Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The best evaluation of practices which are not mentioned in the Pali Canon is, i belief, if they are conducive to the goal of reaching Nibbana.
I think the Buddha would agree with this kind of evaluation.
The Buddha himself seemed to be creative in inventing practices which were conducive to the goal. For example, the Budddha once taught a very stingy man to first give something with his right hand to his left hand. The man could hardly bare this, but he did. He practised it. He then made other steps to deal with the stinginess. As a result he came to a point where he could really enjoy givings things away to others. I do not know the sutta anymore.
It is an example of personalized instructions, personalized practice.
I belief, the Pali Canon is not written to end all such conducive creative and intelligent skillful means. It is also not meant as an absolute and complete map of all possible skilfull means.
siebe
In general,
What can we tell about other practises which are not mentioned in de Pali Canon? Can we be sure the Buddha would reject them, disprove of them? I think we must be careful to Judge.
The Budddha knew according sutta much more then he taught. For example, i am quit sure the Buddha must have been familiar with the subtle energetic body and energies which are described in a system of chakra’s, nadi’s, bindu’s etc.
I am quit sure the Buddha knew this from own experience too.Some vajrayana techniques involve direct working on this level. I cannot imagine the Budddha did not knew these techniques. Would he reject such practises? And are we sure we must reject them as non-buddhist methods? Only because they are not mentioned in de Canon?
I belief, we cannot really say that only what is mentioned in the Canon has buddha’s approval.
Siebe
Hi Lal,
Dhammapada verses 172 and 173
-Who once was heedless,
but later is not,
brightens the world
like the moon set free from a cloud.His evil-done deed
is replaced with skillfulness:
he brightens the world
like the moon set free from a cloud.Siebe
Hi brothers and sisters:-)
I have encountered this too. At the end of the book “the words of my perfect teacher” by Patrul Rinpoche there is a glossary. There it is explained this way: “complete enlightment, beyond both samsara and nibbana, in non of them abiding” (i translated this from my Dutch book so maybe in English version it is a bit different).
This is also the core of dzogchen. The idea is, with real liberation, complete enlightment, mind does not abide anywhere, not in samsara, and not in nibbana. These Mahāyāna schools seem to think that for an arahant mind does abide in Nibbana, i.e. abide in some bounded fashion to peace.
One says this is not the case with the non-abiding nibbana of Mahāyāna.
Also Gampopa (tibetan kagyu school), refers to this one-sided nibbanic peace of the arahant, in chapter 17, the perfection of wisdom, The Jewel ornament of Liberation.
There it is said, to reach the ultimate goal, non-abiding nibbana, one must combine method with wisdom. One must committ oneself to perfecting the paramita’s like generosity, ethical behaviour, patience etc. and not alone focus on perfecting wisdom.
Well that’s what we do right? That’s what people did who became arahants. So, i do not really see what is the problem.
If one focusses alone on perfecting wisdom, so is the idea, one will become bound to nibbana, bound to a state of peace. As a result one will be bound to samsara for 84.000 kalpa’s.
I talked to a dzogchen practioner too and he also speaks constantly about going beyond nibbana…i tell him, i belief that is not correct because there is no beyond nibbana. To think one can go beyond nibbana one must have a incorrect understanding of Nibbana. That’s my opinion. Curious what you think.
When we talk about nibbana, how can there be any attachement, any bonding?
If there would be a bonding to peace, how can that be called nibbana? I think they do not understand the concept of Nibbana.Those dzogchen practioners, and mabye other mahaynist to, also treat nibbana and samsara as a duality and they teach the non-dualistisch path. I think they do not know what nibbana means.
I respect all schools of buddhism but i belief nibbana is not understood correctly here.
Hope this is of use.
Siebe
I think one can evaluate kamma vipaka in relation to:
-the characteristics of the doer; (AN3.99, sometimes numbered as AN3.100). If someone is small-minded, for example, even trifling immoral deeds can lead to hell. Not for someone who is big-hearted. Someone with much merit might not even notice the ripening of a trifling evil kamma, but the effect on a person with not much merit might be really painful. According to AN4.182 nobody can guarentee that evil kamma does not produce a future result.
-the characteristics of the deed; one can kill, for example, in many ways. One can torture someone to death. One can kill really cruel or even with compassion. One can feel that such is also relevant for the weight of kamma. It is also said (In AN1.314 and 1.315) that is does not matter what the kamma is, if the view that instigates that kamma is wrong, the results will be wrong. We discussed this earlier. I belief these AN sutta’s tell that one cannot only look at the quality of intention for determining the results. It is a combination of view and intention which seem to determine results.
-the characteristics of the receiving party: immoral behaviour to own parents or holy persons weigh heavier. This is also true for moral deeds.
Just to get this clear for myself. If something is wrong i hope you correct.
Siebe
Yes, and isn’t there also the issue of de salt and water. A bit salt in not much water will give very salty water. But the same amount in a river cannot even be detected.
This is mentioned in AN3.100 (numbering Bodhi). Thanissaro numbers AN3.99:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.htmlThe effects for the same trifling bad deed can also be differently experienced because of differences in the doer. Differences in his/her development, character, being limited, big hearted, or not etc. The sutta explains.
I think it is good to note that it concerns trifling bad deeds. But still some can go to hell and another person nearly experiences any ripening effect, with the same trifling deed!
kind regards,
SiebeI feel it is most wise not to Judge about his future. Kamma is not accountancy. What ripening results will come from this deed, i cannot Judge. If anyone says he can, that kamma might be possibly even more worse then suicide?
kind regards,
Siebe“Without removing the ditthi anusaya (and vicikicca anusaya, which is also related to getting to Ariya Samma Ditthi), one cannot start removing the other types of anusaya. This happens only at the Sotapanna stage” (Lal)
I have seen that the sutta’s treat sakkaya ditthi as the first (and very important) fetter to be abandoned. I belief also Patisambhidamagga does, but i am not sure about the translations.
The treatise on knowledge (from §355 and further) of the Patisambhidamagga describes the gradual path of purification. The stream-entry path cuts of 1. the [wrong] view of individuality, it is said (translation nanamoli), 2. uncertainty, 3. misapprehension of virtue and duty. It also cuts to underlying tendency to [wrong] view and uncertainty.
These are 3 of the 5 lower fetters (MN64).
I remember also other sutta’s who mention sakkaya ditthi as the first fetter. It seems like sutta’s say that sakkaya ditthi is the very important micca ditthi to end first.
These sakkaya ditthi’s are of 20 kinds. This is treated in MN44. It is not only our identification with the body but all we experience. At least that one can understand from MN44.
When the dustfree stainless dhamma-eye opens, the first three lower fetters are broken (AN3.94).
Sakkay ditthi (and the other fetters) hinder right view (AN6.89)
Our understanding of ourselves seems to be the key factor to the sotapanna stage.
i realise sotapanna stage does not mean a sotapanna does not have any conceit “I am” anymore. He/she has.
But ending sakkaya dithhi means that mind does not become really afflicted anymore due to changes. This is nicely illustrated in SN22.1.
If one is not identified with the body, feelings, perception, mental formations and conciousness, mind also does not get afflicted anymore when these experiences change, for better or worse.Siebe
Oke, in my own words, understanding the laws of kamma, realizing that rebirth must be valid, that there are beings who are reborn spontaniously etc, this is in the sutta’s treated as right view. Like you say, the kind of motivation or thinking that arises on a certain moment in the mind, is based on such views. The second factor (sankappa) arises conditioned by the first (ditthi).
In the sutta’s right thinking or right motivation is consistently treated as the thought of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. I agree, those thoughts, or this kind of motivation, are based on right mundane view, such as the above.
For example, when one does not give in with arising sense desires one probably understands the danger of giving in. Or, when one is aware of the arising of the impulses to hurt somebody and does not give in, one probably understands it is immoral, dangerous and maybe one understand also it is just a habitual tendency, not -self, not who i am.
So, Lal, nobel right thinking is a kind of motivation inbedded in understanding tilakkhana.
Siebe
Thanks Lal. Does an arahant also has less javana citta’s running after votthapana or does this number stay the same?
Siebe
I have understood, but correct me if i am wrong, that the javana citta’s of an arahant are not akusala anymore but also not kusala.
The citta’s that succeed the votthapana citta are kirya citta’s. There is no impuls or habitual force to do bad but also not to do good.
In my own words, there is not that kind of moral and immoral re-activity anymore in the mind.I think a nice way to talk about this is that an arahant has become completely authentic. All habitual behaviour is not really authentic, but re-active. It is a kind of alienation. I can sense this. An arahant has ended this process of alienation. If, for example, somebody becomes really angry, he is in an alienated state, he is not really himself. Reactivity is a kind of alienation.
Yes, also habitually doing good is alienation. It is not really authentic or nobel. I do not say it is bad, but i can sense that doing habitually good, as a kind of re-ativity, is something completely different then doing good in a nobel sense.
That an arahant automatically does good, i belief, does not mean he/she does automatically good because of kusala citta’s or gati/habit. It is another kind of automatically doing good. It is not based on gati or habitual forces. Behaviour based on gati is Always reactivity and cannot be called nobel.
Hope, this is of use
kind regards,
SiebeWhen mind gets entangled by some habitual force, even morally good ones, how can mind not be fettered at that moment? It is chained at that moment.
The arising of a habitual force is at that moment wrongly grasped as; “this i am, this is mine, this is myself’. Habitual force is at that moment not seen with wisdom.
When an arahant does automatically good, i belief, this does not mean that he/she is driven by the power of some good gati. The goodness arises differently, not based on gati, but based on the unconditioned state.
Siebe
