Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal wrote: “What is discontinued at the Arahanthood is the kamma viññāna that arises via “sankhāra paccaya viññāna.“ Those are manō viññāna generated in a PS cycle starting with “avijjā paccayā sankhāra.”
So, manō viññāna is synonymous to kamma viññāna. Does it mean vipāka viññāna can never be a form of manō viññāna?
Aversion is another manifestation of greed. Saying I hate this implies I love the opposite of it. For instance, a person hates his house to be in a mess. That also tells us that he is attached to his house being clean and tidy. And when he cannot get what he desires, he is in distress. Because of the perception of ‘I am’ suffering, this person wishes for the non-existent of that unpleasant experience.
Pertaining to the section on Vipāka Vēdanā Arise With That Initial Vipāka Viññāna, under point #9 “At this stage, there is no sukha, dukkha, sōmanassa, or dōmanassa vēdanā generated. The mind receives the sensory event. All vēdanā associated with that initial sensory event is a neutral (upekkha) vēdanā.”
I opined the fact that we have a pair of eyes, we inherently have this expectation to be able to see. Expectation is attachment. Attachment brings suffering. Isn’t this expectation dukkha? While not obvious to someone who is not exposed to the dhamma, this expectation seems to form a default mental state of vexation in all normal beings. Isn’t craving for even a pure seeing event that yields only vipāka viññāna also subject a person to dukkha? It becomes very apparent especially when one were to suddenly go blind or enter a room with no source of light for prolonged period of time. Remember, we are not even talking about looking at something that we like here. Expectation runs in the background all the time.
Things we like to see and hope to own, of course kamma viññāna will be present. We are no longer interested in just seeing. We want to look (kamma). Which brings me to another question. If kamma is synonymous to sankhara and upadana, then is it correct to say that the associated suffering that one has bear at this stage is dukkha-dukkha, sankhara dukkha, and viparinama dukkha? Notice the stark difference in the above illustration when one is only craving for seeing. I am trying to see the correlations between the types of viññāna and dukkha experienced by a being at the tanhā and upādāna stages.
Food for thought from sutta reference MN 43:
(Ven. Mahakotthita) “Friend, how is renewed existence in the future produced?”
(Ven. Sariputta) “Renewed existence in the future is produced through the delighting in this and that on the part of beings who are hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.”
It appears tenable that kamma is a natural byproduct of craving. I think that’s why the second noble truth is tanhā and never upādāna. Because by the time one performs kamma/sankhara/upādāna, it’s already too late.
In other words, practising the dhamma is a means to excite those magga-phala citta to arise and effect liberation.
Wta,
I recalled there is one discourse that talked about a lady who is severely abused by her husband, and how the bhante commended her forbearance to withstand the physical and verbal torment. I’m now on my 2nd round listening to the sermons. Will prompt you when I get to listen to that discourse again.
Hi Wta,
I recommend you listen to the discourses from the following Youtube channel:
Beginning from the first discourse right at the bottom #105 (currently).
Because you have read the articles on Puredhamma, it would be easier for you to follow the discourses. I’m pretty sure you will find the content very beneficial and enlightening.
Lal mentioned: “Vedana coming through the other four physical sense inputs are neutral. Any pleasant or unpleasant vedana that we may experience are ALL mind-made, and NOT due to kamma vipaka. They are called “samphassa ja vedana”. They are also called “somanassa/domanassa vedana”. Arahant DO NOT experience those.”
Say an arahant is served some tasty food. Would the arahant think that the food that he is consuming is delicious? On the other hand, if some wicked person wants to test the arahant by serving him rotten food, would the arahant think the food that he just tasted is terrible or even unfit for consumption? Can there be no such thing as a delicious and terrible taste for an arahant? I would be amazed if this were the case because it seems like vipaka (good or bad) is being denied here. Surely, an arahant cannot be a dead log as long as he is still alive and kicking.
I came across a sutta AN 6.41 – A Tree Trunk, where Ven.Sariputta mentioned there is an element of ugliness in ugly things. I would think there is an element of beauty in beautiful things too.
Knowing that ugliness/beauty arises out of causality, likewise delicious and foul-tasting must also arise out of causality. Delicious cannot come from the tasty food alone. Neither can it arise unilaterally from the arahant, nor from both the tasty food and the arahant. Also, delicious cannot arise for no reason. Hence, can I safely deduce that an arahant can definitely find a tasty food delicious and foul-tasting food, foul-tasting?
Maybe the Conservation of Energy principle can help you appreciate how a lifestream has no beginning.
If God is omnipotent and almighty, one can ask the question, “Can God create a rock so huge that He cannot lift it?” If God says Yes, it means something. If He says No, it also means something! Almighty itself is a paradox.
Hi Lukas,
Many thanks for sharing these priceless information. I myself have been listening to Venerabe Battaramulle Amadassana Thēro’s english sermons and benefitted much from them. All I can say is his sermons are very though-provoking and eye-opening! It’s indeed very fortunate to have such a venerable around in this modern age.
Hi Akvan,
You mentioned: “The Buddha said that the Dhamma is something completely unknown to anyone at that time. But people at that time had seen the suffering in the re-birth process…”
That’s exactly my sentiment. Ancient yogis before the Buddha were already trying to rid themselves from the rebirth process. So, it cannot be a new concept to them. Without coming across the Buddha Dhamma, one can never come to the realisation that the things we do to gratify this illusive self is indeed the opening of the pandora’s box to incessant suffering. We would never have figured out on our own the way to end this madness is actually counter-intuitive to our defiled primal nature. Even the highest external sect yogi who still has a modicum of notion – “I can. Therefore I am.” is not spared from going round in sansara.
