[dosakkhayo]

In the Araṇavibhaṅgasutta,

“Sukhavinicchayaṁ jaññā; sukhavinicchayaṁ ñatvā ajjhattaṁ sukhamanuyuñjeyya.”

And its niddēsa version says the ajjhattaṁ sukham is the jhanic pleasure, not adhering to kamaguna.

Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, ime pañca kāmaguṇe paṭicca uppajjati sukhaṁ somanassaṁ idaṁ vuccati kāmasukhaṁ mīḷhasukhaṁ puthujjanasukhaṁ anariyasukhaṁ.

I think the main point in this paragraph is discriminating between good pleasure and bad. So, after then Buddha said jhanic pleasure, the alternative one.

‘Na āsevitabbaṁ, na bhāvetabbaṁ, na bahulīkātabbaṁ, bhāyitabbaṁ etassa sukhassā’ti—vadāmi. Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu vivicceva kāmehi vivicca akusalehi dhammehi savitakkaṁ savicāraṁ vivekajaṁ pītisukhaṁ paṭhamaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati. Vitakkavicārānaṁ vūpasamā ajjhattaṁ sampasādanaṁ cetaso ekodibhāvaṁ avitakkaṁ avicāraṁ samādhijaṁ pītisukhaṁ dutiyaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati. Pītiyā ca virāgā upekkhako ca viharati …pe… tatiyaṁ jhānaṁ …pe… catutthaṁ jhānaṁ upasampajja viharati. Idaṁ vuccati nekkhammasukhaṁ pavivekasukhaṁ upasamasukhaṁ sambodhisukhaṁ. ‘Āsevitabbaṁ, bhāvetabbaṁ, bahulīkātabbaṁ, na bhāyitabbaṁ etassa sukhassā’ti—vadāmi. ‘Sukhavinicchayaṁ jaññā; sukhavinicchayaṁ ñatvā ajjhattaṁ sukhamanuyuñjeyyā’ti— iti yaṁ taṁ vuttaṁ idametaṁ paṭicca vuttaṁ.

I’ve thought this over. The listeners of this desana are bhikkhu. So it appears to me that it doesn’t apply to the householders. Is it right?

–
Also, I’m curious the meaning of “Rahovādaṁ na bhāseyya, sammukhā na khīṇaṁ bhaṇe’ti”. The Eng translation is good, but the Kor version is quite abstruse. So I’m asking because I know roughly what you’re trying to say, but I can’t cross-verify it exactly. I understood this sentence as follows: Don’t criticize in a place where others don’t listen and in public either. If I was wrong please tell me.

[dosakkhayo]

I read what you wrote again, and I think I misread your sentence. I’m sorry.

Instead, while I read the sutta, I found a part that needs more explanation. So I would like to ask you a question, is it okay?

[dosakkhayo]

I am making an image using PowerPoint for a better explanation of my approach. It is going to take some time. And I’m also waiting for you to explain Aranavavibhangga Sutta further. I’d appreciate it if you could write it when you have time.

[dosakkhayo]

Of course I do! I do believe in kamma and kamma vipaka, and rebirth process. I was just thinking of a way of explaining that gradually expands from the most basic and plain sentence. But I understand why you’re asking the questions.

Even though I can’t prove my honesty to you, I know if I realize that I’m giving an explanation that doesn’t match Dhamma, I’ll immediately give it up. Because I know it can be a sangha bheda, and it is highly strong papa kamma.

I only wrote above post for other people(especially my family). I want to teach them as easy as possible. Because my family is non-buddhist. So I felt the need to be able to explain the concept to people who didn’t know Buddhism at all.

I tried to explain it by leaving only the basic framework of the concepts and then continuously adding more information to them. So, many other details are missing from the above article. I know that. But I will supplement it soon.(only if I can use those concept)

[dosakkhayo]

I got the point. So, for example, explaining Dhamma without getting emotional is important to avoid deteriorating a discussion into an angry argument. One has to speak without attacking others.

[dosakkhayo]

“i.e., explain Dhamma without getting emotional.”

I often talk about Dhamma with my friend. When he gets the gist of Dhamma, I compliment him. If so, should I be careful in praising at this time? If so, could you tell me more specifically which part I should be in?

[dosakkhayo]

It was very helpful. Thank you for your reply. Now I finally solved all doubtful points about puredhamma. I have received reasonable answers to all the questions I could ask. I truly believe that puredhamma is the teachings of Buddha.

[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.

[Author]

Posts