[pathfinder]

Thank you Jittananto, Seng Kiat and Lal!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

Lal: Once stealing (in that example), one’s mind becomes agitated, leading to feelings of guilt and remorse.

Yes, but what cetasika can be possibly involved in those feelings?

[pathfinder]

What about the feeling after we know we did something wrong? (Remorse or guilt). Let’s say I stole money from someone. After doing that I feel guilty for what I have done, thinking how I could have harmed them etc.

How is there “Ahirika(shamelessness);  Anottapa(fearlessness in the wrong)” in that feeling? Or will there even be asobhana cetasika in the first place?

[pathfinder]

Hi Jittananto, would first of all like to thank you for sharing all these stories, I take great joy in reading them.

May I know what are the sources of these stories? Am i able to find them in the tipitaka/ find their suttas, or who are they written by? When i look into sutta central for Dhammapada verse 182, there is no story, only the quoted verse. 

I am curious to look into their pali- english translation. For example, in the story you sent of the Naga King, they translate “kukkucha” as worry. They give the context given later:

”On seeing the Buddha, Erakapatta related to the Buddha how he had been a bhikkhu during the time of Kassapa Buddha, how he had accidentally caused a grass blade to be broken off while travelling in a boat, and how he had worried over that little offence for having failed to do the act of exoneration as prescribed, and finally how he was reborn as a naga.”

From here, “worry” seems to be an appropriate word to use.  

However, in Key to Calming the Mind – Five Hindrances, Lal translates kukkucha as “the tendency to do lowly things such as mistreating others.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

Well said, Taryal!

[pathfinder]

We can find similarities in Buddha dhamma. For example, the 4 unthinkables – eg the power of the Buddha. from our perspective, we accept it wholly. Likewise for christians, they would accept it wholly that God’s wisdom is far superior.

Taryal: ”How is this not a quintessential case of an ad hominem attack?”

We need not see it as an ad hominem attack. You can also visualise a humble christian who would say “to be honest, it does not seem logical to us now, but we know that god loves us and wants the best for us, therefore he creates our world as it is”

They key is to understand the core concepts of the religion. After that you can understand how and why they answer questions this way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

I am also quite conflicted with this. On one hand, if there are texts around like this website, and one understands it, that means that one can become a sotapanna without listening. This is logical because the dhamma is meant to be understood.

However, if the last ariya dies while this site is still available, does it make sense that this site magically becomes unreadable? Yet we cannot comprehend the dhamma without a living ariya!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

I reflected that as long as you have a believe system, you can typically reason out anything based on that believe system. 

I was reading a book on questions which non believers typically asked christians, it is written by a christian.

One of them was “why is there good and bad in the world where there is god?” And his answer is

• we dont know for sure what is good and bad, his divine wisdom is greater than our wordly one
• so the bad can actually be helping us in god’s view

So you can see that they are able to answer questions, somewhat logically, if you accept their world system. Same for the good and bad problem in buddhism, we explain using kamma. Likewise for science, they would explain it with physical means. Eg before i came across this site when people tell me about ghosts or paranormal things I would explain it with physical explanations, eg maybe he was hallucinating, not enough sleep, so happen that the lamp stop working etc. and that’s because my believe system is as such.

That’s why it is extremely difficult to see the other view as logical, once we believe in a system, we can be quite stuck because all our explanations are satisfactory as long as we believe in the system mechanics. eg for buddhism is kamma, paticca samuppada etc, in christianity it is god and christ. 

Would like to take this time to remind ourselves that we must not be complacent and believe that we have found the absolute truth! That is not to say i don’t believe in the Buddha, I do, but we must remind ourselves that we could well be in the trap of our believe systems just like anyone else and any religion! And even if we believe in the Buddha, we could well be wrong with the interpretations of his teachings.

Which is why we must keep an open mind, not reject opinions and try to see their side, and at the same time rigorously investigate our own.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

Thank you Lal, for making it very clear on how to reflect on bahiddha and ajjhatta for PUK. I fully agree on the logic and process. From there, I would like to clarify the following:

• How is reflecting on impurities (Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ), elements (Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ) and dead body (Navasivathikapabbaṃ) related to bahiddha and ajjhatta?

—–

It is easy to link from the vedana and cittanupassana sections. Eg in the vedana section we are told:

Here, monks, a monk, while experiencing a pleasant sensation, understands properly, “I am experiencing a pleasant sensation” (…words in between…) “I am experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment” (…so on and so forth…)  followed by

“Iti ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā₁₃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati.”

It is then natural to think about “experiencing a pleasant sensation” as bahiddha, and “experiencing a pleasant sensation with attachment” as ajjhattam

—-

Same for cittanupassana 

Here, monks, a monk understands properly mind with craving as mind with craving, he understands properly mind free from craving as mind free from craving, (…so on and so forth…) followed by

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā citte cittānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā citte cittānupassī viharati,

It is also natural as we can see  and “mind free from craving” as bahiddhā  “mind with craving” as ajjhattaṃ

—–

BUT for kaya section, let’s say for the verse from Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ:

Again, monks, a monk reflects on this very body, that is covered with skin and full of impurities of all kinds from the soles of the feet upwards and from the hair of the head downwards, considering thus: “In this body, there are hairs of the head, hairs of the skin, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, marrow, kidney, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, stomach with its contents, faeces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, saliva, nasal mucus, synovial fluid and urine.” (…so on and so forth…) followed by

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati,

• What is the ajjhattaṃ and bahiddhā here?
• Where is the link between PUK and the body of impurities?
• Why is it not linked so seamlessly like vedana and cittanupassana?

In the above post you shared, you talked about how to apply ajjhattaṃ and bahiddhā to any PUK in general. I agree with you fully on the logic. But I my main concern is how is this directly linked to the above contemplations. If it is not directly linked, then why isit written after every contemplation? Is there something we are missing? (same goes for Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ and  Navasivathikapabbaṃ)

Again, I am grateful that you for your patience with my repeated questioning.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Waisaka, dosakkhayo

[pathfinder]

Thank you for clarifying and taking the time to answer lines of questions. And thank you to those who have kindly shared in the forum as well. It is clearer now 🙏

[pathfinder]

I have read the posts. I have given an example of how i would apply bahidda and ajjhata in vedananupassan in the above comment, they are similar to what you said as sukha and somanassa vedana, i just did not write these 2 terms down. Please correct me if i interpret wrongly.

However i say that i still struggle to find the link with contemplation of impurities etc. As you can see my attempt is forced. It would be great if you can give an example how to link them. Linking to the vedana part is easier, since sukha and somanassa links quite well to bahiddha and ajjhattam. but dead bodies and impurities doesnt seem to link directly.

I pointed out: Iti ajjhattaṁ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati (or kāye kāyānupassī viharat)

Here it is more of questioning the exact words. Since  only the words “kaye kaya” is swapped with “vedanasu vedana” in the vedana section, if you say that “kaye kaya” means “a part of kaya” then would “vededanasu vedana” also mean “a part of vedana”? Or, what is the precise meaning of vedanasu vedana?

 

[pathfinder]

I also found it weird that simple words were translated in great detail in the tipitaka, eg  old age in Mahasatipatthana sutta, but not more complex words like anatta

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jarā? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jarā jīraṇatā khaṇḍiccaṃ pāliccaṃ valittacatā āyuno saṃhāni indriyānaṃ paripāko, ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, jarā.

And what, monks, is old age? If there is old age for all kinds of beings in whatever kind of existence, their getting frail and decrepit, the breaking [of their teeth], their becoming grey and wrinkled, the running down of their life span, the deterioration of their sense faculties – this, monks, is called old age.

If i were to try and reason it, it could be the case that there was no need to translate them. Let’s say I write a book now and say “the future is unpredictable”. Need I explain “unpredictable”? But let’s say 2500 years later, when technologies improve, things are almost fully predictable, there may be no more words to fully capture this meaning of unpredictability.

I heard of linguistic studies to show that the words in the language we speak reflects the culture and its focus. I do not have the study, but one example I can raise is “Karoshi”, which means death by overwork in Japanese. This word exists for them but not in english because it is more common in Japan.

Likewise, anatta maybe more common in Buddha’s time, and the culture would have more easily grasped the word, so it could have been not necessary to explain it.

[pathfinder]

Thank you TripleGemStudent for your kind words, we are all striving hard here. 

And thank you for the reference! It is very helpful to think of dhatu meditation this way.

—

I find it easier to link “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati” in the Vedanānupassanā section. Eg we can say when experiencing a pleasant taste of ice cream, it is bahiddhā, but when we start to want more bites from the ice cream and crave the next bite, it is ajjhattaṁ. Would it be alright to say that?

However, I struggle with applying it for the kaya section:

Lal: Here, “kāye kāyānupassī viharati” refers to “a part of the pancupadanakkhandha (PUK).”

• Kaya = PUK.  
• “kāye kāya” refers to other kāya within the PUK. It is the initial stage of PUK, which starts with an arammana. The bahiddha kaya arises first (with “distorted sanna“) and is immediately followed by the ajjhatta kaya (according to the samyojana/anusaya present in that mind.)

Perhaps then, a possible connection between the contemplation how the body consist of what was described, eg hairs of the head, hairs of the skin, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones… and how it links to“Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” could be the following:

If I realise that this body is only made of those impurities, it becomes easier to differentiate what is ajjhattaṁ and bahiddhā. Since in reality, the body only consist of hair, skin, nail etc, whatever sights and sounds that we cling on to are ajjhatam since they do not make up the body.

Seems a bit forced and not correct. It would be great if anyone could present how they would link the impurities to ajjhattabahiddhā.

Lal: Here, “kāye kāyānupassī viharati” refers to “a part of the pancupadanakkhandha (PUK).”

Then, in vedana section:

Iti ajjhattaṃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, bahiddhā₁₃ vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati,

Does “vedanāsu vedanā” mean “a part of vedana”? If yes then which part?

[pathfinder]

Lal: In the “Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta (DN 22)” the following verse appears repeatedly: “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” in the Kāyānupassana section.

Thank you, this clarifies a lot.

Qns 1:

Several translations interpret ajjhattaṁ and bahiddhā as internal and external, it could well be wrong. I know you have written posts about ajjhattaṁ and  bahidda vinnana (as you have given here: Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation, under “Bahidda and Ajjhatta Viññāṇa”). Could you explain how you managed to derive these meanings?

Qns 2:

Additionally, “Iti ajjhattaṁ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati” also comes right after contemplating about the dead body, for example

“Again, monks, a monk, when he sees a dead body that has been thrown in a charnel-ground, being eaten by crows, being eaten by vultures, being eaten by falcons, being eaten by herons, being eaten by dogs, being eaten by tigers, being eaten by leopards, being eaten by jackals and being eaten by different kinds of creatures, regarding his own body considers thus: “Indeed, this body is of the same nature, it will become like that and cannot escape it.”, followed by Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati,

What is the possible ajjhatam and bahidda part we are supposed to contemplate about the dead body?

Qns 3:

‘atthi kāyo’ ti vā panassa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti. This appears in all 6 contemplation of kayanupassana. Would you say “kāyo” here refers to 5 aggregates or the physical body?

Qns 4:

“samudayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, vayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati, samudayavayadhammānupassī vā kāyasmiṃ viharati” – This is also repeated right after “Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati…”

I know it is something about rising (samudaya) and cessation (vaya) of phenomona. Howeverver, are we supposed to

1. Merely observe and note down that the phenomena is arising and falling. This could potentially cultivate anicca sanna. OR
2. Investigate why the phenomena is rising and falling? (This could potentially lead to further investigation of Paticca Samuppada)

I gave example 1 because it normally taught in Goekna Vipassana meditation.

[pathfinder]

Thank you TripleGemStudent, Waisaka, Skywander and Lal for sharing. I agree with your posts thus far, and they are very helpful for me.

TripleGemStudent: In the sutta’s the formula for any dhatu meditation is always  Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti in the end. 

This is interesting and it makes sense to me. could you share a sutta reference?

—-

I notice that we have somewhat different opinions regarding breath meditation. Instead of focusing on that, I hope I can point you towards the following issues instead, and see if they are valid.

The issue I want to clarify is about the Ānāpānapabbaṃ section within kayanupassana section in Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta.

 Kāyānupassanā

1. Ānāpānapabbaṃ
2. Iriyāpathapabbaṃ
3. Sampajānapabbaṃ
4. Paṭikūlamanasikārapabbaṃ
5. Dhātumanasikārapabbaṃ
6. Navasivathikapabbaṃ

I am taking the meaning of anapana from this post: 7. What is Ānāpāna?

Issue 1: Dual meanings of Kaya

Let’s say a basketball coach is writing a book. He says

“Players, this is a guaranteed way to be a good basketball player.”

The outline of the book is as follows:

Chapter 1: Form

Chapter 2: Mindset

Chapter 3: Strategy

Chapter 4: Basketball philosophy

In chapter 1 he talks about the different forms: shooting form, running form, dribbling form. In this case form refers to something like posture. Then in the same chapter 1, he talks about how to form a strategy. Would the coach write the book like that?

Saying that kaya means PUK (pancauppadanakhanda) in one part of kayanupassana section, and kaya means the body in the other part of the section, is similar to the simile I gave above. I am not saying the same word cannot have 2 diff meanings together. Eg “The cook will season the dish this season” However, if you have a chapter about something, eg basketball form chapter, kaya chapter, I find it strange that “form” or “kaya” will have 2 diff meanings in the same chapter.

Issue 2: Structure of sutta.

Using the simile of the basketball book:

Chapter 1: Form

Chapter 2: Mindset

Chapter 3: Strategy

Chapter 4: Basketball philosophy

 In Chapter 1 (Form) he says: You need to practice the good basketball habits, and discard the bad basketball habits. These habits refer to everything, eg habits for mindset, form and strategy. In the same chapter he talks about shooting form, running form and dribbling form. Why does he give this large overview of good and bad habits in chapter 1? It is understandable if he says it before chapter 1, as an overview, but saying within chapter 1 is strange.

Likewise, if you look at the sutta, Ānāpānapabbaṃ is within kayanupassana. If we take the meaning of anapana to be what is explained here (7. What is Ānāpāna?), then we have a problem – why does one part of the kaya section talk about keeping good and discarding bad, which is relatively broad based, and the other part talks about the body, which is more specific? It is like the coach in his form chapter talking about keeping good habits and discarding bad habits, and then talking about dribbling, shooting forms, within the same chapter about forms!

For now, I am not suggesting that we take anapana as breath/ respiration, but I would like to point out the above issues first if we take anapana to be what is mentioned here 7. What is Ānāpāna?. 

[Author]

Posts