Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And this website is like the only English source with authentic translations that presents the actual teachings with deep meanings. You are a legend, Dr. Lal!
I believe a sotapanna has removed sakkaya ditthi, right? A yogi who attains anariya jhana to recall past lives would most likely believe in an immortal soul/self. So they would try to find a way to be reborn in a good realm with minimal suffering instead of thinking about stopping the existence in this world (of 31 realms) since they wouldn’t know what Nibbana is.
My understanding of Nibbana is that it has no heirarchy. Whether you’re a Buddha or an Arahant, Nibbana is Nibbana. If one desires to help other beings by teaching Dhamma, this is the best time to do so. Internet allows us to easily connect with people all around the world. It was not this easy during Gautam Buddha’s time.
Dr. Lal: “I think what you mean is: “Do kammically neutral actions involve javana citta?”“
Yes, when the mind makes a decision, many cittas are created and based on above discussion, no javana citta will be created for a kammically neutral action/intention.
These concepts are mind blowing. Why aren’t people all around the world studying this stuff? It is quite sad that we are in such a minority.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I am not sure what you mean by that. Please elaborate on that.
I think I worded it a little poorly but based on above discussion, I meant to say that there is indeed an energy from the mind that is sent to the brain by the gandhabba when an individual decides to perform an action. This involves the cittas generated by the hadaya vatthu which comes from the kammic energy that created the gandhabba (and currently sustains it) but if the action is kammically neutral, it does not further create any kammic energy that can ripen in the future.
Dr. Lal, you wrote above: “(i) New kammic energy is created (with javana citta) only when generating abhisankhara with raga, dosa, and/or moha.” Moral actions also create kammic energy and involve abhisankhara. Do they not involve the opposite of raga and dosa (and maybe moha depending on the action)? Also, does this mean kammically neutral actions don’t create any javana citta?
When we decide to perform an action, the gandhabba sends a signal to the mana indriya in the brain in the form of kirana (ray system). This causes an electrical activity in the brain which will then use the energy that came from food to send this signal to other parts of the body by converting them to suitable electrochemical energies. So conveniently, it should be fine to say there is a mental energy that comes from the gandhabba after deciding, which is then converted to other forms of energy. This is acceptable as long as we are mindful of the fact that this is not necessarily the kammic energy generated by javana citta that can create kamma vipaka in the future. But it is a mental energy that comes from hadaya vatthu (which is sustained by the kammic energy that caused the existence of gandhabba.)
P.S. Cittas arise and fade away. So it is understandable that there has to be some form of energy causing this. A gandhabba is sustained by the kammic energy that led to its existence. So when one decides to do something with vaci sankhara, several cittas are created by the hadaya vatthu. This energy comes from the kammic energy sustaining this bhava.
1 user thanked author for this post.
From their point of view, they are correct and have your best interests and heart. They likely think that you are misguided and want to point you in the right direction. Seeing things from other people’s perspectives can be challenging but goes a long way.
You may be right. But they did try to force their beliefs on to me. I consider that a harassment.
Thanks for your reply, Yash. I have always struggled with building compassion towards people who like to spew their insecurities out on others. I guess I need to work on myself there.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’m sorry for asking too many questions. The reason I’m asking is because some of the views presented in this website are really unique compared to many other sources. But I am glad to see that you are really passionate about what you’re doing. I will see if my confidence also strengthens with time. I have learned a lot through this website but there’s still a lot more left. Honestly, I’m quite excited as it feels like a steak dinner waiting to be eaten.
The Abhidhamma is a highly intellectual theory of nature for sure. I have not seen any other theory/philosophy that explains the conscious experience to such a great depth. Bhikkhu Bodhi does acknowledge that Buddha’s dhamma is the foundation of Abhidhamma even though he doesn’t seem fully convinced that Buddha taught it to devas in tavatimsa realm and gave a summary of each discourse to Sariputta.
Dr. Lal, you wrote: “Detecting/experiencing a single citta or a suddhāṭṭhaka is possible only for a Buddha. Anyone else, including Arahants, cannot do that.” Why exactly are you so confident that no one other than Buddha, not even Arahants can discover those aspects of Nature? If Arahants recited the finalized Abhidhamma, should it not be explicitly mentioned that this is the work of Buddha? Interestingly, it also doesn’t seem mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka that “Abhidhamma is a later addition which was invented by bhikkhus” or something like that. If Arahants recited the completed Abhidhamma, they would have directly mentioned that it is not Buddha’s work if it wasn’t. It looks like they neither clearly mention Buddha taught it nor he didn’t.
I wish resolving this issue was easier. I’m just curious because I want to figure out the truth for myself. Maybe you could share your thought process a little more which I’m sure will be beneficial to me and others who read this.
Some people say Abhidhamma is a “later addition.” That is the approach taken by those incapable of comprehending the deep Abhidhamma. Only a Buddha can provide such a detailed and self-consistent analysis of how the mind works.
You seem to be mostly right. When I was researching this issue online, I did see some Dhamma teachers that seem terrified of Abhidhamma and they say it is better to not spend much time in it by claiming “Buddha didn’t teach it.” This monk is an example: Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha
Interestingly though, someone like Bhikkhu Bodhi who wrote a book on Abhidhamma also said he agrees with that assessment: The Theravada Abhidhamma with Bhikkhu Bodhi (Class #1, 5 Mar 2018)
- Bhikkhu Bodhi argues that there is no mentioning of Buddha teaching Abhidhamma to the monks in the Suttas. Rather, it occurs when monks are having discussions with each other. (Start watching from 6:24)
- In the page Abhidamma – Introduction, you provide clear evidence from different parts of the Tipitaka that all 3 Pitakas were recited at the first Buddhist council, Buddha did spend time in Tavatisma realm, and in one story, it is even directly mentioned that Buddha taught Abhidamma to the devas in Tavatimsa.
- Above combined with the fact that Abhidhamma seems fully consistent with the Suttas do suggest that Buddha did teach Abhidhamma.
- But you also state in the above referenced page: “The minute details on the structure of a citta vithi (a series of citta) of 17 thought moments, with each citta lasting sub-billionth of a second, can be seen only by a Buddha.” If you don’t mind me asking, how did you come to this conclusion? Is it mentioned anywhere in the Tipitaka that such intricate details can only be discovered by Buddha? Is it not possible for Arahants too?
Amazing! Buddha dhamma seems analogous to a huge circle. In a circle, if you start from a point in the circumference and follow all the connected points, you will eventually end up in the same point you started with. In the same way, when you start studying Dhamma with a concept and continue following the connected relevant concepts, it seems like this will eventually lead to the same concept which will clarify the bigger picture. It is crazy how self-consistent this is.
This is why I say that the Buddha was the greatest scientist who ever lived! Nowadays, people are fascinated with quantum mechanics, but the Buddha described the most fundamental quantum system (the mind) 2600 years ago.
This is utterly fascinating. I love Science but I have noticed that its biggest limitation is dealing with subjective experiences. Mental Phenomena are arguably the most complex things in the universe and while Science is still at an elementary stage, Buddha provided different layers of deep explanations regarding how the conscious experience arises. And to think that he had all this knowledge while sitting at the base of a fig tree 2600 years ago is insane. Damn what a chad Buddha was.
Thanks a lot, Dr. Lal. I hope this will be my last post on this thread. I will try to summarize my understanding. Please feel free to correct me wherever I say something incorrect.
So Buddha rejected both no-self and self:
Why he rejected no-self:
A sentient being (or a ‘person’) has a perception of ‘me’ and is made up of 5 aggregates which came into existence via Paticca Samuppada process i.e. past causes and prevailing conditions. It would be incorrect say that they don’t exist when they obviously do. I exist as a human because of the past kamma that ripened and led to this existence. This existence, along with the associated suffering, is very real and unless I implement Buddha’s teachings, the future suffering (in the apayas) will be even more intense. So the uplifting part is that, as humans we have the ability to change our destiny.
Why he rejected self:
There is no unchanging entity that defines the essence of an individual. Both our physical and mental bodies are dynamic in nature as they change from moment to moment. Furthermore, we can’t choose what future existence we shall have as after the kammic energy of this existence is over, next existence is not determined according to our desire but via Paticca Samuppada process. Since most existence occur in the apayas, the 5 aggregates lead to suffering in the long run. So it would not be fruitful to say something is our self when it can’t be maintained to our satisfaction and lead to suffering in the long run. Hence, each lifestream does have uniqueness or individuality but it is not some immortal trait that can be relied upon.
What an arahant realizes:
After enlightenment, the arahant continues to exist, experiencing the world with the 5 aggregates (that came into existence due to past kamma) but they won’t cling to them. They know that these aggregates can’t be relied upon for their satisfaction in the rebirth process. Slightly different way of describing this is that due to Paticca Samuppada, past causes and prevailing conditions led to the existence of their physical & mental bodies which will continue to exist till they die. Past Kamma also led to a built-in distorted perception and while an average human would easily be deceived by it, an arahant won’t be. This is why an arahant’s mind won’t attach to any sensory input. They have self attributes like anyone else but having understood the Tilakkhana with wisdom, they are willing to give up the 5 aggregates and embrace Nibbana.
What happens after an arahant’s death:
The 5 aggregates cease to exist and their mind is merged with Nibbana which exists but not in this world. In Abhidhamma language, the conditioned elements i.e. citta, cetasika and rupa are replaced with the unconditioned element called Nibbana. Since the mind can’t grasp another existence, the lifestream now ceases to exist anywhere in the 31 realms. It is easy to misunderstand this by thinking it is some form of annihilation but since Nibbana exists and the 5 aggregates don’t define a “real person” anyway, it is actually the ultimate liberation.
This is one of the craziest concepts I have ever attempted to learn. It doesn’t surprise me that it is arguably the most misunderstood aspect of Gautam Buddha’s teachings. I still think this is not a 100% clear to me but I feel like I am getting closer. I will continue to read the different pages and discussions pertaining to this topic on the website. Thanks again, Dr. Lal.
Dr. Lal, thank you for the response. I went through your explanations in this thread and read a few other pages pertaining to this topic. Based on my understanding, I will try to summarize my response in the same format below:
- So according to the law of Paticca Samuppada, it is not correct to say that ‘I’ don’t exist because I do. But I should also understand that what I perceive to be me/mine are the 5 aggregates which are not under my complete control. These evolve according to natural causes and not according to my desires. Of course, I don’t want to be born as a wild animal and get eaten alive. But if I have the appropriate character or gati, it can happen. The fact that majority of the discovered sentient beings are in the wild gives a clear sign that many of them have the existence they didn’t desire. So it is not fruitful to say that the 5 aggregates are “mine”. This almost appears paradoxical because how can I say that ‘I’ exist if the 5 aggregates aren’t mine?
- Since the law of paticca samuppada causes a person to exist, a human does have free will?
- Yash RS clarified what I meant. So each human has a built in distorted perception. What makes an arahant unique is that their perception won’t be defiled since they won’t attach to any sensory input. The 3 marks of existence (anicca, anatta, and dukkha) are crystal clear to an arahant’s mind which is why they naturally (or automatically) avoid generating mental defilements. This means that they do not take the 5 aggregates to belong to them or their “self” but till they die, they do have personality attributes.
- I should have been more clear on this. An arahant obviously has a heightened awareness, right? What we can perceive with our senses is pretty limited, considering the complexity of the universe. For instance, the visible range is tiny compared to the wide electromagnetic spectrum. Even an unenlightened individual can use anariya jhana to increase their awareness. An arahant has perfected insight to the true nature of this world. So they should likely know, precisely, what Nibbana is. By that, would an arahant’s mind be discernible to us?
- This is really interesting. People that do “astral travel” say that when they have an out of body experience (OBE), they are still connected to their physical bodies via a “silver cord” and as soon as they think about their bodies they are pulled inside. I wonder how “different” are the cases of Near Death Experience (NDE). Dr. Sam Parnia described that death is more of an ongoing process rather than an instantaneous event. When an NDE experiencer is temporarily out of their body, I wonder if they are still connected to their bodies like in the case of meditation induced OBEs and if so, at what point they become disconnected.
I agree that Buddha’s teachings are really deep and difficult to understand. As a 22 year old software engineer, I thrive with logic and reasoning but I also have many personal issues. I apologize for my confusions but most discussions of Enlightenment I find online are just philosphical arguments that only perpetuate my confusion. Hopefully, my understanding grows with time.
I’m not a scientist who believes “science can never be wrong” but one who has many questions about the world which is why I want to study Buddha’s teachings. I appreciate your elaborate response and will look into the pages you referenced.
I am curious to know how you come up with the information you present in this website. It seems different from other (western) sources of Buddha dhamma. For instance, where can I find the description of 4th Jhāna (or OBE) in the Tipitaka? Also, why is it that you claim Abhidhamma can only be discovered by a Buddha but western scholars like Bhikkhu Bodhi say it was likely a later addition?
