Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“– The other part of nāmagotta is associated with kamma viññāṇa. Those are dhammā that can bring vipāka. They also belong to “memory records” but have associated kammic energies and can bring vipāka on their own.”
After hearing this statement, I wonder if I misunderstood it. When I wrote “So everything I wrote above(except rūpakkhanda) belongs to one of these two categories(“dhammā below the suddhāṭṭhaka” and “namagotta”).”, I thought that mano loka has two mutually exclusive categories.
However, hearing this, the two categories do not seem to be divided, but rather are a way to describe the state of information. So, these two categories overlap each other. Am I right?
Thank you for the confirmation. Also, I read about HSAM. This seems to be a very helpful example of understanding namaloka.
Ok. The key point is whether the information has energy or not. So the active(with energy) information in nāmalōka belongs to dhammā category, and inactive information belongs namagotta category. Therefore, information of namagotta can not be imported into the mind itself but can be loaded when the mind activates it. On the other hand, information of dhammā can be imported into the mind itself, and also loaded when the mind activates it. Right?
Let me write down everything I understand first.
I know that dhammā(kamma viññāṇa) belongs to viññāṇa dhātu(or nāmalōka) and also is rūpa. Further, vedana, saññā, saṅkhāra, and viññāṇa belong to viññāṇa dhātu but aren’t rūpa too.
I know that vedanakkhandha, saññākkhandha, saṅkhārakkhandha, and viññāṇakkhandha are preserved permanently in nāmalōka, but rūpakkhanda are not. And I don’t know why rūpakkhanda can not be preserved even though it is mental. (I wonder why this is.)
Lal said: “Only dhammā below the suddhāṭṭhaka AND namagotta (memory records) belong to viññāṇa dhātu.”
Okay. So everything I wrote above(except rūpakkhanda) belongs to one of these two categories(“dhammā below the suddhāṭṭhaka” and “namagotta”). Right? Did I miss anything?
Lal said:
“Yes. It is good to ask questions.
– But sometimes, some questions become irrelevant because the basis for asking them is not there.Scientists are making discoveries about the world, But they will never reach the “knowledge base” of a Buddha.
– That the “end of the world.” That lifestream would not experience this world of 31 realms anymore.”
– These really help me a lot. I think I should focus on getting maggaphala and then think about delivering Dhamma to others. Of course, introducing Pure Dhamma will not stop. But I think it’s the proper order to do it myself after I become ariya.
– Also, I thought it would be good to set a good precedent. I hope that when someone has this kind of concern, later on, one can listen to your answer and move on correctly. I was able to ask that question because I have faith that lal is ariya. If not, I could not have been able to do it at all. Although I didn’t know about it, I believed Ariya would know the right words to say to someone in this situation.
– I just found that I’m trying to draw an answer from people without realizing it. I felt that this habit could be dangerous. I try to be as honest as possible, but I’m also afraid that the answers get contaminated as they mix in my responses. Anyway, I’ll think about this personally.
LayDhammaFollower said:
“By last argument, I meant Last argument in my post. I should have wrote, “My last argument” Dosakkhayo.”
– Now I understand the context. Thank you for telling me LayDhammaFollower.When I understand a concept, I ask all the questions I can.
=> When I try to understand a concept, I ask all the questions I can.LayDhammaFollower said: “Last argument is that let’s assume hypothetically there is some element other than nibbanā which is higher than nibbanā.”
I am not familiar with the pronoun expression in English. So the “last argument” is unclear to me exactly what it is referring to. But if it’s referring to my comment, no. I’m not assuming anything.
When I understand a concept, I ask all the questions I can. Because then what that concept means becomes clearer. I don’t execute this process to claim anything. To create a temporary hypothesis and test it is what scientists do. If the test result doesn’t match it, I just discard it. So, I’m just interested in reaching the correct answer. I am not trying to argue that my hypothesis is correct.
I understand what you’re trying to say, too. And I believe that that is correct. But I also want to understand Dhamma with thorough verification. Someone will grapple with the same problem as me. And I want to say something helpful to someone like that if they are around me. I know I was wrong. I just want to know which part is. That’s why I honestly posted my errors. Though I have not yet achieved any maggaphala, I think it’s the right way to say that I don’t know what I don’t know, and I know what I know.
I know you wrote it with a heart to help me. That heart is very precious, and I’ll take it with thanks. The important thing to me is to understand the deeper side of Dhamma by purifying the mind. Lal seems to have given me a good answer in that regard.
Anyway, I got a feel for what I was supposed to do after hearing from lal and layDhammaFollower. Thank you for your good advice.
Thank you for the answers. I think I’m getting some clue as to how to proceed.
“If a Sotapanna attains an anariya jhana, it is unlikely they will lose it before dying. Thus, they will be born in a Brahma realm (not a suddhavasa Brahma realm) and attain Arahanthood from there. Thus Sotapannas with anariya jhana are also Angamis, in the sense that they will not return to kama loka.”
It is a very interesting fact. Thank you for telling me.
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.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?
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.
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)
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.
“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?
