Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
See whether the following series of audios can be helpful:
1. Brahmas cannot smell. It has only the sight and hearing. The taste, touch, and smell faculties are absent in a Brahma. That is why it is not called a “gandhabba.”
2. Yes. Even the human gandhabbas can go through walls.
3. A gandhabba can become a bit denser by inhaling orders of flowers, etc. But their “bodies” are still invisible and they can go through walls.
4. Is there a question there?
5. Since it cannot feel touch, a gandhabba cannot have sex.
- Petas are a different category belonging to the apayas, a lower realm.
- A human gandhabba belongs to the human realm. Our essence is a gandhabba; the dense physical body is just a shell. All sensing faculties are in the gandhabba (hadaya vatthu is the seat of the mind, and the five pasada rupas are effectively the five senses.
- See “Manomaya Kaya (Gandhabba) and the Physical Body“
Yes. A human has a subtle/invisible “manomaya kaya (gandhabba)” and a physical body.
- Brahmas only have a manomaya kaya (no physical body), which is not called a gandhabba.
- In humans, a gandhabba enters a womb to initiate the formation of a physical body. Between two consecutive births with physical bodies, a human gandhabba lives without a physical body.
Yes. What Yash wrote makes sense.
However, I don’t think the following can happen: “..It’s possible that a Sotapanna can become a pornstar and have sex with multiple partners, ..”
- The mindset of a Sotapanna is unlikely to make that happen.
______
Regarding the issue of Visaka keeping “slaves.” Those are probably more like “servants.” When thinking of slaves, one may get the idea of “forced labor.” I don’t believe a Sotapanna is capable of that.
- For example, when I grew up in Sri Lanka, it was common to have servants in the house. We had a couple, and I remember playing with one my age. They were sent to school and treated nicely. Those were mostly children from poor families who could not provide even food for them; the parents voluntarily asked my parents to take care of them. It was not “forced labor.”
- These are complex issues that must be considered based on the specific situation.
- There was also a “slave woman” (Kujjuttara, I believe) who became a Sotapanna and taught Dhamma to others. Thus, she was obviously free to listen to the Buddha’s discourses.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Hello upekkha! For those who don’t know her, upekkha used to post regularly a few years ago.
Following is my comment on that thread (upekkha referred to):
“It is not about kusala and akusala kamma.
- For a puthujjana to start comprehending Buddha’s teachings, they must first live a “moral life,” where the base level of “morality” is to abide by society’s standards. That is the only “morality” they know. The key point is to have a calm mind to start understanding Buddha Dhamma.
- When a puthujjana engages in an action not approved by society, their minds become agitated, which is not conducive to learning. Thus, if society approves having multiple wives, they don’t need to worry about having multiple wives.
- If the Buddha had started changing societal norms, that would have taken most of his lifetime. Of course, once one becomes serious about attaining Nibbana, it may be better not to have a single wife (i.e., to become a bhikkhu).
- In that context, even keeping slaves was accepted by society at the time of the Buddha. While the Buddha did not consent to that practice (obviously an immoral practice by any standards), he did not try to change it, which would have taken most of his time.
One’s moral values will change as one advances on the Path, but this change cannot be forced in some cases.”
______
I just revised the highlighted sentence to make things a bit more clear.
- Of course, the Buddha would not encourage polygamy or slavery. But those were standard practices in that region in those days.
- As I mentioned above, If the Buddha had started changing societal norms, that would have taken most of his lifetime.
Upekkha asked: “1. Can that comment be backed up in the Pali Canon?”
- Yes. Visaka was a wealthy woman who attained the Sotapanna stage at age seven. She had slaves. Anathapindika was another wealthy Sotapanna who had slaves.
- King Bimbisara was a Sotapanna, too. He had a harem with many women (as was the practice those days.)
- It is hard for us to believe, but those were standard practices.
- There were also instances when the Buddha asked some slaves to become bhikkhus because he saw they could attain magga pahala. No one got in the way in such cases.
Upekkha asked: “2. The Buddha is a symbol of morality and knows more than anyone right from wrong. Thus how could it be that he defined morality based on societal acceptance?”
- The practice of polygamy or keeping slaves is not moral, according to the Buddha.
- But if he started changing societal practices, that would have taken most of his time.
- Instead, people changed their practices over time, even though this probably happened long after the Buddha. Some kings, for example, gave up their harems to become bhikkhus. Rather than forcing morality, teaching how to be moral is better.
Upekkha wrote: “3. I highly disagree that the Buddha defined morality based on societal acceptance.”
- I agree with you. He never defined morality that way, and that should be clear to anyone familiar with Buddha’s teachings.
Yash’s experience seems like a genuine samadhi born out of understanding. Glad to hear your progress.
Yash wrote: “However, when I focus too much on the ‘me’ part, I experience fear – it’s as if the self doesn’t want to let go! But when I return to a more normal understanding, the fear subsides.”
- Yes. That is when the mind’s focus moves away from Nibbana.
The “clarity” will get better with practice. “Nibbana sukha” is not a vedana in mundane terms. It is really a relief from the incessant distress (pilana) of the mind: “Anicca – The Incessant Distress (“Pīḷana”).”
1 user thanked author for this post.
Arahants live mainly to help others attain Nibbana.
- Until the death of their physical bodies, they would have to bear any discomforts, pains, and sicknesses that come naturally to any human body. As long as those are not overbearing, they are willing to live to help out others.
- However, sometimes, they may come down with an illness that brings them so much suffering they are unable to help others. In such cases, it serves no purpose for them to live any longer.
- There are accounts of a few Arahants who decided to end their lives because they had come down with unrecoverable illnesses, and the Buddha approved such decisions.
- In the case of Venerable Dabba, he came to the Buddha and asked for permission to end his life. But a specific reason is not given. See “Paṭhamadabba Sutta (Ud 8.9).” Jittananto quoted the “Dutiyadabba Sutta (Ud 8.10), ” the next sutta in that series.
2 users thanked author for this post.
” Ugga was an anagami and could live with 4 women without feeling the slightest desire.”
- Yes, that seems like a miracle. Most people do not understand this aspect of Buddha’s teachings.
- Some people attained the Anagami (and even Arahant) stages of Nibbana by listening to a single discourse by the Buddha. By the time they leave, they have lost all sexual urges. How is that possible?
- It is an aspect that cannot be explained by modern medical science. His testosterone or any other “medical characteristic associated with the sexual urge” would not have changed. That is because it was a mental phenomenon. “Sexual urge” was an illusion (distorted saññā), and he was able to overcome that illusion: “Fooled by Distorted Saññā (Sañjānāti) – Origin of Attachment (Taṇhā).”
- That is precisely what we have been discussing under “Worldview of the Buddha”
2 users thanked author for this post.
When you read the rest of the sutta, you will see that the Buddha explained to Ven. Ananda, the following:
- Outward appearances cannot be used to determine rebirths. Furthermore, it depends on many factors, and thus, only a Buddha can be certain about a person’s place of rebirth.
- If the magga phala of a person is known (which another person cannot do), then we can roughly predict certain limits of rebirths. A Sotapanna is excluded from rebirths in an apaya; a Sakadagami will be reborn in a Deva realm; An Anagami will be reborn in a Brahma realm reserved for them; an Arahant will not be reborn.
- In that specific sutta, the Buddha declared that laywoman Migasālā’s father and uncle were both Sakadagamis. So, they must be reborn in a Deva realm. She tried to differentiate between them by noticing that her father was celibate and her uncle lived with his wife. Even though his father lived a celibate life, he had not removed kama raga samyojana and, thus, was not an Anagami.
- We don’t know the specific reasons for them to be reborn in the same Deva realm. Only a Buddha can discern such details.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Good discussion. I hope all the issues were resolved.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It is not about kusala and akusala kamma.
- For a puthujjana to start comprehending Buddha’s teachings, they must first live a “moral life,” where the base level of “morality” is to abide by society’s standards. That is the only “morality” they know. The key point is to have a calm mind to start understanding Buddha Dhamma.
- When a puthujjana engages in an action not approved by society, their minds become agitated, which is not conducive to learning. Thus, if society approves having multiple wives, they don’t need to worry about having multiple wives.
- If the Buddha had started changing societal norms, that would have taken most of his lifetime. Of course, once one becomes serious about attaining Nibbana, it may be better not to have a single wife (i.e., to become a bhikkhu).
- In that context, even keeping slaves was accepted by society at the time of the Buddha. While the Buddha did not consent to that practice (obviously an immoral practice by any standards), he did not try to change it, which would have taken most of his time.
One’s moral values will change as one advances on the Path, but this change cannot be forced in some cases.
2 users thanked author for this post.
The Buddha defined “morality” based on societal acceptance.
- Yes. If it is accepted by society (or the country), having multiple wives is fine. In the days of the Buddha, many disciples had several wives (until they became Anagamis).
- For example, kings had harems with many women. There is an account of a gahapati (householder) with three or four wives. I forget his name, but the day he became an Anagami, he came home and told the wives that he would consider them his sisters from then on, and they could live with him. But if they wanted, they were free to marry another man. One wife chose to marry another man, but the others stayed with him.
- It becomes sexual misconduct when one goes beyond societal norms.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Please note that the above are Jittananto’s thoughts. I (or this website) do not encourage nor discourage anyone from becoming a bhikkhu. It is a personal decision to be taken after careful consideration.
1 user thanked author for this post.
There is nothing wrong with earning money. One has to earn money to live life unless you are a bhikkhu. Problems arise only when you focus on earning too much money.
- Buddha taught lay people to live moral lives, not miserable lives. He discouraged excess indulgence in sensual pleasures and, at the other extreme, submitting one’s body to suffering. He recommended the “middle path,” away from the two extremes.
- Eating well, exercising, and living a healthy life are essential. Our brains use 25% of the energy we get from our food. If you neglect to eat well, your brain may not function well. A healthy brain is necessary to understand Buddha’s teachings.
- You may get sick if you don’t eat and exercise well; taking long walks is an easy exercise. Otherwise, you will not be able to learn Buddha’s teachings.
- Please read all my above comments carefully. You seem to rush into things. Relax and take the time to absorb the teachings.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am afraid you have some misconceptions.
1. “Sangha” refers ONLY to those with magga phala (Noble Persons), i.e., at or above the Sotapanna stage.
- Not even all bhikkhus belong to “Sangha.“
- However, all bhikkhus deserve our respect.
2. Since bhikkhus, in most cases (especially in Buddhist countries), receive food from the lay disciples, they are not expected to cook for themselves. They are expected NOT to earn money, so they have no way of buying food. Furthermore, they are expected to commit their time to learning, practicing, and teaching Dhamma to lay people.
- However, lay people (including those with magga phala) must cook for themselves. The main reason is that others cannot determine whether a given lay person (“householder”) is a Noble Person.
- Cooking for oneself and eating by oneself does not break the sila of a layperson, even if he/she is a Noble Person. I assume you are a layperson.
2 users thanked author for this post.
