Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for your kind response. I no longer have any further questions regarding kammapatha. I sincerely appreciate your assistance.
I recently listened to a desana by Waharaka Thero, where he explained kammapatha.
The discussion about kamma patha begins at 17:00 in this video.
Now, I firmly believe that kammapatha is part of the Buddha Dhamma.
However, while contemplating kammapatha, I encountered a difficult question.
As far as I know, even if someone is unaware that the other person is an arahant, fully carrying out the act of killing results in anantarika kamma.
Furthermore, even if the person who dies is not the intended target, the intention to harm still constitutes the kamma of killing.
For example, if a hunter shoots at a deer but accidentally kills an arahant instead, he would have committed anantarika kamma.
This is where things start to get complicated.
A sotapanna may not always be able to discern whether someone is an arahant.
So, what if a sotapanna tries to swat a tiny mosquito but accidentally strikes an arahant instead, causing the arahant to fall, hit their head on a rock, and die? In this case, what kind of kamma would the sotapanna generate?
As far as I know, a sotapanna cannot generate the kamma of killing an arahant.
If this is true, is such a situation karmically prevented?
In other words, is it absolutely impossible for such a situation to even exist, where a sotapanna accidentally kills an arahant while trying to swat a mosquito?
Or is it prevented in a way that a sotapanna simply cannot form the intention (cetana) of panatipata in their mind?
If a sotapanna were capable of committing panatipata, the possibility of the former scenario must necessarily be excluded.
Let’s consider a similar situation.
Imagine a child who was separated from their parents at a young age, and later grew up to listen to a desana and became a sotapanna.
One day, the sotapanna sees a villain about to launch nuclear weapons around the world and, thinking to neutralize him, aims at the villain’s leg and fires.
However, the bullet unexpectedly ricochets and ends up killing the villain.
It turns out that the villain was actually the sotapanna’s biological father.
In such a case, would the sotapanna have committed anantarika papa kamma?
Of course, a sotapanna cannot commit anantarika papa kamma.
Does this mean that a sotapanna cannot commit panatipata at all?
Or is it that they can commit panatipata, but such exceptional situations are excluded?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m sorry. I should have written more clearly.
Ānapānasati Eliminates Mental Stress Permanently
- kamma viññāna is the “initiator” of a kamma bija that is “deposited” in the kamma bhava.
So, kamma vinnana is the cause of kamma bija.
What are Dhammā? – A Deeper Analysis
- Finally, dhammā in the nāma lōka are the same as those viññana established in the kamma bhava.
However, here, these two are explained as the same.
I think I am having difficulty clearly distinguishing among kamma bhava, kamma vinnana, kamma bija. Could you perhaps explain in more detail the difference among three of them?
Could you please explain how what you’ve explained connects with the analogy below?
Suppose there was a person in need of heartwood. Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a forest. There they’d see a big banana tree, straight and young and grown free of defects. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the root, cut off the top, and unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much less heartwood.
Seyyathāpi, āvuso, puriso sāratthiko sāragavesī sārapariyesanaṁ caramāno tiṇhaṁ kuṭhāriṁ ādāya vanaṁ paviseyya. So tattha passeyya mahantaṁ kadalikkhandhaṁ ujuṁ navaṁ akukkukajātaṁ. Tamenaṁ mūle chindeyya; mūle chetvā agge chindeyya; agge chetvā pattavaṭṭiṁ vinibbhujeyya. So tattha pheggumpi nādhigaccheyya, kuto sāraṁ.
The part I don’t quite understand is 4.3 “Yo cāvuso, hetu, yo ca paccayo cakkhuviññāṇassa uppādāya, so ca hetu, so ca paccayo sabbena sabbaṁ sabbathā sabbaṁ aparisesaṁ nirujjheyya. Api nu kho cakkhuviññāṇaṁ paññāyethā”ti?”
How should this phrase be interpreted? Is the English translation appropriate?”
_
Lal said: 1. “Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇan” describes “seeing by a non-Arahant,” i.e., “seeing with a defiled mind.” Here, cakkhu refers to “cakkhayatana” (NOT cakkhu indriya), rupa refers to “rupayatana” (NOT the external rupa, but the “mind-made rupa” created by the defiled mind), and cakkhu viññāṇa means “a defiled seeing” (i.e., with an expectation.)
I think Contact Between Āyatana Leads to Vipāka Viññāna post should be revised.
#1
- Those six types of internal types of rūpā are “internal āyatana.” In mundane terms, those are our eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
- With those, we experience sights, sounds, smells, tastes, body touches, and dhammā (memories, concepts, and hopes). Those rūpā are external to us and “external āyatana.
I read the part you mentioned.
I understood that the dhamma samadhi mentioned in this sutta is the samadhi obtained by practicing saddhamma and abandoning asaddhamma.
This seems to be the same as samma samadhi.
Is my understanding correct?
I would like to share my understanding of this topic.
If there are any mistakes, I would be grateful if you could kindly point them out.
Buddhist Theory of Matter – Fundamentals
#9 third bullet
The collective accumulation of suddhāṭṭhaka created by all living beings leads to the sustenance of the “external world.”
I understand the above statements as follows:
- There is no beginning to ‘samsara.’
- Therefore, there is always ‘pre-existing matter.’
- To this pre-existing matter, additional minute quantities of suddhatthaka are continuously and collectively added.
- Of course, the pre-existing matter was added in the same manner as described in point 3 at some point in the past.
Given the current situation, it seems like it will take a long time for the content I asked for on September 3, 2024, at 7:09 am to be posted. Could you possibly provide a brief explanation in the forum in the meantime?
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
I came up with a good analogy for bhava and jati and wanted to share it.
Let’s imagine there’s a building.
Each floor of the building can be thought of as bhava.
Jati is like taking the elevator and getting off at a particular floor.
Upadana is pressing the button to go to a particular floor.
I have summarized idappaccayata paticca samuppada.
Please let me know if there are any mistakes or if there is anything to add. Thank you.
avijja paccaya sankhara: One acts based on ignorance of the bad consequences.
sankhara paccaya vinnana: One develops corrupted expectations about the future.
vinnana paccaya namarupa: One imagines mental images.
namarupa paccaya salayatana: One uses the sensory faculties to bring the imagined images to life.
salayatana paccaya phassa: One experiences corrupted sensory contact.
phassa paccaya vedana: One experiences a corrupted sensory feeling.
vedana paccaya tanha: One automatically clings to the corrupted sensory experience.
tanha paccaya upadana: One attaches to it with free will.
upadana paccaya bhava: One forms habits.
bhava paccaya jati: One is born into that particular bhava.
