[pathfinder]

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.

Jittananto, taryal

[pathfinder]

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.

Jittananto

[pathfinder]

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.

taryal

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

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!

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

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. 🙏

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

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.

[pathfinder]

Thank 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 stage

Sakkāya Diṭṭhi and Tilakkhana

There 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.

[pathfinder]

If 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.

[pathfinder]

Yash: “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.

Yash RS

[pathfinder]

I 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.

[pathfinder]

Christian: “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:

1. 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)
2. 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.

[Author]

Posts