Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal wrote something about it here:
There he wrote:
“There are four “dīpās” inhabited by humans centered on the Earth (in bold in the above paragraph). Jambudīpa is just one and it includes all the countries, not only India and Sri Lanka.
The other three “dīpās”, we cannot see. They exist around the Earth, but are invisible to us, just like deva and brahma realms are also invisible.”Hello TripleGemStudent,
Thank you for your link. Yes, it is a good article that I can share with my friends here. It makes the point very well.I am just going into some more details.
Ledi Sayadaw himself was not able to speak English, I believe. This is seen from the letter correspondence with Mrs. Davids in a year sometime after 1912.
He established a monastery from around 1886-1900, while Rhys Davids was never in Myanmar but in London as a Professor feom 1882-1904.
Ven.Ledi Sayadaw started teaching only after 1903, when he had 3 years (or so) of retreat and (probably) practice of Visudhimagga. According to:
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-insight-revolution/He must have been knowledgable of Abhidhamma, but not so much of Sutta. It matches my general impression, that I also got from reading a book by Ven. Mahāsi Sayadaw. He said in his discourse on Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, page xvi:
“To the extent that common usage is profound, Suttanta teaching
is hard to comprehend. Now that over 2,500 years have elapsed since
the Dhamma was taught by the Buddha, in some expressions, the
Pāḷi usage and Burmese usage have diverged �om one another in
vocabulary, grammar, and synthesis.
As an example, in the Dīghanakha Sutta the Pāḷi phrase “All is
displeasing to me (sabbaṃ me nakkhamati),” spoken by the wanderer
Dīghanakha to the Buddha, may be cited. This Pāḷi statement is quite
different �om common usage. The word “sabbaṃ” in Pāḷi, the subject,
has become an object in Burmese while the word ‘me’ has become a
subject. Despite all of these differences and discrepancies, the
Venerable Mahāsi Sayādaw has been able to explain the usages in
explicit terms in this Discourse on the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta.”I think it is very possible that there was interaction going on between Prof. Rhys Davids and/or his students as well as Ven. Ledi Sayadaw in the time of 1886-1900, since the British were already in power in the region of Ven. Ledi Sayadaw at that time (to my research).
But it is not clear at all to me about the details. Ven. Ledi Sayadaw was not about the Sutta Pitaka much in his teachings. If he adopted the Interpretations of Prof. Rhys Davids is hard to know for sure, for me.
But the understanding of Sutta-Pitaka seems to me lacking behind here in Myanmar. It is imaginable that the Meditation technique that Ven. Ledi Sayadaw teached, which was mostly from Visudhimagga (from my research into the book above) might have been influenced by the Interpretations of Pali Text Society.PS.
I found this comment in a book by Varma “Early Buddhism and its origins”, where the author says:
“The overwhelming refrain of the Tripitakas is that there is
no soul or self as a substance. In the preceding pages We have
cited explicit references which negate any notion of a transcen-
dent ‘I’. Nevertheless. there are certain passage and statements
which mention the word alta. These do create a problem.
Either it has to be accepted that there is inconsistency in the
Tripitakas, which, considering the great bulk of this literature
and also the fact that its different portions Were composed at
different periods, by several disciples, is not surprising, or it has
to be accepted that the references to atta are to the empirical
personality of man and not to a metaphysical substance.
(i) In the Mahavagglf Buddha asks the thirty Bhadravargiyas
to make a search after the soul- attanam gaveseyyiima. Some-
times it is said that the word atta used here is merely taken
from the current terminology and its sole purpose is to streng-
then the resolve of men to follow the path leading to the
~xtinction of sorro·w and there is no implication of the definite
positing of a spiritual entity as a self-subsistent being.”Do you, by any chance, know the above text in the Tipitaka, where it is said “attanam gaveseyyima”? And if, would you be able to clarify it for me?
If not, it might not be important to spend more time on it for me.
Thank you anyway,
DanielThank you, Lal. A good and clear post.
One follow-up question:
A bhava in hell does not start with Gandhabba, but always with a birth moment in a hell body? Between two hell bodies, there is no time overlap?
So, from that point, in my view, a bhava in hell could also start in Gandhabba (Hell Gandhaba so to say) and there will be a Gandhabba transmigrating in hell, too, taking “possesion” of a new body or something like that. The body would be manufactured, like in a factory, or so I imagine.PS. I wanted to write another post on the topic of Ven. Ledi Sayadaw, but it seems that the topic is closed. Maybe I could write you a message and you could consider if it is worthy to post?
Thank you for your research into that question.
I see your argument.
Could it also be that Ven. Ledi Sayadaw teached the Dhamma according to his understanding to the Westerners?
In that book, there is a letter correspondence with Mrs. Davids, I believe that is the wife or Mr. Rhys Davids. She asked Ven. Sayadaw a question about niyama.Could that be possible?
According to my knowledge, the Tipitaka was found in Sri Lanka. It must have been present in Myanmar, too, right?Hello Lal,
I understand your point. Maybe it is a bit technical to consider this, but then it seems that in the avyakata PS cycles there is a defiled perception, but it is not arising due to “avijja” or “unwise acting”? Otherwise, there would also be akusala-mula PS cycles run in that time.
In another article you wrote that mano sankharas are generated in that part of the citta. These would be the sankharas that are mentioned in the avyakata PS as well, I suppose.Edit:
I see it in your statement:“This happens within a billionth of a second and we DO NOT have control over that initial response either; manō saṅkhāra are generated AUTOMATICALLY in one’s mind. These are also part of the avyākata citta since they arise AUTOMATICALLY within the same citta vīthi.”
In the post about Avyakata PS.You write in above article that I posted (Contact):
“When we see person X, for example, that is contact (phassa) between our internal āyatana (eyes or more correctly, cakkhu pasāda rūpa) and external āyatana (an image of person X in this case). That is the process stated in verse, “cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjāti cakkhuviññāṇaṃ.” The word “paṭicca” here refers to that contact (phassa).”Shouldn’t the initial contact of a rupa with the pasada rupa be such that the pasada rupa of our Gandhabba is called indriya at that time?
Here, you refer to passada rupa as internal ayatana.
Then, pasada rupa delivers the energy to hadaya vatthu in 17 vibrations.
The contact that is samphassa should start only with the Javana cittas, where the pasada rupa becomes ayatana and makes contact with lobha,dosa,moha energies.(This is my understanding)
Cakkhuindriya should also be pasada rupa, right?
When someone is an Arahant, he will also have above process and his “seeing” will also arise in the Gandhabba.Is that correct?
Best wishes,
DanielDear Seng Kiat,
On page 223 it is written:
“Immediately after that has ceased: Following the dissolution mo-
ment of the death consciousness, there arises in a new existence the re-
birth-linking consciousness apprehending the object thus obtained in the
final javana process of the previous life. This citta is supported by the
heart-base in realms which include matter, but is baseless in the imma-
terial realms. It is generated by a volitional formation, i.e. the kamma
of the previous javana process, which in turn is grounded in the twin
roots of the round of existence, latent ignorance and latent craving. The
rebirth consciousness is conjoined with its mental adjuncts, i.e. the
cetasikas, which it serves as a forerunner not in the sense that it pre-
cedes them, but in that it acts as their locus (or foundation).”That sounds to me, as if according to Ven. Bodhi there is no matter at all in the arupa realms.
Another (not related) text I found on page 239:
“Material phenomenon of the heart (hadayar³pa): On the heart-
base, see III, §20. The heart-base has the characteristic of being the
material support for the mind element and the mind-consciousness
element (see III, §21). Its function is to uphold them. It is manifested
as the carrying of these elements. It is to be found in dependence on the
blood inside the heart, and is assisted by the four great essentials and
maintained by the life faculty.”It is to be found in dependence on the blood inside the heart.
I heard this also from my meditation teacher here in Myanmar. He also believes that the mind only enters a body when the heart forms and not at the moment of conception.This blood-dependency is in contradiction to the Gandhabba idea, I think.
I think it is due to commentary?Best wishes,
DanielI have a question towards this.
It seems that everyone that experiences NDE reports about the memories that keep coming up. That is, as I thought, a typical phenomena of the cuti-patisandhi transition. However, Lal says that this cuti-patisandhi transition does not occur at every death, only at the end of a bhava (so it could also happen days after the death of a body, in the Gandhabba, I assume)
Is it to be assumed that we all, when we die in this life, will experience these flashes but we might not necessarily grasp for anything, such that our bhava will just continue (in the same way as someone who just has an NDE but “decides” to return back to his life)?
What do you think?Another question:
Are there any sources for the explanation that asanna realm and arupa brahma have hadaya vatthu? The book by Ven. Bodhi relies on a commentary, but is there something in the original scriptures or commentaries?
It is just, to have something to show to others who might like to stick to Ven. Bodhi’s book.
I see. It also fits with the scenario where the gandhabba is out of the body, but still connected via a silver cord. In that case, one would say that there is no physical shielding, but still anantarika kamma cannot affect the gandhabba, so there is a kammic shielding.
It makes more sense to me now.
Thank you for your explanation. It clears up a lot of confusions. Also the post about Bhavanga was very helpful.
You send the link to the Desana, but unfortunately I cannot understand Sinhala. But I listened to all the Desanas that are available in English so far and find it very helpful.
Now I understood the difference between asanna and plants. A friend told me recently that there is a Jataka story about the Buddha remembering a life “as a stone”.
The question we had was whether here “stone” refers to an actual stone or just a figurative way of saying “mind without thoughts”.
Now, I would think that stones and unorganic matter on earth does not even have jivitindriya, plants have jivitindriya and that asanna beings are not really located close to the earth’s surface but higher up. You said, their body shields the hadaya vatthu. How dense must their body be then?If it would be a few rupa only, would that be enough to shield?It is on page 257/258:
“Among the non-percipient beings, the eye, ear, heart-base, and sound
are also not found. Similarly, no consciousness-born material phe-
nomena are found. Therefore, at the moment of their rebirth-linking,only the vital nonad arises. During the course of existence, material
phenomena produced by temperature, with the exception of sound,
continue.”Hey,
I just listened to the next Desana by Waharaka Thero that was uploaded this night. There, they speak about above account. The bathing Arahant was “Pilinda-Vacca”. I tried to find an english translation in the web, but couldn’t find any. If somebody should be more successful, I would still appreciate to read the story.Dear Lal,
Here is the statement of you concerning 5000-80000. Sorry that I quoted you without the reference. It can be misleading, I agree.
You write:
“Our Solar system lasts around 15 billion years; that is 15 thousand million years. During this cycle four Buddhas have already appeared with Buddha Gotama the last and Buddha Kassapa before him. There is one more Buddha appearing before the destruction of this Earth. A given Buddha Sasana of a given Buddha lasts from 5000 to 80,000 years. ”I think what you mean there is that at other times, i.e. when human’s have different life span and different morality, a Sasana might last longer, up to 80.000 years. But not thid one. So the Lifetimes of Sasana is not always the same. Is that correct?
You deduce that from losing the desire to own sensual objects it follows that one will be born only with sukuma rupa. How do you conclude that? I personally cannot see the clear link in between.
