[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.

[cubibobi]

Good one. I did not intend any pun, but I liked your take on it!

Indeed, the search has ended, and it was a long one — almost 30 years. Like you said, it is now about walking ON the path; the search for the path is over, and for that I am eternally grateful.

[cubibobi]

I remember reading from “What The Buddha Taught” (Walpola Rahula) where the Buddha told Ananda that he did not have public teachings on the one hand and secret teachings on the other; that there is nothing witheld in “the closed fist of the teacher”.

For a number of years in the past, I’ve had my share of exposure to the “faster way to salvation” (mostly Mahāyāna), and sudden enlightenment (mostly Zen). More esoteric schools then evolved from Mahayaha, where there are public and private teachings (Tantra, Vajrayana, etc.). They are very alluring to certain types of people; and summbodhi’s analogy to MLM, although crude, is apt here.

Anyhow, we are very lucky to have ended up here instead.

[cubibobi]

Got it. Thank you!

I was trying to ask (in an unclear way) whether or not we can be conscious of mano sankhara (as in whether or not mano sankhara is noticeable), and it looks like they are, although they are automatic due to gati. Take the example of seeing an object and the initial liking of it; although that liking is automatic, it is noticeable and observable.

This is good news, right? since if we can notice gati, then we can work to reduce bad ones and cultivate good ones. Elsewhere in other forums, I shared that I am now mainly working on removing miccha ditthi to get to the sotapanna stage. Nowadays, quite often I can “catch” miccha ditthi, which is a mano sankhara, when it happens, and then counter it.

Best.

[cubibobi]

So, we can never “see” mano sankhara, but we can see the effect of it.

Let’s say that an unwholesome conscious thought is present, such as a thought of violence toward someone; then we know that there is unwholesome mano sankhara behind it.

On the other hand, if we observe a wholesome thought in ourselves, such as a thought of generosity, then we know that wholesome mano sankhara is happening.

[cubibobi]

Lal said: “When we speak, in addition to the sound coming out, our thoughts “emit” the idea to the external world too.”

Is it correct to say that the sounds coming out is vaci sankhara, and the ideas emitted from the thoughts mano sankhara?

Thank you

[cubibobi]

Thank you, Lal.

As we spend more and more time on puredhamma.net, we are more drawn to Pali, so knowing a bit more about the language like this is exciting.

On an unrelated matter, I wrote these responses in Internet Explorer. Lal mentioned a bug in the system, and often posts did not get published. I experienced that several times, and Lal helped me post. I was using either Chrome or Firefox then, and this time, I used IE, and it went through! You may want to give it a try.

[cubibobi]

I think I see the difference: there is an extra mark at the end to indicate plurality, the mark that looks like the letter “C” reversed; and written in English, I believe this is represented as the dash above the letter a: ā.

If this is the case, then does it apply to nouns ending in vowels other than a, such as:

1 bikkhu –> many bhikkhū
1 bikkhuni –> many bhikkhunī

Back to the word “dhamma”. Is it true to say that:

“dhamma” as in what one bears is always plural: dhammā
“dhamma” as in buddha dhamma is singular: dhamma

Thank you
Lang

[cubibobi]

Lal said: “In other words, in “saññā nirodha” thoughts arise without much of past memories….”

Is this similar to Alzheimer’s / dementia?

I’m in a position to be in contact with elderly people with this condition. They exhibit: (1) almost no short term memory, (2) not able to keep track of date/time, and (3) thoughts that arise seem disjointed from one another.

This seems uncannily similar to saññā nirodha. If anyone has insights into communicating with those with Alzheimer’s / dementia, please share.

Metta

[Author]

Posts