Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
pathfinderParticipant
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!
pathfinderParticipantVen. 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.
pathfinderParticipantThank 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. 🙏
pathfinderParticipantHere 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.
pathfinderParticipantIm 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.
pathfinderParticipantThank you taryal, cubibobi. You’re right, this discussion is not fruitful. However, I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about the sense of self.
cubibobi: In this PD community, we have learned that anatta does NOT mean “no-self”; after learning true Dhamma, we see that “no-self” (no permament soul type entity, no “doer” behind phenomena) is embedded in the teaching, not an “ultimate truth” the realization of which brings arahanthood. Yet we still cannot resist bringing up this “no-self” business in a back-handed way via clever arguments. There is something very addicting about this notion.
I am taking this sense of self notion not from anatta, but sakkaya ditthi. I have gained this understanding from the following posts:
Do I Have “A Mind” That Is Fixed and “Mine”?
But it is essential to know that the perception of “me” goes away only at the Arahant stageThere Are Only Causes and Effects
Translation: “A Sotāpanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view (diṭṭhisampanno puggalo) is unable (abhabbo) to fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain are made by oneself (sayaṃkataṃ). Or that they are made by another (paraṃkataṃ). Or that they are made by both (sayaṃkatañca paraṃkatañca). Nor can they fall back on the idea that pleasure and pain arise by chance, not by oneself, another, or both. (asayaṃkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, aparaṅkāraṃ adhiccasamuppannaṃ, asayaṅkārañca aparaṅkārañca adhiccasamuppannaṃ).
– Why is that? It is because a person accomplished in view has seen that phenomena arise due to causes and conditions (according to Paṭicca Samuppāda). Those are the six things a Sotāpanna (or one with higher magga phala) accomplished in view will not fall back to”.This is what I mean by we are just doing things based on cause and effect!
“Me” and “Mine” – The Root Cause of Suffering
- Something that we experience during every waking moment is our body and mind. Therefore, the physical body and all mental entities that arise contribute to the feeling of “me” or “mine.”
8. Paticca Samuppāda process does not care WHO is doing (abhi) saṅkhāra. The results are determined by WHAT KIND of saṅkhāra is involved. That saṅkhāra generation is associated with pañcupādānakkhandhā or one’s cravings/desires/expectations (related to anusaya, āsava, gati, etc.). Results are according to actions. Doing a particular type of action (kamma via saṅkhāra) will lead to the fruits (kamma vipāka.)
- There is no need to invoke a “me” or a “self” in Paticca Samuppāda. But, of course, such (abhi)saṅkhāra are generated BECAUSE there is a sense of “me” or “self.” The critical step is to realize the fruitlessness of acting with a sense of “me.”
9. The ultimate truth is that there is no “self.” That is easy to see because Arahant is not reborn after death. If there were an “unchanging self,” they would still have to exist in one of the 31 realms after death.
- However, until one FULLY comprehends that fact (at the Arahant stage,) one does not FULLY realize that there is no “self” involved in this whole process. Until the Arahant stage, the perception of a “me” and “mine” will be there.
There are more posts about this, but just to list a few. Hence the interpretation I derive is that the sense of self we have is false.
pathfinderParticipantIf that is the case, can you explain how Buddha knew that Santati will attain arahantship and parinibbana that very day? (“Ānanda, this minister will come to see me this very day and after I have given him a short discourse, he will become an arahat. Soon after becoming an arahat he will realize parinibbāna.”) Here he can predict not only what will become of him, but also when! If there is “free will”, then how can the Buddha be certain that he won’t follow his “free will” and do something different?
What I interpret is that this “free will” is a false perception that we have. However, if one looks at it from the outsider perspective, eg Buddha looking at Santati as an outsider, he can predict what will happen to him. However Santati himself will think that otherwise, that he has the free will to do whatever he wants. Little does he know that his fate is already known! Again, please feel free to correct my interpretation of this.
pathfinderParticipantYash: “The correct question should be, why do we feel that there is a Self?
Thats the Perception part. As I mentioned earlier, the mind arises only when the conditions are met.”
Thank you Yash, I think you understand what i’m trying to get at here, right now we still feel that there is a Self but that is only because of the conditions that make this true, and we still feel that we can control things eg change our habits only because of previous conditions which led to this perception.
1 user thanked author for this post.
pathfinderParticipantI can dumb down my argument even further
1) Everything is based on cause and effect
2) With complete knowledge of the causes you will have complete knowledge of the effects
3) With complete knowledge of the effect, since these effects are also causes for the future effects, one can tell with striking accuracy of the state of things in the past and future infinitely, if the being is capable enough to absorb and process all the causes in the present moment.
4) With this, we can also say that what we do next is based on cause and effect, eg the being can predict what we will do next.
Please let me know where I am wrong in 1/2/3/4. I would think that this is a logical conclusion based on cause and effect.
pathfinderParticipantChristian: “The worst-case scenario is when people read stuff, take it, and make a wall for themselves based on it rather than use it for liberation pathfinder is a great example of making the wall for himself – hopefully more people can see through that, and do not repeat the mistake by walling themselves by assumptions without any real experience of jhanas, Nibbana or wisdom.”
This is not true. The reason why I started this forum is because I know there could be something wrong, and I wish to be corrected. I start forums to ask questions rather than give answers. Yet, I still cannot find a satisfactory answer here.
Lal:
- As explained in Abhidhamma, the most potent javana arises when a good deed is done with an understanding of the anicca nature, i.e., when one does it with “sōmanassa sahagata ñāna sampayutta citta” (or “thoughts with joyful mind based on wisdom”) Suich cittas (thoughts) do not arise in those beings in apayas but arise in humans. See “Feelings: Sukha, Dukha, Somanassa, and Domanassa.” (especially #10)
- Humans also have fully developed brains. The brain “slows down” our response to external sensory inputs because it takes time for the brain to process sensory information. See “Triune Brain: How the Mind Rewires the Brain via Meditation/Habits.”
Yes, but what causes these javana citta to arise in the first place? There has to be causes! And even if the brain can be rewired, there has to be causes of someone to rewire it, and causes before causes before causes before causes.
Christian: There is neither determinism nor free will, there are certain mechanics and limitations. Some give us the freedom to act
What is this freedom to act you are talking about? Are you saying it is not based on causes?
Taryal: But to an unenlightened mind that hasn’t transcended the views of “existence” and “non-existence”, it would be unfruitful to declare “there is no self, therefore I’m a zombie”.
Yes, I am not saying that we should just sit back and give up on everything, but we can contemplate that things are ultimately just cause and effect.
Let’s not go into the talk about self or no self. This is my premise: Everything a person does is a result of his 5 aggregates, and kamma vipaka. With this knowledge, we can absolutely predict what someone will do next. For example, the Buddha can predict that someone will see him, become an arahant that parinibanna that very day (King Pasenadi). You guys sound like there is an additional part of the equation, please tell me what it is! And let’s keep the question simple:
What can Laplace’s Demon, not predict? (Laplace’s Demon is a being that has complete knowledge of the world at this present moment, the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed, the 5 aggregates and kamma seeds of every being, the complete understanding of the laws of kamma, paticca samuppada. From this my premise is that he can “calculate” down to the citta level of any being, past and future for as far as he wants, as long as he has complete knowledge of the present values. Of course, his calculation abilities must be infinitely capable)
I would appreciate if you could answer based on this question. I would think that answering this question directly is the most targeted response for this discussion. Again I would like to clarify that I am not teaching this view to anyone, I just want to be corrected.
pathfinderParticipanttaryal:It is true that one’s gati can influence these conscious sankharas (and perhaps does to an untrained mind) but they are not necessarily deterministic and a human can use them to significantly change their gati.
Yes, but what causes the human to want to change their gati in the first place? Is it out of no where? There has to be a cause. Here i argue that the reason why someone wants to change their gati in the first place is because of their previous gati/ 5 aggregates, which is caused by their previous 5 aggregates so on and so forth. There is no room for a doer! It is because there are causes. It is because their very own gati that encourages them to change their gati. Even to stop maladaptive dreaming, you have to change your habits, but what causes you to change your habits in the first place? Other habits before that/ external influences.
taryal: But humans do have the ability to change their destiny.
In the conventional sense yes, we can “choose” whether we want to walk across the street blindfolded or not, we can choose who we want to associate with, but i’m saying in the sense of the absolute truth, at the citta level, the reason why we do all this is nothing more than the outcome of the 5 aggregates and the outcome of the causes at the moment, it is not caused by our additional “free will”.
Since the dhamma is about cause and effect, I would think that if all the causes are known, all the effects are known. There is no room for “own decision making”, because what we do are based on the causes. And that’s why the absolute truth is that there is “no doer”, “no me”, but we have the distorted perception that there is, until we reach the Arahant stage.
Here I would like to make the case that for the story of Ven. Sariputra predicting the outcome of the war, if the Buddha had seen into the 5 aggregates of every soldier in the battlefield, if he could see the kings, generals, worms and birds on the battlefield, and even the butterfly that would flap its wings across the world that may shift the wind, everyone else in the 31 realms present, basically every single thing that influences the war, he would not only be able to predict who wins, but also the number of casualties, the total number of stabs, down to the citta level who dies when. This is because he is fully aware of the causes, hence he will be fully aware of the effects.
I am taking inspiration from Laplace’s Demon, “if someone (the demon) knows the precise locationand momentum of every atom in the universe, their past and future values for any given time are entailed; they can be calculated from the laws of classical mechanics.” Here, instead of just classical mechanics, if Laplace’s demon knows the full knowledge of the world, the laws of kamma and the 5 aggregates, he can derive the past, present and future citta of everyone.
This is what I mean by determinism, everything is determined by the causes, there is no room for an extra “agent” to change the causes, because the agent himself is a product of cause and effect.
I think this is worthwhile contemplating because it would help us remove our perception of self too, if we see that whatever we do is due to the pre-existing causes and not a “doer”
2 users thanked author for this post.
pathfinderParticipantYes, well said, Jittananto, Lal and Christian.
1 user thanked author for this post.
pathfinderParticipantYes, of course one should be able to control oneself in these discussions to prevent it from being heated, and it is wrong to impose onto others, it will be unproductive. However we can always try our luck and see if they are interested. And it doesn’t mean that when you try to introduce the dhamma to other people, you stop progressing on the path. It’s not like teaching the dhamma becomes a “full time job”, one can try to teach it when the opportunity arises, but yes it should not be the main goal. Also, one of the ways of meditation is to teach others! (Vimuttāyatanasutta) This is in line with the Feynman technique where the best way to learn something is to teach it. So far there has not been heated discussions for me, for example one can approach the topic even without rebirth and kamma initially. We do not even need to say that this is “buddhist philosophy” and not include pali words for a start! It is only after they are curious to learn more that you can explain in detail.
Christian: “People who are ignoring Dhamma or not are willing to learn it or practice it, or they are not interested, etc. are not children who are about to eat glass, if you think this way you will pretty much suffer as there is no way to changing the people or the world”
Perhaps my analogy of the glass shard is not good. Let’s say you found out that smoking is harmful, and most people don’t know it. You see that your friend smokes. Would you try to explain to him that it is harmful? If he still doesn’t believe it after some explanation then sure, we can leave it as it is. But at the same time, will you suffer because millions of people in the world smoke? Similarly when your friend has many desires, you can drop the hint “hey, have you ever thought that having desire is the problem?”
At least, the dhamma can be explained. This is where you know your lack of understanding. When explaining to my friends, there are questions which i found hard to answer, which led me to realize the gaps in my understanding.
pathfinderParticipantChristian: “If one reach Anagami or Arahanat then may do “convincing” but at that stage I doubt anyone will see point of doing so”
We can do so out of compassion. If you see a child about to eat a glass shard will you just stand there? And why did the Buddha travel to teach Angulimāla? Of course they tried to preach to those who can understand. For those who cannot, it may be counter intuitive because it will make them dislike the dhamma more. Therefore we have to realise when to stop. But you’re right that we do need some good foundation ourselves.
I would also agree with Lal that just a sotapanna stage is enough. Even if we do not have the complete understanding ourselves, we can still pique their interest and point them to the necessary sites for them to gain a deeper understanding.
pathfinderParticipantI agree that it is kamma generating, but i’m not sure if it is “immoral”. I thought immoral would mean that it would “hurt others”. In this case it would be a more extreme extent of paying for a massage from someone else, but isit morally wrong? Does this mean that paying for sex has a greater kammic impact than taking drugs? In both cases they trap one to the kamma loka and they are one of the more extreme sense pleasures, but im not sure if we can count both as “immoral”. Also, how does marriage “magically” make the act of sex go from immoral to moral? I would think that the laws of kamma would go beyond the conventional terms set up by people. I am saying all this with the scenario that the person is not married/ has a relationship with anyone. Also, was it not normal to have concubines during the buddha’s time? At most they would be regarded as “excessive” sense pleasures, not sure if the tipitaka says anything about concubines being immoral.
Lal: Again, the “pleasure of sex” is “mind-made, even though hard to believe.
Is the sukha vedana not real? because it is felt by the body. I am referencing this to “Only sensory inputs to the “physical body” can bring sukha or dukkha vedanā directly. ” Vedanā (Feelings) Arise in Two Ways
-
AuthorPosts