Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Siebe wrote: This stable element is ever present and all pervasive. Also now. It cannot be not present.
Siebe, you have made a common error in trying to define what Nibbana is. Nibbana is realized after the removal of causes for existence in sansara. With the structure of our language, it is more appropriate to think of it in negative terms (what it is not), rather than in positive terms (what it is).
Nibbana is spaceless and timeless, unconditioned by space and time. Therefore it is invalid to think of it as being ever present. To be ever present, it must be present in space all the time. Likewise, we cannot think of Nibbana as being all-pervasive. It is simply not possible to define Nibbana by space and time.
Time is indeed conditioned. When we experience the present, it almost immediately passes into the past. Therefore, it changes.
Furthermore, according to Einstein’s theory of special relativity (if Lal agrees with the theory), two people can experience time very differently if they are travelling at vastly different speeds from each other. Time slows down more and more the closer we approach the speed of light. In fact, when a massless particle travels at the speed of light, time will stop for that particle. Lal, am I right to say so or is there something you disagree with?
In addition, beings in different realms also experience time differently. What may be one day in a deva realm might be years in the human realm.
Siebe also wrote: But even in this life the nature of an arahant or Buddha cannot be explained/designated anymore in terms of khandha’s. Even while others think the rupa (body) they see, is the Buddha, this is not ultimately true.
That is certainly true. Although Buddha is still functioning after attaining enlightenment and before Parinibbana, He cannot be defined in terms of the khandhas anymore because He has stopped clinging to them. This is supported by SN 22.36.
However, those who still cling to the khandhas, can still be defined in terms of the khandhas, although there is certainly no immutable, unchanging, permanent ‘self’.
Next, I would like to give my views on sakkaya ditthi. In my opinion, the identification with self consists of two parts — ‘objectification’ (due to the samyojana ‘sakkaya ditthi’) and ‘subjectification’ (due to the more subtle samyojana ‘mana’).
Those who have not attained the sotapanna stage may tend to think: ‘I am rupa’; ‘I am vedana’; ‘I am sanna’; ‘I am ‘sankhara’, or ‘I am vinnana’. They still identify themselves with the pancupadanakkhandha, thinking ‘rupa is mine’; ‘vedana is mine’, and so on.
Upon attaining the sotapanna stage and eradicating sakkaya ditthi, however, the being no longer identifies with the pancupandanakkhandha. However, a subtle ‘I am’ conceit still exists. This must be mana. It is only eradicated at the arahant stage. Support for this view of mine may be found in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89).
I hope this helps. Please let me know if there is anything you disagree with.
Lal, I think the link you are referring to is this: Mahā Cattārisaka Sutta (Discourse on the Great Forty).
In it, you wrote:
A better statement would be “respecting and making offerings to those with higher virtues has no merits”.
That is what was in the post, “Micchā Ditthi, Gandhabba, and Sōtapanna Stage“, and I have revised it in the post you referred to.
“Those with higher virtues” could be human or devas.
Of course, devas do not need our food, for example. Making offerings there is a gesture, done with good intentions.
– However, I remember listening to a desana by Waharaka Thero, where he mentioned that those food offerings can be used by higher devas to feed their underlings (there are different levels, just like in the human world).
– He mentioned that when people offer nice-smelling fruits etc, just after the offering, the aroma would be gone (if it is done right). That means the “essence” (oja) of the food has been extracted.
– However, one does not need to offer large quantities. The higher devas can make the offering to “multiply” to feed many.
– I don’t want to get into that issue right now. This is not a critical issue, but could be beneficial.
– This is just like giving (dana) cannot directly lead to magga phala, but can help set the background.But we should ALWAYS give merits to ALL BEINGS.
Siebe,
In one of the suttas, if I remember correctly, Rev Ananda explains to a female human being something along the lines of:
1) Although we should not get attached to nutriment (food), yet we can make use of nutriment to release us from sansara. (Nutriment provides us with the energy to maintain our bodies so that we can work towards Nibbana).
2) Although we should not get attached to desire, yet we can make use of desire to release us from sansara. (We can desire to attain Nibbana).
3) Although we should not get attached to pride, yet we can make use of pride to release us from sansara.
4) Yet although we are born of sexuality, we can never make use of sexuality to release us from sansara.
Living in the conditioned world, sustained by and relying on conditioned things, we have no choice but to use some of these very same conditioned things in our strivings to attain Nibbana. There is simply no other practical way to go about it.
This is also why Siddharta rejected the notion that the arupa jhanas connected to the realm of nothingness and the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (as taught to him by two of his teachers before he attained enlightenment) provided the final release from dukkha. There was still something disturbing about these states, which correspond to the experiences of arupa Brahmas in the two highest, most sublime and blissful realms of existence.
Johnny,
I mostly agree with you. There is one part though that I would like to comment on.
You wrote: If they don’t go looking for dukkha, how do they enjoy the sensual pleasures through the temporary relief from dukkha?
Although sensual pleasures may provide relief from the acute physical and mental pain of dukkha dukkha, they do not provide relief from viparinama dukkha and sankhara dukkha.
Beings mostly need to put in effort to enjoy sensual pleasures. This effortful work is sankhara dukkha, although it is masked by the immediate enjoyment.
Beings may also get used to or tired of the sensual pleasures with time. Then they need to have more and more of these sensual pleasures, or other types of sensual pleasures to stimulate themselves again. These pleasures may also get interrupted or end abruptly. Thus both the beings as well as the pleasures they enjoy are subject to unexpected change. This is viparinama dukkha.
In fact, this is why even the Brahmas and devas, although they live supremely or very blissful lives, still experience dukkha. There is nowhere in the thirty-one realms that is free of dukkha, as you will agree.
Hi Johnny,
Yes, you are right. We are indeed very fortunate indeed.
Many people still think anicca means impermanence. Yet many things do not perish within the span of a human lifetime. Mountains and rivers are such examples.
The meaning of inconstancy would be closer to the mark. For even during the timespan that they are in existence, they are subject to unexpected change (viparinama). For example, the waters flowing through a river now are not the same waters that flowed through it minutes ago. Exactly which waters flow through depend upon any obstacles that lie in the path of the waters upstream, such as pebbles and rocks and whirlpools. Rocks and pebbles can also be eroded, leading to the formation of new obstacles or to the removal of existing ones, which further affect which waters will flow through in the future.
Yet even the understanding of inconstancy may not quite hit the mark. For example, even though we know that the waters of a river are inconstant, surely that does not bother us. It is when we consider things closer to our desires that the understanding strikes a chord within us.
Phenomena and things in this world cannot be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run. This understanding is what truly matters to us. It also incorporates the above meanings of impermanence and inconstancy, yet it goes deeper than that to what truly exposes us to suffering. (For our wrong views that things in this world can be maintained to our satisfaction in the long run if we just put in enough effort are so pervasive, insidious, subtle, disempowering and restrictive that just accepting the meanings of impermanence or inconstancy alone would not be sufficient to shatter these illusions.) When we understand this deeply and intimately, we will stop being so depressed with the unsatisfactory nature of existence. We would reduce our craving and grasping, our longing and aversion, our fears and anxieties. We will start to see the futility and danger of clinging to anything in this world. Then we may glimpse the benefits of searching for and embarking on a way out of existence.
Many people also think that anatta is not-self. The Buddha stated that there was not any Self in rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana. However He did not just state that. He also stated that these things were subject to unexpected change and could not be controlled. Therefore, I like to think that anatta does not just mean not-self. It also means something that is without control and without any abiding essence. As such it cannot offer any refuge and cannot deliver us from suffering. Surely it is better to have a more general, all-encompassing understanding than just a specific one that may not be applicable to all cirumstances.
This is what I understand.
Perhaps I should not hesitate to ask my question. I have always felt that the seeking of answers to Dhamma is important and urgent. Lal, please leave the question aside if you are not yet ready to answer it. I will definitely understand.
You have mentioned before that it is meritorious to offer fruits and perhaps other food to devas, as the devas can manifest much more quantities of the food for their underlings. But what about the offering of flowers, incense and lights in certain East Asian countries? Can the scent of flowers and incense serve as food for devas as well? What about lights?
In addition, many Chinese burn joss money, miniature paper houses, clothes and cars for their dead relatives, thinking that their relatives will receive them as real life-sized houses, clothes and cars and money.
However, after reading the suttas in the Tipitaka, I have not read about The Buddha saying that such practices will benefit their dead relatives. However The Buddha has said that dana whose merits are dedicated to dead relatives will benefit only those relatives who are born as pretas, not those who are born as human beings, animals, hell beings or devas. The above practices of burning offerings do not seem to me to be correctly classified as dana though. Am I wrong to think so?
Knowing that this is a sensitive issue, I would still appreciate it very much if you could shed some light on this.
Thank you very much in advance for your answers.
Lal,
It is good to see you back posting at the forum. I sincerely hope that you are at least feeling better, as I am sure many readers at the forum hope likewise.
Please do let us know when you are ready to answer questions again. But do not tire yourself out, as you need plenty of rest. There is no hurry. When you are feeling better, I would like to ask you a question related to micca ditthi. I will always be grateful for your kind guidance. It has indeed been very helpful and beneficial to learn from you.
Johnny, y not,
That is why even The Buddha Himself hesitated to teach the Dhamma, as He knew that the Dhamma was hard to understand.
Hi Tien,
Perhaps you may want to look at the : Udana Sutta: Exclamation (SN 22.55).
In the earlier part of the sutta, The Buddha shows how one can overcome the five lower fetters (samyojanas). By overcoming these five lower fetters, one effectively becomes an Anagami. How does one overcome these five fetters? By discerning the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta for the five khandhas. To reach that stage though, one must be knowledgeable and well practised in the Dhamma, and maybe even respectful of Ariyas.
But The Buddha does not stop there. He goes on to explain how to become an Arahant in the later part of the sutta. It is through the ending of passion (possibly tanha) for the five khandhas that one attains Nibbana.
Hope this helps to point you in a possible right direction!
It could be that phenomena in the world deceive us due to our avijja (ignorance) and because their apparent natures appear so convincing.
Because we hold the wrong views with regards to worldly phenomena, we react with tanha and upadana to pleasant phenomena because their very nature appears so pleasing and enticing.
Next, kamma then acts as the fuel that sustains us ceaselessly round and round in samsara, with tanha as the driving force.
Due to avijja, we may think that we are alive because we have a Self or soul. Actually what sustains our lives may be nothing more than nama jivitindriya and rupa jivitindriya (where jivitindriya means ‘life-faculty’). Nama jivitindriya vitalizes cittas and cetasikas supported by kamma while rupa jivitindriya vitalizes rupa. It might be helpful to take a look at ‘Abhidhamma in Daily Life’, since I could not find a translated version of The Abhidhamma in “Access to Insight”.
Thus due to the collective influence of avijja, tanha, kamma, nama jivitndriya, rupa jivitindriya, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana and possibly other cetasikas, we mistakenly perceive a self or ego.
y not:
Previously you wrote: ‘Not that it (the flame) has not gone anywhere, because that would not be consistent with Nibbana being icca, sukkha and atta, simply that we can have no conception of where it has gone. Certainly beyond the 31 realms in sansara’.
Somehow, it seems to me that implicit in these statements is the view that the flame has some kind of identity of its own. But can the identity of the flame be established apart from its patavi, apo, tejo and vayo dhatu? If its patavi, apo, tejo and vayo dhatu have passed away and do not arise again, then where is the flame?
It is like if you try to find the essence of a table in its parts, you cannot find it. Is the table referring to the tabletop without its legs? Or is it referring to the legs of the table without the tabletop?
In the Anuradha Sutta (SN 22.86), Ven Anuradha learns from the Buddha that when he could not pin down the truth or reality of The Buddha even in the present life, it would not be valid for him to describe the fate of The Buddha after Parinibbana as otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death.
Instead through a series of wise questions, The Buddha skilfully explained to Ven Anuradha about the anicca, dukkha and anatta nature of the five khandhas and that The Buddha Himself could not be equated with the five khandhas: rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara or vinnana, nor could He be found as a part of them, nor apart from them, nor could He even be found in them as an aggregated whole.
Instead, The Buddha only describes dukkha and its cessation, which is referring to paticca samuppada cycles. Elsewhere in numerous suttas, The Buddha has described that what is erroneously taken to be the Self is actually a collection of processes of PS.
For example in Channa Sutta (SN 22.90): (“Everything exists”: That is one extreme. “Everything doesn’t exist”: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: (PS))
Yamaka Sutta (SN 22.85) is also a useful and similar read. It helped Ven Yamaka correct his erroneous view of self-identity to attain Nibbana.
Hope this helps!
Lal,
It seems that you may have missed out on my questions here. Just writing a short note to get your attention.
I see, Lal. Thank you for your help and explanation.
I see vinnana as occurring at least three times within a single PS cycle.
The first time is of course as vinnana, or more exactly kamma vinnana, which is a mano vinnana.
The second time it appears as a sub-factor of phassa, for example cakkhu vinnana arises when there is phassa between vanna rupa (rupa rupa) and the cakkhu indriya. This vinnana is a vipaka vinnana, and may be cakkhu vinnana, sota vinnana, ghana vinnana, jivha vinnana, kaya vinnana or mano vinnana.
If beings get attached to the vipaka vinnana via tanha, another kamma vinnana may result as upadana sets in. This kamma vinnana is part of the vinnanakkhandha, which makes up part of the pancupadanakkhandha of the being. This kamma vinnana either is or may result in the formation of a kamma bija in the kamma bhava, which can then bring future vipaka vinnana when jati sets in.
Is this correct? I would also like to point out that under this ‘Questions about Puredhamma Posts’ section, I have started another query about one type of micca ditthi–thinking that making offerings to devas and other beings have no benefits (Mahā Cattārisaka Sutta (Discourse on the Great Forty)). You may have missed it since both queries fall under the same section.
Thank you very much in advance for your kind responses.
