Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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!
Thank you for taking the time to point out the sections to watch in those videos, Jorg.
- I watched the first three and took a quick look at the fourth.
- I still don’t see an explanation of the “anicca nature.”
1. I think what is described here is a different concept. It is about the concept of a “self.”
- The Buddha explained that a “self” exists as long as the necessary causes and conditions exist. If those causes and conditions do not exist, then a “self” does not manifest.
- In the example of a “circle made with children holding hands,” a circle exists as long as the children are there holding hands. If they are not there or are not holding hands, there is no manifestation of a circle.
2. Anicca nature is a different concept. It leads to suffering!
- Does the above concept of the “manifestation of something” explain how suffering arises?
- That is only the starting point for explaining the “anicca nature.” For example, “suffering exists” if the root causes and conditions exist.
3. The “Ajjhattanicca Sutta (SN 35.1)“, “Bahiranicca Sutta (SN 35.4)“, and “Yadanicca sutta (SN 22.15)” have the above verse:
“yadaniccam tam dukkham, yam dukkham tadanattā” (“yad aniccam taṃ dukkham, yaṃ dukkham tad anattā“), i.e.,
“if something is anicca, dukkha arises, and one becomes helpless (anatta).” Note that “yaṃ” and “yad” have the same meaning and are used interchangeably. In the same way, “yadidaṃ” comes from “yad idaṃ.”
- We attach to sensory inputs, and we expect our actions (based on sankhara) to bring us happiness and keep us away from suffering. If that does happen, that would be of “nicca nature.” However, nature in reality is the opposite, anicca.
- The Buddha clarified (with Paticca Samuppada) that the world has an “anicca nature,” i.e., such actions are based on ignorance: “avijjā paccayā saṅkhāra.” That is why “sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā” AND “sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā.”
4. May be I missed something. Can anyone explain how those four segments explain the connection between anicca and dukkha?
- P.S. It is possible that the anicca nature (connection to dukkha) was explained at a later segment in those discourses. If so, please let me know, and I can listen to those segments or the complete discourse.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I agree with Jaro that the discourse does not describe what “anicca” is.
- However, it does clarify that “anicca” means much more than “impermanence.”
Gad (or anyone else who saw the correct interpretation from that discourse): please let us know precisely at what time interval the correct interpretation of “anicca” is explained.
- I listened from around the 1-hour mark, as Jaro suggested.
1 user thanked author for this post.
OK. I will take a look.
- In the meantime, I hope others will give their opinion. Does the discourse explain what “anicca” is?
Good work, Jorg.
I disagree with the following statement: “What I noticed in my life was that there are quite some people who have the ability to reflect on things logically. However, and unfortunately so, terms like “Buddha,” and “Dhamma” trigger various connotations and mostly incorrect ones.”
- Without the Buddha, nothing that any bhikkhu teaches will make sense in the long run. A Buddha is the best logician.
- I understand that you don’t mean it that way. But it could give a wrong impression.
- Explaining things entirely in English is a “good introduction” to moral living and is commendable. But advising merely to live a moral life was not the central message of the Buddha.
- On the other hand, your website does not say it is about Buddha Dhamma. Therefore, that is fine. It is about moral living and thinking logically.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Of course.
- They can also watch an “X-rated movie” without generating any lust. They can see “beautiful people” as such (just like a puthujjana), but their minds don’t get any “pleasure” from that illusion. It’s the same with tasty food. They taste the food to be ‘”tasty” because that is how their physical bodies originated (that is explained with the “uppatti bhavanga” but it is not necessary to understand the mechanism; if one is knowledgeable in Abhidhamma that also can be understood.)
- There is no difference between that and recalling one’s own previous experiences.
They fully understand that “beauty, taste, etc.” are mind-made.
- It is like uncovering the “trick” involved in a magic show. Then one can see it is just a “trick” and the ‘magic show” will not bring any pleasure.
- However, enjoying a magic show is temporary and does not have drastic consequences. Enjoying “sensory pleasures based on distorted sanna” can be deadly. That is because people tend to engage in immoral activities (stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and even killing) as a consequence of such “distorted sanna.” Such actions (kamma) will bring their consequences (kamma vipaka) in this life itself, and also rebirths in the apayas.
- Once fully comprehended (with the breaking of both ditthi vipallasa and sanna vipallasa), a mind will not see any value in enjoying “sensory pleasures.”
- That is why it is all about learning the true teachings of the Buddha. That knowledge (panna) itself is enough to break all samsaric bonds and attain Nibbana in this life itself. That is the same as “uncovering the pabhassara mind” by removing the layers of dirt/defilements. It all happens with the cultivation of knowledge (panna.)
3 users thanked author for this post.
Even with the Android phone, the formatting bar appears with the Chrome browser.
- It seems the problem is ONLY with an Android phone with the Opera browser.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It seems that the issue arises only with Android phones.
- I will look into it.
- In the meantime, use a desktop or laptop (or an iPhone) to post comments that require the toolbar. Of course, some comments may not need the use of the toolbar and, thus, can be posted with Android phones.
Does anyone have the issue of the formatting bar not loading on an iPhone?
- Mine has no problem. Please comment here or email me if it is not loading on your phone.
Yes. It may take some time to fully absorb the contents of the post “Mūlapariyāya Sutta – The Root of All Things.”
- It is indeed the “root of all things”!
Regarding Hojan’s comments: I can understand the perception that the explanation of ‘Kusala-Mul PS” seems to make sense. However, it cannot be correct due to the reasons I pointed out in my previous comment.
- Here is another way to look at it. I suggest writing out the terms in the “Kusala-mula PS.” In particular, what type of vinnana, namarupa, salayatana, and samphassa will be involved? All those terms are “reduce in strength” as a Sekha cultivates the Noble Path.
- We can focus on namarupa, for example. It is with wisdom (panna) that namarupa formation gradually decreases and eventually stops, not by engaging in any sankhara.
- In the same way, salayatana means “using indriya (eyes, ears, ..) with defilements in the mind.” “samphassa” means “defiled contacts in mind.” Defilements are raga, dosa, moha. As panna increases, such “defiled actions” gradually decrease. Arahanthood is attained NOT by nullifying kammic energies that have been accumulated but by the total “deactivation” of the “Akusala-Mula PS process.” Thus, at the moment of cuti-patisandhi, such an Akusala-Mula PS process cannot run to make a new patisandhi!
- We should probably continue that discussion under a different thread to keep issues separated if there are more questions. Please feel free to ask questions. It is not good to accept anyone’s explanations unless the explanation makes sense. Even the Buddha kept saying not to accept his explanations if they did not make sense and to ask questions to clarify unresolved issues. I am still a Sekha, and I can make mistakes.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The formatting bar is working again.
- I will delete this thread tomorrow. If anyone still has an issue posting comments, please let me know on this thread or email me: [email protected]
