Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?“
Tien wrote: “Recently, while I contemplate on Dhamma or a relate subject, even in crowded place (while in the bus, on the side of a street, in waiting room, …), I have no awareness of 5 physical senses at all, totally absorb in the thinking for as long as 30 minutes. Then after I’ve done with my contemplation or a sudden sound happens, my awareness of the senses re-emerged..” and “I know it not yet first jhana..”
It is POSSIBLE that it could be a Sotapanna (or higher) phala samapatti.
It is not necessary to be in a jhana to have an experience like that. In fact, at least in the lower jhanas, one can hear external noises, etc while in the jhana. It is only in jhana samapatti (for lower jhanas) that it is guaranteed that one cannot hear, see, etc.
There is a sutta which describes an event where the Buddha was in Arahant phala samapatti (not a jhana or a jhana samapatti), and did not hear thunder and lightning that killed a couple of people close-by. If someone knows the sutta, please post it.
Also see, “Nirōdha Samāpatti, Phala Samāpatti, Jhāna, and Jhāna Samāpatti“.
firewns wrote: “However, I believe that besides kamma niyama, there are four other niyamas–dhamma niyama, citta niyama, utu niyama and bija niyama. Could any of these four niyamas be the root cause instead and kamma having nothing to do with the root cause?”
Yes. I have also written a little bit about those niyamas in a post (I don’t recall the post).
But I just did some research and it seems that those are not discussed in the Tipitaka (suttas or in Abhidhamma).If anyone has a reference on those niyama dhamma from the Tipitaka, please post. I cannot find a single reference.
– It is possible that they were introduced by a commentary written later on.Kamma vipaka may be explained fully via the laws of kamma together with Paticca Samuppada.
– Laws of kamma are not deterministic BECAUSE not only a previous kamma, but also CONDITIONS to bring those kamma vipaka to fruition need to satisfied. Those conditions are in Paticca Samuppada.
– For example, Angulimala killed almost 1000 people. But he was able to “bypass” those vipaka by attaining the Arahanthood. At the cuit-patisandhi moment, those kamma very likely tried to enforce a bhava in the apayas, but his mind would not grasp them (i..e, “upadana paccaya bhava” step in Paticca Samuppada would not be effective, as well as “vedana paccaya tanha” and “tanha paccaya upadana”).
– Also see, “What is Kamma? – Is Everything Determined by Kamma?“.August 25, 2019: I just found a sutta on Dhamma Niyama or more precisley on “dhammaniyāmatā”: “Uppādā Sutta (AN 3.126)“.
Tobias’s questions:
“but the PS is akusala (defilements are not removed but added).”
There is a kusala-mula PS that removes defilements. That is the way to Nibbana:”Kusala-Mula Paticca Samuppada”
“Moha is a cetasika. Avijja is not moha, but a reduced form of moha. Is moha cetasika involved when someone does punna deeds?. Is moha cetasika involved when someone does punna deeds?”
Yes. Moha is a cetasika. Avijja is not moha, but a reduced form of moha.
When one does punna kamma, it is the avijja cetasika that is involved. However, if one has comprehended Tilakkhana FULLY (i.e., if one is an Arahant), it becomes a punna kiriya, without kammic consequences.
Difference between moha and avijja discussed at: “Lōbha, Dōsa, Mōha versus Rāga, Patigha, Avijjā“.
Siebe’s comments:
“In my opinion, there cannot be a refuge for a living being if Nibbana is one thing and ‘a living being’ would be something completely different.”
One’s opinion does not matter. If you have evidence from the Tipitaka, please present the evidence.
“The Buddha does not teach we are these fleeting processes. It is the other way around.”
There are so many suttas say they are fleeting processes. We cannot make up what we like.
Please do not make your opinions to be facts. This is a forum on Buddha Dhamma, not a forum on philosophy.
Siebe wrote: “You ask: Can you explain what else is there in a human being or any other living being?
It is the unconditioned element, Nibbana. Nibbana is always present,…”There are four ultimate realities (paramatthathō):
Thoughts (citta)
Thought qualities or mental factors (cētasika)
Matter (rūpa)
NibbānaThe first three belong to “this world”. Five aggregates encompass those.
Nibbana does not belong belong to “this world”.Therefore, Nibbana cannot be a part of any living being. Even an Arahant gets to “full Nibbana” or Parinibbana only after the death of the physical body.
Christian wrote: “Thank you Lal for an explanation but then I have a question on the basis of that – how one judge then a schism in the Sangha or if one is making such schism when leads to Apayas?”
If one commits Sangha Bheda (schism in the Sangha), Nature will take care of it. Since it is an anantariya kamma, it will bring vipaka at the end of the current life and be instantly born in an apaya.
– No one else need to make a judgement.This is very clear from the account of Devadatta. The Buddha did not take any action against him. Devadatta even remained a bhikkhu until his death.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Siebe wrote: “I do not really understand this Lal. If a human being, if we, are nothing more than an ever changing composition of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana (which i do not belief)..”
Can you explain what else is there in a human being or any other living being?
All living beings, except beings in the asañña realm (who have only the rupa aggregate), have those five “kāya” or aggregates, and nothing else.
It is easy to see this point by just looking at the rupa aggregate. When a human is reborn a brahma, that brahma will have a very fine body, very different from the human body. If reborn as an animal, it will be the body of that animal. So, there is nothing to be proud about one’s own physical body, and it will not last long either (100 years is negligible in the sansaric time scale).
– (Of course, one’s own body is only a tiny part of the rupa aggregate, it is called ajjhatta kāya).This is the key to understand what is meant by Sakkāya Ditthi.
Siebe:
What I explained is what is in SN 22.1:
“4. Sakkaya comes from “sath” + “kaya”, where “sath” means “good” and “kaya” means “aggregates”. So, sakkaya ditthi is the wrong perception that the five aggregates of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana are good and beneficial”.Sakkaya ditthi is the attachment to the five aggregates based on the conviction that those rupa, vedana, etc are good for oneself. While that may be true in the short run, it is not true in the rebirth process where one could be born an animal or worse.
– This is why it is not possible to grasp Buddha Dhamma without taking a long-term view. If one does not believe in the rebirth process (and that one COULD be born an animal or worse), it is impossible to grasp Tilakkhana and get rid of Sakkaya Ditthi.
– When one loses Sakkaya Ditthi, one’s mind becomes free of a large fraction of defiled thoughts. That is the first stage of “cooling down”.However, as I said elsewhere, different people comprehend things differently at one’s own level of understanding.
Christian wrote: “One can teach Dhamma or spread Dhamma without being Sotapanna but there is high risk involved that person will be lacking too much understanding and experience to show people the way of practice.”
Here are some things to think about:
1. If only people with magga phala were teaching Dhamma, Buddha Sasana would have long been disappeared.
– Today, only a tiny fraction of even the bhikkhus have magga phala. Even less had been there only 50 years ago and likely for many hundreds of years up to now. However, Buddha Sasana has been maintained by mainly the bhikkhus who faithfully transmitted the Pali Tipitaka over 2500 years: “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma“.2. There have always been people (including bhikkhus) who had not comprehended Dhamma. Even at the time of the Buddha this was the case. Devadatta was a prime example.
– Even when Devadatta tried to kill the Buddha, the Buddha did not expel Devadatta from the order of the bhikkhus. Devadatta remained a bhikkhu until death.
– There are many other examples, where bhikkhus were teaching the “wrong Dhamma”. There was Sati bhikkhu who could not understand what is meant by viññāna in the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38). Another was Yamaka bhikkhu in “Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85). Once the Buddha could not stop two fractions of bhikkhus who were arguing and decided to leave them and go to Palileyya forest.
-In none of these cases, the Buddha never asked any of those bhikkhus to give up the robes or to stop engaging in their activities, which included delivering discourses. But of course, he explained to them the correct Dhamma.3. In that latter case, Visaka came to the Buddha and asked how to treat those bhikkhus who were “misbehaving and teaching the wrong Dhamma”. Buddha said that people should listen to all and need to figure out who is teaching the correct Dhamma.
4. There have been long stretches where there have been only a few with magga phala. But Buddha Sasana was maintained. Mainly because the faithful propagation of the Pali Tipitaka.
Regardless of how one explains Dhamma, the text in the Tipitaka remains the same. That is the most important factor.5. Dhamma that may have veen hidden for long times can be revived by a few or even one person who is a “jati Sotapanna” (like Waharaka Thero).
– Therefore, the most critical is to preserve the Pali Tipitaka. Even if wrong Dhamma is delivered in many cases, there is built-in safety in the Pali Tipitaka. Without that continuity through long periods, where the Dhamma was explained incorrectly, Buddha Sasana would not have persevered.Of course, it is a good thing that there are more bhikkhus and lay people who are teaching correct Dhamma these days.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Tien wrote: “Out of compassion for them that I revealed the wisdom of the Buddha. But it was really a mistake that I try to introduce Dhamma to people without first attained to the Dhamma myself.”
One does not need to attain the Arahantship or even the Sotapanna stage, before one can try to explain Dhamma to others (to the extent that one comprehends it). That is what most of us are doing.
But my position is that I try to avoid “debating” with those who try to make arguments against Buddha Dhamma just for the sake of debating. I will try to explain to the best of my ability and if they do not seem to be able to grasp the key ideas, I just stop responding.
– The Buddha said that trying to teach Dhamma to those who are obviously resisting, is like begging a woman after she has already said “no”.
– Buddha Dhamma is precious and does not need to be “forced upon”. Each person can make his/her own decisions based on the facts presented.Different people have different capabilities, ditthis, etc. We all have had taken such stubborn positions in the past and that is why we are also still in the rebirth process and are still subject to suffering.
1 user thanked author for this post.
