Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
HugoZyl: The opening post must have taken an hour to write, and the reply by brother Lal more than an hour. What would the Buddha think about us spending so much time typing out long forum posts?
When we write there can be a few reasons:
- It is meritorious to share the dhamma, it said that the gift of dhamma is the best!
- Discussion is a way to better understand concepts, to see where we are wrong, to validate if we are right, just like how teachers would ask us to discuss topics in class
- As we write we are organising the concepts in our mind, so it is a form of contemplation too!
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you! It’s a shame not to be able to understand it, as it is one of the few arguments put forth by Ven Kassapa on how we know there is rebirth. The other arguments are mainly about why Pāyāsi’s arguments are illogical.
However, one things that stood out to me is the simile of being Blind from Birth:
“Chieftain, suppose there was a person blind from birth. They couldn’t see sights that are dark or bright, or blue, yellow, red, or magenta. They couldn’t see even and uneven ground, or the stars, or the moon and sun. They’d say, ‘There’s no such thing as dark and bright sights, and no-one who sees them. There’s no such thing as blue, yellow, red, magenta, even and uneven ground, stars, moon and sun, and no-one who sees these things. I don’t know it or see it, therefore it doesn’t exist.’ Would they be speaking rightly?”
“No, Mister Kassapa. There are such things as dark and bright sights, and one who sees them. And those other things are real, too, as is the one who sees them. So it’s not right to say this: ‘I don’t know it or see it, therefore it doesn’t exist.’”
“In the same way, chieftain, when you tell me you don’t believe me you seem like the blind man in the simile. You can’t see the other world the way you think, with the eye of the flesh. There are ascetics and brahmins who live in the wilderness, frequenting remote lodgings in the wilderness and the forest. Meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, they purify the heavenly eye, the power of clairvoyance. With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, they see this world and the other world, and sentient beings who are spontaneously reborn. That’s how to see the other world, not how you think, with the eye of the flesh. By this method, too, it ought to be proven that there is an afterlife.”
——
It is the fact that there were others who could corroborate the seeing of past lives which makes it more valid! And yes, Taryal has mentioned many other wonderful reasons to build faith.
That’s a sensible explanation! Unfortunately we have no way of confirming it, I won’t dwell into it further as Lal suggested.
1 user thanked author for this post.
It makes sense that the Buddha talks about conditions at the moment. In the 6.2 he says: Suppose there were totally and utterly no upādāna for anyone anywhere. That is, upādāna at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self. When there’s no upādāna at all, with the cessation of upādāna, would continued existence still be found?”
Here it clear that he is not describing the upādāna at the cuti-patisandhi moment, but the upādāna day to day. This is the same for his description for Taṇhā and Vedana. I have some questions though:
——
At 21.1 in Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha says:
‘Consciousness is a condition for name and form’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to understand how this is so. If consciousness were not conceived in the mother’s womb, would name and form coagulate there?”
“No, sir.”
“If consciousness, after being conceived in the mother’s womb, were to be miscarried, would name and form be born into this place?”
“No, sir.”
“If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name and form achieve growth, increase, and maturity?”
“No, sir.”
“That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and reason of name and form, namely consciousness.
Why does the Buddha talk about the mother’s womb when the sutta is about conditions at that time/ Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda?
Another interesting thing is that the Buddha skips saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso in that analysis, and links nama rupa straight to phasso. He also stops at viññāṇa in his anaylsis, he does not go back further to talk about avijja and sankhara.
It is also interesting to note that the Buddha describes another cycle in the middle of the PS cycle:
So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material things. Gaining material things is a cause of evaluation. Evaluation is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of ownership. Ownership is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.
I see. So Idappaccayā can be manifested in two ways.
- In real time like the example given in Idappaccayātā Paṭicca Samuppāda, of the drunk teenager. The (san)phassa paccayā vedanā refers to the good feelings of the teenager at that time.
- The (san)phassa based on conditions at that time, or Idappaccayā (san)phassa can also lead to vedanā at the cuti-patisandhi moment. That is how Idappaccayā upadana can lead to future jati, future old age, and future death.
You said: Suppose a human bhava ends, and that lifestream grasps an animal existence (animal bhava.); let us say it is a deer. That will also take place with an Idappaccayatā Paṭicca Samuppāda process taking place at that time.
Is this not the uppatti Paṭicca samuppāda cycle at the cuti-patisandhi moment?
Not really, im just trying to understand what makes a bad vipaka actually a bad vipaka. I can use more simple examples as well. I have heard of people getting angry when someone gives up a seat for them because they thought they were pregnant when they were just fat, then they get angry because people assume they were pregnant. So im not sure if getting the seat is a good vipaka which made them angry, or a bad vipaka which made them angry.
For a personal experience, I used to feel insulted if someone rejects my compliments. It can be a “neutral vipaka” when someone simply says “im not that good actually”. Or is it a bad vipaka for me because I feel insulted?
Another example: I used to find bananas disgusting to eat. Now I am alright to eat them. Was it a bad vipaka when i ate the bananas in the past, but a good vipaka when I eat them now?
In that case, will a good kamma vipaka always lead to good feelings? In the example you gave, a poor person getting 100 dollars as a good vipaka, there is an initial “good feeling”, that is because the gati of the person perceives it to be good. However, what if the gati of the person perceives it to be bad? Let’s say the person has some superstition against cash, and does not feel good receiving the $100. Would you say that is good or bad vipaka?
I find it confusing because if we agree that the same vipaka can bring different feelings based on our gati, then we can feel happy experiencing bad vipaka, and feel bad experiencing good vipaka, since it is up to our gati.
It brings me joy to read the above discussion! I learnt about theravada concepts from young, but I did not start to seriously read into them until coming across this site. However, I have been asking myself “Why Buddhism” constantly until today. That is because I have seen how other people believe that they find rational explanations for their own religion, and I realise that I could well be in the same group as them. Others will also say that they became a better person following this religion. Until today I am still scrutinising Buddhism, trying to see if my beliefs or the teachings are correct. There still somethings that I cannot 100% convince myself in, such as
- The idea that we have been in countless rebirths
- The idea that we have been born in other realms
Even though the mechanism of the above processes are described (Paticca Samuppada), they are still theories for me which I take as working hypothesis. However, I find that the evidence for rebirth is quite convincing, at least from human to human rebirths. Evidence for Rebirth. This is one of my earliest post that I read which made me read more because the materialist understanding of the world clearly does not account for this.
That being said, I find that Buddhism has by far been the most convincing philosophy to explain the world, and I continue to take it as a working hypothesis. There are some aspects of the dhamma that I do not find it in other religions:
- The Buddha constantly invites people to experience and understand for themselevs rather than believe him purely by faith
- The Buddha is extremely precise in the teachings. Eg in Brahmajālasutta, he gives the exact number of ways how people come to conclusions about certain views, he gives the exact number of wrong views. This is not common in other philosophies or religion which are more extract and do not give such precise explanations.
- The dhamma is extremely consistent. This is also not common across other religions.
- The Buddha has no incentive to lie or bluff that he knows everything
- A relatively clear process of how the teachings are passed down – through the arahant council, and the arahants are those who would have understood the teachings well. Other religions may not be as clear.
One can simply read on other philophies and religions and decide for themselves the quality of explanations. I have talked to people from different backgrounds to compare, and Buddhism is still the best for me.
Upon reflections of anicca dukkha and anatta, I also saw that this applies to everything in our world. Of course, I cannot 100% confirm myself that there is no lasting heaven, but even in this life I start to see that we have been mindlessly pursuing pleasures that have no ultimate essence. Hope this helps!
I see, thank you!
1 user thanked author for this post.
With that in mind, in Pannāvimutti – Arahanthood without Jhāna we discussed how jhana is not required for arahanthood. However, this sutta seems to place an importance in cultivating jhana (I assume they are talking about ariya jhana).
In the later part of the sutta, Sāriputta explains sammāsamādhi as going through the four jhanas. That means that jhanas are part of the 8 fold path! Should we place more emphasis on formal meditation for ariya jhana? Of course, after obtaining right view.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Thank you. I just found it strange that he experiences neutral vedana (neither pleasant nor unpleasant) but finds it pleasant from sañña. I thought that whether we feel something is pleasant or unpleasant is from vedana itself. I will need to re-read the posts on distorted sañña and investigate.
Yes, I agree that the arahant can taste sweetness, it is part of distorted sanna. I am asking if he perceives it to be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral.
2 users thanked author for this post.
In Vedana (Feelings) Arise in Two Ways
It is stated in point 4 that Samphassa-ja-vedana “do not arise in an Arahant”
Since
- We only experience vedana from either vipaka or samphassa-ja-vedana.
- We experience pleasant and unpleasant sensations from vedana
- Arahant has no samphass-ja-vedana
- “All vedanā initially coming through the other five sense faculties are neutral, i.e., adukkhamasukha vedanā.”
Then we can conclude that the arahant does not experience pleasant or unpleasant feelings from an ice cream or rotten meat. However he will still taste ice-cream to be sweet, rotten meat to be sour.
Lal: Even an Arahant tastes ice cream to be tasty/sweet.
Can I clarify that the Arahant will not taste it to be pleasant but netural, because Samphassa-jā-Vedanā do not arise in an Arahant, and Vedanā from sensory inputs other than touch are neutral? That means he would react the same towards ice cream and rotten meat (if it had to be eaten), but he would taste ice cream as sweet and rotten meat as sour, just that he does not find them pleasant or unpleasant.
I had the same misconception that the 9 stages refer to the stages that a single citta goes through.
In Citta Vithi – Processing of Sense Inputs
Does it mean that the later steps of the citta vithi – Vottapanna, Javana, corresponds to the viññānakkhanda stage? And each of the 17 cittas in a citta vitthi can be somewhat mapped to the 9 step citta evolution?
