Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?“
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.
