Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Lal, I have understood the above, but I was wondering if there are direct methods to reduce asmi mana.
For example to reduce lobha, we can try to give more (dana). To reduce dosa, we can do more metta bhavana. We can also contemplate the anicca, dukkha anatta nature to reduce attachments to wordly things.
In that sense, are there any contemplation practices to reduce asmi mana head on?
I have the same problem as Aniduan. I find that a lot of suffering i face is due to ego. However it’s not like contemplating on sense pleasures – here i can say that ice cream is anicca and hence not worth pursuing. But for pride and ego, it is not something that i willingly grasp in the first place, I would be more than happy to let it go! I know very well that my sense of self is of anicca, dukkha and anatta nature, but i automatically still hold on to it.
Eg if my boss scolds me, it would be wonderful if I have no ego. Or if someone spreads falsehoods about me.
In this case, how will yall contemplate on things that affect your ego? Is there a form of meditation that we can do to actively target this sense of self/ego?
Thank you Yash for this insightful conversation! Im just not sure of one thing though:
Yash: We don’t need if something is impermanent or not, even if we were immortal and everything was there with us forever, the above mentioned things would still apply to them! They would still be unsatisfactory!
Arent things of anicca nature because they rise and pass away? (See Anicca – Repeated Arising/ Destruction), and hence we cannot maintain them to our liking?
Let’s say we can be born a brahma and live as a brahma permanently (no rebirth), would you still say that this is anicca?
2 users thanked author for this post.
Hmm i guess to relate it to us as an extreme example if we see someone spit on a buddha statue that we visit often then we wouldn’t like it too! At that moment some of us can be quite agitated, if we are not well practiced on the path then all hell can break loose. Although it is more extreme than the 2 examples you’ve mentioned, we don’t know how much value they put into these symbols.
Something that helps me get less agitated is to try and understand the causes, eg reason why they are acting this way. Is not just for religious beliefs but anything in general! From the dhamma we are further equipped with the knowledge that they are acting based on the gati and 5 aggregates, but even without that by learning the “mundane causes” eg they grew up with it, their parents told them about it, they respect their parents too, their whole community cares about it, you insult this you insult their community, they are close to their community etc can make you less angry!
Also when I find myself angry I try to think of it as “my fault” for being angry. How can we let our anger or happiness be subject to the external conditions! We have learned that it is in the mind. Then it becomes a “test” that i have failed, an area for improvement. It lets me learn “hmm something is still wrong with my understanding here.” then I try to reflect with dhamma principles until I am not annoyed. But it is still difficult because my puthujjana instincts kick in.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Thank you taryal. In that case i’m quite comfortable with switching around meanings, but i’m starting to doubt if it is the right approach. As mentioned then it would become “many characteristics of nature” instead of just 3.
To make the point clearer, if we give a name to each of the different meanings of anicca, then there will be more than 3 words to describe nature! Not sure if that’s what they intended for when they try to name it “tilakkhana”, I would interpret that they did intend for 3 characteristics.
An interesting point to note is that in Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta – Distortion Timeline
Post:
- The TipiṭakaCommentary Paṭisambhidāmaggapoints out (in the “Vipassanākathā” section) that the following words can be used to represent “anicca” nature: Palokatoti (subject to destruction), Calatoti(unsteady/shaky), Pabhaṅgutoti(breakable), Vipariṇāmadhammatoti(subject to unexpected change), Vibhavatoti (tendency to wear out), Saṅkhatatoti (prepared – by the mind), Maraṇadhammatoti (subject to inevitable death), Addhuvatoti(not permanent).
These words all point towards the meaning of “deterioration”, not so much on “vexation” or “leading to more suffering in the future”. Although these other meanings can be derived. Here I would then infer that the above synonyms should be taken as the root meaning of anicca.
However anatta here has 2 rather distinct meanings:
post:
Paratoti (not belonging to oneself), Rittatoti (devoid of value/meaningless), Tucchatoti (to be looked down upon), Suññatoti(devoid of anything meaningful), Asārakatoti (devoid of anything useful.) The translation of “anatta” as “no-self” is also only close to Paratoti (not belonging to oneself) in the above list.
Here I would be wrong in saying that there is a root meaning as there are 2 rather distinct ones, on ownership and on value. Or it is also possible that the word anatta itself is supposed to capture both, instead of “either or”. I am uncertain about that too as mentioned with my chinese example, but I cannot rule out that possibility still.
All the best! And please do it tactfully with minimal pressure!
Jethavanarama Buddhist Monastery explains buddhist concepts very clearly without invoking kamma and rebirth at the start. I found their explanations very good when trying to explain things with my friends, didn’t even have to call it “buddhism” in the first place, just using logic and personal induction. This Sermon is one of my favorite explanations to get started, on the cycle of wanting.
It would be good to have some understanding of Christianity too. All religions have morality as a common point so it can be discussed as well. But you need to be ready that some christians view buddhism as “demonic”, and not be upset and turn it to a heated discussion. Some just have strong views like that. Don’t come in with too much expectations!
Also to fully comprehend the dhamma we need to learn the wider world view, but that can be later if she is receptive.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Taryal: It is worth learning Pali if one is serious about practicing Dhamma!
It’s not about learning Pali, but rather which meaning to use for that word. As mentioned each of them can have quite different (but related) meanings!
Lal: As one’s understanding increases, one can see the applications of such different meanings in different contexts.
Yes, but I was afraid that the “three characteristics” would suddenly become “many characteristics.” Hence I had the interpretation that there should be a meaning that stands out more than the others, the meaning that should be contemplated more often.
Eg if we take anicca to be “Cannot be kept to liking” as one meaning and “vexatious and causing pilana” as another, then it becomes 4 characteristics of nature! Or anatta as “Of no benefit” or “Cannot be fully controlled” then that becomes 5 characteristics. I have listed more above, the meanings are quite distinct.
I also found it unlikely that the meanings are stacked on top of each other. Copied from my other post:
eg for chinese, to say both “not yours” and “not to your benefit” I have to use 2 separate phrases “不属于你 (bù shǔyú nǐ) and 对你没有好处 (duì nǐ méiyǒu hǎochù). Because they are 2 distinct set of meanings! It is possible that one word has 2 meanings and used either/or (like a pun), but rarely are 2 meanings stacked on each other.
Or should we not worry too much about sticking to 3, as long as however we contemplate leads to reduction of tanha then it’s alright?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I can only give my 2 cents here but after learning the dhamma I found some of my friendships “burdensome”, particularly those that I am not close to. I am also in a relationship but I do not fully perceive it as anicca, dukkha and anatta (sanna wise), even though the ultimate reality as preached says it should be so (I entered the relationship before learning dhamma).
But I also realised that some of my hobbies have fallen away, there maybe fewer things of common interest eventually. Now the sankhara dukkha becomes more obvious to me, I become less enthusiastic for activities requiring more preparation/ planning, just to see a trace amount of “sights”, but i would still be ok with it (aversion is bad too!)
I wouldn’t discourage it just because we have to see everything as worthless, one has to believe it for themselves and let go slowly, not forcefully. If not that might cause you more suffering. But it is good to communicate how the dhamma might change you as well, because it can change a person drastically. Eg she may be happy to be with you because for now you still share common interest, but learning of the dhamma will fade that away. It is good to manage expectations too! We all know what happens when people see things as nicca instead of anicca! Ideally if she learns the dhamma then it is fantastic.
Just my personal experience and thoughts! Not sure on the perspective of before entering a relationship with dhamma knowledge tho.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Perhaps not “incompatible”, but clear fit, since the rest of the sutta does not talk about benefit. On second thoughts, you are right that there’s no harm adding the meaning of “benefit” to it as well.
Similarly to a query on the tilakkhana forum, I find it not intuitive how we can pack so many distinct meanings into one word (attā): those entities are not to be taken as yours (1) because they provide no value/benefit (2). It seems like more of an either/ or thing. But this is only my intuitive sense of languages! I am also well versed in another language (chinese) and I found it hard to find a word that contains 2 distinct meanings together, not either or (eg 1 and 2 instead of 1 or 2). Normally you can translate a word with few characters/ words of another language, but they both usually just carry one meaning. eg for chinese, to say both “not yours” and “not to your benefit” I have to use 2 separate phrases “不属于你 (bù shǔyú nǐ) and 对你没有好处 (duì nǐ méiyǒu hǎochù). Because they are 2 distinct set of meanings! It is possible that one word has 2 meanings and used either/or (like a pun), but rarely are 2 meanings stacked on each other.
Of course Pali could work differently and there could be multiple meanings stacked on top of each other.
Will select the target “new window” next time. Also got your point on why ahme should not be “us”
Lal: “Amhe” means “belonging to us/ of value to us/ ours” and NOT “us.”
“belonging to us” and “of value to us” is quite different in meaning. In this case should ahme be taken as “belonging to us” instead of “of value to us”, since the sutta is about giving up what’s not yours? The sutta did not mention anything about “benefit”. In that case, the subsequent meaning of attā will have to be adjusted as well, to more of ownership rather than benefit.
I understand that attā could mean “of benefit” in other cases, but it does not seem applicable here based on the rest of the sutta.
Yep, just wanted to find out more about that specific discourse.
And thank you for your tireless efforts to continue to update and create new posts as well!
Ven. Waharaka Thero also touches on this in this Desana
At 8.46 he says that only Ditthi Vipallasa is removed at Sotapanna stage for anicca. At 9.15 he says that all ditthi, sanna and citta vipallasa of anatta is removed at sotapanna stage.
However at 9.36 there is contradiction as he says that all vipallasas for anicca and anatta are removed at sotapanna stage. He then says that sanna and citta vipallasa remains for dukkha and asubha.
This is an english translation, which is why there may be some contradictions in the translation.
Thank you Taryal, Lal. I think I’m almost getting it and will take some time to contemplate further. Will ask if I have anymore queries. And thank you for the discussion thus far, and to the rest in this forum as well. 🙏
Here is where I got the idea that everything is based on paticca samuppada:
Anattā in Anattalakkahana Sutta – No Soul or an Ātma
- The rest of the above verse explains WHY the rupa aggregate is of no essence: “If rupa aggregate is of essence (and is under one’s control), my body (which is a part of the rupakkhandha) would not have ailments, and it would be possible to have: ‘Let my body (or any other rupa) be the way I like; let it not be the way I don’t like.’ But because the rupa is not under my control, it can face unexpected changes, and it is impossible to have: ‘Let my rupa be thus; let my rupa not be thus.”
Here, the verse seems to focus on one’s physical body. But it could also mean any rupa that one likes/dislikes. As we will see, whether it is one’s own body or any other external rupa, they evolve according to Paṭicca Samuppāda (PS.) A rupa does not evolve according to anyone’s wishes, but ONLY according to PS. That has been true for any rupa that ever existed, any rupa existing now, and any rupa that will ever exist, i.e., it is true for rupakkhandha!
- Then that verse is repeated for the other four aggregates: vedanāṇakkhandha, saññākkhandha, saṅkhārakkhandha, and viññāṇakkhandha.
- Here, the words “anatta/anattā” refer to the unfruitful nature of any rupa, vedanā, sanna, sañkhāra, viññāṇa (i.e., one’s world).
—–
Even sankhara and vinnanana does not evolve according to one’s wishes! Then if we say that we have the “free will” in some aspects, does that not mean there we are seeing some things as “atta” nature, to our control? Is it not the same as saying ” Let my sankhara be the way I like; let it not be the way I don’t like.” Will there be any exceptions? The verse said that it is true for saṅkhārakkhandha, or any sankhara that will ever exist! If we say that we have a small amount of free will, then it also means that there is a small amount of sankhara that we can control.
Im still confused about the following:
If everything we do is decided by paticca samuppada then where is the free will? Let’s say I see someone I don’t like and I start generating bad thoughts. Here you may say that we have the free will to stop these thoughts after learning the dhamma. However, isnt this very thought itself, eg “I should stop generating abhisankhara”, come as a result of paticca samuppada? Same goes for gati. You can say that our actions are determined by our gati, so we can change it. But the very thought that “I should change my gati” would come as a result of paticca samuppada. Is there some other process other than paticca saumppada, determining this action? If not, then where is the room for free will?
Here I interpret that we have the impression of free will, eg we can willingly lift up our finger, but based on what I described above, that too is based on paticca samuppada. Please note that I am not incorporating some “mahayana” or “Buddhagosa” teaching. I am saying this from my interpretation of the posts.
Lal: Any existence is GENERATED via the Paticca Samuppada process. No “fixed entity” goes through the rebirth process (samsara.)
Will this be true for the Idappaccayata PS cycle as well? And does PS apply to cittas? If that is true, then can we interpret that there is no fixed entity even from moment to moment?
There also examples raised up to show that there is no determinism. I agree that it would be hard to predict everything, because it is difficult to know what external influences there are. There is also the issue of randomness in quantum mechanics. However the more pertinent point I would like to make is the impression of “free will” that we have.
