[Akvan]

Thank SengKiat,

From the links provided I understand that one (in this case specifically referring to a Bikkhu) should not harm or kill a plant as it is living object. Not sentient but some kind of life form. So it can be a lower life form compared to sentient animals. This may be the reason such a rule is there for a bikkhu and not something told to lay people, because at a kammic level this might rank very low?

I also don’t think it can be simply because people criticized monks of mistreating “one facultied life”. There has to be some solid reasoning behind it, if not such a rule will not be put in place. For example there were people who criticized monks for eating meat. However the Buddha did not ban eating meat because there was no Dhamma reasoning for it.

With this in mind, I have a question regarding making fruit allowable. Making fruit allowable to monks is sometimes symbolic (as also mentioned in that link). If it is only symbolic then in reality a monk will be harming a seed when he accepts a fruit, which was symbolically made allowable.

Do you think making it allowable has evolved into a symbolic gesture, when actually it is something more?

[Akvan]

Hi firewns,

I think the merit that is gained by circumambulation of a stupa is because of one’s respect (sadda) towards the Buddha. I think it is one’s thoughts during that time that will lead to merit. So one can circumambulate a stupa clockwise and gain demerit if one is thinking bad thoughts during that process. In the same way one may gain merit even by going anti-clockwise if his thoughts are pure etc. Saying this there are energies etc. that may play a part in all this, which I am not too familiar with.

Silabbatha paramasa refers to a view that one can attain nibbana through performing rights and rituals. It doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t have silabbatha paramasa will not perform rights and rituals. It is just that he knows that performing such rights will not lead to nibbana. He can do this out of respect / shradda etc. And this shradda can help him gain panna which is vital to attain nibbana.

In the thera gatha different monks explain how they initially got on this path, many many lives before. And for all of them the start has been shradda towards a previous Buddha. So such “rituals” (done with proper understanding) can be very helpful on the path.

[Akvan]

Hi Embodied,

No one except a Buddha would know for certain if one were a sotapanna or not. Sometimes not even that person would know if he was a sotapanna himself.

There were sotapannas who were married and had 5-7 kids, some married to hunters, others who were kings, princes, princesses, millionaires, businessmen and even prostitutes. So one will never be able to know by one’s behaviour.

[Akvan]

Hi Lal,

Under the sub-heading The Four Noble Truths you state that suffering and the truth about suffering is two different things.

How I see the distinction between suffering and the truth about suffering is that, the truth about suffering refers to a mind made thing and therefore something that can be got rid of permanently. So here suffering can include bodily pain but this is not part of the truth about suffering.

When the Buddha attained enlightenment, he got rid of suffering permanently at that point. However, he did feel bodily pain, got sick and eventually died. So obviously the bodily pain, getting sick and dying is not the suffering he was referring to as the truth about suffering. So, I think the truth about suffering refers to the mind made suffering (the lamentation) that is experienced together with pain and sickness.

If we actually think about most of the suffering we experience it has nothing to do with any real tangible pain. (By suffering here, I mean sorrow, sadness, stress, depression and all those related synonyms). So, when contemplating on this it can be seen that the truth about suffering, is simply a mind made concept that we can get rid of.

This is the same for the happiness and elation we experience as well. It is mostly a mind made concept and not anything tangible. That is why, something that makes one happy may not have any effect on another. (I think this is explained well on the site).

Of course, by attaining nibbana, one will also end the bodily pain in future lives as well. So you do eliminate the potential future suffering as well.

The post also states; Understanding the truth about suffering requires an understanding of the wider world of 31 realms, and that most of that future suffering would be in the four realms or the apāyas (of which animal realm is one).

By looking at suffering the way I have explained earlier one may not even need an understanding of the wider world of 31 realms to understand the truth about suffering to a certain extent. If one must believe in the 31 realms to see the truth about suffering it may not be very practical. Because if it were the case then we would need to try and prove the existence of such realms without any doubt before getting along on the path.

I for one, am not 100% certain that there are such realms. However, I am very open to such a possibility. And I tend to believe in it based on the fact that it is part of a very comprehensive (no holes) theory, of which I have not been able to disprove any aspect of the theory yet.

So, what I am trying to say is that understanding of the 31 realms may not have to be a pre-requisite to understand the truth about suffering. I think this is explained on the site, but just by looking at this post it can be a bit misleading.

Akvan

[Akvan]

Hi Cubibobi,

Practicing mindfulness of death is commonly taken to mean being aware and mindful that one will die for certain, and that one doesn’t know when this time will come. Being aware or mindful of this by itself, will not lead one to the sotapanna stage. I guess every human being knows that he will die one day and that too is being mindful to a certain degree.

However mindfulness of death in Buddha Dhamma refers to being mindful that one may die anytime and therefore striving to attain a magga pala or to a attain arahanthhood, without procrastinating. This is explained in maranasati sutta’s; https://suttacentral.net/an6.19/en/thanissaro

Even from the reference of the Dhammapada you provided it can be deduced that practicing the mindfulness of death by itself will not directly lead to the sotapanna stage.

“This girl from the day when she heard my exposition of the doctrine has practised reflection on death for three years. I will now go there and ask the girl four questions; and when she explains them I will express approval at each of the four points, and will utter the verse. By means of the verse she will be established in the fruit of the First Path (entering the stream), and through her the teaching will be profitable to many.”

Here it can be seen that it is after hearing the dhamma that the girl will attain the sotapanna stage.

[Akvan]

Further to Lal’s explanation;

There are 2 ways to attain nibbana.
1. By learning the dhamma by oneself. This is done by a Samma Sambuddha or a Pacceka Buddha

1. By learning the Dhamma from a Buddha or a disciple of his. This done by an arahanth or sometimes referred to as a Shrawaka Buddha.

So these two methods are separate and will not overlap. The Buddha said that the Dhamma he learnt was something he had not heard or seen before. So even though he was ordained in previous Buddha Sasana’s he had not really understood this Dhamma.

Firewns said: but I am torn between a desire to escape samsara as soon as possible by becoming an arahant, and another desire to become a fully-enlightened teaching Buddha who teaches the Dhamma to alleviate the sufferings of sentient beings in an age when the laws of Dhamma are unknown.

Think of all the people who have not been exposed to the true Dhamma or have not understood it properly even when the Dhamma is there in the world like in the present time. So, becoming a Buddha is not the only way to teach Dhamma and help people from suffering. For example take the work Lal has been doing through this site, and many other theros and lay people are doing to spread the Dhamma. How many people would have benefited by work like this and reduced suffering.

Aspiring to become a Buddha is not some fleeting thought one may have during a period of time in samsara. It is not like the aspirations we may have had some time in our lives to become an astronaut or an Olympian or the President. The aspiration to become a Buddha is something much more deeper and deeply ingrained in such a person. Also a person aspiring to become a Buddha may not even know that he is aspiring for “Buddhahood” as he might be just wanting to learn the true nature of the world and teach it to others.

The term Bodhisatta is used to refer to the past lives of a Buddha after he has got “niyatha vivarana” to become a Buddha. It is a term or title given in retrospect. So a Bodhisatta, during that past life may not even know that he is destined to become a Buddha. Take the times that the Bodhisatta was born an animal even after getting niyatha vivarana.

I guess someone who is aspiring to become a Buddha can become an arahanth if he has not got “niyatha vivarana”.

[Akvan]

In the Buddhas time there was period where there was a schism between the monks where different theories put forward by the different groups of monks on why their group was better than the others. One of the disciples (I think it was Visakha) came and asked the Buddha which group she should offer arms to and whose advice to take as she was in a contrary. The Buddha explained that she could offer arms etc. to all those monks. He also told that she should listen to what they say and if she doesn’t believe in anything simply to put it aside.

In another instance, a man told the Buddha that he offers dhana and takes advice only from a certain group of monks (those who live in forests etc.). The Buddha told the man that he, being a lay person, has no right to judge someone in robes and to come to conclusions which monk is more righteous / pious etc.

I can’t remember the exact suttas but thought they were relevant to this discussion.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Gad

[Akvan]

Hi Johnny,

A very relevant sutta that discusses this explicitly is the Pathama Marana Sati Sutta.

AN6.19 – https://suttacentral.net/an6.19/en/thanissaro

[Akvan]

Hi Rhys,

It is clear that one does not need to ordain to attain a magga pala. There are many suttas on these aspects. During the Buddha’s time there were lay people who had attained upto the anagami stage and did not have the urge to ordain. There were some who ordained after becoming a sotapanna, some of them attained arahanthship and others may not have even attained sakadagami level. There were others who ordained without being sotapanna, and from this group some attained soatapanna level while others did not.

As Vince has mentioned the monastic life can help in ones practice. But it may not be for everyone, at least not until they reach some level.

Personally i think its much more important to attain the sotapanna stage, which can be done as a lay person, rather than running and getting ordained. This is for me personally, but I dont want to dissuade anyone from ordaining as their ways may be different from mine and it may even actually help them.

[Akvan]

Hi drs8,

You said that you feel a bit scared to completely stop following the Thai tradition.

I don’t think you should feel “scared” per say. From the bit i know about the Thai monks it is not a doctrine where you will be admonished or reprimanded for any reason. However that does not mean that you should stop following it either.

Most of the monks around where I live are from or influenced by that tradition and I too went to those monasteries before being exposed to this Dhamma. I feel that what is explained in puredhamma.net is a much more complete path to nibbana as opposed to others. So i don’t follow the breath meditation etc. that is taught there. However I still frequent those monasteries as they too helped me get to this point, in some way or the other.

I do attend sermons and talks at those temples, and the more I listen the more I feel that what is explained here in puredhamma is the way forward.

We should also remember that in the end, those monks too are monks ordained as Sangha in the Buddha Sasana and hence we should pay respects to them and attend to their needs as lay followers. As to whether they are ariya or anariya is something that we can never know for sure.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Gad

[Akvan]

I think there are many instances where what the Buddha said would have sounded humorous or sarcastic to an outsider. However I don’t believe that he said such things with the intention of making people laugh. He said such things to get his point across or more often to get another thinking or to break a wrong view point one had. And mostly it is meant for a specific person. So for someone else hearing it, it can sound funny.

[Akvan]

Hi Johnny,

You said: does the anagami wear out his kamma vipaka in the Suddhavasa abodes and enter final Nibbana there?

One does not have to wear out his/her kamma vipaka to attain nibbana. Nibbana is attained via understanding / comprehension. So i think it is right to say that he will achieve that understanding in the Suddhavasa realm like Lal has mentioned.

[Akvan]

Hi Donna,

It is good that your boss was positive towards your ideas. But most of my experiences have not been the same. It comes down to the fact that we cannot maintain anything the way we like to. So don’t be disheartened if things go wrong.

Negative words and deeds was a problem I encountered especially in work places, and it is most often considered part and parcel of work life. I consider myself a passive individual and did not believe in backbiting and sucking up of any sort. However a couple of years in the competitive corporate world and I came to realize (and was even told / warned by others) that I will not go far if I am passive. So I consciously changed my ways to become more assertive and playing the corporate game (backbiting, gossiping, sucking up). I knew this was not my real self but that I needed to do it in order to get ahead, so I considered it part of work.

Circumstances changed and I changed jobs and also came across this site and other related content. I came to realize how foolish I was and what a lot of akusala kamma I was collecting, while trying to “move up” in work and life.

I don’t have any ambitions in the work place anymore and hence I don’t need to do all that gossiping and slandering that is considered part of work. Some think that I am being passive, foolish etc. But since I am just doing my job to earn some money without wanting get ahead, I don’t see the need to do all this vaci sankara. Of course it is not easy to refrain from it all because I have been in that competitive environment for sometime. But I do feel much less stressful this way.

Just my thoughts and experiences,
Akvan

[Akvan]

Thanks Lal and Saket.

I came across this problem when I was looking for the Anatthalakkhana Sutta in some pali and Sinhala tipitaka’s. For example in the Buddha Jayanthi Edition of the Tripitaka I couldn’t find a Anattha Lakkhana Sutta. What we refer to as the antthalakkhana sutta is actually the panca vaggiya sutta.

It is the same with the Dhammapada references that Saket provided. The corresponding Dhammapada 277-279 in the Budhha Jayanthi version have no sub-headings like anicchalakkanavatthu etc., although such sub-headings are there in sutta central.

I could not find any other place in the tripitaka where aniccha lakkana or the term “thilakkana” is explicitly mentioned. So if you do come across this please let me know.

I did not want to write about this at the beginning but on further thought I thought it would be good to write something as it might help to distinguish between the differences in aniccha and anithya (impermanence). Again some might see this as simply word play and etymology but it helped me to understand it a bit better.

Aniccha is referred to as a sanna (sign or perception) that should be cultivated. This is the same for dukka, anaththa, asuba, pahaana, anicche dukka, dukke anaththa etc.

Lakkhana (lakshsana) could be taken to mean a mark or characteristic and is different to a perception or a sign. For example there is a man standing in front of us and he has a few characteristics. His height and skin colour, hair colour, his clothes etc. are all characteristics. And these characteristics can be seen by anyone looking at the man and won’t change based on who is looking at him. However the sanna (perception) that different people will take from this man can differ. Some will see him as good or evil or intelligent, my father or friend etc. These are perceptions and are not something inherently in that man and will differ based on who is looking at the man.

So how I understand this is; impermanence (addhuvang), change (viparinama), decay (vaya) etc are all characteristics of any object or person. For example that is why it is said “vayo sankatha lakkanang”. However aniccha, the fact that we cannot maintain anything to our liking, is not a characteristic of the object but a perception we create because of that object. So there has to be someone who sees that object as niccha or aniccha or asubha etc. Without that person seeing it that way there can be no aniccha in that object. So it is we who cultivate that niccha or aniccha perception of an object. Therefore aniccha is not a characteristic (lakkhana) because if it were a characteristic anyone looking at it will see it like that.

This is the same with dukkha. If everything has the characteristic of dukkha there is no way out of dukkha until we eliminate everything in this world. However I don’t think dukkha is inherently in an object but it is created (brought on) by a person who doesn’t see the aniccha nature of it. That is why all though everything is said to be dukkha, there is a way out of all this dukkha. By seeing it or perceiving it differently.

So in conclusion I would say that aniccha, dukkha, anattha, asuba etc. are all perceptions that we create and not something inherent in an object, while impermanence is something inherent in an object and can be seen by anyone observing it. So, it is not the impermanent characteristic that gives dukkha but how one perceives it, by perceiving it as niccha, subha etc. that brings about dukkha.

[Akvan]

Hi Lal,

According to the Paṭhamanānākaraṇasutta (https://suttacentral.net/an4.123/pli/ms) what one experiences in the first jhana is the same for an ariya or anariya. If an ariya or anariya practices the first jhana and dies without its effects decaying (aparihani) then he would be born in the brahma realm.

So tadassādeti, taṃ nikāmeti, tena ca vittiṃ āpajjati. Tattha ṭhito tadadhimutto tabbahulavihārī aparihīno kālaṃ kurumāno brahmakāyikānaṃ devānaṃ sahabyataṃ upapajjati.

This rebirth in the brahma realm is due to the fact that a person “savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there—fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that”, that being the first jhana. This can mean that an ariya who say got to the first jhana one time but did (could) not dwell there often etc., may not be born in the brahma realm.

This rebirth in the Brahma realm (for an ariya or anariya) is due to the gathi of the person and not due to a magga pala. yadidaṃ gatiyā upapattiyā sati.

For an ariya, he does not return to this world and therefore could be called an anagami, however it does not necessarily mean that he has attained anagami pala.

All explanations of first jhana (ariya or anariya) mention viviccha kamehi, viviccha akusalehi dhammehi, which means abstaining from kama. If one can get a kama sanna (which is a hindrance) in the first jhana it means that one has not completely eliminated kama raga. Therefore one doesn’t have to have attained anagami pala to get to an ariya jhana.

[Author]

Posts