Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
That is not correct. A newborn does not know ANYTHING about the world.
- As the baby grows (and its brain develops), it gradually learns about the world. First, the baby learns about Mom and Dad and family; then, the family teaches the baby about colors, objects, what words mean, etc.
- It takes seven years for the brain to develop fully. It is not a coincidence that the youngest recorded Arahant is seven years old.
The point is that the gandhabba inside the baby makes contact with the external world via the Brain.
- While in the womb and probably for at least a few weeks, the baby’s mind (i.e., gandhabba‘s mind) is mainly in the “natural bhavanga” state.
- As the brain grows, it can process more and more “external sensory data” and pass them to the gandhabba. Thus, more thoughts (cittas) are generated by responding to more sensory inputs.
- But it takes seven years to get to “full awareness/recognition.” That is when the gandhabba‘s hidden samyojana/anusaya can be fully “triggered” and also “changed.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes. Lang is correct: “The sattās who reside most of the time in the apayā …”?
- A puthujjana (an average person who has not comprehended Buddha Dhamma) is human.
Happy New Year to you, too, Lang, and to all!
2 users thanked author for this post.
Thank you.
- It would be helpful if you could give a link to a post/discourse on a fundamental concept like Four Noble Truths, Satipatthana, Ananapanasati, Anicca, anatta, etc. Any one of those topics would be fine.
- That would make it easier to see how different Tibetan Buddhism is from Theravada Buddhism.
The point is that a baby does not have any idea about ‘sakkāya’ (i.e., attachment) or sakkāya diṭṭhi (wrong view about attachment). The question is, “Why is that the case?” or “How is that possible?”
- Has the baby removed all samyojana/gati/anusaya etc.?
- Obviously, a baby has NOT removed all samyojana/gati/anusaya, etc. If that were the case, a baby would be born an Arahant!
- So, what explains the observation?
Gad wrote: “If arahants have patisamvedi towards the elements of kāma loka, the same applies to rupa and arupa loka right? An arahant might voluntarily indulge in all jhanas, but he/she will not have ragapatisamvedi like an anagami or anariya yogi.”
- Very good. You understood the concept.
1. Yes. An Anāgāmi will undergo both “rūpa paṭisaṁvedī” and “rūpa rāga paṭisaṁvedī” for the rupāvacara jhānās. But an Arahant will not go through the second step of “rūpa rāga paṭisaṁvedī” while in the jhānās.
- Just like the task of a puthujjana/Sotapanna is to get rid of the step “kāma rāga paṭisaṁvedī,” the task of an Anāgāmi is to get rid of the tendency to attach to those rupāvacara jhānās, i.e., stop going through the “rūpa rāga paṭisaṁvedī.” Note that here “rūpa rāga” is about rupāvacara jhānās.
2. Once an Anāgāmi gets through that step of “not attaching to rupāvacara jhānās, they will become “Arahant-phala Anugāmis” striving to attain the Arahanthood. Thus, they will get into arupāvacara samāpattis.
- Now, their minds will automatically go through “arūpa paṭisaṁvedī” and “arūpa rāga paṭisaṁvedī.”
- Thus, the task of an”Arahant-phala Anugāmi“ is to get rid of the tendency to attach to those arupāvacara samāpattis.
- Once that is done, they become Arahants and only experience “arūpa paṭisaṁvedī” and NOT “arūpa rāga paṭisaṁvedī.”
3. Therefore, it is a step-by-step process of getting released from “kāma loka,” “rupa loka,” and“arupa loka.”
P.S.
Now, we can try to address the following issue that I brought up in the previous thread.
“2. Then the sutta mentions this question by the Buddha: “For Mālunkyaputta, an infant lying on its back, does not have even the concept of identity, so how could the self-identity view arise in him?”
- Have you understood why that is the case?
- The Pali verse is: “Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?”
- In Sutta Central translation, the same verse is translated as: “For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘substantial reality,’ so how could substantialist view possibly arise in them?” See “Mahāmālukya Sutta (MN 64.)“
Let me rephrase the question the following way (since now I have explained the difference between sakkāya and sakkāya diṭṭhi with a discussion on “distorted saññā.”)
- “A little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘sakkāya,’ (i.e., attachment), so how could sakkāya diṭṭhi (wrong view about attachment) possibly arise in them?”
- Can anyone explain that now?
The draft post on “Sakkāya and Sakkāya Diṭṭhi“ that I posted here yesterday was moved to a new thread, “Posts Related to ‘Distorted Saññā‘” together with the subsequent comment by Gad.
- Future comments on posts on subjects of general interest from DRARISWORLD and Other Websites should still be posted here.
- Any comments on the new series of posts on “Distorted Saññā” should be posted in the new thread on “Posts Related to ‘Distorted Saññā‘”
- That way, it will be easier to find relevant comments on specific subjects.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The following comment by Gad on the above post is also moved to this thread:
Thank you very much for giving an insight, sir Lal. The term patisamvedi intrigued me.
Just to make sure I understand this concept.
- According to the post, it is the distorted perception inherent in all beings, whether in relation to kāma loka, Rūpa Loka and Arūpa Loka. The post placed more emphasis on the perception of kāma loka.
- Anagami brahmas are the only type of ariyas free from the distorted perception of kāma loka, right? They will never see beauty or feel sweetness in anything, in the kāma loka.
- If arahants have patisamvedi towards the elements of kāma loka, the same applies to rupa and arupa loka right? An arahant might voluntarily indulge in all jhanas, but he/she will not have ragapatisamvedi like an anagami or anariya yogi.
The following post is by Saket:
Dakkineyyo – Jethavanaramaya Buddhist Monastery
Sadu Sadu Sadu !!!
My note: In the future, please post discourses from the Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery in this thread.
- I made this thread specifically for that. It will be easier to locate those discourses here.
Indeed. If it were not for the Waharaka Thero, most of us would still be “in the dark.” He uncovered many hidden concepts that have been hidden for centuries.
No. I have not seen such a sutta. In fact, there are only a couple of suttas that describe such details of the apayas.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yash wrote: “Sakka+kaya meaning “Good”+”Actions”
It means that people have a view that whatever action is done to please oneself is good and worth it,..”
- Yes. That is the main idea.
- It is “sath + kāya” that rhymes like “sakkāya.” Here, “sath” means “beneficial/good” because that makes one happy.
- “Sakkāya” = “pañca upādānakkhadha” as explained in the Cula Vedala Sutta. Now, the Buddha also stated, “saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā,” OR “In brief, pañca upādānakkhadha means suffering.”
- We automatically attach to the “pañca upādānakkhadha” because of the “distorted saññā,” and that is what I wanted to emphasize with the rewriting of an old post. I may have to revise many of the old posts that way because that makes it easier to understand why it is so hard to get rid of our cravings. Once one understands that beauty, taste, etc., are not in external objects, it is much easier to give up cravings.
2 users thanked author for this post.
No.
- I am rewriting an existing post to make that clear based on the recent posts on “distorted saññā.” It may take a day or two. I will post it here when ready.
Good. You understand what sakkāya diṭṭhi is.
- But what is meant by “sakkāyotipi” in that verse verse before sakkāyadiṭṭhi?
- I will give you a hint “sakkāyotipi” is shortened for “sakkāyo” and “itipi” where “itipi” means something like “there/like this.”
So, the Pali verse, “Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?” means “a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of “sakkāyo” so how could “a wrong view about sakkāyo” arise in him?
- What is “sakkāyo”?
- I am trying to lead you to a better understanding. Of course, you may know the answer, but I want to make sure.
I will address your question about the baby after we discuss the above issue.
Gad asked: “How can we know which faculties are most appropriate for ourselves? I understand that only a Lord Buddha is able to give us the best training. Are there other ways that can bring us closer to the best?”
It is a good idea to understand the sutta from the beginning. Otherwise, what is meant by “faculties” may not be clear.
1. First, understand the samyojanā (translated as “fetters”). Do you understand those?
- Focus on the lower three (removed at the Sotapanna stage) or the lower five (removed at the Anagami stage.)
- Removal of the lower three stops rebirths in the apayas. Removal of the lower five stops rebirths in kama loka.
- The link you provided lists of all ten samyojanā.
2. Then the sutta mentions this question by the Buddha: “For Mālunkyaputta, an infant lying on its back, does not have even the concept of identity, so how could the self-identity view arise in him?”
- Have you understood why that is the case?
- The Pali verse is: “Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi?”
- In Sutta Central translation, the same verse is translated as: “For a little baby doesn’t even have a concept of ‘substantial reality,’ so how could substantialist view possibly arise in them?” See “Mahāmālukya Sutta (MN 64.)“
3. As we can see, the two translations have sakkāyotipi /sakkāyadiṭṭhi translated as concept of identity/self-identity view and substantial reality/substantialist view. Do you understand the meanings of those two words (sakkāyotipi and sakkāyadiṭṭhi)?
- I am not trying to put you in a difficult position. We need to clear up the basic concepts before we get to the end of the sutta.
- Of course, anyone else can answer those questions, too. This is a discussion forum, and anyone with a particular interpretation in mind can provide that interpretation. Then, it would be easier to discuss the validity of those interpretations rather than to provide my understanding.
