Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Lal,
Please clarify what I have understood. If one is born in a human bhava, he will be born in that bhava (many times / jathi) until his kamma for that bhava is expended or unless he commits an ananthariya kamma. If an ananthariya kamma is commited (papa or punna kamma) he will be born in the relevant bhava after his death (jathi).
It is also stated that a person with niyatha miccha ditti will not be born in the human or any realm above. However, niatha miccha ditti is not classified as an ananthariya papa kamma. Does this mean that a human with niyatha miccha ditti may be born again as a human after his death, if he has not expended his kamma for a human bhava. After he expends his kamma for a human bhava he will be born in a lower realm if he has not got rid of the niyatha miccha ditti by that time. Is that understanding correct?
This makes sense with the stories that Johnny has shared and many other stories of rebirth as well. We cannot come to a conclusion, but it is highly likely that these soldiers may have had niyatha miccha ditti when they were killed. If a person with niyatha miccha ditti is definitely reborn in lower realms after his death, then these stories can be a bit contradictory. However, if it means that a person with niyatha miccha ditti is born in the lower realms after his kamma for the human bhava is expended, then these stories do make complete sense.
Hi Upekkha100,
These are just my thoughts;
Sound needs to travel from the person talking to the listener, so a listener closest to the one talking will hear it before someone else sitting further away (even by mili-seconds). So I doubt that the gap between the time that the words are spoken and the time another hears it has any impact.
How about the use of a microphone and a sound system? Would you need to directly hear it from the mouth and would the use of machinery interfere in the necessary conditions? Again, given that most (if not all) sermons these days are relayed through sound systems and the number of people who have attained magga pala by listening to such sermons, we can assume that the use of such sound systems too have no negative impact.
Linking the above two, listening to a recorded sermon should be sufficient. This again is corroborated by accounts of people as well. I am no physicist or scientist so this may not be a good scientific deduction, so please excuse me if this is incorrect.
As another thero (Nivathapa thero) has mentioned listening to Dhamma face to face would be better than listening a sermon live though radio / tv/ youtube. And listening to it live would be better than listening to it recorded.
Hi Lal,
The corresponding pali text is (https://suttacentral.net/dn18/pli/ms)
“Ito satta tato satta,
saṃsārāni catuddasa”I think catudassa means 14. What does this samsarani refer to? It is this that has been translated to transmigrations (bava changes / chuti patisandi).
Hi Upekkha100,
Is there a link to the original sutta?
The one I found (https://suttacentral.net/snp1.9/en/mills) does not have any mention about Lady Kali. May be there is another sutta which has reference to it.
Hi Lal,
Sorry, let me restate the question again.
In the sutta, Bimbisara is said to have been born 7 times in the deva realm and 7 times in the human realm. According to the Sinhala and English translations these 14 births are transmigrations from one realm to the other. For e.g. Human to deva to human to deva….
If indeed the 14 births occurred in this way, wouldn’t this mean that there were 14 bava? As a human bava will make a person be born only in the human realm and if he is to be born in the deva realm after his human birth, he has to lose the human bava and gain a deva bava.
If such transmigrations did occur, then Bimbisara would have had 14 bava after becoming a sotapanna, which is contradictory to the stance that a sotapanna will have only 7 bava remaining and will attain nibbana before an 8th bava.
Hi Lal,
Waharaka Thero mentions that the 7 lives that a saththakathuparama has left doesn’t really refer to bava. This deshana is specifically answering a question about this specific topic in the Janavasabha Sutta.
https://www.waharaka.com/listen/CD076-32Hi Lal,
In the Janavasadbha Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/dn18/en/sujato it is stated by King Bimbisara that after attaining sotapanna he has been born seven times in the deva realms and seven times in the human realms. The relevant section is given below.
“This is the seventh time I have been reborn in the company of the Great King Vessavaṇa. After passing away from there, I am now able to become a king of non-humans.
Seven from here, seven from there—
fourteen transmigrations in all.
That’s how many past lives
I can recollect.
For a long time I’ve known that I won’t be reborn in the underworld, but that I still hope to become a once-returner.’”If King Bimbisara was a sotapanna how come he was born 14 times in deva and human realms? Isn’t this contradictory to the maximum seven bava that a sotapanna is supposed to have?
Hi ynot,
No, there is no contradiction. A sotapanna’s understanding of aniccha, dukka, anaththa is at a lower level than a sakadagami’s, and hence a sakadagami should attain arahanth before a sotapanna.
In the puggala pannatti an eka biji is explained as a person who attains nibbana after one human bava. A sakadagami returns to this world (I think this refers to kama loka) once and attains nibbana there. A human “bava” is a longer time frame than a human “life time”. Hence a sakadagami would attain nibbana before a sotapanna.
The pali text for this section is as follows;
Katamo ca puggalo ekabījī? Idhekacco puggalo tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā sotāpanno hoti avinipātadhammo niyato sambodhiparāyano. So ekaṃyeva mānusakaṃ bhavaṃ nibbattetvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti—ayaṃ vuccati puggalo “ekabījī”.
Katamo ca puggalo sakadāgāmī? Idhekacco puggalo tiṇṇaṃ saṃyojanānaṃ parikkhayā rāgadosamohānaṃ tanuttā sakadāgāmī hoti, sakideva imaṃ lokaṃ āgantvā dukkhassantaṃ karoti—ayaṃ vuccati puggalo “sakadāgāmī”.
My understanding is that these are only broad classifications and not definite (that’s why kolankola says 2 OR 3 bhava). And the time frames refer to the maximum time period one is likely to take to attain arahanth, at a given point in time.
A sotapanna could attain a higher magga pala in this life itself. So at one point in time a person could be a sotapanna (either sattakkathuparam, kolankola or eka biji) but he could attain a higher magga pala in that life itself, which then makes the earlier classification (of him being a sattakkathuparam or kolankola or eka biji) invalid.
Ynot asked: What determines in which class or what level of sotapanna one is at?
Like Lal mentioned it has to be determined by the level of understanding of aniccha, dukka, anatta etc. It is simply the level of understanding of them, that one is categorised as a sotapanna or sakadagami etc.
In the Puggalapannatti, these 9 types of people are explained. The explanation is based on the time frame that each person attains nibbana, rather than the reason a person is a specific type.
Only a Buddha, will know and be able to explain the differences in these types and how/why they fall into each category. So even if this was explained (in the tripitaka), we would not be able comprehend and decide which category oneself or others will fall into.
Hi Upekkha100,
1) The meaning of anatta as “does not hold any truth” seems a bit confusing at the face of it. But in some cases it may make sense. It may depend on the context. For example if we look at scientific or philosophical theories we may be able to see that they may not hold any ultimate truth.
2) When it is said that anatta becomes completely true for an arahanth, I think it means that only when a person reaches the arahanth stage does one fully comprehend anatta.
4) Yes, this is another way of looking at it, and I think this has been explained by Lal in some of his posts as well. I guess when one looks at things from the point of “yan dukkan thadanatta”, if one brings dukka then it is anatta, we can come to the understanding that if something doesn’t bring us happiness then there is no permanent refuge or protection in it.
Hi Lal,
I am in no way trying to promote stealing or any such thing. I was just trying to explain how in an ultimate (pramaththa) sense the ownership of things work. And also trying to explain how the ultimate (pramaththa) laws may defer from conventional and legal rules. Again I am not trying to promote anything illegal. As long as we are living in this world, we have to abide by the rules and laws of that country both conventional norms and written legal laws.
On a personal level I have resolved that if I lose something, or someone steals something from me, I will try and not to take it back from them, as I have lost ownership of that item. By doing this I am trying to practice the act of not taking someone else’s objects in an ultimate and extreme sense. Also I try not to ask for someone else’s things, although it is not stealing if I ask for it, and thereby try to abstain from “taking what is not given”. Of course both of these are very hard to practice, while living our mundane daily lives.
Sorry again if I gave out any wrong messages.
Hi ynot,
My response is in regard to the difference between “taking what is not given” and stealing and also instances where a person picks a fruit or picks something valuable from the street.
With regard to ownership of objects there are absolute / ultimate (paramaththa) rules as well as conventional (sammatha) norms. The law of the land will fall under these conventional norms / rules.
Let’s take an example where person A loses an object and drops it on the road. In the ultimate sense after A drops that object, he loses ownership of it and no one owns that object. If B walks by and picks it up and keeps it for himself he has not stolen anything, as the object didn’t belong to A, or anyone else. This is in the ultimate sense. However, in the conventional sense and even with laws of the land B may have stolen that object from A, as A still may have ownership over it.
In a similar way, if B steals something from A, say by grabbing his bag and running off, in the ultimate sense the ownership of that bag changes from A to B after the point that B takes hold of the bag. There was an instance where a man stole a monks bowl and when the monk tried to forcefully take it back from the man, the monk was told that the bowl now belongs to the man and it he shouldn’t take it back from him.
So in the ultimate sense, there can be a difference between “taking what is not given” and “stealing”.
Of course as Lal mentioned the intention plays a vital part in this process as well.
I have heard or read (though I cannot recall where) that a sotapanna anugamu will definitely attain sotapanna pala before his death in that very same life time. If someone has a tripitaka reference for this would be great if you can share it.
The only similar reference I have found is in the Puggala pragnapthi dathu katha, where two types of individuals are mentioned; shaddanusari and dhammanusari. Both are working towards attaining sotapanna pala. The former will attain sotapanna pala as shadda being the forerunner while for the latter pragna will be the forerunner.
