Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Saket, as you say: “The real Bodhi Tree CAN NOT be destroyed by anything or anyone in the universe because it is the focal point of the Pure Immeasurable Buddha Energy.“
Therefore I wonder if the Bodhi tree in India can be the real one. Everything in this world will be destroyed. But as written in Wikipedia, why shall it happen so early for the Bodhi tree in India?
Wikipedia says, Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi is a twig-branch of the Bodhi tree in India. I guess the Jaya Sri Maha Bodhi was never destroyed?
With the understanding of this vipallasa, it also becomes clear why a sotapanna has few impurities left. He is attracted only by kama, but has (largely) grasped the anicca and anatta nature. Of course, the attraction of kama is quite strong, but it is no longer enough for strong apunnabhisankhara.
That does not really make sense: 4 vipallasa + 3 vipallasa?
Everywhere on this website it is stated that anicca, dukkha, anatta are lakkhana. The opposites are vipallasa?
The 3 types are ditthi, sanna, citta vipallasa. The 4 types are nicca, sukha, atta, subha. But only Pe 9 states those 4 types. Can you mention this in the post?
Lal, you said:
Four vipallāsa: asubhe subha, dukkhe sukha, anatte atta, anicce nicca.
Is it better to say: “Four characteristics…”? The term is also used in the table above.
About those characteristics/lakkhana one has three types of vipallasa: ditthi, sanna, citta.
Thank you, Lal!
You say:
Second verse:
The first vipallāsa (asubhe subha) leads to kāma raga. That is kāma upādāna.
The second vipallāsa (dukkhe sukha) leads to expectations of future existence (anāgataṁ bhava.) That is silabbata upādāna.
The third vipallāsa (anatte atta) leads to distorted views (viparīto diṭṭhi.) That is diṭṭhi upādāna.
The fourth vipallāsa (anicce nicca) leads to upādāna with the idea that pancupadanakkhandha is fruitful (khandhe attato upādiyati.) That is attavāda upādāna.
The first two vipallasa are not removed for a Sotapanna. Thus he/she still “enjoys” kama assada and bhava in general.
Third vipallasa is removed for a Sotapanna –> micca ditthi.
Fourth vipallasa is also removed for a Sotapanna –> sakkāya diṭṭhi or the wrong view that pancupadanakkhandha is fruitful.
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>
