Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was searching trough the posts but cannot find the passages. So I explain it here.
It is said several times here on the website that a gandhabba is under stress while staying in paralowa. On the other side I remember a doctor who was out of his physical body for some days (coma). He came to a “good location” in paralowa with a “partner” (which was actually his sister, as he found out later). So here we can see that it is not necessarily a stressful stay in paralowa. Also it can be that gandhabbas go into a dream like state which feels timeless. All together I would not say that gandhabbas are really stressed while in paralowa.Non, that is the problem. How can a punna kamma be done with avijja which is lower level moha (that is a cetasika)?
That is clear, but not in terms of Abhidhamma and cetasika. Punnabhisankhara should not contain asobhana cetasika.
Hi Lal,
on May 14 you wrote:
“Yes. Moha is a cetasika. Avijja is not moha, but a reduced form of moha.When one does punna kamma, it is the avijja cetasika that is involved (unless one has comprehended Tilakkhana, in which case it becomes a punna kiriya, without kammic consequences).”
Avijja is not a cetasika, moha is. Anyway, how can one do punna kamma with avijja, when this good act involves sobhana cetasika? Are the citta vithi mixed: sobhana/asobhana citta vithi?
Thank you, Lal. That makes sense. So jivita rupa are part of the kammaja kaya and sustain the life of the gandhabba.
Does jivitindriya belong to the gandhabba? But what/where is jivitindriya in the gandhabba? Is it part of citta or is it part of pasada rupa?
We have the life faculty (jivitindriya), which keeps the body alive until death. Maybe the physical body is considered “internal rupa” until death because of that.
But when I look at the table Rupa (material form) only pasada rupa are internal. Thus the body would be external, right?
Lal says under #4: “…That is why one cannot argue that ‘cakkhu is self.’ Thus cakkhu is ‘not-self’ or ‘anattā.”
Why is anattā “not-self”? Everywhere on the website it is stated that this translation is not correct. Would it be better to say: “chakkhu has no substance” or “one is not in control over chakku”?
Of course if one has no control over chakku then it implies that “one cannot be chakku” or “I am not chakku”.From Lals answer above I conclude that European scholars wrote the Tipitaka in Pali with Latin script, right?
Y Not is right. I mean this, example:
“Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṃ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, nayidaṃ rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvatteyya, labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ anattā, tasmā rūpaṃ ābādhāya saṃvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṃ me rūpaṃ hotu, evaṃ me rūpaṃ mā ahosī’ti.”
This is Pali with Latin script.
Everywhere on this website it is stated that the hadaya vatthu is located close to the heart. Is there any Tipitaka/Abhidhamma reference?
