formulate the questions to make it clear what the question is. Refer to relevant posts with bullet numbers if it is a question about a particular point made in a post. That way, we can avoid misunderstandings like this one.
“From reading the posts it seems dhamma can also come from the mind while produced in javana citta?”
That statement does not make any sense.
– Just like rupa (sights, sounds, smells, etc) come from the external world, dhamma (memories, kamma vipaka, etc) come from the external world. One is a “material world” and the other is an “immaterial world”. That is explained in one of the posts I recommended for you in my previous comment.
– We can see a tree out there or that a sound is emitted when two objects hit each other or that a certain odor is emitted by a flower… But dhamma cannot be “visualized” that way.“I think it needs some attention to explain how it is possible that the experiencing or sensing happens around the heart-region, while we clearly experience all kind of things like emotions, memories, thought in our head?”
– That is because you have not read the posts carefully.
– In recent posts, I have explained in detail how the brain is “working overtime” while watching a movie, for example. It has to process sights coming through the eyes and the sounds coming through the ears continuously while watching a movie.
– That is why we may get a headache if we watch two movies at a stretch.
– And that also explains why we have the perception that thoughts are created in the brain.On the other hand, when we hear traumatic news like the death of a parent or a child or a spouse, we feel that close to the heart. Those feelings are felt in the hadaya vatthu which is located in the mental body overlapping the heart. People say, “my heart became burdened”.
– In especially joyful instances we also feel that close to the heart, not in the head. People say, “my heart became overjoyed”.Siebe asked: “Where do those dhamma come from that are detected by the mana indriya?”
Just like visual signals come to the physical eyes from the external world, dhammā come to the mana indriya from the external world.
– But unlike visual things (trees, people, etc), dhammā cannot be “seen” or “touched” (dhammā are: anidassanam, appatigham dhammayatana pariyapanna rupam).
– Dhamma are in the immaterial world, compared to rupa in the material world. See, “Our Two Worlds: Material and Immaterial.”“Do i understand it correctly, that when there is no mana indriya in a gandhabba that has left the body, there are also no memories in this gandhabba?”
Gandhabba does not have eyes but can see. In the same way, gandhabba does not have a mana indriya but can receive dhammā.
– It is only when a gandhabba is inside a physical body that it needs those six indriya to receive external rupa and dhammā.You may need to go through the relevant posts again to get the idea. Here si another relevant post: “Citta and Cetasika – How Vinnana (Consciousness) Arises.”
Dhamma are rupa below the suddhatthaka stage: “What are Rūpa? – Dhammā are Rūpa too!.”Good question. Some others may have this question too.
The key is to understand the following:
1. Citta (“thoughts”) arise in the hadaya vatthu (seat of the mind). That is located in the manomaya kaya (gandhabba) overlapping the physical heart.
2. Mana indriya is in the brain. Of course, scientists are not aware of that. But mana indriya is like eyes or ears (or other three physical senses).
– Rupa rupa “come in” through the eyes.
– Sadda rupa “come in” through the ears.
– Dhamma rupa (memories, kamma vipaka, etc) “come in” through the mana indriya.3. The brain processes all six types of “incoming” sensory signals. Then those signals are transmitted to the heart (hadaya vatthu) area.
– Signals from the five physical senses received by the five pasada rupa located around the hadaya vatthu and transferred to hadaya vatthu (one at a time). That is what we discussed briefly in recent posts.
– Signals from the mana indriya are transmitted directly to hadaya vatthu.
– More information at, “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”4. When the physical body dies, the mana indriya dies.
– But the gandhabba comes out with the hadaya vatthu and the five pasada rupa. (That is if there is more kammic energy left in the human bhava.) In that case, the gandhabba may get into another womb and then a new brain will develop with a new mana indriya in the new physical body.Thanks, Siebe and y not.
Very useful information. Much merits to you both.
I have added the links to y not’s post. It is a good idea to read the English translation.
Lang asked, “Is this gandhabba the same word used in a different context? Or is it just mistranslated into “musician”.”
It is definitely not correct to say a gandhabba is a musician.
But as Seng Kiat points out, such descriptions are in dictionaries and in other texts.
As we have discussed, there can be human and animal gandhabbas. Both kinds have subtle “bodies” (more like “energy bodies”), that can get a bit denser by taking in the aroma (smells) of various kinds. Even then we cannot see them.
There are also some (lower level) devas called gandhabbas. In fact, there is a Tipitaka account of such a “deva gandhabba” who was a musician. I don’t remember the name of the sutta, but one time the King of the devas (Sakka) came to see the Buddha, accompanied by a deva gandhabba who was a musician (in deva loka). He played some kind of a musical instrument to get Buddha’s attention in that case.
– That could be how that definition got into the dictionary!I just entered, “suddhatthaka” and it gave one reference.
Thanks, Seng Kiat.
The link did not work for me. However, the link under the other topic did work. So, it could be just me.
But in case others run into the same issue, here is Seng Kiat’s link that did work for me:
Tipitaka SearchHere are the results for “hadayavatthu”
This seems to be a great tool.
Much merits to Seng Kiat!
