Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think you made good observations. One of the issues I’ve had with the Hindu idea of “kali yuga” (and “satya yuga”) is how they try to tie it with a creator God (but fail to do so). Why would a supposedly benevolent cosmic order make it so difficult to escape lower births, especially when most animals don’t have the cognitive ability to accumulate good kamma?
Most Hindus think that they will be sent into a favorable birth (like heaven) because they followed the precepts, worships and generally lived a moral life, but others will be taken away by deity Yamraj. But if the Yugas represent moral and spiritual decay or purity, how does that apply to the countless animals that vastly outnumber humans? Like Abrahamic religions, it is ignorant of the suffering experienced by non-human species.
Furthermore, when viewed as a divine order, I also don’t understand the suffering of babies and toddlers who barely know anything about the world. If the individual doesn’t remember their past deeds, then the suffering feels arbitrary rather than meaningful. Punishment or reward only makes sense if the person experiencing it understands why it’s happening. Otherwise, it just seems like cosmic cruelty rather than justice (which very likely seems to be the case anyway).
This is another aspect that makes me think that Buddha Kassapa’s teachings were in fact distorted overtime and turned into a ritual bound religion.
Yeah, the sutta states that they appear “with the vanishing of their luminosity”. I can’t imagine what a brahma like early being would see but it seems like it emphasizes that the field of view is too bright/saturated for largely distant objects like sun, stars, etc. to be visible.
2. The other aspect is the formation process of a star. It happens gradually over millions of years. The star does not “ignite” until its mass reaches a critical density. You can search for “star formation” to find more information. Thus, in the early Earth, our Sun had not yet become a star; it was a giant gas cloud, and due to gravity, it started collapsing into a smaller size gradually. Eventually, it reaches a critical density needed for nuclear fusion and becomes a star.
That explains the later appearance of sun and moon. But what about stars and constellations? They should be visible without the ignition of sun, especially since those beings could see without light.
In #3 of the sutta:
Then those beings started to eat the earth’s nectar, breaking it into lumps.
But when they did this
their luminosity vanished.
And with the vanishing of their luminosity the moon and sun appeared,
stars and constellations appeared,
days and nights were distinguished,
and so were months and fortnights,
and years and seasons.
So far had the world evolved once more.
What I understand from this is that those beings were bright enough that the moon, sun and stars were not visible to them, not that they didn’t exist. While I am not sure what type of “luminosity” is being referred to here, these are beings who descended from the abhassara realm, which is referred to as the realm of “streaming radiance”.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Closing this thread because I’m not able to tolerate the distressful nature of this topic more than I already have.
I think this is a really bad argument, if you kill something for the comfort or sense of pleasure it’s even worse javana citta. Your logic would apply in the sense that I have no problem killing anyone because somebody is bothering me and killing that person will make me feel go away isn’t it the worst kamma to make?
This thread has got me confused. Who said anything about pleasure? I was referring to unwanted pregnancies – accidental (like failed contraception) & forced (like rape), not the ones where you impregnant yourself due to negligence only to abort the fetus. It would be easy for someone to say something like, “Don’t have sex if you don’t want the risk.” But this is totally ignorant about the true nature of human existence. Even a sakadagami craves sex.
Christian wrote: “I understand there are extreme situations like “the child will be dead anyway so let’s save the mother” as the best choice in a given situation, but Dhamma perspective is different from than mundane perspective and logic that often falls in the big picture of the world.”
An unwanted pregnancy is already an extreme situation. Why should a woman be encouraged to carry what’s practically a parasite in her womb for 9 months straight and risk not only her own but also the fetus life while giving birth, if she doesn’t want to go through that BS in the first place? If your sister was raped, would you let her give birth against her consent? I do not care if it is a “vipaka”. We are all guilty of committing innumerable moral and immoral actions anyway.
Dr. Lal wrote: “If Taryal was referring to aborting a pregnancy, I agree with Christian. Aborting a pregnancy is taking a human life, as I pointed out in previous comments. It is done with intention.”
Yes, but would you say that the “intention” here is the same as murdering a human who is already living independent of the mother and poses no harm to her? I know that intention is contextual. For instance, a policeman killing a criminal does so with a different intention than the opposite. If a wild animal kills its parent, that would not be an anantarika kamma, would it? The mental state and thus “intention” of an animal is different and not as potent as that of a human, since there is no such thing as “absolute morality” (as I understand it). This is why I said: “So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother.”
When one is infected with parasites, it’d be advised to take medicine to kill them too. Even if a tapeworm may not be on par with a human life, it is a sentient being that wants to live. I know about pet owners who decided to put down their pets because they were suffering from disease. The “intention” of aborting a human embryo in an unwanted pregnancy would be to protect the mother’s life & well-being, AND the baby from future suffering. So I remain unconvinced that their minds will release javana citta equivalent to the strength of “murdering” a human that is already living independent of their mother. Regardless, it is safe to say that it is not possible to live in this world without harming other beings, including humans.
OKay I admit, it becomes a living being when gandhabba occupies the zygote cell. This is so annoying.
“However, with the merging of a gandhabba, that zygote becomes alive—as alive as you and me.“
But it doesn’t have a brain yet and can’t receive any sensory input. From the perspective of those who choose to abort, it is just a microscopic lump of cells that knows nothing about the world, including itself. With that being said, will their minds release javana citta equivalent to that of killing a human with well defined organs and nervous system?
Dr. Lal wrote:
- That is a separate issue. Either way, those are hard and agonizing decisions. That is why life is suffering.
- That child did not get pregnant without a cause. It is a kamma vipaka. How one handles a kamma vipaka is a separate issue.
- Why would one come down with cancer (even if they took care of their health all their lives) or get into a car accident (even though it is not their fault)? There are an uncountable number of examples. Those are possible because we are born with this physical body.
That’s the thing. Killing the embryo would mean forcefully removing the gandhabba but letting a woman/child face the burden of unwanted pregnancy would also be immoral. In all honesty, if I had to deal with something like this, I would take the former route. This is why I am typically against abortion ban. One’s vipaka is one’s own responsibility and we can get into situations where we have to commit acts that can be akusala. Killing someone invasive to save others would be another example.
Thank you, Yash and Dr. Lal for sharing your insights.
Yash wrote: “So the best way that I feel is to try to introduce the teachings by explaining the Pleasure cycle and then Distorted Sanna. I tried with this with my cousin sister and it worked . It would then create more curiosity in them and then we can proceed further.”
I think that is a great idea, thought it didn’t work with my family members lol. When I try to inform them, they try to preach me instead. That’s why, one of the quoted comments above: “I knew about Buddha’s teachings before he taught it.”
Dr. Lal wrote: “Most people tend to seek the “easy way out.” If someone teaches that one can be born in heaven by killing people of other religions, many are willing to accept that on faith.
- This is why the Buddha’s teachings tend to “go underground” relatively quickly. They are not easy to grasp, so the tendency to lose the “deep meanings” is very high.
- That happened in India merely 500 years after the Buddha’s passing. Instead, the Vedic teachings took hold very quickly. While they share many concepts from Buddha’s teachings, those are only superficial.”
I am sick of dealing with these indolent people and their sleazy “know-it-all” attitudes. Empty-headed infantile evangelicals in the west and ritual bound yellow bellies in the east. No point in sharing the elixir to cure cancer to the infected that isn’t willing (and/or doesn’t have the capability) to take it.
Despite the saddening epiphany, I draw inspiration from Venerable Sariputta who, right before his death, taught the profound Dhamma to his Vedic mother who despite being previously hostile attained the Sotapanna stage at 100 years old. I am really tired and have no interest in directly guiding anyone else for now. But in the meantime, I’ve decided to prepare a few books and audio clips of (my understanding of) essential Dhamma concepts in local language so that those interested could learn a thing or two whenever they want. The primary goal remains to remove the defilements from my own mind. Let’s see what happens in more years to come.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes, Dr. Lal. My family has always strictly followed Hinduism. Only thing I knew about Buddha growing up was that he was born in Nepal. Sorry if it was implied otherwise.
I decided to stop trying to teach them (and other family members and friends) out of compassion. I noticed that there are mainly 2 approaches to learning Dhamma – one is the moral approach and the other is the intellectual. For me, taking the intellectual route clearly shows that Buddha’s teachings don’t stem from a mere speculation or religious foundation. It contains rigorous analysis of mental phenomena that can be challenging to even the brightest minds and I’m often discovering something new. But for most people, this approach doesn’t seem to work. Venerable Maithree Thero told me, “Most people aren’t Scientists, but Artists.” So not intending to put any pressure onto my people, I decided to take the simpler route. But what’s up with the hostility? I frequently hear comments like,
“Sir became a Buddha follower?! his lineage will now disappear.”
“Yeah, follow Buddhism and become celibate for life!!!”
“What?! You follow Buddha?! Aren’t you a Brahmin?!”
“Guy is following Buddha religion now… it seems like his head has stopped working properly”
“I knew about Buddha’s teachings before he taught it!”
“Don’t you dare not follow Hinduism”
Even those that were relatively receptive like my grandparents, they couldn’t understand the teachings. I tried explaining the suffering associated with rebirth process in the 31 realms of existence as advised above, trying to make it as easy as I can, but they immediately claim that all of this has been addressed in Bhagavad Geeta (sacred book of Hinduism) and didn’t listen to me while I tried to clarify the fact that Buddha’s teachings are only superficially similar to Hinduism.
I have learnt that Dhamma should not be advertised. In Jethavanarama Viharaya, they put a lot of emphasis on merits which is why everyone is encouraged to participate in merit making activities. More merits you have, more accessible the truth is to you. There were those who had enough merits to become a bhikkhu after hearing a single discourse. No practitioner would want the people they care about to remain in this brutal world, but for those who aren’t able to see the value in the Triple Gem, it seems better to avoid any compulsion or inducement. Persisting can make things worse for them.
This is the conclusion I’ve made – to stop sharing the Dhamma. If anyone here has any tips or anything pertaining to this, please consider sharing.
Theruwan Saranai
1 user thanked author for this post.
I will also add that the video is likely a reenactment of the actual experiment:
The legitimacy of the film is controversial, with some commentators suggesting it is a recreation of the actual experiments, which were more modest. According to some scientists who claimed to have seen the experiments in the film, the severed dog head only survived for a few minutes when attached to the artificial heart, as opposed to the hours claimed in the film.
Read: Experiments in the Revival of Organisms
1 user thanked author for this post.
