Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hotiWould 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”
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.
Thank you Jittananto, Seng Kiat and Lal!
1 user thanked author for this post.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
