Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I will try to explain from my experience, but it is very hard as it goes beyond what the human mind can imagine. Time in Brahmas is neither slow nor fast nor kinda both. In relative to humans, yes – it is fast in that relation, but Brahma itself feels neither how fast it is nor slow, the time kinda stops there. I would say it moves so fast that it feels like it stopped.
You will experience suffering as you, but not as your actual “me”.
You got the wrong idea about “no self” because Buddha did not teach that. Whatever this “self” or “no self” exists is not the problem, but ignorance. When ignorance is dispelled, the problem with “self” does not appear – it does not mean there is “no self”.
What he says is not correct, even based on my personal experience. He got the hint, though, because what he says applies to arupa jhanas, which he probably mistakes for rupa jhanas, as it is true for arupa jhanas. For example, when I was going through arupa jhanas, they were the same experience, and the difference between them was only knowledge about their nature.
Imagine that you go into water, the initial experience is like the first arupa jhana but once you stay a while in that water you start noticing more things about the fluidity, how it feel and you experience more and more knowledge about nature of it thru that experience as you become more simmered but the experience per se does not change.
For me, all arupa jhanas are the same; the difference is only the depth of knowledge you get from them as time goes on.
My theory is that arupa jhanas are different “roads” of jhanas rather than rupa. Normally, you see that you need to go “one by one” from rupa to arupa. I think it is not true, as you can go directly to arupa, bypassing the first 4 rupa jhanas. Some sources I checked (later commentaries), like that you can go “really fast” that you are not aware of doing so, I can not confirm that because if things like that happened obviously I was not aware.
A guy in the video seems to be misinterpreting his own experience. That’s why I don’t like to talk about jhanas a lot, because some fake teachers may find this post and act like they have achieved something. In my long journey of meditation, I didn’t find anyone, I think, who actually attained jhanas and properly described them as the real thing. Only Abhaya Thero students explained their jhana properly. (rupa jhanas only though)
There are stories in the sutta that the Arahant feels so much unbearable pain because of disease or some bodily issues that he took his life.
The aim of Dhamma, especially early on, is to leave a “state of confusion” and to have a stable existential base, which is the result of understanding aspects that create confusion in your worldview and on which you build experience that is Sotapanna and above
1 user thanked author for this post.
Those questions appear in mind because you do not understand Dhamma and they reflect your desires towards the world.
“Why do I exist?” because of Paticca Samupadda
“Why isn’t everything parinirvana?” because world is Anicca not Icca
” Why am I in this Sansara” because of Paticca Samupadda and your actions
“Why haven’t I attained parinirvana in this infinte sansara?” because you didn’t meet conditions like that. The infinity of Sansara is not the infinity we can think of.
It’s very easy to answer those questions for yourself as long as you can see true nature of the world and understand basic Dhamma concepts. Those answers need to be known on an existential level, not just on a conceptual.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The law of kamma is like the law always at work, bypassing the cultural/social laws. A society built on ignorance will suffer one way or another, sooner or later, as we have plenty of examples in history. Because of cause and effect, certain immoral actions may be an “optimal strategy” for a mundane result. It’s much more efficient (sometimes) to kill a king and take over a throne rather than compete on the same footing.
https://franpritchett.com/00ambedkar/ambedkar_buddha/04_04.html#05_05 – Here some good information that may showcase insight on those matters
Unless you have a “high birth” you will have no chance of attaining jhana without giving up a sense of pleasure to a certain extent. It’s something that you need to discover yourself to what extent you can attain jhana and yet be in “every day life”
It’s not good to do that. Things like “astral travel” must be done in the state of jhana so as not to be harmful (and this can be harmful too if you do it incorrectly). Whatever is promoted on websites and methods of such ways are generally self-induced hallucinations.
It applies pretty much to every person who does not understand Dhamma. Imagine the whole world does not understand the concept of math yet they are using it without awareness of being used, some people will give the right answer, but most people will write random numbers and get the wrong outcomes of their calculations.
“yogis also realized the detrimental effects of sensory pleasures and developed Jhāna and Samāpatti to be reborn in the Brahma realms. However, they could not eliminate the Saṁyojana (fetters). Why were they unable to attain the wisdom needed to break these bonds?”
The answer is pretty much in the question – because they were unaware of Dhamma. Their yogic practice is the same as that of someone trying to get rich or do better in the material world for self-fulfillment. What I mean here the same ignorance of the true nature of the world is used for spiritual means.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Again I will keep correcting idealistic theories that have no place in Dhamma. The difference between real-life experience and theories is clear here.
“as long as you have not renounced the lay life, you are not in a good position to criticize them” – This is a bad take, is the same idea in clergy and churches, you criticize people or whoever you want no matter their position and status (ask questions, doubt, criticize and seek holes to make Dhamma and people better as long as you do not do it with bad/wrong intentions or harmful ways). If you say that people can not do it, we will have the same thing that in church when priests can do anything and people can say nothing about it.
“If one is really serious about attaining Nibbāna as quickly as possible one should take the robe immediately” – Another delusion is that people who have the first strong spike of positive experiences can not suddenly change their life, get the robe, and become monks – they will become depressed once that first positive experience vanishes and they start chasing it again without realizing the reason behind it (which can be done while being lay), so suggesting people that they should give up everything and leave everything behind to pursue is delusional and idealistic which will harm a person in the process which will harm their practice. For most modern people the best option is to have a comfortable place to practice and study Dhamma, work that can sustain the means for it and without overloading. There was a good book about “free time”, I forgot the name of it but “free time” in ancient and medieval times was a luxury for only those with the highest social standing, every other person worked early to night without much breaks or time – every day that why you became a monk, to have time to practice Dhamma. Now people can manage time on their own.
The rest I will not comment on simply as it’s clear to me that you are “Pro-Dhamma” but not knowledgable or experienced in life/practice/Dhamma to become a person who can say something about it besides slogans. I do not mean it in a bad way, it will be a good example for yourself and others to reflect if one is just “pro-Dhamma” or one following the Path of understanding, experience, and rationale of Dhamma in their life.
Downplaying people on forums “you are just people writing on an internet forum” is really bad too. Lal is just a “person writing a blog on the internet” but the impact he had with the site is huge and brings light to real Dhamma for many people. I strongly suggest self-reflection before writing those things and see if there is any basis in those “arguments”
This also is out of context. Are you saying monks at Jethavaranama can transport people into deva worlds to show him things, and they correlate their cravings with Dhamma? Of course not. Every modern Sangha has flaws, positives, and negatives because they are not conducted with living Buddha or (probably) living Arahant. We need to be critical of every one of them and learn what works.
Using examples of monks from suttas like that and comparing it to modern monks is untruthful. I’m not trying to take away anything from the real extent of any Sangha work but this is clearly sugarcoating and sugarcoating is always harmful in the long term. Being enamored with anything leads to blindness. You also using other stories of monks that have much deeper meaning in their Path – they are not applicable for what we have now and the level of people we have. Unless somebody comes and claims Arahantship – you need to scale down your expectations.
Real Dhamma is on the comeback for sure, but it will take either like 10-20 years more or we will need to wait for the next Buddha to have Arahants again. (which will be a sign that all teachings are gone anyway)
What we need is monks (who see the truth) to challenge people and “wake up desire” to know what is real, and true in existential matter beyond religions. Not just sugarcoating them into accepting that Dhamma is something true using their religion as a bridge and trying to say it is the same thing that Buddha did which is a misunderstanding.
Teaching Dhamma must be done in a pure way with logic, facts, truths, heart, and discipline. It includes seeing things as they are and disregarding what is not true. Doing too much will just harm people in the long term and harm Dhamma because it leaves a bad/wrong impression and when a person comes to the point of “getting something” (and they will not) they will lose faith because they started on the wrong foot, views and expectations towards Dhamma.
To short it up for your comfort Yash
– “No self” through Nibbana should be positive, blissful, and happy (which is different from “no self” from other religions and philosophies or nihilism) No self in Dhamma is based on Anatta is pointless to seek “sense/self fulfillment” in this world, it’s not related to non-existence/nihilism but to the whole process of Paticca Samupadda – when “self” does not get stimulus from the wrong views it does not cease to exist in terms of existence but in terms of ignorance. It’s hard to convey this idea but I hope you will get the difference.
– No self through delusional ideas and thoughts/imagination will be awful as it disagrees with ignorance that people have. It will create existential dread, anxiety, and other bad stuff simply because you are doing the wrong practice, the wrong way with the wrong views.
As long as you see positives as positives and negatives as negatives your mind will find balance.
1 user thanked author for this post.
