Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There are two different explanations about kammapatha.
2. Venerable Waharaka Thero’s explanation
I believe that the traditional view of kammapatha cannot be considered Buddha Dhamma.
- First reason: This explanation cannot be found within the Tipitaka and is only seen in Buddhaghosa’s commentaries. This point was sufficiently explained in #47813.
- Second reason: The traditional view presents different conditions for each akusala kamma, with the number of conditions varying—some having four, some three, and others two. This gives the impression of a lack of consistency required for a natural law to be valid.
- Third reason: In the traditional view, the conditions for explaining panatipata sometimes consist solely of mano sankhara and not kaya sankhara. This is inconsistent with the fact that the first three of the panca sila correspond to akusala committed by kaya sankhara, the fourth by vaci sankhara, and the fifth by mano sankhara. I think this issue arises when mano sankhara is merely regarded as “intentional thought.” Therefore, this analysis suggests mano sankhara falls within our responsibility of reaction. So I think it is incompatible with Buddha Dhamma.
- Finally, the fourth reason: Waharaka Thero does not mention the conditions of the traditional view when explaining kammapatha. I believe this is also important.
I understand that this issue is an acinteyya topic. However, this alone does not dispel the impression that the traditional view of kammapatha seems somewhat incongruent to me. I need further explanation as to why the traditional view can be considered Buddha Dhamma. Could you provide an answer to this issue?
What is “Kāya” in Kāyānupassanā?
In #3,
- In the Anatta Lakkha Sutta (SN 22.59), “all rūpa” are described as 11 categories: “Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, yaṃ kiñci rūpaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ rūpaṃ..“. They are past, present, future, near, far, likable, distasteful, fine (not strong), coarse (strong), internal, and external; see also “Five Aggregates – Introduction.”
- For example, feelings (vēdana) khandha can be any of the 11 categories. Here, near and far means recent or way back in the past. Internal is one’s own and external is feelings of the others; one needs to be aware of other’s feelings in the sense that “if I do this, it could cause a feeling of grief to so and so”, as an example.
Q. In the context of the five aggregates (pañcakkhandha), is the distinction between internal (ajjhatta) and external (bahidda) applied differently to each of the aggregates: rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana?
I initially believed that the distinction between external (bahidda) vinnana, which explains sensory input, and internal (ajjhatta) vinnana, which explains kamma vinnana, would be similarly applied to the other four aggregates. However, the above statement has left me somewhat confused. I would be grateful if you could clarify this.
Lal said: Buddha Dhamma is based on a very different paradigm and cannot be assessed using “mundane theories.”
That is indeed a correct statement. However, I did not intend to use another theory. I needed to ascertain the incompatibility between the Buddha Dhamma and Attachment Theory. I have received a satisfactory answer. Thank you for the answer.
I now see that I was mistaken. Thank you for your clarification. However, one point still concerns me. There is a mainstream theory in modern psychology called attachment theory. This theory posits that the attachment experiences with parents during infancy influence one’s attachment style in adulthood. Please refer to the link below for more details, particularly from the section “stages of attachment.” This theory seems somewhat at odds with the idea that indriyas cannot be used as ayatanas until they are fully matured. Could you please provide an explanation for this?
Thank you. This is very helpful because I recently started studying Sinhala and was planning to use this video as a reference.
Do these discourses align with the teachings of Waharaka Thero, or do they adhere to the traditional interpretations of Buddhism here?
Although the two share some common ground, I believe they emphasize different points. In “namarupa paccaya salayatana,” the emphasis is on the contamination of the mind. This leads to samphassa, samphassa ja vedana, tanha, and upadana. On the other hand, “bhava paccaya jati” emphasizes the consequences that follow bhava. This leads to jati paccaya jara maranam soka parideva dukkha domanassam upayasa.
For example, in the case of theft, the former describes the process by which the mind is contaminated through theft, while the latter describes the suffering that theft leads to.
Therefore, I think these two discuss the same thing in different ways.
I didn’t fully grasp your answer. Idappaccayata Paticca Samuppada being a part of Uppatti Paticca Samuppada makes sense to me. However, I don’t understand why it is being brought up in this context. Could you please elaborate?
I believe I might have made an error in my understanding.
Q1. In the “namarupa paccaya salayatana” step, does not it refer to the switch of indriya into ayatana?
Q2. Additionally, in the context of “idappaccayata paticca samuppada,” does “jati” refer to the way one is born (jati) into a certain level of mind(bhava)? If that is the case, doesn’t it mean using indriya as ayatana?
Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda – Bhava and Jāti Within a Lifetime
#13<br />
“Part of it will fuel an “angry bhava” in this life. Both of them have created “angry bhava” and are now “born in an “angry state.” Thus, “bhava paccayā jāti” has already taken place. That is jāti in IPS.”Jāti – Different Types of Births
#6
(vi) The sensory faculties start working as āyatana after the baby is born. This is the last āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho stage.
Q3. If Q1 and Q2 have no error, how are namarupa paccaya salayatana and IPS jati two different?
I believe that the core keyword of Buddha Dhamma is addiction.
Tanha and upadana explain the mechanism of addiction.
Avijja represents the ignorance that leads one to fall into addiction.
Sankhara, vinnana, and namarupa describe how addiction is reinforced.
Salayatana, phassa, and vedana illustrate how stimuli cues are received.
Bhava and jati explain how addiction results within an extended worldview.
Dukkhakhanda portrays all suffering as a manifestation of the consequences of addiction.
–
Sila is broken because of kama assada.
Panna is seeing the adinava of kama assada.
Niramisa sukha is felt when one is free from addiction.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The five higher samyojana (uddhambhagiya samyojana) is bahidda samyojana.
I thought that an Anāgāmī studies the Abhidhamma in order to resolve the problem of bahiddhā viññāṇa (sanna vipallasa).
So, I thought that is why they called bahiddhā samyojana.
___
P1
There is a contradiction about “paṭisaṃvedī.”
Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?
In 2 of #9,
“paṭisaṃvedī” or “paṭisanvedi” (“paṭi + “san” + “vedi“) means vedana due to bonds with “san” becoming apparent.
___
But Does patisamvedi happen to everyone include Arahant?
Q1. What is the difference between kāmacchanda and kāmapariḷāha?
Q2. This is a minor point, but is there a connection between bahidda vinnana and bahidda samyojana (rupa raga, arupa raga, mana, uddacca, avijja)?
Q3. My last question about this topic. Can one empirically tell that one is moving from the upaya phase to the upadana phase or can one only notice it and take some actions when one is already in the upadana phase?
