Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1. Khandhas are all mental.
In other words, the khandhas of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana are all mental.2. Rupakkhandha refers to information of rupa.
My current understanding of the distinctions is as follows:Bahidda rupa (distorted, altered rupa), ajjhatta rupa (XX vinneyya rupa)
3. Vedanakkhandha refers to the processing of sensory input
It is connected to tanha.
I currently understand the distinctions as follows:Sukha vedana, dukha vedana, adukhamasukha vedana
Bahidda vedana, ajjhatta vedana
4. Sannakkhandha refers to the contextualization of sensory input
It is connected to avijja.
I currently understand the distinctions as follows:Bahidda sanna, ajjhatta sanna
Kama sanna, rupa sanna, arupa sanna5. Sankharakkhandha refers to how one reacts to rupa.
It especially addresses whether or not kammic energy is generated.
My current understanding of the distinctions is as follows:Bahidda sankhara (kiriya), ajjhatta sankhara (abhisankhara)
6. Vinnanakkhandha synthesizes the above three (nama).
My current understanding of the distinctions is as follows:Bahidda vinnana (vipaka vinnana), ajjhatta vinnana (kamma vinnana)
7. Through the khandhas, the following can be understood:
Rupakkhandha and vinnanakkhandha help distinguish between nama and rupa.
Vedanakkhandha helps identify the cause of tanha (craving) (samphassa ja vedana).
Sannakkhandha helps resolve avijja (ignorance) (by cultivating anicca, dukkha, anatta sanna).
Sankharakkhandha helps understand the formation of karmic energy (abhisankhara).Please let me know if there are any errors in my understanding.
Furthermore, can bahiddha rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana be referred to as pancakkhandha, and, in the same way, can ajjhatta rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, and vinnana be referred to as pancupadanakkhanda?
Thank you. Your answer was sufficient. If I have any more questions, I will ask again.
Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation
#9
The mind of anyone born a human (including an Arahant) starts at the kāma dhātu stage. That physical body (and the brain) will automatically present to the mind an “altered rupa” instead of a “true representation of the external rupa.”
So, the altered rupa is bahidda rupa, and cakkuvinneyya rupa is ajjhatta rupa?
Then, can sankhara and abhisankhara be respectively referred to as bahidda sankhara and ajjhatta sankhara?
I’m feeling quite tired at the moment, so I will take a rest. I plan to post a question on the forum in 9 hours. Thank you for your understanding.
Recently, I have come to realize that my understanding of Paticca Samuppada might be incorrect. However, identifying the exact point of error has been challenging, so I wish to re-examine the very basics. I hope you would kindly understand, even if I ask very elementary questions. In “cakkunca paticca rupe ca uppajjati cakkuvinnanam,” is “cakku vinnana” regarded as “bahidda vinnana”?
Regarding “namarupa paccaya salayatana,” I understand it as the stage where the sangati generated in the previous step (vinnana paccaya namarupa) are reflected as ayatana. In this process, the mind becomes defiled, and the indriya are used as ayatana. Is this understanding correct?
Until I read your question, I thought my interest in this matter was for the sake of others. Upon further reflection, I realize it’s solely for my own satisfaction, not for anyone else. Thanks to your question, I’ve become aware of my habit of overly focusing on unimportant matters. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to think about this.
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.
