Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for your answer and input, I understand neither self nor non-self and can explain it too, which I would do different way on the podcast that I’m starting, the thing is that I was asking about “what makes you rebirth” not in the sense of self but as an object that “bounds you” into such and such existence. It’s our mind that goes thru this process and that what I mean, here the “mind” can sound vague and not direct because many people may think that the mind is this or that but for cultivators and Dhamma practitioners “mind” should be evident.
Okay, I see we do not understand each other in the sense that I read and know most of the things we said here (even thru limited insight) but the thing is if we want to pin point “what takes rebirth” even as an object or manufacture of rebirth which is neither self nor nonself what would you pin point it towards? For example, the mind is behind everything so it would be the mind under wrong views that take rebirth which is manufacturer or creator of this life or that life or even lifestream(?) and we have a small window being human (or being born in the times when Buddha is alive) to get rid of this ignorance so mind attains Nibbana, agree?
The thing is, there is a missing link. You can not disappear and appear as someone else out of the blue (even if you appear out of blue in deva realms there must be cause for it and object, a mechanism that you came from). If that would be the truth, you could just live your life as you want, fell dead and there will be “someone else” worried about suffering so there need to be an aspect of “I” that suffers thru lifetimes and “I” that is liberated but that obviously wrong view and leads to nowhere. There need to be as exact and as precise an explanation on that topic as is crucial to understand (unless we lacking information/understanding of it). Even if the perception of “I” is wrong it does not disappear. If we follow this we have a mind under avijja that takes the perception of “self” based on skandas but an underlying layer of that which sums up to be mind – that takes the “I” in the rebirth process and experiences suffering. My point and question what is that take rebirth before taking a form and “I”. If we take the mind – it will be as a “soul” from that perspective. Hope you understand better now where is the “lacking” puzzle here that I’m looking for :)
“However, as long as a mind has avijja, it ACTS AS IF it is a living being.” – that very good point and I get this, also I get this there is no soul and neither self nor nonself. As I understand for now it’s the mind under avijja that goes thru this process. :)
The question is what is that X that transmigrates from each bhava in that lifestream, can we find any answer anywhere in Tipitaka as if not we are having “missing link” as in darwin theory and do that X have any awareness that we can relate or is just energy-process, conduct of cause and effect that happens as with nature? (like the rain example that ends up giving base for life on earth for example)
I think you fault of understanding Dhamma comes from modern thinking as technology, for example you are looking for a phone that will connect you to “Nibbana” but there is no such thing and rather than putting all the focus on trying to find the right “method” you should stick to enhancing your mental factors as explained for example in Satipatthana, what matters is what you do with your mind, how you understand things with proper view and how do you deal with attachments. You can get rid of attachments without even a second of meditation with the right guidance and energy that supplicate insight, if you want to “see” the way out you need to purify mind first. If you think sitting certain way or moving certain why is the “hack” – that’s a big misunderstanding I would say. That’s to say you can not study Dhamma on your own or even with Lal texts as they are just text-books for teacher to explain you. You need to be in presence or hear audio or have special texts that holds the energy of Buddha Guna that purifies mind, certain suttas holds this energy (that’s why people chant it and enter jhanas). Dhamma is simple but not necessary easy if you are not gifted with a lot of white kamma and merit.
About Sotapanna leaving “the Path” – well I think that may happen, most people after attaining Sotapanna would be probably Neyya type, Neyya from what I understand needs further explanation, either from properly understanding sutta or having the right sutta that push person higher or higher person that can point out to the limits of his attainments like Anagami probably could help Sotapanna better than other Sotapanna. I read somewhere in the suttas that person/monk who wasn’t even Sotapanna helped to move Sotapannas higher by chanting suttas – so suttas holds certain purification effect if you have base you may figure it out but those Sotapannas may be actually higher type of people (above Neyya) this is gray area for me, so I can not really speak deeper about this but on the outside it maybe seemed simple as above but if you try to analyze it deeper it will get complicated and without Buddha insight is hard to judge those things right, and it may turn into guessing game.
Any chance of summary of new insights and most important/major things from this Thero? It would be great to have at least some of it in english, thank you :)
Buddha was explaining here “halo effect”, many men get enamored with women and positive look-qualities not realizing mental qualities of that women or either ignoring bad, or even acting to appeal for that negative gathi because of liking to enjoy women’s company and look (sexual favors, women know they can act like this without this lifetime consequences because they are aware of using that poison for their own benefit, while not always as kammic consequences of such mindset can be triggered in this lifetime too). Especially those days we need suttas like that when women are perceived as “holy or innocent” in many movies and sociocultural aspects. (Do not bring “you hate women” argument as this got nothing to do with it but seeing things as they are, if somebody thought about that even for a second you are manipulated already and think that anybody can have status quo without responsibility for one’s actions). Even monks are speaking that “this sutta does not belong to Buddha” because not understanding it and to appeal to that sociocultural status quo which actually strengths negative traits and mindset in women.
If you look closely even your surprised tone in question springs from that manipulation and prejudice bias “is this sutta about women true? Is this really spoken words of the buddha?” – ignorance is the most scary thing in the world, that you are unable to realize things like this and it’s working behind your mind/brain like you are NPC that unable to see through things like that.
What is with the things we cling to with moha/avijja? For example some people kill a fly with a swat whenever they see a fly in the room. They do not hate the fly , but have the habit to kill this “useless and annoying thing”.I think those type questions are not applicable, I get on my group too from this category. For someone below Sotapanna – one have anyway much more ignorance and reactions than this and for Sotapanna those things does not matter anyway as they will grow out as skin from snake.
Certain questions are just not applicable and are just looking for hole in whole
My personal opinion about it is that Buddha rather would appeal to someone as such and such to get them into 8 fold Path, like He did with couple who was attached to themselves so much that Buddha showed a man appealing women in higher realms so his desires will drop off for human woman which in the long term he attained Nibbana (as he was told that practicing Dhamma he would be reborn in that higher realm), also there was a person who practiced Dhamma only to become beautiful but at the end of the day attained Arahanthood. I think that Buddha may appeal to someone’s humor if He sees fit in relation to Dhamma but I would not speak about Buddha so casually if it comes to the “jokes and fun” imo it’s good to cheer up rather then dwell in some depressive, unwholesome state of mind under thoughts around apayas and lower realm that may stop one from proper practice.
Before Dhamma I used to be pretty successful in occult stuff. There are ways to bring or manifest beings from other realm and bound them, there are actually so many things one can do thru “invisible” mechanics if one understand them one can do certain things but it always comes with the price. I studied it most of my life (to create things the way I want before understanding Anicca nature) so if anyone is interested I can answers questions to some extent but those theories of magic practice does not show true nature of this world, it’s more like biology or medicine, for example you have medical concepts but they do not include gandhabba or other factors of true nature, even magic being “spiritual” so to speak – it does not include true mechanics of the world but only related to it’s own convenience.
So for example, you want to make certain object that have certain power, most likely astrological one. To do so one need to understand how planets move and how to elect one to catch up “essence” of such planets, there need to be correspondence to those planets on the basis of mechanics or theory of magic, but one need to think how real this theory is in the sense of what is really happening – someone just put it together on his own or experience based on many experiments to make some sense of it and put it into “mechanics” but in reality behind this theory may be other things that are really in work.
Not Food But Evil Actions That Matter
1. A Brahmin, by name Amagandha, was an ascetic who lived in the region of Himalayas with his pupils.
2. They ate neither fish nor flesh. Every year they came down from their hermitage in search of salt and acids. The inhabitants of the village received them with honour, and gave them hospitality for four months.
3. Then the Blessed Lord with his monks visited the same village. The people, on hearing the Lord preach his Dhamma, became his followers.
4. That year even Amagandha and his disciples as usual went to the villagers, but the villagers did not show the same enthusiasm.
5. Amagandha was disappointed to hear that the Lord did not forbid eating fish and flesh. Wishing to have the matter confirmed, he went to Jeta Vana at Shravasti, where the Blessed Lord was then staying, and said:
6. “Millet, cingula-beans and peas, edible leaves and roots, the fruit of any creeper; the righteous who eat these, obtained justly, do not tell lies for the sake of pleasures.
7. “Thou eatest whatever food is given by others, which is well prepared, nicely got up, pure, and excellent. He who enjoys such food made of rice, he eats ‘Amagandha’. You say that the charge of Amagandha, does not apply to me, while eating rice with well prepared bird’s flesh.
8. “I inquire the meaning of this from you, of what kind is your Amagandha?”
9. The Lord replied: “Taking life, beating, cutting, binding, stealing, lying, fraud, deceiving, worthless knowledge, adultery–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
10. “In this world those individuals who are unrestrained in sensual pleasures, who are greedy for sweet things, who are associated with impure actions, who are of Nihilistic views, crooked, difficult to follow–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
11. “In this world those who are rude, harsh, backbiting, treacherous, unkind, excessively egoistic, ungenerous, and do not give anything to anybody–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
12. “Anger, pride, obstinacy, antagonism, deceit, envy, boasting, excessive egoism, association with the unrighteous–this is Amagandha, and not eating of flesh.
13. “Those who are of bad morals, refuse to pay their debt, slanderers, deceitful in their dealings, pretenders, those who in this world being the vilest of men, commit such wrongdoings–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
14. “Those persons who, in this world, are uncontrolled towards living beings, who are bent on injuring others, having taken their belongings; immoral, cruel, harsh, disrespectful–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
15. “Those who attack these living beings either because of greed or of hostility, and always bent upon (evil), they go to darkness after death and fall into hell headlong–this is Amagandha, and not the eating of flesh.
16. “Abstaining from fish or flesh, nakedness, shaving of the head, matted hair, covering with ashes, wearing rough deer skins, attending the sacrificial fire–nor all these various penances in the world (performed) for immortality, neither incantations, oblations, sacrifices nor seasonal observances, purifies a person who has not overcome his doubt.
17. “He who lives with his senses guarded and conquered, and is established in the Dhamma, delights in uprightness and gentleness, who has gone beyond attachments and has overcome all sorrows–that wise man does not cling to what is seen and heard.
18. “It is evil actions which constitute Amagandha, and not the eating of fish or flesh.”
