Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is there a difference between a certain vinnana (for example sota-vinnana) and vinnana-dhatu? Is there a relationship?
I understood vinnana is something that conditionally arises and ceases, dependend for example on sense-contact. Is vinnana-dhatu not something that arises and ceases?
Ynot,
Is it not possible to say that when space-time did not yet exist there was emptiness? This emptiness (voidness) was always there and will always be there.
I look upon space as something subtle (a kind of rupa). I imagine space-time is like a very subtle field which expands and deflates in emptiness. I think space-time has a kind of very subtle structure, even when no visible formations have yet arisen.
Does the Buddha not say in DN1 that there are four grounds in which people can be called Finitists and Infinitists, and proclaim the finitude and infinitude of the world. There is no other way, he says. And all are wrong.
The case is described where someone claims that the world is infinite based on his own experience. This is a wrong view number 10 in the translation of Walshe:
2.18. [Wrong view 10] ‘And what is the second way? Here a certain ascetic or Brahmin has [23] attained to such a state of concentration that he dwells perceiving the world as infinite. He thinks: “This world is infinite and unbounded. Those ascetics and Brahmins who say it is finite and bounded are wrong. How so? Because I have attained to such a state of
concentration that I dwell perceiving the world as infinite.
Therefore I know that this world is infinite and unbounded.”
This is the second case.And
§3.34. [Wrong views 9-12] ‘When those who are Finitists
& Infinitists proclaim the finitude and infinitude of the
world on four grounds, that is merely the feeling of those who
do not know and see, the worry and vacillation of those immersed in craving”.Siebe
Thanks ynot for your view,
If space always existed, that probably also means it has no cause, it has never arisen, it was always there and it will never cease too. Seeing space this way it looks like it is an unconditioned element. I do not think this can be true.
Another point, I do not know how anyone could ever experience infinite space or infinite vinnana. I think this can only be someone impression while in jhana. How can one experience infiniteness? I think one cannot. Infinit is a concept and i do not see how one can ever experience it.
Siebe
Apparently it is not space that is inflating and deflating when space is infinite? Has space always existed? I always thought science explains space-time has arisen with the big bang.
Siebe
@ Christian,
When person A sees a disabled person there might arise unpleasant feeling in his mind. Maybe some aversion and discomfort. This person might turn his head and fake not seeing this disabled person or maybe he would belittle this disabled person. I think this is not oke, not so good, immoral, not meritorious.
In person B a feeling of sympathy might arise seeing this disabled person. Maybe based upon this feeling of sympathy this person does not turn his head, and maybe he says or does something compassionate, something friendly. Maybe they have a nice meeting. I personally think this is better, moral.
Both kinds of behaviour conditionally arise.
I think the Buddha teaches that such kinds of volitional driven behaviour, meritorious and also demetourious, arise with avijja as condition (SN12.51).
In other words, when avijja is present one still can do good, meritorious deed. But those deeds are not pure.
The teaching (MN117) talk about this as the difference between mundane and supramundane.
The right mundane path, right view etc. is related to meritorious formation. It is connected to merit. It will bring good, happiness in this or another life. Will not free from samsara but bring higher rebirth. We must go this path and accumulate merit to enter the supra-mundane path.
The wrong mundane path, wrong view etc. is connected to demitorious volitional formations, to demerit, and will bring suffering in one way or the other in this life or others. We have to abandon this path.
Acting good or bad due to some habitual force is mundane. I can sense this is not really authentic behaviour. Habitual behaviour, even when you do something meritorious such as being friendely to that disabled persoon, is not really authenic or pure. It is not supra-mundana.
Maybe you can not connect to this understanding but that does not mean is it wrong.
Siebe
One is not really oneself when one thinks, speaks and acts under influence of greed, hate, delusion, anusaya, asava, tanha, avijja. Why is this so hard to accept while it is, for me, so obvious? This is even accepted in strong cases in criminal law. But even when those defilements are not so powerful, they have the power to start a proces of alienation.
Such behaviour arising from (strong or mild) habitual forces like anusaya is never free, not pure, not really unburdened. It is burdened by the past, by past experiences. So it is not authentic.
For example, once one had a bad experience with the car, and after that one cannot drive that car anymore freely, unburdened. Noises of the car one immediately interprets as possible mechanical failure. Or, once one had a very painful experience in love and then one becomes very protective etc. There are so many examples which show we are becoming less and less ourselves and become more and more fettered.
A lot of situations and people we do not meet openly, unburdened, fresh (or empty), anymore. This is even true for a new born infant, let alone for an adult!
The Buddha talks about these fetters. He knows the unburdened mind. One of the biggest burdens is the conceit ‘I am’. Acting under influence of this conceit we are, ofcourse, also not ourselves, but just conceited.
Being oneself is the only task we have. Being oneself we are wise, compassionate. Being oneself means we must free ourselves from the fetters because those make us stupid, not compassionate.
There is nothing wrong with ourselves. We have to much baggage and this accessory stuff controlls our life to much. That we must end and that is all to do. We cannot change ourselves but we can change habits, fetters, anusaya etc. The Buddha never ever taught we are the fetters, gati, anusaya etc.
Siebe
Hi lal,
How does the behaviour of an arahant arise when it is not due to gati, six roots, tanha, avijja, asava and anusaya?
Siebe
Someone who uproots all those anusaya only becomes more him/herself.
This is becoming more and more authentic.The tendency to get lost, to loose oneself in the conditioned, stops.
I feel it is very important to see that there is change but also no-change.
If we fail to see no-change, in my understanding, we fail to see the Path.
Siebe
Oke, if you do not sense that there is a difference between ‘being yourself’ and showing habitual behaviour (following tendencies), then we do not have a common ground to discuss. If authenticy has no meaning for you then it is impossible to discuss this. For me it is sure that someone who shows habitual behaviour (also regarding myself) is not authentic present and not his/herself.
Siebe
Hi Lal, i tend to see it this way,
Habitual behaviour arises because there is grasping at habitual forces arising in the mind at a certain moment. I think you refer to this as sankhara’s arising. Those mental formations arising are not really ‘mine’ and ‘me’. Still, instinctively there is often the grasping moment, and from that moment on the follow up in which those grasped sankhara become motivational forces for thinking, speech and acting. I belief this works the same for the good and bad.
Because those arising sankhara are not really me or mine, there is a wrong understanding at that moment they are grasped at as me and mine.
Behaviour arises in two ways;
-1. Habitually, conditionally arising, impulsive, not free
-2. From emptiness, or ourselves, spontaneous, free.The first is related to merit and demerit. The second is beyond merit and demerit.
Do you agree?
SiebeHi lal, formation refers to any mental formation. It refers to vitakka, vicara, lobha, dosa, metta, vedana, tanha, whatever that arises conditionally in the mind.
I belief the sutta’s teach to see all those formations as they are; ‘this is not mine, not who i am, not myself’. This apllication of insight does not discriminate in the wholesome and unwholesome.
Siebe
Thanks for your answers. I wanted to share the following with you:
Some schools, like dzogchen, a tibetan buddhist school, teach to change nothing in the mind. Why invest? States and phenomena arising are all impermanent and cannot be maintained.
The one thing needed is to deeply observe the arising and ceasing of states and phenomena. Seeing the movement without wanting to change anything. The nature of a bad thought or tendency arising, is no different from the nature of a good thought or tendency arsising.
It is only movement arising, empty phenomena, like a castle in the air, like foam without any substance. That’s the nature of all phenomena, good or bad.They teach just to sharply, but loosely, observe this movement. It will cease in itself when it is only observed. Active involvement in mind processes, they find, is of no use if one can see or sense that all mind processes or of the same nature.
Just let go. Relax. Do not get worried or anxious when there are unwholesome thoughts or tendencies or delighted when there are wholesome thoughts or tendencies. Just rest in non-movement and observe movement. Do not follow movement.
The short-cut is just to see any formation, wholesome or not wholesome, just as formations, movement, arising and ceasing. It is only movement arising, nothing special, not worth following, or worth changing, worth investing in. It is worth knowing and that’s all.
Personally i think this is the most consequent application of “this is not mine, not me, not who i am”. It is applied to all formations, and does not discriminatie in wholesome or unwholesome ones, or pleasant or unpleasant ones, beneficial ones or unbeneficial ones.
I think this is part of the teachings of the Buddha. Do you see any trouble or any great problems?
i have not readn this book but maybe this book?
https://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/The_Life_of_the_Buddha.pdf
siebe
i don’t know this but maybe the expression of an organism’s genetic code also depends on factors relating to former lifes? mayebe in some way or the other, information from former lifes, which comes with the gandhabba, as blueprint for the new life, plays a role in activating certain inhereted genetic codes or causing them to be deactivated?
I know, i am speculating.Siebe
