Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Lal: The total number of “beings” in our cakkavāla centered around the Earth remains constant, except when Arahants attain Parinibbana at their death and leave this world.
Are beings able to be reborn in other solar systems/ other parts of the star cluster?
1 user thanked author for this post.
“that is covered if one can see the truth in the current version of the Tipitaka.“
Do you mean the truth of Buddha Dhamma?
What I meant was not on the teachings itself, but rather the historicity, whether such events did happen, and whether the tipitaka is faithful to historic events. I believe that sharing of such evidence will be helpful for building faith. For example, if we hypothetically have someone come up to us and say “I indeed heard and saw the Buddha speak to Mogallana on pretas”, will it not help build confidence about the 31 realms? Again I reiterate that this may be impossible to find, but nice to have.
Also we have some scientific discussions that we share to build faith in the dhamma and science forum, such as discussion about humans living much further in the past, evidence of rebirth etc. These are helpful to build faith too. For example with the post on “Evidence of Rebirth”, it becomes easier to believe the wider world view which includes rebirths. If I am a materialist who believes that nothing happens after death, then posts like this can be helpful for developing a more open mind towards rebirths, we no longer have to accept it by faith alone, and we can see for ourselves that rebirth is indeed possible.
But you’re right that we may never be able to prove his teachings to everyone.
2 users thanked author for this post.
You’re right, what matters ultimately is the effectiveness of the teaching itself. We could get trapped and waste too much time finding evidence. To know the effectiveness of the doctor, it is not the clinic, the nurse, the awards that are most important but the effectiveness of the treatment itself.
Of course, these evidence would still be helpful to build faith which makes it easier to absorb the teachings, and I still welcome the rest to share and discuss such evidences if they come across it.
3 users thanked author for this post.
