Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1. If I remember correctly, the movie describes a world where humans live in a “virtual reality” created by AI (Artificial Intelligence.)
- There is also a philosophical hypothesis that humans live in a “simulation.” Many people, including Elon Musk and Scott Adams, believe that we live in a simulation. See, for example, “Confirmed! We Live in a Simulation.”
- Then, the question comes up: “Who created that simulation?” If it is a computer-generated simulation,” someone must have written the program!
2. The correct explanation is that we live in a “world” created by our minds. It is not a simulation. That is how the world works, and that is how it has been from an “untraceable beginning.” There cannot be a “beginning” to a process based on the principle of causality.
- However, there can be an end to that process (not for the whole world, but for each person). When the root causes are eliminated, the existence (and perpetual suffering) ends.
- When the Buddha talked about “ending the world,” he meant the ending of the existence of a given person in this world. Why would one want to “end the existence in the world”? Because in the long run, there is MUCH more suffering than short bouts of “happiness” or “pleasure.”
3. It is true that the Buddha called vinnana a “magician” and sanna a “mirage” in the sutta that Sacket referenced (and I have discussed: “Sotapanna Stage and Distorted/Defiled Saññā.”).
- However, no one created that scheme. That is how the world has operated from a time going back to infinity.
- We create the illusion in our minds. We cultivate specific “gati” with our actions rooted in rage, dosa, moha. Then Paticca Samuppada (Principle of Causality) guarantees that we will born into a world matching those gati, and corresponding illusions about reality.
- Once one understands the complete picture, there will be no doubts. Reality is not created by anyone (a Creator), nor is it a “simulation.” Both those hypotheses are incompatible with the Principle of Causality. Modern science is based on the Principle of Causality, but it cannot find the complete solution until mental phenomena are taken into account. Scientists are only focused on material phenomena, a byproduct of mental phenomena!
2 users thanked author for this post.
I believe you mean “dhammā” here.
- Dhammās are “kammic energies” created by our minds. They arise in a special type of citta: javana citta.
- There must be a living being with a mind to generate any type of citta, especially javana citta.
- Therefore, a living being must have arisen via jāti to generate dhammā.
Dhammās or “kammic energies” are created at the “upādāna paccayā bhava” step in Paticca Samuppāda.
- They can lead to new “jāti” via the uppatti Paticca Samuppāda.
- That is how the rebirth process (samsāra) continues.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Gad asked: “Can the absence of sexuality really be a sign of the anagami stage?”
- No. There are people born asexual, and some even without sexual organs. However, they are DEFINITELY not Anagamis because Anagamis cannot be reborn in the human realm. They are born that way due to kamma vipaka. For example, those who commit sex crimes (e.g., rape) and those who mutilate the sexual organs of others are likely to be reborn that way.
- Those people, when the kammic energy is “exhausted,” will be reborn with normal sexual functions. They have kama raga anusaya/samyojana intact all that time.
- On the other hand, an Anagami has removed kama raga anusaya/samyojana from the mind. They have “seen” (with wisdom or panna) the drawbacks and dangers of kama raga and have cultivated Satipatthana to remove it.
Yash wrote: “Wanting (stress)—leads to Seeking (stress)—–and after Acquiring ——Pleasure (relief from vexation/stress)—-which again leads to——Wanting ( Stress).”
- That is quite true. That is a unique feature of any “sensual pleasure,” not only sex but the craving for food, music, etc.
- The desire is temporarily satisfied when engaging in sex, eating, etc., but the urge ALWAYS comes back and will “keep bothering” until one again engages in whatever that activity was.
- All of us have been doing that in this beginningless rebirth process: Chasing a “mirage.”
2 users thanked author for this post.
Yes. Confirming the Sakadagami stage is tricky.
- In the suttas, the Buddha only says, kama raga is attenuated; there is no “measure.”
- The following can be used as guidance. A Sakadagami will not be reborn in the human realm; they are reborn in a Deva realm. Therefore, a Sakadagami would have “Deva gati” and not “manussa gati.” It has not been clarified in the suttas, but we can probably deduce that Devas do not engage in sexual activities like humans: they don’t give birth to children (their births are opapatika.) But they have male and female Devas. May be they get enough “mental pleasure” by associating with the opposite sex.
- However, the Anagami stage is much more clear-cut. One will not have any desire for sex. An Anagami will be reborn only in Brahma realms, where two sexes do not exist.
The best way to get to either stage is to cultivate “asubha sanna.” Our craving for sensual pleasures is based on the “distorted sanna” that we have. In brief, “subha sanna,” or the idea that external objects/people have mind-pleasing properties, is false. But it may take time to grasp those concepts fully.
- Cultivating “asubha sanna” means contemplating the material discussed in the recent posts on “distorted sanna” and fully understanding those concepts. That is part of the actual “vipassana mediation” (or Satipatthana.): “Sotapanna Stage via Understanding Perception (Saññā).”
- Of course, those concepts also help with getting to the Sotapanna stage.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Yes. The critical point is that how one responds to a particular sensory input depends on (i) the types of samyojana/anusaya rooted in the mind and (ii) the conditions prevailing at that moment.
- Now, for an Arahant, the second part does not matter since all samyojana/anusaya have been removed (and, thus, the mind cannot get defiled with raga, dosa, moha, i.e., it is a pabhassara mind). Regardless of the situation, an Arahant will NEVER respond unwisely and move away from the pabhassara mind. If all the root causes have been removed, the Paticca Samuppada cycle cannot even start.
- At the other extreme of a puthujjana (with all samyojana/anusaya intact,) the conditions present at a particular moment play a huge role. If the sensory input is strong (and tempting), one can “get attached” to it; depending on the conditions present, one can respond in many possible ways.
In the case of a puthujjana, there is “an attachment,” at least at a very subtle level for ANY sensory input.
- That is because a puthujjana‘s mind always starts with a “distorted sanna” as we have discussed in recent posts: “Sotapanna Stage via Understanding Perception (Saññā).”
- But, in most cases, even a puthujjana would not take CONSCIOUS actions if the “attachment to that sensory input (arammana)” is not strong enough. Javana cittas generating strong kammic energy (especially for rebirths) are associated only with conscious actions. Still, the mind of a puthujjana is contaminated from the beginning.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am glad you figured it out, Gad.
- Just because a gandhabba has an invisible subtle body does not mean it is a “spirit” or a “ghost.”
- In rebirth accounts, there is always several months to many years gap between those two successive lives. That human lives in the gandhabba state in between the two lives with dense physical bodies. You and I were in that state before being born with this physical body.
For those who may not be familiar with this discussion, the following is a list of posts on gandhabba:
“Search Results for: gandhabba“
1 user thanked author for this post.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. When a human with a physical body (like one of us) dies, and more kammic energy remains in the human bhava, what is it called?
2. Does a hungry ghost (peta) belong to the human bhava?
Yes. “Paccaya” is a bit hard to put into words. I hope the following comments can help.
1. Dosakkhayo’s statement, ” For example, avijja paccaya sankhara does not mean one always acts foolishly, but when in a certain condition(like seeing a wallet on the street) he/she does some immoral things with avijja” conveys the right idea.
- Let me give another example. Suppose a weak person (X) is being harrassed/hit by a strong person (Y.) X could be thinking, “If I had a gun, I would shoot him right now.” But since X did not have a gun, he could not kill Y. The “avijja” mindset was there, but he did not have the necessary condition (a gun) to carry out what he wanted to do.
- Of course, X would accumulate kammic energy via “vaci kamma” (vitakka/vicara or “defiled thoughts with the intention to kill” running through his mind.) But that is not as strong as a “kaya kamma” (shooting and killing Y.)
2. Now, let us look at the second part:
“But I still have a second problem: I can not see the paccaya of ‘phassa paccaya vedana.’
Let me explain this problem a little bit more.
In the ‘sankhara paccaya vinnana’ step, the paccaya is the situation where abhisankhara seems to have solved the problem. In that situation, stealing and eating bread (abhisankhara) can lead to the expectation (kamma vinnana) that ‘stealing bread solves hunger’ or ‘It is okay to think that stealing bread is a good solution’.
Such situations include that he was putting his hunger first before anything else, that he was praised by others for stealing bread, or that he decided to think it was okay for himself so as not to feel guilty. So the paccaya in the ‘phassa paccaya vedana’ step is also a situation.
But if samphassa ja vedana has no choice but to come right after samphassa in the citta vithi, why does vedana need extra paccaya?
Or doesn’t ‘A paccaya B’ mean that ‘B needs an additional paccaya besides A to happen’?
- There are two types of “vedanā” involved. He felt huger, and that is one vedanā. That vedanā arose first with the sensation of hunger where only the “phassa” cetasika was involved.
- When the idea of “stealing bread” is established in the mind, that is a “samphassa” (contact with “san“) and NOT “phassa.” With “samphassa” a second type of vedanā arises: “samphassa-jā-vedanā.”
- Note that in Paticca Samuppada, “phassa paccayā vēdanā” ALWAYS means “samphassa paccayā samphassa-jā-vedanā.”
- I have made a few revisions to the post “What Does “Paccayā” Mean in Paṭicca Samuppada?“
That phrase is in the “Pathama Niraya Sagga Sutta (AN 10.211)“: “Natthi dinnaṃ, natthi yiṭṭhaṃ, natthi hutaṃ, natthi sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko, natthi ayaṃ loko, natthi parō lōkō, natthi mātā, natthi pitā, natthi sattā opapātikā, natthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lōkaṃ parañca lōkaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedentī’ti.”
- The three phrases I bolded provide somewhat similar meanings. All involve giving. The first (Natthi dinnaṃ) is about generic “giving” (dāna); the subsequent two have increasingly higher impact.
- The following translation in the first two links Dosakkhayo referred to is better: “(i) giving (dana) has no merits, (ii) being grateful and responding in kind (for what others have done for oneself) has no merits, (iii) respecting and making offerings to those with higher virtues has no merits.
- I have revised the third post to have the exact translation as above.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The sutta that Gad’s post refers to is: “Jāṇussoṇi Sutta (AN 10.177).”
- The English translation in the above link is a little better, but it will be helpful first to sort out some main features.
1. When someone in the family dies, it is customary in many Buddhist countries to “make an offering to bhikkhus” and “give merits” to the one who died (as well as those in the family who had died previously).
2. Janussoni asks the Buddha (@ marker 2.4): “Can they actually partake in such merits offered?” OR “Can they actually benefit from it?”
- The Buddha says, “Ṭhāne kho, brāhmaṇa, upakappati, no aṭṭhāne”ti.” OR “They can benefit if they are born in places where such merits can be received.” (“Ṭhāne” means “place.”)
3. @ 3.2 to @3.5, the Buddha first explains why some are born in the niraya (hell); then he says those born there CAN NOT benefit from such merits given.
- Similarly, @4.1 – @6.4: The Buddha says those reborn as animals, humans, and Devas also CAN NOT receive such merits.
- But @ 7.1 – @7.4: Those who are now in the hungry ghost (peta or pettivisayaṁ) CAN receive and benefit from such merits.
I think that may help in understanding the rest of the sutta in both translations.
- If anything else is not clear, please ask. Refer to the markers in the above link.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. You understood perfectly!
To add a bit more: “Sati” required to get to nirujjhatī is “Sammā Sati,” i.e., to contemplate the anicca, dukkha, anatta nature with the comprehension of Four Noble Truths/Paticca Samuppada/Tilakkhana.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello, autumn!
You wrote: “I am not saying that Darwin’s theory of evolution is 100% factual, however both the book you have suggested and the video shared by Johnny can be swiftly discredited with genuine evidence that supports evolution greater than “intelligent design”.
By the book I suggested, I think you mean Feynman’s QED? Of course, that book doesn’t say anything about evolution. That book explains my hypothesis that quantum mechanics is embedded in Buddha Dhamma. See #3 of the post, “Quantum Mechanics – A New Interpretation,” for the paper describing what I mean.
- There are many videos on YouTube on both sides of the argument about Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is just a “theory”; it has not been proven or unproven with “scientific methods.”
- Those who believe in that theory see enough evidence for themselves. Those who oppose it see enough evidence the other way.
- The real question is: Do scientific theories currently accepted by scientists provide a coherent worldview? Scientists admit that there are many “holes” in our understanding. Do scientists say that they fully understand the workings of the human body? No. They do not. They don’t even understand how a living cell came into existence; see “Living Cell – How Did the First Cell Come to Existence?“
- On the other hand, those who have comprehended the teachings of Buddha believe that taken as a whole, it does provide a complete understanding. However, it is impossible to convince someone who does not have that background.
You wrote: “I can agree with the fact that the mind can/could influence adaptation in evolution, but that evolution is a well documented, observable and credible theory.”
- I’m afraid I have to disagree. There is a consensus that it is the best theory that the scientists have. But there is never a “conclusive proof.”
- If you read the book “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer, there are ample scientific arguments against the “theory of evolution.” I am aware that he is a fundamentalist Christian. Of course, I don’t agree with his explanation that a Creator created all life. But that does not change the facts he presents. My post above points out that modern science cannot even explain how the living cell could have “evolved.” Any person with expertise in bioscience will admit that they start building their theories starting with the living cell; they have no idea how it came into existence.
Regarding the comments of “A friend in dhamma” you quoted: I don’t think he has a good understanding of Buddha Dhamma.
- The following part of his comment tells me that he does not understand the “Agganna Sutta” where the Buddha explains how life evolves on the Earth: ” there are some missing puzzles if we take for example the “light body Brahmas” ate the earth and become humans..”
- I have written an introduction to the Agganna Sutta: “Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)” but it will take many such posts to discuss that deep sutta and to provide a decent explanation. Buddha Dhamma is more profound than quantum mechanics or any other branch of modern science.
If someone can understand the Agganna Sutta, then it will become evident that the “de-evolution process” (starting with “humans with Brahma-like” subtle bodies) cannot be reversed. What happens is that the Earth (Solar system and a cluster of other star systems close-by) will be destroyed in a supernova explosion at some point (scientists do agree on that. ) What they don’t know is that those start systems will be re-formed many billions of years after that. It is a cyclic process that has no beginning or end. My post provides some basic concepts/steps involved.
Finally, you wrote: “..I’m struggling a little bit with blind faith aspects.”
- If one can understand the fundamentals of Buddha’s worldview, one will realize that there is nothing to be taken on “blind faith.” In contrast, scientific theories are just that” “theories,” and scientists readily admit to it. Over the years, scientific theories have been revised repeatedly to match new observations; yet, Buddha Dhamma remains the same: “Dhamma and Science – Introduction.” By Buddha Dhamma, I mean the 57 books in the Tipitaka written 2000 years ago: “Preservation of the Buddha Dhamma.”
- I have discussed these issues in more detail in a series of posts: “Origin of Life.” There is no need to repeat those explanations. If you can read them and have questions, that is probably the best way to have a productive discussion.
Yes. It is good to make certain about these issues.
I have revised #9 of the post that you referred to (“Cetasika – Connection to Gati“) as follows:
9. It is easier to list the six moral cetasika that do not necessarily arise with each kusala citta. These are the ones that NEED TO BE CULTIVATED with the comprehension of anicca, dukkha, and anatta.
- They are Sammā Vācā (speech that is conducive to eliminating “san“), Sammā Kammanta (actions that are conducive to eliminating “san“), Sammā Ājiva (a lifestyle that is conducive to eliminating “san“), karunā (“Ariya” compassion), muditā (“Ariya” appreciative joy), and paññā (wisdom) which is the same as Sammā Diṭṭhi.
- Of course, mundane versions of those are developed to some extent when someone lives one’s life morally, but they will NEVER grow to higher stages until one understands anicca, dukkha, and anatta, at least to some extent. In particular, paññā (wisdom) starts emerging ONLY when one starts grasping anicca, dukkha, and anatta; that happens at an early stage of lokuttara (not mundane) Sammā Diṭṭhi.
- That is why sammā vācā is not just “good speech,” or sammā kammaṃta is not just “good deeds.” Sammā (“san” + “ma“) means “to remove “san‘,” i.e., done with an understanding of anicca, dukkha, anatta; see, “Why is Correct Interpretation of Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta so Important?“.
I hope that makes it clear. Let me know if anything is not clear. You don’t need to apologize for asking questions.
P.S. When asking a question about a post, please refer to the bullet number in question. That makes it easier for me to get to it quicker. Otherwise, I have to read the whole post, trying to find the location in the post.
You wrote: ” Now I think as paññā can be developed through mundane eight fold path also, and that mundane version of paññā leads to paññā indriya (one of the five indriya, fairing with saddhā) even if he is still in puthujjanō state.”
- That is not correct.
A puthujjana does not have even a trace of paññā.
- However, when a puthujjana STARTS to comprehend the “anicca nature” and how that leads to “dukkha” (suffering), then he becomes a Sotapanna Anugami.
- That understanding is firmly established when he becomes a Sotapanna. Nevertheless, a Sotapanna Anugami is a Noble Person (Ariya) and WILL get to the Sotapanna phala moment. There is no “going back” to become a puthujjana.
- Therefore, one is either a puthujjana OR an Ariya. There is no overlap. However, the boundary is murky (not a clear-cut boundary.)
Theruwan Saranayi!
