Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We should get this issue resolved before proceeding further.
- There is no point in writing more about “distorted saññā” until people have a good understanding of what saññā means and how it arises.
- I think a big “mental block” exists in many people’s minds to look at the gandhabba as an alien entity. You are your “mental body,” and the physical body is secondary. Your thoughts (cittās) arise in your mental body. However, the physical body (and the brain) play significant roles, while the mental body is entrapped in the physical body. Once outside the physical body, the mental body can see, hear, and think on its own; of course, it cannot taste, smell, or touch.
- It has driven into our mind that our physical body (or the brain) creates thoughts. But the physical body is just a “shell” that becomes useless once the mental body (gandhabba) comes out of it.
- As we have discussed, a human bhava (existence) may last many thousands of years. It is that “mental body” that lasts through that whole time.
- Your essence is not your physical body or the brain but your mental body (gandhabba.) However, the physical body and the brain play major roles, while the mental body is inside the physical body.
Now that we have many specific posts on gandhabba and saññā to review, I will stop writing more new posts in the new series on “Sotapanna Stage via Understanding Perception (Saññā).”
- Instead, we need to discuss and clarify any questions that may arise while reading those posts that are specified above, including those posts in the new series. Of course, there are many more on the website.
- Please refer to the post in question and the specific bullet numbers when asking questions.
- Of course, you can ask any other related question too, on this thread.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I recommend reading the following post to understand the relationship between the brain and the gandhabba:
“Gandhabba in a Human Body – an Analogy.”
- I wrote a series of posts on this subject some time back. I recommend reading that section for more information: “Brain and the Gandhabba.”
- This is truly an exciting subject. I see that this section was somewhat hidden. So, it is possible that many of you may not have seen these posts. It is in another subsection: “Buddha Dhamma – A Scientific Approach.”
1 user thanked author for this post.
Lang wrote: “I still have no idea yet about the topic at hand.”
This is a discussion about the last part of my comment on December 31, 2023 at 6:16 am. Let me reproduce that below:
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?
1. Most of the statements by Saket above are indeed correct about Buddha Dhamma or Buddha’s teachings.
Saket wrote: “Lord Buddha didn’t teach Hinayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana.”
- Someone could say that “Lord Buddha didn’t teach Theravada either.”
2. Theravada‘s most compelling evidence is the Tipitaka, written over 2000 years ago by Arahants, who can be justifiably argued to be well-versed in the teachings of the Buddha Dhamma.
- Furthermore, the content in the Tipitaka is truly self-consistent. But for that, the Pali text must be correctly interpreted.
3. As I have pointed out in many posts, current translations of the Pali Tipitaka (in Thervada texts) have many errors. There is nothing wrong with the Tipitaka. However, the incorrect interpretations have also corrupted Theravada (as practiced by many today).
- See, for example, “Incorrect Thēravada Interpretations – Historical Timeline.”
- I wrote a whole section of posts on such incorrect interpretations: “Elephants in the Room.” For example, what they teach as “Anapanasati” is ridiculously wrong!
4. Therefore, we should be open to discussions.
- I am open to discussing any material from anyone that could be a part of Buddha’s teachings.
- We should have honest discussions without putting down anyone. But, of course, I have pointed out some glaring problems with Mahayana teachings. See, for example, “Key Problems with Mahāyāna Teachings” and “Saddharma Pundarika Sutra (Lotus Sutra) – A Focused Analysis.”
@Vajraguru: We can discuss any of my above posts too, if you wish to point out any errors in them.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Dosakkhayo:
- Where is the baby’s mind?
- Is it in the baby’s body/brain?
Gad:
- It is the same gandhabba that entered the womb of the mother of the baby. It does not need to “mature.”
The “manasikara cetasika” comes into play only if cittas arise, and cittas can arise only if the gandhabba‘s mind comes out of the “natural bhavanga” state. That requires a processed sensory signal by the brain.
- But until the brain develops at least to some extent, no external signals can be processed by the brain. Thus, the gandhabba (manomaya kaya/hadaya vatthu) inside the baby does not get any signals from the brain. All samyojana/anusaya are associated with the gandhabba (manomaya kaya/hadaya vatthu.)
- This is a critical point to understand.
- See “Brain – Interface between Mind and Body.”
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.
