Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s an importand topic, since it’s the very cross-road of either remaining of the Juwels in the world, or not. Eg. “after means not in line with the Dhamma” vs. “Dhamma in line with the Dhamma”.
(Samana Johann)
My person, Atma, dwells since a while at the [Ashram] Thmo Duk (Ship rock), Aural, Cambodia.
(Samana Johann)
1 user thanked author for this post.
My person would go even so far, that developing the factors of awakening “by will” is in the sphere of non-returner-path to some degree upwardly.
Developing Satipatthana complete is the base of the Bojjhaṅgās.
“At any time by will” certain in the sphere of Arahant.
Anyway surely out of frame if a common person tries such.
(Samana Johann)
Hello! Can a putujana also go into the enlightenment factors at will, or can one do this only when one has the first stage of enlightenment or higher? Thank you 🙏
Good householder,
the factors of awakening, if one has not gained right view, are of course out of reach for one.
It’s possible to cultivate “fake” factors, leading to wrong liberation.
It’s importand that it’s all about right or wrong, and objectification of it’s use.
Without completing the basic developments, not having so then completed Satipatthana (or call it Saddha, or Sila), what ever factors further gained are for a wrong.
(Samana Johann)
The means to get the Dhamma really understood, get craving, suffering, defilements, understood, see the first Noble truth rightly, is to steady associate with Dhamma, eg. dukkha. If not building up a firm border, fence, at first place, so that one does not steady “escape” wrongly from dukkha, there is no change to get it seen rightly. This face for purificasion is Sila, virtue, right conduct.
As long as building fake fences out of merely philosophical ideas, there is no way to come and stay in proper association, no way to develop Saddha and by it the path.
(Samana Johann)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello Bhante, 🙏🏿 May I ask which monastery you come from?
My person “fears” that not understanding the question, or better of what good Jittananto actually likes to ask.
But let’s try to put the question toward the importance of the said, and in which way good householders question here could be most related:
[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] “To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth.”
[The Buddha:] “There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder’s son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed… His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s greedy.
“When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on aversion… based on delusion: ‘Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on delusion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, “I know,” while not knowing, or say, “I see,” while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?’ As he observes him, he comes to know, ‘There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on delusion… His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not deluded. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can’t easily be taught by a person who’s deluded.
“When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates [lit: “weighs,” “compares”]. Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.
“To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.”
(Samana Johann)
AI’s work based on not given things, not even really legal, and the founder and maintainer have nothing to to with integrity, not even toward a path to heavens.
So it’s somehow ironical this here, right? It’s easier to go the way of demad and “rights” than to start of seek the path of People of integrity.
Yes, it’s (nearly) impossible to gain even right view, not to speak of right view combined with the Noble Saccas. Today the seems to be even a wave of AI-Paccekabuddhas.
It’s a dark time, where the ease waits on every corner.
(Samana Johann)
Good householder,
It’s not possible to gain Dhamma if not given and received in proper ways. While machines may serve desires and defilements well, their lack of goodness, and for the most even the opposite, since it’s clear that sources are not even legal rightly given, no need to tell that such could never happen in line of Dhamma.
It’s a waste to try to gain relation with the Gems ouwardly their domain.
(Samana Johann)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Again, good Lal, maybe there are ways for him to investigate the matter lesser for this or that “Arahat”. Today people watch many movies.
Suttas are well preserved.
It’s certain risky to gamble in such way in regard of a human existence.
The reasons of holding certain views are well exponent in the first Sutta, the Brahma-net.
So again: What’s called birth by the Buddha and his disciples, it’s definition?
What’s called death?
What’s called existence?
(Samana Johann)
Yes. The “Mahāpadāna Sutta (DN 14)“ provides the lifetimes of humans during the times of previous Buddhas, and those are correct.
- I have seen this issue in several places. Even the Tipitaka Commentaries may not be entirely accurate. Those were composed by Arahants, who are not as knowledgeable as a Buddha. In this case, they used the lifetime known to them. Also, we need to remember that these kinds of details are not connected to wisdom; they are just bits of information.
- Therefore, we must always prioritize the Sutta Pitaka over the other two Pitakas in the Tipitaka.
P.S. We also need to remember that this age limit refers to the lifetime of the physical human body. Human existence may last even for many hundreds of thousands of years, i.e., the lifetime of the “mental body” or “manomaya kaya” or “gandhabba” can be very long. During that time, one can be born with a physical human body numerous times.
Good Lal,
Where does the idea, that “we should remember” come from. Usually death is defined by break apart of the body. Atma wouldn’t say that certain tendencies don’t follow, as there are also many human being with conducts like animals, petas, and also Devas, yet the common used border of end of life doesn’t seem to be else like the body one has taken on.
Or would good Lal say that if one falls into a tendency like a Brahma, yet still human body, that he/she took another existence?
People tend to think that they are human, even think that they (human) then become this or that, something like Disney’s wonders, and so hardly to efforts not to fall down.
It’s wrong view that leads for sure down, causes animal womb, peta, hell.
It’s not a useful idea, such as “i am a human” wandering on, but much better that it’s very, very seldom to gain after death as human, another human existence.
So maybe good Lal likes to investigate that part more deeper, so that it’s nor unfortunately mistaken, and a seldom change gone by feeling to secure in certain relation.
Animal have the tendency to often return, yet even there the main lane is downwardly.
There is a lot of Sakkāyadiṭṭhi potential in this point, and lot of ‘human pride’. Yet in the time now, if looking on how many die even befor leaving womb, of human lifespan isn’t much above 30, if not lesser.
(Samana Johann)
Good householder,
do one not forget that “beings are owner of their actions” is an important aspect of right view.
And returning to sensual sphere requires food, e.g. requires sacrifices, dukkha of others.
And Devas can, could, appear to humans, of what they seldom do, as there are seldom those with required virtue and Nissaya, able to receive encouragement. So why desire to return? Wishing to help plow fields or give birth?
Again burden others womb, birth, pain, blood, learning, feeding, burden others, disease… seeking for gross food, breaking apart.
This path here is for own benefit and that of all others. Good to abond doubt, good to abound desires to gain relay on sensuality ever again.
(Samana Johann)
1 user thanked author for this post.
Sorry, but I am confused. I understood this point: “Paticca Samuppada explains that the idea of an “everlasting self” (a “soul-type” entity) is an illusion. Each “existence” is created by the mind in previous lives. That is how the rebirth process continues.”
So what is the goal?
Good householder,
to end the pointless wandering on from birth, aging, sickness and decay, the everon grasping of what’s lost again, to end the burden of steady sacrificing and arrive at peace, at the deathless, the task with an end done.
This path starts and ends with good deeds, blameless deeds, as it’s the source for blameless joy, required for the path.
(Samana Johann)
For getting the different distinguished, good householder, very traditional cultures still use different verbs for actions of Arahats (even monks) and common people.
There is certain danger if not clearly distinguished. A topic in regard of this (requiring lot of right attention):
‘The Kamma of Arahants’!!
The kamma of the ten-fold path, released kamma.
(btw. years ago suggested Upasaha Lal to start to translate sermons, good to see that such took progress)
(Samana Johann)
Things aren’t but do. Good to do, to hold deeds (kamma) as ones own, to take on just right and pleasing deeds, to go beyond all need of doing. Doing is burdensome, requires steady paccaya. And yes, doing is very individual.
Doing so, gained faith, one is already called a firm person.
(Samana Johann)
Maybe useful in regard of the OP: MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta — The Root Sequence
As for now, trainee (and later similar, Satipatthana):
…“He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as ‘mine,’ let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
(Samana Johann)
