Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Can you please translate some pieces?
Paṭhamo āhāro paṭhamo vipallāso, dutiyo āhāro dutiyo vipallāso, tatiyo āhāro tatiyo vipallāso, catuttho āhāro catuttho vipallāso. 8.2Ime cattāro vipallāsā apañcamā achaṭṭhā. 8.3Idañca pamāṇā cattāro āhārā.
9.1Tattha paṭhame vipallāse ṭhito kāme upādiyati, idaṁ kāmupādānaṁ. 9.2Dutiye vipallāse ṭhito anāgataṁ bhavaṁ upādiyati, idaṁ sīlabbatupādānaṁ. 9.3Tatiye vipallāse ṭhito viparīto diṭṭhiṁ upādiyati, idaṁ diṭṭhupādānaṁ. 9.4Catutthe vipallāse ṭhito khandhe attato upādiyati, idaṁ attavādupādānaṁ.
10.1Tattha kāmupādāne ṭhito kāme abhijjhāyati ganthati, ayaṁ abhijjhākāyagantho. 10.2Sīlabbatupādāne ṭhito byāpādaṁ ganthati, ayaṁ byāpādakāyagantho. 10.3Diṭṭhupādāne ṭhito parāmāsaṁ ganthati, ayaṁ parāmāsakāyagantho. 10.4Attavādupādāne ṭhito papañcanto ganthati, ayaṁ idaṁsaccābhiniveso kāyagantho.
As you say: “couldn’t be improved upon”. This is philosophical and inaccurate. The question is, what exactly is missing in terms of understanding? If all vipallasa about anicca/anatta are removed, what is left to do?
Is there a lack of panna in general? Or is there only a lack of panna regarding dukkha and asubha? That would have to be found out by means of tipitaka and commentaries.
The main content is also in Ps 1.8 (Vipallāsakathā).
... Ime cattāro vipallāsā diṭṭhisampannassa puggalassa pahīnā, appahīnāti. 8.2Keci pahīnā, keci appahīnā? 8.3Anicce niccanti saññāvipallāso cittavipallāso diṭṭhivipallāso pahīno. 8.4Dukkhe sukhanti saññā uppajjati, cittaṁ uppajjati, diṭṭhivipallāso pahīno. 8.5Anattani attāti saññāvipallāso cittavipallāso diṭṭhivipallāso pahīno. 8.6Asubhe subhanti saññā uppajjati, cittaṁ uppajjati, diṭṭhivipallāso pahīno. 8.7Dvīsu vatthūsu cha vipallāsā pahīnā. 8.8Dvīsu vatthūsu dve vipallāsā pahīnā, cattāro vipallāsā appahīnā. 8.9Catūsu vatthūsu aṭṭha vipallāsā pahīnā, cattāro vipallāsā appahīnāti.
—————————
There are 10 sanyogas. the Sotapanna has removed 3 of them. Remaining are: kāma rāga, patigha, rūpa rāga, arūpa rāga, māna, uddacca, avijjā.
What is not fully developed, is panna cetasika. Together with sanna vipallasa and citta vipallasa about dukkha and asubha the sekkha still perceives objects as desireable (kama, rupa, arupa/dhamma). Thus patigha and uddacca will be there (also based on māna). Avijja is there until panna is optimized.
Please reply also to this:
The Sotapanna has no vipallasa about anicca and anatta. Does it mean, the Sotapanna has full knowledge or panna about anicca/anatta?
The dictionary says:
subha : [adj.] lucky; auspicious; pleasant. (Lal says: useful or beneficial)
sukha : [nt.] happiness; comfort.
The meanings are pretty similar. Why the additional term (a)subha instead of just “tilakkhana” (anicca, dukkha, anatta)?
——————
The Sotapanna has no vipallasa about anicca and anatta. Does it mean, the Sotapanna has full knowledge or panna about anicca/anatta?
Please see Vb1
Rūpakkhandha is explained in many ways. I do not understand how you can say : “…rupakkhandha is NOT preserved.“
That makes no sense according to Abhidhamma.
Are the geographical stations of the Buddha’s wanderings over 45 years not known? Or why do you say that it is not certain whether the Buddha lived in India?
Also, the Magadhi Empire was in north-east India, so quite far away from Sri Lanka. What was the language in Sri Lanka at the time of the Buddha?
What is clear is that Pali or Magadhi (Prakrit) were spoken languages as opposed to Sanskrit, which had no native speakers but was a religious language. Therefore, the Buddha certainly did not want his teachings to be translated into Sanskrit. Although Wiki says about Pali:
…However, modern scholarship has regarded Pali as a mix of several Prakrit languages from around the 3rd century BCE, combined and partially Sanskritized. There is no attested dialect of Middle Indo-Aryan with all the features of Pali.
Where does the Pali language come from? Who spoke it? It is said that the Buddha spoke Magadhi. He lived in India, thus Pali must come from there, right?
Is Sanskrit close to Pali or is Sinhala closer to Pali?<br />
————————I am just reading a text about Pali on Wikipedia:
Pali and Sanskrit are very closely related and the common characteristics of Pali and Sanskrit were always easily recognized by those in India who were familiar with both. A large part of Pali and Sanskrit word-stems are identical in form, differing only in details of inflection.
Technical terms from Sanskrit were converted into Pali by a set of conventional phonological transformations. These transformations mimicked a subset of the phonological developments that had occurred in Proto-Pali. Because of the prevalence of these transformations, it is not always possible to tell whether a given Pali word is a part of the old Prakrit lexicon, or a transformed borrowing from Sanskrit. The existence of a Sanskrit word regularly corresponding to a Pali word is not always secure evidence of the Pali etymology, since, in some cases, artificial Sanskrit words were created by back-formation from Prakrit words.
—————-
Wiki on Magadha Empire
…Beginning in the Theravada commentaries, the Pali language has been identified with Magahi, the language of the kingdom of Magadha, and this was taken to also be the language that the Buddha used during his life. In the 19th century, the British Orientalist Robert Caesar Childers argued that the true or geographical name of the Pali language was Magadhi Prakrit, and that because pāḷi means “line, row, series”, the early Buddhists extended the meaning of the term to mean “a series of books”, so pāḷibhāsā means “language of the texts”.<sup id=”cite_ref-29″ class=”reference”>[29]</sup> Nonetheless, Pali does retain some eastern features that have been referred to as Māgadhisms.<sup id=”cite_ref-Gethin2008_30-0″ class=”reference”>[30]</sup>
Thank you, Lal, for the explanations!
The most important question for me is what is the meaning of the Pali terms or suttas? So far, I have not been able to find any really valid arguments among the critics as to why the Dhamma as taught by Waharaka Thero should be wrong. Above all, his explanations make sense and one understands the message of the Buddha.
The main criticism is that the Pali terms are wrongly interpreted/translated. It seems that they refer to the pronunciation as applied by Indology since time immemorial. Not really knowing Pali, I wonder where the correct translation of these terms comes from? It seems this Bikkhu Dhammanando is a connoisseur of Pali and gets the translations from the Indian context. Here are some examples from the Post “Explaining sankhāra=“choices”.
———————
Pure Dhamma:
- A key word, the meaning of which has been hidden for thousands of years, is “san” (pronounced like son).
Sad to say, saṃ is actually one of the most common prefixes in Pali and Sanskrit, as well as in many modern Indian languages. There is no mystery to the word at all. Functionally it’s simply the Indic equivalent of the Latin “com-”. Its range of meanings in both Pali and Sanskrit is well-known and well-documented and at no time has its meaning been “hidden”.
However, by asserting that the meaning of some key Pali term has been hidden or lost or misunderstood by lesser mortals, messianic revisionist Theravadins grant themselves the luxury of assigning whatever new meaning they like to it…
———————–Pure Dhamma:
“San’ is basically the term for “good and bad things we acquire” while we exist anywhere in the 31 realms; see, “The Grand Unified Theory of Dhamma“.
Not according to the texts, which consistently explain saṃ in the noun saṃsāra and in the verb saṃsarati as being a term used in the sense of abbocchinnaṃ an adverb meaning ‘continuously’ or ‘without interruption’. For example:
Khandhānañ’ ca paṭipāṭi, dhātu-āyatanāna ca,
Abbocchinnaṃ vattamānā, saṃsāro’ ti pavuccatī ti.The process of the aggregates, elements and bases,
Proceeding without interruption is called ‘saṃsāra’.
(DA. ii. 496)—————————-Pure Dhamma:
- There is also a reason for calling what we “pile up” as “san“. In Pali and Sinhala, the word for numbers is “sankhyä“, and sankhyä = “san” + “khyä“, meaning (add &multiply) + (subtract & divide), i.e., sankhya is what is used for addition, multiplication, subtraction, and division. From this, “san” gives the idea of “piling up” (addition and multiplication); “khyä” gives the idea of “removal” (subtraction and division).
Therefore “san” is used to indicate things we do in the sansaric journey; see below for examples.
It’s correct that the saṃ- in saṃsāra and the saṅ- in saṅkhyā are one and the same verbal prefix. But from their sharing of the same prefix it doesn’t follow that the meaning of saṃsāra can be derived from the meaning of saṅkhyā.
We wouldn’t say, for example, that the meaning of ‘transport’ can be inferred from the meaning of ‘transgender’, or that the meaning of ‘confetti’ can shed light on the meaning of ‘community’ just because the two items in each pair happen to share the same Latin prefixes.
Lal, there is a contradiction between those two posts:
#44675
…As I remember, our solar system (cakkavāla) is one of a 10,000 cakkavāla in a cūḷanikā lokadhātu. …
A Buddha can arise in only one cakkavāla in a cūḷanikā lokadhātu.
#44711
…. At marker 4.3: “cūḷanikā lokadhātu” is a SMALL cluster of a thousand such cakkavāla ….
…Each “mahāsahassī lokadhātu” can have only one Buddha at a time. But there can be Buddhas in other “mahāsahassī lokadhātu” even at this time.
As per the sutta AN 3.80 a mahāsahassī lokadhātu contains 1000 x 1000 x 1000 = 1 billion cakkavala.
Yes, niramisa sukha is the better “pleasure”. But you can only realize this when you walk a good distance on the path or are at least Sotapanna Anugami. Also, the realization that immersion in rupa is suffering comes only then.
Sexual conceptions are obviously a widespread problem. This can also only be seriously addressed from Sotapanna level. Then one contemplates more deeply about the functioning of paticca samuppada or the mind, citta, cetasika, … And only then the mind can slowly grasp the uselessness of sex (form/rupa, contact/phassa …), although the perception will still be distorted for a while (sanna vipallasa). All this has to be thought through to understand the nature.
I think what is missing, is a clear overview about the different entities the mind creates: dhammā, namagotta, namarupa, gati, vinnana, kammabijja, kammavinnana, kammabhava, pancakkhandha ….
As we know there are only 4 ultimate entities: rupa, citta, cetasika, Nibbana. Thus these words above are just different terminologies for “mind made things”.
The sutta says: “manañca paṭicca dhammē ca uppajjāti manōviññāṇaṃ“. The mind comes into contact with dhammā which lead to manovinnana. I use the word dhammā to include all possible mental objects. The question is, how much energy do those objects contain?
There are several pancadvara citta vithi, some of them have javana citta, some not. But all pancadvara citta vithi are followed by manodvara citta vithi with javana citta. Therefore if the mind contacts the world with any of the six senses, javana citta in manodvara citta vithi combine nama and rupa and “store the result” as pancakkhandha. If it is just an imprint of an event (vipaka vinnana) the dhammā are so fine, that we cannot speak of energy. If it is more (kamma vinnana), the dhammā contain energy, what we call kammabijja, gati … In any way it is anidassana appaṭigha rupa (=dhammā).
These dhammā are reference points for the mind, which compares the objects with them, recognizes and reacts accordingly. Recognition is colored according to the existing “old dhammā” (gati) and therefore leads to akusala PS. If the current object is a memory, old feelings are also incorporated into it and mixed with current gati. The mind refers everything perceived again and again to itself, stabilizes itself with it and also separates itself from the environment or forms an I-perception. Through the self-reference also the impression arises that one is in the possession of the truth.
Lal, your explanation is very good and helpful. You say:
- Kammic energy created in the first javana citta can bring vipaka in this life only. But #2 through #6 can bring vipaka in future lives, and #7 can bring vipaka only in the next life.
- That means javana citta #2 is strong enough to bring vipaka in future lives. But it is NOT ENOUGH to bring a rebirth (called “janaka kamma.”) Thus, kammic energy generated in javana citta #2 with mano sankhara can ONLY bring vipaka DURING A LIFE in future lives, i.e., it cannot give rise to a rebirth.
What is the source of this? Is that described in Abhidhamma Pitaka?
Thank you LayDhammaFollower and Daniel for your efforts!
@Daniel: Ich bin der Schreiber der anderen deutschen Webseite. Hoffe, du erreichst viele Suchende mit deinen Texten!
Hello Jaro,
I read my own lines above after those 5 years and I must say I described that very well at the time. What has happened since then? Well, my mind has become very calm, various unwholesome social contacts and behaviors no longer exist, the Buddha Dhamma is understood in greater depth. My faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha is unwavering. In endless loops, I see people engaging in the same misconceptions and subsequent deeds. During meditation I often stay longer in samma samadhi with bliss. This is because one grasps the uselessness of all sankhara.What has remained of Akusala? Very few desires (chocolate, good coffee, Asian food), now and then some annoyance and irritation. I do not watch TV, but sometimes still a movie or documentary. Under pressure, Uddhacca and Mana still appear. I can use my energy specifically for tasks and I hardly get distracted. Depression became impossible.
Since I have to take care of a family and also secure their future, I have too little time for Dhamma. But I contemplate even during car rides about just experienced situations. I can really meditate only on weekends, the approach is as described above 5 years ago :-)
