[cubibobi]

Hi,

I often see a non-committal attitude toward gandhabbas among Buddhists who do believe in rebirth. It goes something like this: “I believe in kamma and rebirth, and to me it doesn’t matter how it happens — with or without gandhabbas”. And such a person most often takes no further interest in the subject of gandhabbas.

Is this attitude also miccha ditthi #6 among the 10 types of miccha ditthi?

Thank you,
Lang

[cubibobi]

This kind of discussion is common among mahayanists (more often from the East from what I see) who delight in using clever words to create an impression of “profundity”. There is no end to how clever they can get with words.

In my native country, Mahāyāna is dominant, and I see this kind of dicussion more often than not. Not only that, a topic like “emptiness”, along with others from Zen and Taoism, make it to popular classic novels. Readers then spend endless time discussing the “philosophy” of these novels, how “deep” they are, and how the author really “got Buddhism and Taoism”.

Also, I suspect that at the core of these discussions is the implication that this is superior to Theravada teaching, that Theravada is just the foundation, where one sees a distinction between nibbana and samsara. At a “higher level”, one sees no distinction between nibbana and samsara (this is especially popular in Zen).

That’s my two cents. Also, this kind of discussion is quite addicting if one is not careful. It’s a form of samphappalāpā.

[cubibobi]

I must admit I like the “old etymology” better — one of “discarding what is bad”; and it is more closely related to anapana.

So, “passa” here is not the same “passa” in “assa / passa”?

And “vi” means different things in different places too, I suppose? In vicikiccā, you explained “vi” as “twisted”.

“vi” (twisted) + passa (assa/passa) would actually make a good combination: discarding what is twisted. It brings the point home better than “special seeing”.

Anyhow, just some musing; a word is what it is despite my liking.

Best,
Lang

[cubibobi]

Hello Upekkha,

In my native country, stories of disturbances by invisible beings (as we call them) abound.

If the affected person seeks out a Theravada Bhikkhu, the suggestion is almost universal: cultivate sila and dana, and practice recollection of your effort with joy.

For sila, it means the 5 precepts, and the formula is somewhat like this:

Take the 5 precepts at the beginning of the day.
Observe them scrupulously for that day.
Rejoice in your effort at the end of the day.
Should you break a precept or more during the day, then have a moment of repentance, forgive yourself, and reset.
Repeat the process the next day.

For dana, it usually involves one or more of the following:

Financial donation to Buddhist monasteries
Giving service to Buddhist monasteries
Providing meals to the sangha
Releasing life (usually fish and birds)
etc.

This list is very culturally-based; they are just examples. The point is that whatever generous activities you engage in, recollect them with joy (sadhu) daily.

Of course, we don’t know for sure that invisible beings are involved here in what you’re going through. Nevertheless, sila and dana are wholesome factors in the path. You mentioned your wish to become a sotapanna and meet an ariya in the US. Sila and dana contribute to the path toward a sotapanna in the long run (in the short term, they can bring gladness to the mind); and I believe there are ariyā in the forums here at puredhamma.net.

You’ve come to the right place online, and you are not alone. We are all striving for the sotapanna stage, and we seek guidance and support each other toward that goal here.

One final thought having to do with medication. Obviously, it’s your doctor’s and your decision about what medication to take. However, if you keep good records of what happen throughout the day, it can provide valuable feedback to the doctor. For example:

What time did you take what medicine
The times the “voices” happened, and what they said

Best wishes to you.
Lang

[cubibobi]

Thank you, Lal!

Knowing that there are no javana citta in dreams does explain many things.

[cubibobi]

Hi,

A few more questions about dreams if I may.

1) Images and sounds in dreams are not rupā, so they must be dhammā, correct?
And they arise due to kamma vipakā? Some dreams are pleasant while others are truly nightmares.

2) Many dreams are filled with actions. For a nightmare, I may be fighting against attackers or running away from vicious animals, etc. For a pleasant dream, I may be enjoying some sensual pleasure.

In either case, I have no control of the course of the dream. In the dream, I may wish for the chase to stop or the pleasure to continue but have no control over anything.

Would this be an example of mano sankhara? We know that we have no control over mano sankhara; they come about due to gati. This seems like a very vivid example of that.

Thank you,
Lang

[cubibobi]

Thank you!

[cubibobi]

Hello Lal,

The links under the Mahā Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta section cannot be found:

Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta – Structure
Satipaṭṭhāna – Introduction
Kāyānupassanā – Section on Postures (Iriyapathapabba)
Kāyānupassanā – The Section on Habits (Sampajanapabba)
Prerequisites for the Satipaṭṭhāna Bhavana
What is “Kaya” in Kāyānupassanā?

[cubibobi]

Lal said:
“Of course, these Out-of-Body Experiences or Near-Death Experiences may give people the wrong idea that “everything will be fine” after death.”

That’s right; I didn’t look at it from that angle. On the one hand, this can help us remove ucceda ditthi. On the other hand, it may give us the false impression that the rebirth process is just fine, and we may see no need to end it.

Here, knowledge of the big picture of the 31 realms, especially the apāyā, helps put things in perspective.

Lal said:
“It is just an exchange of ideas without words, just like in the dreams.”

Does the gandhabba leave the body when we dream? In my dreams, I can see and hear, which must be through the cakku and sōta pasāda rūpa (physical eyes are shut and physical ears do not hear things); and the pasāda rūpa can function on their own only outside of the physical body, right?

Finally, one more curiosity: at around 17:35 the video mentions the limbic system in the brain that gets active at this moment. Could this system be the mano indriya?

Thank you,
Lang

[cubibobi]

I watched both videos, and they were terrific. Just a few points for clarification:

1) In “Description:QED – Glimpses of Death (27 01 1988)”,

At 8:25, Mrs. Barbara Lambert saw her grandfather, who died when she was 9. By now, we know that this means Mrs. Lambert’s gandhabba saw her grandfather’s gandhabba, who was still in para loka (he had not yet entered another womb). It seems that a gandhabba in para loka tends to look out for his/her family members.

In the case of Mrs. Jean Williams, at 15:00 she saw her father in a heavenly setting, and then she saw “Jesus”. For her father, it was his gandhabba, but for “Jesus”, it must have been Mrs. Williams’s gandhabba’s imagination of what Jesus would look like, correct?

2) Michael Cremo: “Forbidden Archaeology” | Talks at Google

It is fascinating to learn that Buddha Kassapa lived on the same earth as we do, millions of years ago.

When Buddha Kassapa’s sasana was over (the tipitaka from that period was lost, I suppose?), some of his teachings remained here and there in the Vedas, but people could get only the conventional meanings.

I have heard the term “pacceka buddha”. Could this be a person who, before Buddha Gotama appeared, could understand the deeper meanings of Buddha Kassapa’s teaching in the Vedas, and realized nibbana, but could not teach others?

Best,
Lang

[cubibobi]

Thank you, Lal.

I read the post about the jhanā, and just one curiosity: what is the Pali breakdown of the word jhana?

I tend to be curious about the breakdown of words, and I apologize if this has been discussed elsewhere on the site.

Reflecting on my time as a breath meditator, I am almost thankful that I did not get into jhanā. For a time, I was following a venerable bhikkhu (well-known and beloved around the world) who taught that the jhanā are necessary for nibbāna.

The rationale was that the noble eightfold path culminates in sammā samādhi, and sammā samādhi is defined in numerous suttā as the four jhanā. He did not differentiate between ariya and anariya jhanā. I do not dout that, but there is at least once exception: the Mahācattārīsaka Sutta that you have been discussing in the new section “Worldview of the Buddha”. Here, sammā samādhi is presented as something that is supported by the first 7 factors. We don’t see sammā samādhi defined as the four jhanā here.

Another equally well-known and beloved bhikkhu taught the same thing, but he does have a specific formulaic procedure for getting into jhanā. The message is still the same: the jhanā are necessary for nibbāna.

Now that I have learned about gati, I think I know what was going on: these bhikkhus taught from experience. They attained jhanā according to their gati from past lives, and when they attained nibbāna, they made the connection between the two.

Knowing about gati also tells me why I was not able to get into jhanā: kāma rāga is still strong. So, I feel more confident to set that aside to get “back to the basics”: abstaining from the BIG EIGHT, removing the ten types to micchā ditthi; and I am happy to say that this has paid off already.

Saddhu!

[cubibobi]

I am in no position to comment on this text; that’s above my pay grade. However, the notion that one has to fully experience kammic consequences before making an end of suffering has to be false.

If that were the case, Angulimāla would never have attained arahanthood in his life. One of the themes at puredhamma.net here is that not everything is determined by kamma, and that by removing avijjā and taṇhā, one can bypass future kamma vipāka.

Best,
Lang

[cubibobi]

For numbers 7 and 8 regarding Mother and Father, would it be correct to expand them to include nurturers? There are cases when Mother and Father are not around, and a baby is raised and nurtured by other people.

A typical example is adoption at birth. Let’s say that Joe Average was adopted at birth, and he later cannot locate his biological parents (they could have remained anonnymous, moved away, or even died, etc). For Joe, “Mother” and “Father” are really his adoptive parents, correct?

Thank you,
Lang

[cubibobi]

Reading this makes me smile since I remember reading this section a while back. I remember well the strong impression I got in learning that rupakkhandha was mental. That was the first such interpretation of rupakkhandha I came across.

This reminds me of another instance when I read for the first time a new (to me) interpretation of something I thought I was already familiar with. It was also related to the subject at hand.

I’ll have to look up the Pali verse, but I remember Lal’s explanation (I’ll look up the post too) as follows: Seeing is just a trace of seeing, hearing is just a trace of hearing, etc.

Those who have gone to vipassana retreats elsewhere may remember this verse well, where it was translated something like this: in seeing there is only seeing, in hearing there is only hearing, etc. It was then further explained in terms of “no self”, such as: seeing is only seeing, there is no “I” behind it who “sees”, etc., and realizing this means realizing “anatta”.

I carried these notions with me for a LONG time until coming to puredhamma.net.

Best,

[cubibobi]

My understanding is also that insight into Dhamma is gradual; at least, that’s how I think it works at the Sotapanna stage. Sotapanna magga phala happens in a thought moment (within a citta vithi), but that moment is not noticeable. Months (or perhaps years) later, a person then realizes his life has really changed, that he is no longer capable of doing any acts that may bring rebirths in the apayā.

I used to know someone striving to quit smoking, and there maybe an analogy here. He followed a regimen such as substituting smoking with running, contemplating the bad consequences of smoking, etc. Then one day he realized that he had not smoked a cigarette for months, and he felt just fine. He couldn’t pinpoint a moment when the “giving up” of cigarettes happened.

Purifying our minds probably works the same way; it involves removing defilements (which are kind of like addictions). Over time, we may notice that certain defilements are no more, but we cannot pinpoint the magga phala thought moment that eradicates those defilements.

Interestingly, I’ve come to notice that many breath meditation practitioners (anapana to them) believe in such a “eureka” moment. They hold that when the mind becomes totally present (via the breath) then the “light bulb goes off”, bringing a flash of insight, and that’s how magga phala happens. Here, we have learned over and over that breath meditation is NOT anapana.

[Author]

Posts