[dosakkhayo]

Exactly. That is what I wanted to say in this sentence. “I think this discrepancy arises because modern science does not set a hypothesis from the fact that the mind is ahead of the material.”

I’d like to hear “what Dhamma explains about how we can know that time flows in one direction, from the past to the future.” This question has not been solved yet.

[dosakkhayo]

Thank you for the advice on the drawing/chart.

By the way, the links in post 39921 have an unmatching issue with their brief outline.

the outline says

“3. The second sutta says they all have the anicca nature (i.e., created due to causes and destroyed when those causes wear away). That is because that “creation/arising” happens via Paticca Samuppada. All bhava and jati end up in death.”

But in this context, the sutta should be SN18.9

So I think lal should either change the order of the two links or change the order of the outline.

–
In SN 26.9

What I understand in this sutta is the following.

The context say that six dhatu’s arising (pathavīdhātuyā uppādo, āpodhātuyā uppādo, tejodhātuyā uppādo, vāyodhātuyā uppādo, ākāsadhātuyā uppādo, viññāṇadhātuyā uppādo) are subjected to dukkha.

So, (in this context) pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu, and ākāsadhātu mean the manomaya kaya(and also karaja kaya).

And viññāṇadhātu mean one’s own namaloka.

Therefore, If the six dhātu’s arising has stopped(nirodho), there is no more suffering (dukkhasseso nirodho).

(yo pathavīdhātuyā ~ viññāṇadhātuyā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho, rogānaṁ vūpasamo, jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo.)

–
Six Root Causes – Loka Samudaya (Arising of Suffering) and Loka Nirodhaya (Nibbāna)

What Did the Buddha Mean by a “Loka”?

According to the two posts above, there is some correspondence of concepts between dhātu and loka.

Logically speaking, these two are concepts with different intensions(connotations) and the same extensions.

To put it simply, dhātu and loka have different definitions, but they indicate the same objects.

For example, there are different ways of describing the same triangle.

I can say that the length of the three sides of a given right triangle A is three, four, and five inches.

Using the application of determining the congruence of polygons, I can also say that right triangle A has three and four inches sides and its included angle is 90 degrees.

Though two statements have different points, both indicate the same object.

So, I think I can infer soundly that there is some compatibility in Pali keywords.

–
If there is an error, please let me know so that I can fix it.

[dosakkhayo]

It is wonderful! A lot of things became clear to me.

[dosakkhayo]

Lal said: 6. The final sutta says when one understands the above, one comprehends “Rūpa dhātu, arūpa dhātu, nirodha dhātu.”

In this context, the arūpa dhātu means the namaloka?

The reason why I asked is that there are rūpa(hadaya vatthu) in arūpa realm. So arūpa dhātu is not same the arūpa loka.

[dosakkhayo]

OK. Then, what is the usage of dhātu in viññana dhātu?

[dosakkhayo]

“Thus, the ability to recall memories depends on the brain.”

Thank you lal.

[dosakkhayo]

Oh, I think this is a problem by the cultural difference between English and Korean. I understood what you mean.

[dosakkhayo]

Thank you for the recommendations. I’ll read these posts soon and be careful about writing Pali words.

[dosakkhayo]

You are welcome.

[dosakkhayo]

Thank you for your warm encouragement.

Also, for correcting my sentence! When I wrote that sentence, I tried to find the right word, but I couldn’t. Now I found the proper term!

[dosakkhayo]

Thank for the fruitful answer. It gives a lot to me.

[dosakkhayo]

OK. I’ll be careful with capitalization next time.

So dāna means giving and cāga means generosity, the two are different concepts.

Thank you for the recommendation of other suttā. I read them all.

But I still want to know the meaning of this part.

Idha, gahapati, ariyasāvako vigatamalamaccherena cetasā agāraṁ ajjhāvasati muttacāgo payatapāṇi vosaggarato yācayogo dānasaṁvibhāgarato.

[dosakkhayo]

Thank for the answer.

To tell you the truth, I tried to express using logic the concepts of Puredhamma in a completely different way. There were two reasons for this. The first reason was to make it easier for others to access Puredhamma’s contents. I thought multiple ways to access Dhamma seemed good. The other was to test the contents’ consistency.

But there was a problem. During this work, I sometimes became overly skeptical. If a person’s mind is covered with so much suspicion, he can’t understand Dhamma. I was trying to express concepts in my own way that I didn’t even understand! And I’ve found inconsistencies in the process. Fortunately, I also scrutinized the results of my reasoning so I could find that they were all meaningless. Also, while maintaining an overly skeptical attitude, I had often thought about acinteyya topics. I had neglected to purify my mind and become accustomed to thinking only in my head.

I analyzed why I became so skeptical. The reason is that I was confusing “understanding that anicca has no logical flaw” with “cultivating anicca sanna”. I even mistook myself for sotapanna before. I had thought I was ariya, so I wondered why the effects of progress didn’t come to me. In conclusion, now I resolve to be humble and never arrogant about learning Dhamma.

When I read your reply, I realized that I had been mistaken for knowing so many posts. I decided to read all the posts again in English with a new mindset. I thought it might be faster to start all over again than to find out where my understanding went wrong.

A Simple Way to Enhance Merits (Kusala) and Avoid Demerits (Akusala)

7. Thus it is clear that just having an understanding of Dhamma (that it is unfruitful to gain anything at the expense of other beings) will automatically make the kammic power less potent; but this “knowledge” is not the “book knowledge”; it is not effective if one has read about it but the mind has not really grasped it. Wisdom and “book knowledge” are two different things.

Recently I realized the difference between wisdom and book knowledge. I felt that there was a long way to go. However, I am grateful that I can set the right direction for progress even now.

[dosakkhayo]

OK. I got the point what you mean. Thank you for the answer. Now I truly feel the danger of word-by-word translation clearly.

[dosakkhayo]

SN48.42

You said: “paṭisaraṇa means to provide refuge/protection.”

However, in this meaning of word, I don’t understand why Buddha tell the Brahmin Uṇṇābha like this.

Accayāsi, brāhmaṇa, pañhaṁ, nāsakkhi pañhassa pariyantaṁ gahetuṁ.
This question goes too far, brahmin! You weren’t able to grasp the limit of questioning.

I guess the sutta’s contents presents in this order.

(1) panca indriya
(2) they depend on mano, mano encompass all of them.
(3) mano depends on sati
(4) sati depends on vimutti
(5) vimutti depends on nibbana
(6) nibbana depends on?
(7) That question is outside of the scope of answerability

So I think from (3) to (5) is presenting the outline of way to nibbana.

In this context, the main point is that mano is the most important thing because it plays a central role in the way to nibbana.

But in (6), the point is changing. Because the question is basically like that. “What is the final destination’s destination?” I think that is why Buddha said: “This question goes too far, brahmin! You weren’t able to grasp the limit of questioning.”

So in this context, paṭisaraṇa might mean “depend” or something like that. I think the saraṇa of paṭisaraṇa can be seen the Buddha “saranam” gacchami.

If I was wrong, please tell the correct meaning of it to me.

[Author]

Posts