Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you all for your insights! I’ve been doing further research and this thread helped quite a bit.
“I concluded that Buddha Dhamma passes that test. Do you disagree?”
Not at all. You’ve provided compelling arguments that significantly bolster the credibility of Buddha Dhamma. These points are more than sufficient to encourage a seeker to engage with the teachings seriously, at the very least.
“Try applying it to the Vedic and Mahayana philosophies you referenced. Do they pass the test?”Excellent question! It appears that these doctrines might struggle to withstand such rigorous scrutiny. Many of them were derived from pre-existing philosophical systems and subsequently modified by various scholars to align with their own interpretations. This often results in inconsistencies and a lack of coherence. In short, these philosophies do not appear to engage with sensory experiences with the same precision and depth as the Buddha’s teachings, whose insights remain highly credible, as your post effectively demonstrates. Once again, thank you!
Thank you, that helps a lot.
“5. It seems that one book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka may have been lost. That book should provide details of pure octads and the details of the mental body.”
That’s quite intriguing! I would surmise that your evaluation of concepts such as these entails assessing their compatibility and internal consistency with the Tipitaka, even if it may not manifest in that precise format.
“8. Each person needs to choose the way forward. If Abhidhamma seems too complex, it is not necessary to learn those details. As I pointed out above, most people were not even aware of Abhdidhamma during Buddha’s time.
- On the other hand, Abhidhamma could help many these days. See “Sutta Learning Sequence for the Present Day””
I observed that the Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery places significant emphasis on practical aspects. I have found considerable success in their focus on the deluded perceptions of our minds, such as the tendency to seek clearly defined entities when only manifestations of causes and conditions exist, or the mistaken belief that external objects possess intrinsic pleasures when they do not. In contrast, the Abhidhamma serves as a theoretical framework that elucidates the unparalleled wisdom of the Buddha.
I believe our primary focus should center on practical aspects while also engaging with theoretical ones. We must remain vigilant to avoid becoming overly immersed in abstraction.
Yes, I read them and no, I don’t think there is insufficient evidence advocating for the concept of gandhabba. There are plenty of evidence from the Tipitaka itself (like Buddha’s travel to higher realms, for example), reinforced by evidences from NDEs, OBEs, rebirth evidence, etc. that legitimize the concept of mental body. But I don’t know if I can say the same about the idea of pure octads, even though I find it convincing to think that the mental body would have a trace of materiality to it. Buddha said it would ignoble to teach something that isn’t part of the Dhamma and the fact that this doesn’t appear in the Tipitaka seemed like a red flag to me. But I haven’t looked too deeply into the Abhidhamma Pitaka so I could be wrong about this point.
Yes, thank you Lal. Your explanations make sense. But my only concern pertaining to the concept of pure octads (suddhāṭṭhaka) is that it seems like it is not present in Tipitaka. According to this wikipedia article:
Kalapa or rupa-kalapa (from Sanskrit rūpa “form, phenomenon” and kalāpa “bundle”) is a term in Theravada Buddhist phenomenology for the smallest units of physical matter, said to be about 1/46,656th the size of a particle of dust from a wheel of chariot. Kalapas are not mentioned in the earliest Buddhists texts, such as the Tripitaka, but only in the Abhidhammattha-sangaha, an Abhidhamma commentary dated to the 11th or 12th century, and as such not part of common Theravada doctrine.
This raises question about the legitimacy of this concept. I will say that you run a juggernaut of a website so I think you know what you’re doing but sometimes I find some information here that I do not find elsewhere.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Speaking of Pure Octad Constituents, I was wondering what gandhabba is made of. I’ve read that the essence of a human (and animal) is in the gandhabba which contains 6 pure octads (for 5 pasada rupa and hadaya vatthu). What is different about these particles compared to those that make up the physical world? For example, how can a pure octad for chakkhu pasada rupa “see” things? I don’t know if there is something other than the fundamental units of matter in the mental body, so I would appreciate an explanation.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Perhaps the description of chakkavalas (planetary systems) could also be viewed as evidence of rebirth? I believe Buddha could recall past lives and see many formations and destructions of star systems.
Thank you, Christian!
“All ideas about Nibbana come from “form, feeling, perception, choices (I think it’s the wrong translation), consciousness” that people have this is why we are saying Nibbana can not be understood the way people would like to know it.”
“In translation we have “dimension” from the word “tadāyatanaṃ” – here Lal would do a better job explaining exactly the word in the context, but ayatana (https://puredhamma.net/key-dhamma-concepts/key-pali-terms-tanha-lobha-dosa-moha/indriya-and-ayatana-big-difference/) is related to mental dimension, not “heaven” or object outside of your mind.”
Fabulous! This sounds like a state of transcendence, but I’ll do my homework and stop trying to decipher it with the concepts of the conditioned world (pancakkandha).
She added at the end, “Justice will be served to those who don’t accept Him. They will be thrown into a lake of fire.” It sounded like she was telling me to F off, intentionally or not. So at that point, there was nothing I could do other than wish her well in disappointment.
My friend, you are too kind and a little innocent (not in a wrong way). It’s not your fault because I have noticed that people who are kind hearted tend to think everyone else is the same but many are not! There are even those who get into “missionary dating” (my term) where they will date you simply to try to convert you. Don’t take this in a negative way since I don’t know much about the girl you mentioned but based on your comment, I suspect she understood that you’re not easy to convert so she doesn’t want to try. People may not be the way they superficially appear, so I’d suggest being careful because you deserve better. Just left this remark so you won’t create unnecessary suffering for yourself.
1 user thanked author for this post.
we dont know for sure what is good and bad, his divine wisdom is greater than our wordly one
I thought God specifically gave man the ability to know “good” and “evil”, and now they are claiming that he didn’t? Read Genesis 3
With experience, I know that Theology is full of contradictions. It only gets worse when you bring up scientific discoveries. According to Biblical Timeline, the world got doomed with suffering because Adam and Eve ate apple and thereby “sinned” about 6000 years ago. But the radiometric dating of rocks and fossils show that our planet is about 4.6 billion years old (Radiometric dating). “Death” has been in this world for billions of years (a lot longer than 6000 years). So it looks like we can use some logical thinking to identify the red flags and dispel wrong views.
But I agree with the “complacency” part though. One can criticize other views but that shouldn’t give them a reason to be complacent with their own. I’ve noticed that Buddha’s teachings can be really deep and complex so having patience and humility is imperative.
2 users thanked author for this post.
@Lal:
- No matter how many experiments scientists conduct, they are all compatible with the “distorted/false sanna” built into humans and animals. That is the reason why Buddha Dhamma is “beyond the scope of erroneous logic of humans.”
- That erroneous logic has roots in “distorted/false sanna.“
But is it not known to scientists that our subjective reality is a fabrication? I believe I saw a video in the forum where neuroscientists talk about this aspect of our experience (colors, sounds, survival instincts, etc.). If one can understand that and be a remarkable Scientist, what else would they need to be able to comprehend Dhamma?
You seem to be very good at summarizing large amount of information. Are you a professional writer?
So what you’re basically saying is that Nibbana is not “nothing” but also unlike anything we can comprehend?
That was awesome. Thanks a lot, Taryal. I feel like you understand my problem. My doubts have cleared a lot, just need some more pondering. Sending you much love from crazy New England!
@Lal:
“The innate sense of a “me” will be there (at different levels) until one attains the Arahant stage.”
Yes, how is that possible? There shouldn’t be any sense of ‘me’ if there is no ‘me’ in the first place.
“Future lives are not that different from present lives. Were you the “exact same person” when you were five, ten, or twenty years old? Did you look the same at those stages, have the same ambitions/goals or outlook on life, etc., as now”
Thank you. This presents a strong argument that there seems to be no unchanging entity that defines the essence of an individual. But like you said, there is a sense of me so one could argue that there is a dynamic self. How would that be incorrect?
@Jittananto:
“If you want, I can put you in contact with monks who can give you private sermons adapted to your understanding. To begin on the path to the end of suffering, a person who has reached at least the first level of the path (Sotāpanna) must explain it to us.”
That would be great, thank you.
