[pathfinder]

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.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

Just clarifying :) Thank you for the discussion!

[pathfinder]

“that is covered if one can see the truth in the current version of the Tipitaka.“

Do you mean the truth of Buddha Dhamma?

[pathfinder]

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.

Jittananto, Yash RS

[pathfinder]

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.

Yash RS, dosakkhayo, Jittananto

[pathfinder]

“Not sure what counts as “strong evidence” to you, but the description of the first Buddhist Council is in the Tipitaka itself. Read, Pañcasatikakkhandhaka”

What I mean is evidence outside the tipitaka to corroborate its validity, eg external accounts, archeological evidence that the first Buddhist council did occur.

Perhaps I can give the following simile to illustrate my point.

Let’s say in the Russian-Ukraine war, in the Russian media they would promote the narrative that the Ukrainians started the war, they attacked first. As a Russian, if I only have access to Russian media, I would believe this to be true. It is also possible that the media can try to make everything internally consistent. Given access to limited information, the Russians themseleves may find it hard to prove against this.

However, if I were to watch it from the outside, we have other means of corroborating and discovering the truth, eg looking at satellite images, looking at accounts from both russian and ukraine side, accessing military documents.

Another simple illustration: there are accounts of Jesus’ resurrection in the Bible, would you take that to be true? How will you investigate it? You will try to see if there are non-christian sightings of Jesus after his crucification etc.

Likewise, we now only have one source, the tipitaka, and from the tipitaka we try to figure out whether it is true based on its consistency and based on whether it corroborates with what we know today. However, we do not have aracheologic, third party evidence to say that what they wrote were indeed, factual and words of the Buddha. For example, a strong evidence would be texts or inscriptions of non-buddhist saying “this indeed happened, this conversation indeed took place, the tipitaka does include factual accounts”. Now we have a non-biased source to improve its validity. In history, to prove the validity of an event, it is good to have multiple, non-biased sources.

—

1. Analyzing the self-consistency
2. Examining the consistency with observed facts
3. Using one’s direct experience

This is what we have been doing so far, and I agree that it is helpful. But if we know of these unbiased, third party evidence outside the tipitaka, it would be immensely helpful in  building credibility as well. Otherwise we can only use logic and deduction from looking at the tipitaka for its validity. Of course, such evidence could well be impossible to find.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[pathfinder]

Hi TripleGemStudent

Yes, that is what I initially thought as well. However, I found that dosakkhayo’s point makes sense as well: “Anicca signifies the discrepancy between the natural law and our distorted expectation that things will unfold as we desire” 

If we take anicca to be “not icca/ not to our liking”, then it implies that we have icca for it in the first place. But do we have icca for everything? Would we ever think of a puddle of water as either nicca or anicca? If we do not cling to the puddle of water, it is neither nicca or anicca to us. Since anicca, dukkha, and anatta are linked (Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ, yaṁ dukkhaṁ tadanattā – whatever is anicca is dukkha, whatever is dukkha is anatta) if the puddle of water does not cause dukkha to us, then it would not be anicca too by the logical statement. The puddle of water will only cause dukkha if we attach to it. Which is why I think it can be helpful to think of anicca with respect to clinging/ panca upadana khanda, on top of how things are conditioned, and not that every single thing is anicca.

 

[pathfinder]

Yes, I did! To summarise the points relevant for this discussion:

Tipiṭaka – The Uniqueness of Buddha Dhamma

• The uniqueness of the dhamma
  • This I agree, if it is unique, it is less likely to be made up by someone or groups of people

Pāli Canon Is Self-Contained but Requires Detailed Explanation

• Reliability of oral and written transmission
  • This I do not doubt. However that still does not prove that the first version of the tipitaka to be factually and historically true, it only means that the tipitaka we have now is very close to the tipitaka they first drafted

Introduction – A Scientific Approach to Buddha Dhamma

• Using Buddha Dhamma as a working hypothesis and theory to explain reality and see if it is true
  • Yes, this is what we have been doing to prove point 2, whether the words of the Buddha are true

I first came upon this line of thinking when I did a search and did not find strong evidence pointing to the first arahant council, there is also skepticism among scholars whether it happened (Buddhist councils).

What we have now do not strongly point to whether the contents of the tipitaka are factual or not, eg some would argue if they are made up or exaggerated, especially the mythical phenomenons, eg talking to devas, pretas. Some would also argue if they were made up. Of course, if we were to take the assumption that they were written by arahants, then they should no have lied as well when creating the tipitaka.

 

I would also understand that such factual information would be hard to come by, then we will have to use our own logical reasoning to think and see for ourseleves whether the teachings are true or not.

[pathfinder]

Does this mean that an arahant does not experience anicca nature, since the arahant does not have panca upadana khanda? Same for dukkha (but he would still experience dukkha dukkha, physical suffereing) and anatta.

Since the arahant will see everything as like water evaporating, it is not anicca to him since he does not cling on to it too, it is just a natural phenomenon. He doesn’t even have to contemplate death of his parents as anicca! It will just be like water evaporating. But for those below the arahant level, they will need to continue to contemplate those that they cling on to as anicca.  

[pathfinder]

“Anicca signifies the discrepancy between the natural law and our distorted expectation that things will unfold as we desire.”

This is an interesting point. If I were to understand it correctly, if we see a puddle of water evaporate, that is not anicca to us because we do not cling on to it, but it is also true that the puddle of water cannot stay like that permanently. 

Therefore when the Buddha says rupa/ vedana/ sanna/ sankhara/ vinnana is anicca, he is only referring to those of pancauppadanakhanda. Would you say so?

2 users thanked author for this post.

Jittananto, dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

Lal: Thus, one can get to the same “paccupaṭṭhita sati” (bahiddha vinnana) by contemplating the origin of vedana (which means the origin of samphassa-ja-vedana.)

I see! This links well to the previous line: Samudayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā vedanāsu viharati – which also talks about contemplating the origins of vedana. I can roughly see how the words would come together to form this interpretation, it makes sense as well. Thank you for the breakdown! 🙏

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

Thank you. But I am curious how you would translate ‘Atthi vedanā’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti, this sentence as a whole with you interpretation. I think it would be helpful for understanding as well.

[pathfinder]

Lal: As we have discussed, there are many such “dual use” words.

I agree, but how do we know that this is a case of dual use? Just because it has a deeper meaning, does not necessarily mean that it is as intended by the sutta.

• Another reason why I am skeptical about this other meaning is because I am unable to find other suttas with that same, deeper meaning of paccupaṭṭhitā. They do not have the element of paticca samuppada within.
• Additionally, for a word to make sense, it should be able to tie in with the rest of the ideas in that sentence, eg for ‘Atthi vedanā’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti, the idea of sati paccupaṭṭhitā should be able to tie in with the rest of the sentence, which i struggle to find a way to do so using the deeper meaning. I would be glad if you could show how you can translate that sentence.

From this I also have another reflection, which is “how do we know that we are not overcomplicating things by adding deeper meanings to the sutta, making it much deeper than it is intended to be?”

One possibility would be to look at the context of the sutta. If it is towards a lay person who came across the Buddha for the first time, it is unlikely that the Buddha would use complicated concepts and words to speak to that lay person. In this sutta, it seems to be spoken to bhikkhus, so it is possible for deeper meanings to be conveyed since we can assume that they should have the background knowledge. However we must be cautious that they may not have abhidhamma knowledge too. I have also raised the above 2 points for consideration. 

[pathfinder]

In most suttas, paccupaṭṭhitā does not have the deep concept of paticca samuppada. It seems to have a more simpler meaning of “to present”, “to give” “to give rise to”, eg in Hatthakasutta  

catasso ca pajāpatiyo manāpāmanāpena paccupaṭṭhitā assu.

while his four wives attend to him in all manner of agreeable ways.

in Saṅgāravasutta

Tena kho pana maṁ, bhāradvāja, samayena pañcavaggiyā bhikkhū paccupaṭṭhitā honti

Now at that time the five mendicants were attending on me, thinking,

in Pītisutta

Tumhe kho, gahapati, bhikkhusaṅghaṁ paccupaṭṭhitā cīvarapiṇḍapātasenāsanagilānappaccayabhesajjaparikkhārena.

Householders, you have supplied the mendicant Saṅgha with robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick.

—

Therefore, while I agree on the mechanism that we experience distorted kamma sanna from an aramanna, and that it is good to observe, contemplate and restrain generating nava kamma after we generate purana kamma, I am not sure if sati paccupaṭṭhitā itself is intened to capture this deep mechanism.

I did not manage to come across a sutta which uses paccupaṭṭhitā with a deeper meaning. sati paccupaṭṭhitā also only appears in this mahasatipatthana sutta, so it does not seem that “sati” and “paccupaṭṭhitā” is meant to be together. I also have 0 search results for “paccupaṭṭhita sati” in sutta central (by the way, one can look up which sutta contains a specific word by using the search button in sutta central, this is how we can compare the meanings of words between suttas).

—-
‘Atthi vedanā’ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti

Would anyone be able to share how they can interpret this segment using sati paccupaṭṭhitā to be “bahidda vinnana stage”? (this is very truncated, but I mean Lal’s above explanations on the essence of sati paccupaṭṭhitā as well) This would be my breakdown attempt:

‘Atthi vedanā’ti – “There is vedana” (‘ti is used as a closing inverted comma ” in Pali)

vā – or (not sure how to use use it)

panassa – for him (ubhayāni kho panassa pātimokkhāni vitthārena – both monastic codes have been passed down for him) Ubbāhikāsutta

hoti – to be

sati (Sati in Ānapānasati/Satipaṭṭhāna – Two Meanings of Sati)

• mundane meaning: aware, mindul, pay attention
• deeper meaning: focus attention on getting rid of “immoral thoughts, speech, and actions” AND on cultivating “moral thoughts, speech, and actions.”

paccupaṭṭhitā – Lal said: Paccupaṭṭhita comes from “paccaya” + “upaṭṭhita” meaning “arose” via Paticca Samuppada (cause and effect.)

Alternative explanation: “to present”, “to give” “to give rise to”

If we take the alternative explanation, the line can be translated to: “Sati (mindfulness) that Atthi vedanā’ti (‘there is feeling’) paccupaṭṭhitā (is present) panassa (in him).” I am not sure how it would work out with the deeper explanation, especially when it has to be in line with “Atthi vedanā’ti”

[pathfinder]

In the Bhikkhunikkhandhaka, there are 8 rules which the Buddha gave at the start of the sutta before allowing bhikkhunis to join. Some of them seem discriminatory, especially the following 2:

1. A nun who has been fully ordained for a hundred years should bow down to a monk who was given the full ordination on that very day, and she should stand up for him, raise her joined palms to him, and do acts of respect toward him.

1. Vassasatūpasampannāya bhikkhuniyātadahupasampannassa bhikkhuno abhivādanaṁpaccuṭṭhānaṁ añjalikammaṁ sāmīcikammaṁkātabbaṁ.

8. From today onwards, nuns may not correct monks, but monks may correct nuns.

 8. Ajjatagge ovaṭo bhikkhunīnaṁ bhikkhūsuvacanapatho, anovaṭo bhikkhūnaṁ bhikkhunīsuvacanapatho.

Is this the correct translation, and if it is so, why would this be a rule – why would monks be more respected than nuns?

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[Author]

Posts