[pathfinder]

Lal: There is nothing to do except to eliminate avijja/moha from one’s mind. Then, the mind will automatically stop engaging in akusala kamma, including those three types done by the mind. It happens in a step-by-step process described by #3 above.

Doesnt the Buddha also encourage developing somethings? In Aparaaccharāsaṅghātavagga, he encourages developing Saddhindriyaṁ (faith), vīriyaṁ (effort) and a long list of other things to develop. In developing these things, pañña grows and avijja will automatically be removed. In Paṭhamavagga he also encourages:

“One thing, mendicants, when developed and cultivated, leads solely to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment. – Buddhānussati.

In that case, is there still a Paticca Samuppada process for developing something good?

[pathfinder]

Thank you for sharing, Amin, Hojan! It is a wonderful sermon. My key learning points are as follows

1. He gives the analogy of a street fight between the good viññaṇa (created from Kusala Mūla Paṭicca Samuppāda) and the bad viññaṇa from Akusala Mūla Paṭicca Samuppāda. Our current bad habits are strong because the viññaṇa for them is strong, and to defeat it we need to 1) Starve the bad viññaṇa and 2) Feed the good viññaṇa by thinking about the dhamma. Such that when the stimulus comes up, we will chose to activate the Kusala Mūla Paṭicca Samuppāda instead of Akusala one. He gives the example of YouTube addiction. When we sight/ thought of watching YouTube, the normal response would be to continue wanting to watch it (akusala PS), but with cultivation of good viññaṇa, we will activate the kusala PS and contemple for example, the anicca dukkha anatta nature of it. 

   I noticed in Kusala-Mula Paṭicca Samuppāda, the post needs to be re-written. Lal, would it be possible for you to rewrite this post?

2. He gives another way of understanding PS, which is that even in every frame of the YouTube vid, there is a PS cycle where we have a vedana that we enjoy it, but also ends with jarā, marana, soka-paridēva-dukkha-dōmanassupāyasā sambhavan. However, we do not feel such suffering when watching because each successive frame is so quick. The suffering/ end of the PS cycle becomes obvious when the phone battery runs out suddenly.

   I had another thought which is – what about feelings of satiation? For example, after eating food, we feel full and content, so where is the jarā, marana, soka-paridēva-dukkha-dōmanassupāyasā sambhavan? My response to that is that it is not very prominent becuase the more we eat, the fuller we get, the decrease in sukha vedana and tanha there is for every bite and the less delicious each bite gets, so the dhamma that we receive is less and less pleasureable, and in turn the suffering is less and less as we are more full. However all the while we are enjoying it, we are feeding the viññaṇa for indulging in food.

3. He talks about the Vitakkasanthana sutta. at 1:03:55 He lists the ways to get rid of defiled thoughts in the following order:
   1. Thinking about the good qualities of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, Sila
   2. ādīnavo (looking at the negative side) – what do I lose if I engage in this action? what have I built up so far with my good practice that I will waste and restart my progress? what dukkha will I create?
   3. asatiamanasikāro (to ‘retreat’ or get out from the situation). Eg when my friend invites me to alcohol, I will excuse myself before it gets too tempting
   4. vitakkasaṅkhārasaṇṭhānaṁmanasikātabbaṁ (understand how it arises) Eg when I am trying to stop a cigarette addiction, I can see that every step of the way of going to the market and buying the cigarette is feeding the viññaṇa. Thus it is not enough to just say “stop smoking”, because that way I can be tempted to buy the cigarette and not smoke it, which will spiral to smoking. The viññaṇa should not be fed from the start
   5. Using external force to stop the thought. He suggests attadipatiya (thinking how it aligns to my own personality. I am a moral person, so is it fine for me to engage in this?), dhammadipatiya (the dhamma is well taught, is rarely found. It is a waste to engage in such action with this dhamma I have learnt), and lokadipatiya (that there are people in the world that would disapprove of my actions, eg unseen beings, ariya friends who would disapprove. I have not come across these terms attadipatiya, dhammadipatiya, and lokadipatiya but I think what the venerable mentioned is useful to stopping defiled thoughts.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Amin, dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

Are there other meanings for attā? If attā just means “a person” then this line wouldnt make sense:

“‘Cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya taṃ na upapajjāti. Cakkhussa uppādopi vayopi paññāyati.Yassa kho pana uppādopi vayopi paññāyati, ‘attā me uppajjāti ca veti cā’ti iccassa evamāgataṃ hoti. Tasmā taṃ na upapajjāti: ‘cakkhu attā’ti yo vadeyya. Iti cakkhu anattā.”

Loosely translated (using translation from the post earlier: “If anyone says, ‘The cakkhu is a person (attā),’ that is not tenable. An arising and disappearing of cakkhu (not the physical eye) is evident. If cakkhu is ‘self,’ that would imply: ‘my person (attā) arises and disappears’ That is why it cannot be argued that ‘The eye is person (attā).’ Thus cakkhu is ‘anattā’ (of no value)

And in this case, isnt the Buddha trying explain that things are not attā, but the opposite which is anattā? Which is why he uses these 2 words together to show contrast. That means that anattā should be linked to attā in some way.

[pathfinder]

Oh yes cubibobi, Lal, I talked about the absence of stand alone anatta without long ā that to contrast the statement here:

• ‘That is a critical conclusion that is related to “anattā.” It will also become clear that anattā differs from anatta (without the long “ā.”). Let us discuss anattā in detail now.’

which mean that at the very least, anattā should not differ from anatta, it is just another word form.

—

Although anattā should not refer to the sense of self, is it still useful to reflect that there is ultimately no ‘I’ or ‘self’ when processing vipaka, and that it is ultimately a mechanical process? I think discourses from Jethavanarama buddhist monastery focuses a lot on that.

 

[pathfinder]

Thank you! 

On a side note, in  “Pāli Dictionaries – Are They Reliable?“

Post: Grammar rules are bypassed in some cases. That is clear in verses “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi,” “Dhamman Saranam gacchāmi,” for example.

• There is no subject in the above verse. The first, of course, means, “I take refuge in the Buddha,” but “I” is missing in “Buddhaṃ Saranam gacchāmi.” It is just understood.

If I am not wrong, the I is included in gacchāmi, based on its conjugation, so it is not entirely necessary to add the pronoun ‘I’. In this case, a literal translation would be: ‘Buddha, the Refuge (Saranṃ), (I) go to (gacchāmi)’

I have attached a conjugation table for reference, each word can be conjugated differently based on the pronoun.

This is similar to Passāmi loke sadhane manusse – (I) see rich people in the world, in Raṭṭhapālasutta where the I is not included.

This is my understanding of reflected languages as well, eg spanish, french. And only based on my basic understanding of Pāli! Please feel free to correct me, I have only started learning.

[pathfinder]

Lal: My point was that the merits of giving depend on the giver’s mindset. I think the sutta also tried to convey that idea in the context of that sutta.

Yep! So here we actually find a contradiction between grammatical analysis and actual meaning. Do you take into account grammar when looking at suttas?

[pathfinder]

It does change the meaning! The sentence becomes ‘giving a gift of mental adornation and mental pre-requisites’ instead of ‘with a pre-requisite of a clear mind’. Meaning ‘we should give dhamma’ instead of previous interpretation ‘we should give with a clear mind’

ChatGPT:

• Current grammatical structure: It suggests that “mental adornments and requisites” are what is being given as the object of dāna.
• Your interpretation (“with a prerequisite of a decorated mind”): For this meaning, the compound would need to be in the instrumental case to show that these adornments are a condition for the giving, not the object itself.

I know ChatGPT’s interpretation is less in line with the whole sutta, but grammatically it is more accurate

[pathfinder]

I asked ChatGPT: 

parikkhāra means more like “pre-requisite.”<br />
P.S. “Prerequisite” emphasizes a preceding condition or order, whereas “Requisite” speaks to the fundamental necessity of something.<br />
2. Thus, “api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti” conveys the idea: “instead (compared to the dāna in the previous verses), with a “cleansed mind.”<br />
Literally, it can mean “With a pre-requisite of a decorated mind”.

Do you think this makes grammatical sense?

ChatGPT:

Your interpretation, “with a pre-requisite of a decorated mind”, for “api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti”, raises an interesting perspective, but there are some grammatical considerations that need to be examined.

Grammatical Considerations:

1. Compound Structure:<br />
   The compound “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” is in the accusative singular form (as indicated by the ending -aṁ). In Pali, the accusative case is typically used for the direct object of the verb. In this sentence, it seems like it functions as the object of the verb “deti” (to give). So, grammatically, it is the “mental adornments and mental requisites” that are being given (as part of the dāna).<br />
   For your interpretation to mean “with a prerequisite of a decorated mind,” you would expect “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” to be in the instrumental case (which conveys accompaniment or means). The instrumental case (e.g., “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhārena”) would suggest the idea of “with” or “by means of” something, which would be more appropriate for expressing a condition like a “prerequisite.”
2. Use of “Api ca kho”:
   • “Api ca kho” introduces the sentence with emphasis. It suggests that what follows is an important point or something being added to what was previously mentioned, and often sets up a contrast or continuation. This supports the idea of the phrase contrasting with something before (e.g., a different kind of dāna).
3. Meaning of “Parikkhāra”:
   • As you pointed out, “parikkhāra” can carry the sense of “prerequisite” or “necessary equipment”. It refers to something essential that prepares or furnishes the mind, aligning with your idea of a “prerequisite” for a cleansed or decorated mind.
4. “Deti” (to give):
   • The verb “deti” makes “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” the object of what is being given. If we follow strict Pali grammar, this suggests that what is being given is the “mental adornments and requisites” themselves, not that they are a condition for the act of giving.

Alternative Reading for Your Interpretation:

If you want the phrase to mean “with a prerequisite of a decorated mind”, the compound “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ” would ideally be in the instrumental case as mentioned earlier, like “cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhārena”. This would clearly mark the phrase as a condition or accompaniment rather than the object of the verb.

Does it make grammatical sense?

In its current form, “api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti” makes grammatical sense in Pali as “he/she gives a gift of mental adornments and mental requisites.” However, for your interpretation of “with a prerequisite of a decorated mind” to work, the phrase would need to use the instrumental case to indicate that the “mental adornments and requisites” are a prerequisite for giving, rather than what is being given.

Summary:

• Current grammatical structure: It suggests that “mental adornments and requisites” are what is being given as the object of dāna.
• Your interpretation (“with a prerequisite of a decorated mind”): For this meaning, the compound would need to be in the instrumental case to show that these adornments are a condition for the giving, not the object itself.

So while the idea of your interpretation is insightful, it requires a change in case to align grammatically with that meaning.

—

The grammatical analysis makes sense to me, but it is only based on my basic understanding of Pali from youtube. Do you agree with it? And do you think it is important to take into account the grammar of the words when translating it?<br />
<br />

For reference, the word cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ ends with aṁ, which makes it an object. <br />
Dutiyā Vibatthi (Object, Accusative), eg (Buddho dhammaṃ deseti) – The Buddha (subject) gives (verb) Dhamma (object)<br />
So ‘api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti’ means he/she gives a gift of mental adornments and mental requisites (object)<br />
<br />
Chat GPT is arguing that it should be Tatiyā Vibatthi (By/ through/ with), eg ahaṃ (I) hatthena (by the/with the hand) likhāmi (write)- I write by the/ with the hand. If we want to stick to the intrepretation of ‘he gives with a clear mind’

[pathfinder]

Oh wow so it is literally translated to : “With a pre-requisite of a decorated mind” = with a pre-requisite of a mind that understands tilakkhana/ a clear mind. Thank you!

[pathfinder]

Dānamahapphalasutta 12.11

But they give a gift thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’

api ca kho cittālaṅkāracittaparikkhāraṁ dānaṁ deti.

laṅkāra – ‘ornament’ / ‘decoration’

parikkhāraṁ – “equipment,” “support,” or “requisite.”

When we give thinking ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’, doesn’t that mean we are expecting something in return? It seems like a self-centered thought. Are we supposed to give with the reason and expectation to have a better mind to comprehend the dhamma? It seems like the sutta supports this, as it is a ‘very fruitful gift’.

[pathfinder]

Wonderful! We can see how scientific measurements can go wrong, so the theories developed from them should not be taken as the absolute truth. Thus when we say ‘this teaching contradics science’, we should see how science arrived at these conclusions in the first place, most of the time there are plenty of room for other possibilities.

1 user thanked author for this post.

taryal

[pathfinder]

Lal: All scientific observations of the universe are based on detecting light emitted by the stars.

This is my understanding of how scientists could misinterpret the results of the Big Bang theory. Here are its main arguments and evidence supporting the theory:

1. Cosmic Expanion: They discovered a ‘redshift’ phenomenon where light coming from further away has a higher wavelength. From this, they can measure and figure out that galaxies are moving further and further away.
   1. Scientific Interpretation: If the universe is expanding, there must be a point where the universe is infinitely small. From the furthest star they can see, they calculate the age of the universe to be 14 billion years.
   2. Dhamma view: It doesn’t need to be infinitely small, but it could just be expanding from a beginningless time. The current age is only by the furthest star we can see, but it does not confirm that there are no stars beyond that
2. Abundance of Elements: The theory predicts that there should have been a lot of hydrogen compressed at the start of the Big Bang, which gave rise to other elements. The current measured ratio of elements in the universe matches the expected ratio from the theory. 
   1. Scientific Interpretation: Since observations match theory, theory should be true
   2. Dhamma view: (not sure)
3. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation: In the 1960’s, using a radiotelescope, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a background radio emission coming from every direction in the sky, day or night.
   1. Scientific Interpretation: This was consistent with the Big Bang Theory, which predicted that after the Big Bang, there would have been a release of radiation, which then expanded billions of light years in all directions and cooled to the point that it shifted to invisible, microwave radiation.
   2. Dhamma view: The CMB could have come from other sources

It could also be possible that the dhamma fits big bang theory, where the loka dhātu squeezed together at the start (at the singularity), since they were less dense. Then, this would fit the ‘Big Bounce’ model where the universe constantly expands and contracts.

I have only a limited background understanding of the Big Bang theory, so please correct me if I am wrong!

[pathfinder]

Trying to link to what we already know, the sun is created by hydrogen atoms (possibly from other supernovas) being attracted and increasing in mass which attracts more hydrogen atoms. This means that not much was neccessary at the beginning to create something so huge like the sun! Likewise for Earth and everything else, it starts from tiny to big.

The creation of matter is also quite possible. There are arahants who could create multiple copies of themselves. That means that a simple thing like hydrogen would be possible, which the brahmas could have created with strong javanna power.

I have several questions:

1. Buddhism and Evolution – Aggañña Sutta (DN 27)
   • 2(ii) – The universe is made of an uncountable number of “dasa sa­has­si loka dhātu” (clusters or groups of star systems like our Solar system). Our Solar system is one of 10,000 “star systems” (cakkavāla or planetary systems; chakrawāta in Sinhala) in our “loka dhātu“. 
   • Is each galaxy a “loka dhātu“? For example, we have discovered around 4000 solar systems in our milky way.
2. In the Aggaññasutta, it is said that the Earth’s nectar appears, followed by the sun and moon. Does this mean that the Earth was created first? Is it because the ‘Earth’ as we know back then is different from ‘Earth’ as we know now, it could have been much less dense which scientists don’t consider ‘Earth’?
3. If things are created by thought, why are there seemingly uneccessary matter, like other planets? For example Jupiter is 1300 times the volume of the Earth, but I would guess that the craving for Earth would be much less than the craving for Jupiter. Is the size irrelevant to the desire? If I were to rationalise it, it would be that the desire for bean sprout is the same as a desire for a tree, but both would lead to different sizes.
4. How can we link this world view to our current findings? For example, we know that the universe expanded by looking at cosmic background radiation. Does that mean that all the cakkavāla were ‘squeezed’ together into a small space after they were destroyed, which then expanded to what we know as the big bang? Or could it be that the interpretations in cosmic background radiation is wrong?
5. In physics we learn that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Does this contradict what we have, which is that energy is created from the javanna cittas, which can create matter?

[pathfinder]

Based on the earlier prompts, I ask Chat: did the Buddha say anything about being in the military or war?

ChatGPT:

Yes, the Buddha did address topics related to the military and war. While he did not explicitly condemn the military profession in the same way he did certain trades (such as selling weapons), he emphasized non-violence and compassion. His teachings on war and conflict revolve around the principle of ahimsa (non-harm), which is central to Buddhist ethics.

1. Dhammapada (verses 129-133): In these verses, the Buddha speaks against violence, highlighting the suffering caused by killing or harming others:
   • “All tremble at violence; all fear death. Comparing oneself with others, one should neither kill nor cause others to kill.”
   • “Whoever seeks his own happiness by inflicting pain on others is not released from hatred, being caught in the toils of hatred.”
2. Yodhajiva Sutta (SN 42.3): In this discourse, a soldier named Yodhajiva asks the Buddha about the consequences of his profession. The Buddha explains that a soldier who fights in battle with the intention of killing is likely to face negative karmic consequences. He does not explicitly condemn the soldier but points out that actions motivated by the intent to kill lead to suffering.
3. Mahabharata’s Comparison: Although not from the Pali Canon, in other Buddhist traditions, there are stories that draw comparisons to the Mahabharata and its warrior ideals. However, the Buddha’s emphasis was always on peaceful resolutions and the cessation of violence, contrasting with warrior codes that justify war for duty or honor.

In summary, the Buddha did not encourage participation in war or the military, as it inherently involves harm to others, which goes against the core Buddhist principles of non-violence and compassion. He advised restraint from violence and emphasized the importance of peace and inner reflection over conflict.

—
The most relevant one here would be Yodhajiva Sutta: 

Yo so, gāmaṇi, yodhājīvo saṅgāme ussahati vāyamati, tassa taṁ cittaṁ pubbe gahitaṁ dukkaṭaṁ duppaṇihitaṁ:

When a warrior strives and struggles in battle, their mind is already low, degraded, and misdirected as they think: 

‘May these sentient beings be killed, slaughtered, slain, destroyed, or annihilated!’ His foes kill him and finish him off, and when his body breaks up, after death, he’s reborn in the hell called ‘The Fallen’.

So it is more of the intention rather than the act, corresponding with A Simple Way to Enhance Merits (Kusala) and Avoid Demerits (Akusala)

• If done with wrong vision, with pleasure, and without prompting, it will have the highest strength (of course, this will be the highest BAD strength).
• If done WITHOUT wrong vision, with a neutral feeling, and with prompting, it will have the least strength.

—
On a side note, we need to be discerning with ChatGPT’s answers, it suggested Mahabharata which is a narrative from Hinduism. Sometimes it gives suttas with the wrong content as well.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[pathfinder]

That would be the “Vaṇijjā Sutta“! 

“Trade in weapons, living creatures, meat, intoxicants, and poisons.”

It is not a full time employment, but it is a mandatory conscription so we are in reserve until a war breaks out. Otherwise we just live a normal life and are free to do whatever.

By the way would like to share with everyone, we can find suttas by writing it in chatgpt! (though not 100% accurate)

I typed: the Buddha pointed out a list of livelihoods (jobs) one must avoid; those include selling meat and alcohol, the slave trade, etc.

which sutta?

ChatGPT: The Buddha mentioned a set of livelihoods that one should avoid in the **”Right Livelihood”** aspect of the **Noble Eightfold Path**, which is found in various suttas, including the **”Samma Ajiva Sutta”** and the **”Vanijja Sutta”**.

Specifically, in the **Vanijja Sutta** (AN 5.177), the Buddha lists five trades that should be avoided:
1. Trading in weapons.
2. Trading in human beings (slave trade).
3. Trading in meat or animals for slaughter.
4. Trading in intoxicants (such as alcohol).
5. Trading in poisons.

This sutta emphasizes that one should earn a living in ways that do not cause harm to others.

[Author]

Posts