Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I listened to more than half of the discourse.
- It is good. It explains the basic concepts of habits, Paticca Samuppada, etc.
Hello Amin,
It would be better if you could provide the link to a YouTube video with that discourse. I am hesitant to download big audio files, and others may be hesitant to do so.
- I can replace the link with the Google Docs if you provide it.
OK. Then that should be enough.
1. Even during the Buddha’s time, no one knew about the details of the gandhabba. The Buddha or other bhikkhus did not teach Abhidhamma (including pure octads and that a gandhabba is made of pure octads.)
- That is why those concepts are not in the Sutta Pitaka.
2. The Buddha explained the framework of Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta. He and his lineage of bhikkhus started on the monumental task of providing the details of Abhidhamma. It begins with the structure of a citta (with cetasika or mental factors), a fundamental building block of a pure octad (suddhāṭṭhaka), and explains the details in a systematic analysis.
- That is equivalent to the efforts of modern scientists to explain all material phenomena starting with a set of elementary particles.
- Of course, they have been unable to accomplish that and will not be.
- That is because material phenomena arise based on mental phenomena.
3. It took many generations of bhikkhus to finalize the Abhidhamma Pitaka.
- Arahants attended four “recitals” or Councils (Dhamma Sangayana) conducted at the following times after the passing away of the Buddha: After three months, one hundred years, two hundred years, and five hundred years.
- At each Council, all three Pitaka (Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma) available at that time were recited to ensure their self-consistency. Of course, the first two Pitakas were complete even in the first Council, but Abhidhamma Pitaka was finalized only at the third Council. Then, that complete Tipitaka was written down in the fourth council.
- See “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”
4. Many Commentaries were written at various times to explain the details of the Sutta and Abhidhamma Pitaka.
- Of the reliable Commentaries, only the three Commentaries composed during the time of Buddha have survived.
- See “Historical Background.”
- Also, see a recent discussion on the forum: “Definition of Energy in Buddha Dhamma.”
5. It seems that one book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka may have been lost. That book should provide details of pure octads and the details of the mental body.
- However, a Commentary that summarized that “missing book” (together with details of the other sections of Abhidhamma) survived.
- Most people learn Abhidhamma using a few books available in Sinhala and English. See the references listed in “Abhidhamma – Introduction.”
6. At some point, I will probably have to write a book explaining all this.
- People did not need to learn Abhidhamma at the time of the Buddha. They were able to grasp the concepts without getting into Abhdiahmma, which is probably why the Buddha did not teach Abhidhamma to a wider audience at that time. In addition, it would not have been possible to compile the material in Abhidhamma within the Buddha’s lifetime.
- But Abhidhamma would suit those who like to “dig deeper.”
7. Allocating time to explain different aspects is a huge task. I will try to tackle various aspects at a given time as I see fit.
- Others (who learned Dhamma from Waharaka Thero; see “Parinibbāna of Waharaka Thēro“) also do that, but many do not go into Abhidhamma.
- I have not seen anyone else discuss these details. Of course, Waharaka Thero discussed them, and I am building on that with my scientific background.
8. Each person needs to choose the way forward. If Abhidhamma seems too complex, it is not necessary to learn those details. As I pointed out above, most people were not even aware of Abhdidhamma during Buddha’s time.
- On the other hand, Abhidhamma could help many these days. See “Sutta Learning Sequence for the Present Day”
- I quote the following from that post. Many people at Buddha’s time belonged to the ugghaṭitañña and vipañcitañña categories. They could understand concepts with only a little explanation.
“4. As pointed out by Buddha, There are three types of people who can comprehend Tilakkhana, categorized according to their “inherent capabilities.” That has nothing to do with “book knowledge,” but has everything to do with one’s inherent capabilities accumulated over many, many lives.
- The first category is ugghaṭitañña or “persons with high wisdom”; they could grasp concepts very quickly. Then some belong to the vipañcitañña category, and they needed a bit more explanation to understand the concepts. The third category is neyya; they need detailed explanations (i.e., patiniddesa) to grasp a concept. People in the last group of “padaparama” are unable to comprehend Dhamma.”
9. P.S. I just revised the post “Abhidhamma – Introduction” to provide the name of the Commentary based on which the References in that post were compiled.
- Commentary on the Abhidhamma Piṭaka by Ācāriya Anuruddha (Abhidhammattha Sangaha).
- Also, see Bhikkhu Bodhi’s note, “A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha.”
It is a bit long explanation why the concept of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) seems absent in Tipitaka. It is definitely absent in the Sutta Pitaka. I will write about it at some point, but there are more pressing issues to be discussed right now.
- It is easier to proceed the other way, as I suggested above.
- Did you read the posts I recommended in my last comment above? Do you think there is insufficient evidence supporting the mental body (gandhabba) concept?
I think it is a good idea to start with #4 above.
- To quote the relevant point: “When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”
First, look at the evidence in the above two posts that seeing, hearing, etc., can happen while the physical body is “effectively dead” and the brain activity is absent.
- That leads to the conclusion that the Buddha was right. There is a mental body (gandhabba) associated with the physical body. Furthermore, the mental body is primary, and the physical body (born when a gandhabba enters a womb) is secondary. The death of the physical body is not necessarily the end of human existence; in most cases, gandhabba comes out of the dead body and gets into another womb to make another physical body.
- In other words, the physical human body has a maximum lifetime of about 100 years, while the mental body may live for thousands of years.
Once one is convinced of the LOGICAL necessity for a mental body, one would be motivated to take the account of the pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) more seriously.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This is a complex topic. I will summarize the main points related to your questions.
1. Everything in this world (living and lifeless) is made of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka.) A pure octad is made of eight components, as I described above. It is a complex account, but all eight components have “seeds” in mental power.
- Four arise due to avijja (ignorance about Buddha’s teachings), and the other four due to craving (tanha). Defiled minds create them with rage, dosa, and avijja. See “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”
- It may seem impossible, but it can be explained in detail with a good background in Abhidhamma.
2. The proportions of the eight components define an infinite variety of inert things in the world. For example, rocks primarily have the pathavi component, and water primarily has the apo component. On the other hand, sugar would have pathavi (giving hardness) and rasa (giving sweetness.)
- I provided brief explanations in “Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals” and “The Origin of Matter – Suddhāṭṭhaka.”
3. Lagrade wrote, “I’ve read that the essence of a human (and animal) is in the gandhabba which contains 6 pure octads (for 5 pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu).”
- That is correct. Thus, a gandhabba is primarily made of six suddhāṭṭhaka.
- But they have two other components each to make them “alive.” Here, a suddhāṭṭhaka combines with a jivita rupa and another unit created by kammic energy to become a dasaka.
- P.S. The jivita rupa component is in all “live entities” and the tenth component carries out a specific task.
- For example, a cakkhu pasada (together with the other nine units) creates a cakkhu dasaka responsible for seeing. That tenth component of cakkhu pasada makes it possible to “see.” The tenth component in the seat of the mind, hadaya vatthu, makes it able to create thoughts (citta.) See “Rupa Kalāpa (Grouping of Matter)” for some details.
- Those basic kammic laws cannot be explained further. They are nature’s laws, just like laws of gravity. Like scientists discover the laws of gravitation, a Buddha discovers the laws of kamma.
- The laws of kamma make it possible for cakkhu pasada rupa “to see,” or a hadaya vatthu to become the “seat of the mind,” for example.
4. As explained in #3 above, Our mental body is the gandhabba, made of six types of dasaka.
- That is where all the “action” takes place. Our physical sensory faculties (like the eyes, nose, etc.) are only the “doors” to the external world. The brain processes the signals coming through them and passes them over to the corresponding pasada rupa.
- That is explained in “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
- When the gandhabba comes out of a physical body (as in NDE or OBE), a gandhabba can see, hear, etc., on its own. See “Near-Death Experiences (NDE): Brain Is Not the Mind” and “Manomaya Kaya and Out-of-Body Experience (OBE).”
This is a complex subject. One needs to have a good knowledge of Abhidhamma to fully understand, but one should be able to get the general idea.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It is good to remember the two rules mentioned in #1 of my previous comment quoted below:
- The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
- In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.
The second rule applies in “‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. .” It rhymes better to say “Cakkhu attā’ti” rather than “Cakkhu atta’ti” just like in “vedanā anattā” (mentioned in my previous comment.)
- “‘cakkhu is beneficial‘ does not hold..”
- In this case, “cakkhu” means “cakkhayatana,” not physical eyes or cakkhu indriya.
- “Cakkhayatana” is when one using cakkhu indriya as an “ayatana,” i.e., to enjoy sights. In the case of an Arahant, it is always used as cakkhu indriya and not cakkhayatana.
- The difference between cakkhu indriya and cakkhayatana is explained in “How Do Sense Faculties Become Internal Āyatana?“
P.S. It is possible (in most cases) to get an idea of “which of the two rules should apply” in a given situation by reading through the whole sutta (taking a quick scan).
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am rewriting an old post to explain different meanings of atta, anatta, attā, and anattā. The following is an extraction from it. Please ask any remaining questions so I can answer them in that post.
Introduction
1. It is crucial to understand the usage of the Pali words atta, anatta, attā, and anattā in the context of a given sutta.
- The mundane (or conventional) usage is with attā, to indicate “a person.”
- In most other cases, all four words, atta, anatta, attā, and anattā, could be associated with the anatta lakkhana in Tilakkhana.
Attā as “a Person”
2. The word “attā” (pronounced with a “long a at the end”) is used as “a person” only in the conventional sense. To communicate with others, we may say things like, “One needs to defend oneself.” Here, “a person” exists only in the conventional sense. In Sinhala, it is written as “අත්තා.” That is how it appears in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.
- There is no single Pāli word to express the negation of that, i.e., “not attā.” If there were to be such a word, that would be “non-person.” It just cannot be used that way.
- The other words to denote “me” or “self” are “mama,” “asmi,” or “mē.”
- Even though attā has this meaning as a “person,” anatta is never used as the opposite of that “attā.”
- Note that “attā” is pronounced with a “long a” as in “father.”
Atta as “Beneficial” or “Meaningful”
3. The word “atta” (pronounced with a “short a at the end” as in “cut” or “but”) embeds several meanings, including “beneficial” or “with essence.” The negation is “anatta.”
- In Sinhala, they are written as “අත්ත” and “අනත්ත.” That is how they appear in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, written in Sinhala.
- Anatta is the negation of “atta“: “na” + atta” (which rhymes as “anatta“): there is no benefit/does not hold anything fruitful.
- Such a word combination applies to “Anāgāmi” too. It comes from “na” + āgāmi” where “āgāmi” means “to come back; thus, “Anāgāmi” means “not coming back (to the kama loka).
- There also “na” + āgāmi” rhymes as “Anāgāmi.“
4. One who is engaged in things that are of “anatta nature” will become “anātha” (helpless), the opposite of “nātha.” As was mentioned in the post “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō,” “nātha” is another word for Nibbāna.- One trying to find refuge in this world will become truly helpless in the long run. On the other hand, the only refuge (“nātha“) is Nibbāna, i.e., overcoming the rebirth process.
5. Therefore, a critical mistake Is made by trying to translate anatta as the opposite of “attā” with the conventional meaning of “a person” or “self.”
- The word anatta was ALWAYS used with the deep meaning of “no benefit or no essence.” Anatta indicates there is no benefit in seeking lasting happiness in this world of 31 realms. Sometimes, it is also written as “anattā” with a “long a,” as in “vedanā anattā.”
- As discussed above, attā ( in the conventional sense) indicates “a person.” The words atta, anatta, and anattā are never used in the context of that meaning.
It means something like “One who gives/feeds those who are poor/helpless.”
- Here “anātha” means “helpless,” and “piṇḍaka” means “food.”
- Also see “Attā Hi Attanō Nāthō.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
1. The following recent post could help get some ideas. I revised it a bit, too: “Etaṁ Mama, Esohamasmi, Eso Me Attā’ti – What Does It Mean?“
2. Also, “ā” can mean different things in different contexts.
- It indicates plural for “things” or “people”; manusso is one person, and manussā is many people.
- However, “anattā” is the same as “anatta.” It indicates the characteristic of anatta nature. It is mainly used as “anattā” because it rhymes better as in “vedanā anattā.”
- This is why I say we need to be careful with grammar.
- It may take some time to get used to these aspects.
1 user thanked author for this post.
1. Pathfinder: “Also, I haven’t been able to find ‘anatta’ (without long ā) as a standalone word in any sutta, so I don’t think that word exists, …”
- See “Anattadhamma Sutta (SN 23.18)” and “Anatta Sutta (SN 22.14)“
- Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are characteristics (lakkhana) as explained in “Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta (SN 22.59).”
- Of course, the English translations in those links are incorrect.
2. However, the anicca, dukkha, and anatta nature (of anything associated with our mental or physical bodies) leads to the conclusion that there is no unchanging “soul-type entity” (no permanent “self” or soul) that goes through the rebirth process.
- The error in my old post was also due to referring to that aspect. But that is not quite right.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I did not realize that I had not updated that section of the post, even though I had made some revisions to #2 even recently.
- I need to revise it. Sorry about the confusion.
- I know that some old posts need revision. I should maybe start going through old posts and updating them before writing new ones.
- Thanks for pointing it out.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. You are correct in that case. I revised it as follows:
3. Pāli is a phonetic language. The Tipiṭaka was faithfully transmitted for hundreds of years because verses were formulated for easy memorization. Grammar rules are different in Pāli. That is clear in verses “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi” and “Dhamman Saranam gacchāmi,” for example.
- There is no apparent subject in the above verse. The first, of course, means, “I take refuge in the Buddha,” but “I” is missing in “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi” because it is taken into account as “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
First of all, ChatGPT learns “grammar” from what is fed to it by its programmers. See “Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?“
- Pali grammar is a complex subject. I don’t want to get into a discussion on that. Of course, I am not discouraging anyone from learning Pali (learning the meanings of critical Pali words is essential), but relying too much on “adopted grammar rules” could become a problem.
- I suggest trying to understand a verse’s meaning in the context of a given sutta.
- Of course, each person can decide how to proceed.
As I see it, AI bots like ChatGPT are great resources but have limits. They are good at summarizing information. They can look through all available resources and summarize them. But we need to be careful because their capabilities are limited by the resources available to them (fed by their programmers).”Artificial intelligence” (AI) is a misnomer; there cannot be any “intelligence” in a computer program!
