Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My 2 cents on this discussion.
First, the argument from pathfinder:
1) Everything is based on cause and effect
2) With complete knowledge of the causes you will have complete knowledge of the effects
3) With complete knowledge of the effect, since these effects are also causes for the future effects, one can tell with striking accuracy of the state of things in the past and future infinitely, if the being is capable enough to absorb and process all the causes in the present moment.
4) With this, we can also say that what we do next is based on cause and effect, eg the being can predict what we will do next.
—-Premise #2 is highly questionable. There is no such thing as “complete knowledge of the causes” — not even for inert matter, let alone the mind!
The thought experiment of Laplace’s Demon is also quite suspect:
“if someone (the demon) knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed…”
I am no physicist, but I learned that there is some kind of uncertainty principle which states that it is not possible to know both the location and momentum of a particle.
The notion of the possibility of deriving the past (which has no beginning), present, future of atoms, particles, or even 5 khandā or cittā — even as just as an idle intellectual pastime, and no matter how cleverly constructed — is futile. Not only that, it can be addicting, since seemingly clever arguments is often mistaken for “profundity of thought”, when it just leads to sampappalāpā, not nibbana.
Second, just a general observation based on my experience of listening to numerous “Buddhists”, including even bhikkhu teachers who consider the truth of “no-self”, i.e. there is no “doer”, the highest realization, and that seeing this means attaining arahantship (seeing the absolute truth). It leads to statement like we see above:
“And that’s why the absolute truth is that there is “no doer”, “no me”, but we have the distorted perception that there is, until we reach the Arahant stage”.
In this PD community, we have learned that anatta does NOT mean “no-self”; after learning true Dhamma, we see that “no-self” (no permament soul type entity, no “doer” behind phenomena) is embedded in the teaching, not an “ultimate truth” the realization of which brings arahanthood. Yet we still cannot resist bringing up this “no-self” business in a back-handed way via clever arguments. There is something very addicting about this notion.
My intention is by no means to offend anyone. It’s just that I have seen too often how arguments/reasoning of this type leads to endless discussion without leading in the direction of nibbana, in my opinion.
Best,
Lang1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you for this discussion, since I recently chatted with some people about meditation, and it was relevant to this. They practice “mindfulness”, which they consider to be “vipassana“.
Their practice was to be “fully present”, to be aware of what is going on in the moment: that one is breathing, that one is seeing something, hearing something, thinking something, etc.
This kind of practice, when cultivated well, probably brings a sense of deep calm (samatha) and is mistaken to be Buddhist meditation. Yet it is still mundane (anariya) meditation since it delves into the world of the senses.
It is good reminder for us from the “Sandha Sutta (AN 11.9)” as Lal pointed out above:
“…They don’t meditate (with the mind focused on) what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind.”
Sadhu!
Lang1 user thanked author for this post.
“Thats my doubt sir. The Meaning of Anatta is not being asked/questioned .”
Ah, I see. You provided a translation that says “When one perceives with wisdom that all things are without a Self...”, so I thought that was what you took anatta to mean, in which case I suggested you look at anatta in a different way.
So, your question, if I understand correctly, is this:
In “sabbe dhammā anatta …”, does “sabbe dhammā” include nibbana?
If it does then it follows that nibbana is dukkha.I still consider nibbana to NOT be included in “sabbe dhammā“, and my reasoning this this:
You referenced:
The table lists 3 Ultimate Realities (paramatta dhammā), of cittā, cetasikā, rupā
The three paramatta dhammā make up everything (sankhata) in this world (of 31 realms)
Nibbana is on its own column, separate from the paramatta dhammā, and is asankhataRegards,
LangNibbana is definitely NOT anatta. In fact, ONLY nibbana is atta. Check out this post
Anuloma Khanti and Sammattaniyāma – Pre-requisites for a Sotapanna
Right above #8, it says:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
“Only Nibbāna Has the Characteristics of Nicca, Sukha, Atta!”Furthermore, throughout the site, we are advised to NOT take anatta to mean “without a Self“. Several posts explain the real meaning of anatta (as well as anicca and dukkha).
One such example:
Anatta is a Characteristic of the World, not About a “Self”
And the two posts mentioned above are part of a whole section on tilakkhana:
Best,
Lang
In the 31 realms, there IS a realm of unconscious beings, but it’s not inanimate “elements of the universe”. It’s the asañña brahma realm where there is no citta vithi flowing (thus no consciousness). Somewhere on this site, this realm is likened to being under anesthesia, and your analogy of the “pause suffering” button of a cosmic horror story is quite apt in my opinion.
Also on this site, perhaps under the meditation section, Lal cautioned against a type of practice to STOP thoughts. And I have seen people attempting this, as if thoughts are the obstacles to real peace of mind. Perhaps this type of practice can lead to rebirth in the asañña realm.
To build on your analogy of samsara as a horror movie, I’d like to think of the deva realms and brahma realms (other than asañña which is the “pause”) as the “happy” parts of the movie. The movie can have neutral or happy sections, yet we know that the horror part (apāyā) will happen sooner or later, and that it is the dominant feature of the movie.
Best,
Lang2 users thanked author for this post.
Thank you for the wonderful discussion and for the series of posts on distorted/defiled saññā. I have gone through that series several times and am still making my way slowly through them; I did have a thought, however, of a possible connection between these concepts and paṭicca samuppāda, which I’d like to share here to see if it makes sense.
Let’s start with paṭicca samuppāda (PS), and let’s focus on just akusala-mula PS for this discussion: “avijja paccaya sankhara……bhava paccaya jati…..“
We see that 3 of the 4 mental khandā are in PS: sankhara, vinnana, vedana. Saññā is not.
Reading about distorted/defiled saññā, I had the idea that saññā is the mechanism or condition that moves PS from one step to the next. I sort of see it in the “vedana paccaya tanha” step.
In other words, distorted/defiled saññā is the “paccaya” in paṭicca samuppāda.
Best,
Lang
Thank you, Lal.
I still have no idea yet about the topic at hand.
For the previous point, I thought that a baby has kama saññā as a result of being born a human. For example, if we put one thing in the baby’s mouth it knows whether to accept that (as food, for example) and swallow it. But if we put another thing into its mouth then it’ll reject it.
kama saññā still has to be taught, correct? I don’t have children, but I now remember that parents had to keep watch of their babies or toddlers in case they put strange things in their mouths.
The baby does know things about the world, in the sense that the baby was born with saññā (distorted), i.e. the baby was born with its own gati as part of its bhavanga state.
Hi all. First of all, Happy New Year to everyone! I hope everyone had a 2023 filled with Dhamma.
This is a minor point unrelated to the main ideas of this thread, but I just want to sort out a couple of Pali terms.
There are various statements like:
“The puthujanas who reside most of the time in the apayas …”
My understanding is that the term puthujjana means an average (anariya) HUMAN and that “satta” means an average being in general (including a puthujjana).
… so the statement should be:
“The sattās who reside most of the time in the apayā …”?Best,
Lang1 user thanked author for this post.
A while back, I read that mudita was sympathetic joy — being happy in the success of others.
I remember this post about ariya metta bhavana:
5. Ariya Metta Bhāvana (Loving Kindness Meditation)
#6 says that all four Brahma Vihāra are cultivated with ariya metta bhavana
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you, Lal.
So subha is just one word that cannot be broken down further.
With subha meaning “fruitful/good”, I thought it made sense to think of the word in terms of su + bhava (good bhava), and that subha saññā is the saññā that bhava is good (fruitful).
That’s taking it a bit too far, right?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Dear all,
I’d like to revisit this thread to ask a question about the breakdown of the word “asubha.”
Is asubha = a + su + bhava ?
Thank you!
LangThank you, Lal! Your response shed much light and made me think of a few things.
First, Aniduan wrote: “Upon Google search the word Sanatana Dharma comes up as eternal truth in Hinduism”
I thought that he had a typo and left out the “n”, and thus I thought of the above Dhammapada verse. This is because I have seen only this kind of translation for the verse;
It is not by hatred that hatred
subsides here anytime.
but by non-hatred they subside.
this is an eternal law.The last line is always translated as:
this is the timeless Truth
this is the eternal law
etc.I suppose this is another example of conventional meaning vs deeper meaning. I have not seen sanantano explained this way — as the end of “san” — although it makes a lot of sense, based on what we have been learning here.
Another question about the Pali breakdown: it seems like “anti” (in sammanti) and “anta” (in sanantano) are the same meaning components (the end) in different forms?
Related to the above, I was reading the latest post: Uncovering the Suffering-Free (Pabhassara) Mind
Under number 12, we have the phrase “sīti bhavissanti“, meaning “will be fully cooled down“. Does bhavissanti break down to “bhava” + “anti“?
“sanantana” appears in Verse 5 of Yamaka Vagga of the Dhammapada:
“Na hi verena verāni
sammantī’dha kudācanam
Averena ca sammanti
esa dhammo sanantano“Thank you, Lal!
“It is just that the “sweetness” or “saltiness” in not a vedana but a “sanna”.”
This makes a lot of sense!
So, the nature of “sweetness”, “saltiness”, etc. is the “Guṇa” part of “Kāma Guṇa“. If we were to invent a phrase, can we say that an arahant has “Guna Sanna“? (with guna implied to apply to the kama loka).
If we say “Kāma Guṇa” then the “Kāma” part implies some kind of attachment, and not mere “qualities” or “characteristics”, correct?
