Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ven Amadassana Thero also explains this Bahiya Sutta- Verse in his latest sermon beginning from 1:33:20 time.
I think it fits greatly with Lal’s explanation but also offers some other good analogies
1 user thanked author for this post.
Here is another analogy that might be helpful, that I learned from Ven. Amadassana Thero.
As a child, we have a very simply world view and many “adult things” don’t seem to matter to us. For example, the parents just give us food on the table, they buy us a smartphone (nowadays), they give us presents, and so on.
So we easily get the feeling that “money grows on trees” and that we might be somehow special and deserving to get all this.
For example, that all this delicious food we get from the supermarket is something all humans deserve and is simply “a given”.
So if someone asks me when I was a child: “Who is your father?” then I would have pointed to my father and said “he is”. So, I knew who my father was and also who the father of my friends were, and so on. And what job they had, and so on.
But when it comes to the question of “What is a father?” it is something one can only appreciate through a certain wisdom.
Here, in this example, I am referring to the mundane wisdom which we acquire later in life.
How? For example once I moved out of the parent’s house and I had to sustain my own life, then you have to go to the supermarket and then you have to pay for all these things that you enjoyed all your life. The different kinds of cheese, juices, and so on that was “granted”. That is when we realize that all these articles are not for free at all and that most of the money earned simply has to be spent on “food” and not on fancy extras (phone, games, etc.). I remember when I went to the supermarket with my mother the first time I was a teenager and spend 200€ (or $) for all week’s food for the family. It made me realize that all of this luxury was not free at all! Also, as one starts to work by oneself, one understands how much of a burden it is to work full-time and for so many years. So, at that point one might understand the “quality of the parents” because they worked for so many years and provided all these things that one “took for granted”. Then, one sees “what a father” is. Also, now that I understand that in life “nothing is for free”, I appreciate that my father tried to explain me the value of “hard work”. This is another value “a father” holds (teaching of important values to a child). As a child I might have protested and preferred to play video games, but now it is something I can “see as a quality in him” (or in any father).
So this process of “growing up” was how I corrected certain views about life and then I started to appreciate what my parents gave me. Actually the process of understanding Dhamma helps in this by a great deal, I think my gratefulness becomes only greater now.
The Buddha was the greatest “father” in this way.
One can also use this principle to reflect on other qualities, such as instead of “Who is the doctor?” to “What is a doctor?” , or “What is an architect?” , “What is a scientist?” and one will understand better their respective qualities. It is easy to say “Mrs Smith is a doctor” but only when one has a certain understanding of life is when one understands “what a doctor is” (for that, one needs wisdom).
In the same way, understanding “what a Buddha is” needs one to have samma ditthi.
1 user thanked author for this post.
There is a difference between knowing “who the Buddha was” (where the person was born, how old he became and so on) and “what he is/was”, where, as I understand it, the deeper meaning of Buddha (bhava+uddha or “having extinguished further existence”) comes in. So, it refers to the qualities of “being free from defilements”, and also free from death and decay, in other words referring to the timeless quality of Nibbana. These qualities are independent of a person and still exist and always will. Of course, here I am referring to “Buddha” as a quality, it can also be done with Prefix “samma sam”(buddha).
There are some intellectuals who know a lot about the person(for example there are some PhD in Buddhism – not that this is anything wrong or bad at all, it is certainly helpful) but unless there is an understanding of the 4NT, it is not really clear what he really came to teach and what his task was (because one does not see the real problem, i.e. that “wanting to play video game” (attachment to sankhata) is root problem and not “not being allowed to play the game” (dukkha vedana).
That’s why it is said that only a Sotapanna can start to see some of the the “supreme qualities” of a Buddha (the unique qualities or culmnination of everything “pure”) due to the firstglimpse” of the 4 Noble Truths.
Here this article of Lal might be helpful. It might explain it in better words.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This video might be interesting to Tobias. It is a sermon by Waharaka Thero.
However I think Lal is entirely right that this is not relevant to spend much time on.
Ultimately the only thing that matters is the understanding of the truth or real nature as anicca, dukkha and anatta and “see” reality and life in terms of that knowledge. Applying this knowledge into life and solving the problems that come from the ignorance of the truth (and the dukkhakhanda that comes as result). That understanding will make one’s faith unshakable and one can explain in one’s own words.
The Buddha said himself, that seeing him can only be done through seeing the Dhamma, or, seeing PS.
So then, we can never “really” see the Buddha through “where he(the person) came from”, etc.
There is no problem with perceiving a chair as a conditional manifestation. The problem comes when it is perceived as a “fixed object” (we project “a fixed object” that “exists along the timeline” with certain properties, e.g. a chair with the ability to hold a person or “a family with mother, father and child”). The same happens with the 5 Aggregates. The 5 aggregates themselves are conditional manifestations, but when we perceive a “fixed entity” who these aggregates belong to, then we misperceive what is “Anicca” as “nicca” (in that misperception there is already a subtle expectation involved). When we feel that “it is me who sees” we claim ownership on certain Rupa (for example the Rupa involved in the seeing process) and hence if the causes change and that Rupa ceases to manifest, then we get distressed. Thus, we suffer and do abhisankhara (renewed accumulation) to create a new pair of eyes, etc.
On the other hand, we like to see because we perceive that certain “objects” give us pleasure and therefore, it is good to associate them and “see them”.
Many months ago I read this thread and also watched the video. The analogy of the “shadow belonging to the finger” stuck with me after that, and recently I had thought about it again regularly. This was because Ven. Amadassana Thero used very similar examples in the recent Dhamma sermons. I want to explain how I understand the relation of this analogy to the anicca-Nature. In other words, I do think that there is an important link from this analogy that can be made, which I want to explain here.
As Lal has explained in his article on Vinnana, any defiled consciousness is always consciousness together with expectations. These are expectations based on avija, the non-understanding of the yathabuta-nana, or, another way to say it, ignorance of the Anicca, Dukkha and anatta nature.
We set expectations (“I want my favorite soccer team to win”) because we consider that certain events or sankhara as pleasurable and “can be managed to our satisfaction”.
Here is one example that is more subtle. When we walk into the room, we might see “a chair”.
If we look at the chair with “nicca-sañña”, we perceive that there is a “fixed object” called a chair, and there are certain rupas that belong to this “entity” (the legs belong to the chair, the sitting surface belongs to the chair, the backrest belongs to the chair). So, we perceive “the existence” of a chair. Imagine we sit down on that chair and after 2 minutes, the wooden surface of the chair cracks, or the plastic surface cracks, and we fall down to the floor. We might become hurt physically but we might also get annoyed mentally. I would say that part of that mental annoyance or anger is, that we have “perceived” that we have “sit on a chair”, in other words “sitting is an action that can be done with a chair”, so we also attribute certain sankhara as “belonging to the chair”.
So in this “misperception” we perceive “a fixed entity” that is more than the working-together of it’s component and the “manifestation of an effect”, we also perceive “actions or sankhara” as belonging to such “entities”. Then we have already created an expectation deep within, which is part of a defiled Viññana. Instead, one has to understand that “sitting is a process” and a process happens when it’s causes come together, for as long as it’s causes come together. Similar to “seeing is a process”. Does the plastic belong to the chair? If we remove the legs of the chair, where is the chair gone? Is it gone with the legs?
So, we usually like to think that “seeing is a sankhara that belongs to entities/beings”. Although in reality it is a process that happens in a mind (mental process) when the appropriate causes are there. So, besides the process of matter and mind we perceive “this matter belongs to Daniel” (the body belongs to me, Daniel) and we say “yesterday I saw you” (perceiving internally that “seeing was something I did”). So, we believe that we can control these entities to our liking. And we also consider the “seeing process” as something that, because we perceive it as being as our liking, being pleasurable and “worth to belong to me”, “worthy to create self from”. So we see that it is worthy to exist together with it, and we don’t see the hidden suffering of maintaining it, it going against our expectation – e.g. when we don’t see what we like to see, and we believe that there are “beautiful things out there to see”.)
Here are some more examples:
->We say that “I am in a relationship”, so we perceive “an existing relationship” where certain actions belong to that relationship, such as “caring for each other”, “hugging each other”. In reality, “being hugged” is vipaka, so it is conditional. But we get into a relationship and if the other person does not hug us, we complain to him/her “don’t you know that hugging is part of relationship?”
So, because we don’t understand “being hugged ” as Anicca, we get angry.
->We look at ourselves in the mirror and see the body, “that belongs to me”. Do the fingers belong to the hand? Does the hand belong to the body? And does the body belong to “me”? If we see a person in the street, with one finger cut off, which is lying on the floor, we might suffer mentally, because “this is not how it should be” because the finger should be on the hand, not on the floor!
Instead, one should try and understand that “finger is what manifests” due to causes giving rise to the effect “finger”. These causes are constantly renewing and as soon as causes change, result changes.
-> Recently I walked into a toilet at work, and there were two doors. One showed a “red circle” (occupied) and the other a “white circle” (not occupied). So we tend to perceive that “a door with white sign belongs to an unoccupied toilet”, in other words we immediately expect that when we open the door, we see a toilet which is unoccupied. We would complain to the person “Why did you not shut the door and turn the knob?”
-> when we see a movie, we see “a family” living well and happily. “A family” consists of “mother”, “father” and “child”, i.e. “child belongs to the family”. Suddenly a criminal kidnaps the child. So, we feel distressed because our model of “what we think belongs together” is in conflict with reality. Here, “child” is just “child”, it does not belong to anything. Wherever it is is because of the causes manifesting.
-> When we look at other people, we see “German people” (this person belongs to community of German people), “Italian people”, “Hungarian people”. So, we don’t see that bodies are the same, they are all Rupa. These Rupa don’t even belong to “someone” (in ultimate reality)
-> We say that “I won the game yesterday” and feel “a sense of pride”. Actually, the vipaka-“thought” that “won” has already passed away. But we consider “that thought belongs to me” and that is how when the memory of the event arises, “it was me who won the game” and so we feel good about it.
-> Waharaka Thero once gave a similar explanation about this with the example of “bicycle”. Link here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5bEr86l2Y&list=PLicd0gkZBCmF0vg_7NuRc4ZIXBsGGpXdb&index=7
So, when we perceive this “fixed entity of a bicycle” we don’t see that “cycling is Anicca” (a process that manifests with the right causes). We push the pedal and it does not move or the chain snaps. This might make us angry, because we expected to drive with it.
Here is the link to the sermon by Ven. Amadassana Thero:
I welcome your comments and I am happy to discuss for more details.
The metal detector analogy I shared had the following purpose:
I was not so much interested in the person who was looking for value inside the metal (although that is also a good point), but about this:the metal never had any effect on the engine of the detector. The reason the engine cooled down was because it was hot and also it “stopped producing heat”. The metal cannot really “do anything” to the motor.In the case of the mind, the engine starts running once attachment to a rupa happens and then that produces heat or tapa mentally. The attachment happens due to believing that “outside things can affect me and give me pleasure”. That view lead to ghe engine started and lead to heat. Then, once we find what we hold as pleasurable, we stop looking for it and then, the engine stops producing heat and therefore, it cools down. So, it was a whole internal process. But in our ignorance we would say “my friend made me so happy when I saw her”, which is analogous to saying “when the detector came close to the metal, the metal cooled down the engine”.
Here is another example :
A boy meets his “crush” every friday for a date. The evening is very nice and they enjoy being with each other, going out and having anice meal, or going to cinema, etc.This is why the boy is always disappointed to say goodbye to her (thereby producing further mental heat ) and also looking forward to her during the other days when he can’t be with her. So, he produces a lot of heat as time moves on from Saturday to Friday, in search of the next time when he can see her, believing that it will make him happy.
When he meets her next time, it will give him that happiness (momentary), not because she gave it to him (the sight of her) but simply because he stopped looking and hence the engine cooled down (he misattributed that to and gives credit to her).
So, he starts to prove his own assumptions that she is the source of his happines and then he starts to create this following idea:
Having more of her= more of happiness, since “her=happiness”, so there is a direct link (proportiobality). So he starts dreaming of marrying her.Once he is married, however, he sees her everyday. So now the time to “run the engine” is much smaller, so therefore the “cooling of the engine” does not take long and is not very intense.
So, he married her because he linked the “pleasure” (relief from heat) to “being received by seeing her” she makes me happy) but this was never what really happened. Then he becomes irritated that now when he has “her for himself all the time” there is not much of that pleasure in everyday life. Because they see each other every day after work and hence there is not much time when the engine is running and “heat is produced”.
So, I hope my example shows the irony and also, why. So if someone would want his “crush” to make her happy (give him pleasure), the least thing he should do is to marry her, because then he would not be “away from her much” and hence no relief and pleasure. However if he would stay away from her, he would also suffer as long as he is attached because he thinks “seeing her makes me happy”<!–/data/user/0/com.samsung.android.app.notes/files/clipdata/clipdata_bodytext_230430_172029_577.sdocx–>
1 user thanked author for this post.
If I understand the question of Yash RS correctly, I want to add one thing that might be relevant. As far as I remember, the lifetime as a deva is not always the same length, but it has a maximum length. Therefore, as soon as that Sakadagami Deva attains higher stage, the mind will not burden the Deva body anymore and be instantly reborn as Brahma in Rupa loka or, if attaining Arahanthood, cease to exist in this world.
So, it is not that the lifetime is always fixed and that “somehow” the Magga phala happens at that time but rather due to the “dhamma niyamata” the Sakadagami has fulfilled the Path at some point and then that Deva bhava stops immediately as a consequence.
I remember there is also a law that all of kama loka will be void of Ariyas at the end of the 5000 years, so due to the perfections of the path any Ariya will attain anagami stage up to that point and “move up”/be reborn at Rupa loka (or not reborn anymore in case of Arahanthood)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Dear Noble Friends,
I haven’t been actively writing in this forum for some time but I thought I would write a message.
Again I wanted to thank Lal for all his efforts of explaining the Dhamma. I have been reading the webpage since a little more than 3 years and still do so, even posts that I have read before, because it is always helpful to reevaluate and contemplate about them. I have also read the forum discussions actively.
I wish LayDhammaFollower a lot of success in his project in the sense that may through his effort he himself as well as many other sentient beings be able to come to the most profound understanding of the Dhamma and thereby achieve the full liberation (Nibbana) in this Buddha’s dispensation. I read through the short description given by LDF. I also studied physics and that is probably the reason why I also appreciated Lal’s approach from the very beginning of finding this page.
Thanks to this forum I also found the Jetavanarama Buddhist monastery youtube channel with Ven. Amadassana Thero and followed the Youtube Podcast “Buddha’s Guide to Happiness” from the beginning. I found his sermons very helpful and useful too. Especially his ability to explain deep Dhamma concepts in very simple language and in very practical examples. The first season builds up the Dhamma concepts in a very steady and consistent way, in order to carry the interested audience slowly into a profound understanding of the Tilakkhana. In season two he starts to introduce more and more Pali and approach the concepts from many different angles, so that also advanced practitioners can deepen their practise.
On a sidenote: As I am a native German speaker, and as there is already a Puredhamma German website, I recently started to create a blog in which I intend to write Dhamma articles, explain concepts that I had understood from Lal or from Ven. Amadassana Thero in a way that is hopefully accessible for interested beginners as well as for more advanced practitioners. I have just written a few articles explaining the concept of anicca in practical examples, such as the concept of vexation (pilana) and pleasure as relief from vexation. Also, how our wish to maintain the state of sankhata (e.g. being a football -star) requires constant abhisankhara (to produce the sankhata as well as to maintain it to one’s liking) and the meaning of the verse: “Taṇhāya jāyatī soko, taṇhāya jāyatī bhayaṁ; Taṇhāya vippamuttassa, natthi soko kuto bhayaṁ.”
If anyone is German speaking, I invite anyone to read it and comment, in order to explain the concepts in the most simple way yet keeping them in its most pure form for the benefit of ourselves as well as many others. The website is: http://www.dielehrebuddhas.wordpress.com
Lal: If you think that it is not appropriate to post about this here, I am happy to remove it again. I intend to do it only for supporting each other, which is also why I put a link to your page on my blog as well (if that is okay for you).
May through our effort practicing the Dhamma as well as any meritorious efforts (mundane or supramandane) we and many other sentient beings be able to attain the Nibbana in this life itself.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes, I would say so, in the ultimate sense it will go away the closer one gets to Nibbana. But there are many intensities of a fear one is experiencing, because a fear is an aversion, that “something should not happen that would go against my hope/wish”, and so as with all other defilements, it is always important to be mindful of the emotion, understand the underlying attachment or craving, reflect on this with the understanding of anicca/dukkha/anatta (e.g. reflecting about “what exactly is it one is afraid of?” “why do I hold as true or important for myself, that it makes me afraid to lose or face such a situation?”, and with the understanding that holding on and “trying to manage” any kind of rupa is stressful, subjects one to suffering, one will be able to handle the emotion and reach to deeper understanding of oneself.
One other aspect is the simple truth that any rupa one is attached to, if one does not have it – that makes one grief for it, desire it, want it, long for it, … and if one has it, one will be afraid to lose it (hence fear is part of every desire/craving/attachment).
But this is only a general idea, I think that fears can have many different forms, e.g. fear from an enemy could be very much a problem if one is engaged in many immoral activities or if one is acting in a way that makes it easy for you to be an enemy. Such a kind of fear can easily be changed once one understands some Dhamma and progresses on the path. On the other hand some fears are more “self-preservatory”, as the latter you mentioned, fear from an insect, where one is “afraid to lose one’s life” or be hurt, and these ones might only really go away with Arahant stage, because they are more related to the mana- cetasika (sense of pride, sense of self).
That would be my ideas.
Best wishes
1 user thanked author for this post.
You said:
“A dhamma that initiates the cuti-patisandhi transition in arupa-realm is a vipaka but there can be other sensory inputs that are not vipaka. ”
In an arupa realm, that must come through the mind-door process.
Then your statement:”The sixth process that Tobias referred to, “manañca paṭicca dhammē ca uppajjāti manōviññāṇaṃ” initiated by a manōdvāravajjana citta.. It is not a good or bad kamma vipaka. It is a “functional citta” that can arise as needed.”
How do these two match each other, in your explanation?
According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, some Citta Vitthi do not even go to the stage of “Pancadvara citta”, e.g. the very slight object at page 161. But Bhikkhu Bodhi also calls the” Vibrational Bhavanga citta” a resultant, which I translate as vipaka?
The other point:
If you say it is not a Vipaka, then your statement:” I think it is not only possible but necesssary. For example, at the cuti-patisandhi moment, a vipaka bring the next bhava can come through any of the six senses. How does an arupavacara Brahma grasp the next bhava at the cuti-patisandhi moment? He has only the mind-door.”It would mean the dhamma that initiates the cuti-patisandhi transition in arupa-realm is not a vipaka?
On page 166:”Thus, according to Ledi Sayadaw, in the mind door
too there is a fourfold presentation of objects. The course ending with
registration can be called a very clear (ati-vibh³ta) presentation; the
course ending with javanas, a clear (vibh³ta) presentation; the course
ending with mind-door adverting, an obscure (avibh³ta) presentation;
and the course ending with mere vibration of the bhavanga, a very ob-
scure (ati-avibh³ta) presentation. The clarity of the presentation depends
on either the prominence of the object or the strength of consciousness”So, according to that, there can be Citta Vitthi, where a dhamma comes in that look like:
B B B A V V V V V V V V V B B B B
Similar to page 161 table.Now, a dhamma is incoming, but only investigating citta(the one that I proposed) is arising, then how can it be anything else?
In your post
You write:”The seventh akusala vipāka citta is called the investigating consciousness accompanied by equanimity (upekkha-sahagata santirana citta). This is the citta that is responsible for the birth in the apāyā (lowest four realms), i.e, it acts as the paṭisandhi citta for the birth in the apāyā.”
Yes, agreed, and in Bhikkhu Bodhis book, the investigation citta can arise as Patisandhi but also as “Bhavanga citta” (which is A and V in above diagram, not B because B is not a citta as you pointed out)
Yes, Bhavanga is a state of mind, but there are also cittas inside a Citta Vitthi, that are, at least in CMA called e.g.
V= “Vibrational bhavanga”
A=”arrest bhavanga”See page 166 on the Mind door process.
Since page 127 refers to the “investigation citta” as appearing in bhavanga citta, rebirth and death, I assume what is meant must be the above V and A cittas, right?
Page 122:
“Adverting (±vajjana): When an object impinges at one of the
sense doors or at the mind door, there occurs a mind-moment called
bhavanga-calana, vibration of the life-continuum, by which the bhavanga
consciousness “vibrates” for a single moment. This is followed by another
moment called bhavanga-upaccheda, arrest of the life-continuum, by
which the flow of the bhavanga is cut off. Immediately after this, a citta
arises turning to the object, either at one of the five physical sense doors
or at the mind door. This function of turning to the object is termed
adverting.”Page 139:”A mental object apprehended in the mind door in the last javana
process of the previous existence may become an object of the rebirth-
linking, bhavanga, and death consciousnesses of the new existence as a
kamma or as a sign of kamma that is past. If the object should be a sign
of destiny, it is usually a visible form apprehended in the mind door and
is present.”Bhikkhu Bodhis book talks about Process-freed cittas, which is something that you dispute, right? For you, there is no bhavanga citta but only a state of Bhavanga..?
