Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Some years back I was surprised to learn of Buddhist practitioners including well respected Theravada teachers that don’t believe / view the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and belonging to the Tipitaka. At that time learning of such circumstances, I had the thought / idea to write an essay or some form of writing to piece together what evidence I can find from the sutta’s or Pali Tipitaka based on a scholarly approach / methodology to present hoping it may help to show the Abhidhamma is part of the Buddha’s teachings and belongs to the Tipitaka. For myself I don’t need any prove or evidence from a scholarly approach to see / believe the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka. I find it hard not to see how the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings. Back some years ago, I mentioned to Lal my intention and what I had in mind. Lal provided tremendous help, in fact most of the credit belongs to Lal for the information that’s about to be shared / provided in this writing.Initially had bigger idea / plan for the writing, but as time went on and started to believe the futility of the endeavor, I lost the motivation to follow through with my bigger idea. But now not wanting to waste the time and effort that was initially put into the endeavor and hope the information can be of use to others. Over the years having observed various discussions and information / materials on the authentication of the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings, I hope to present three points that I have observed to be rarely or not been mentioned / discussed besides here on PD and believe can make strong cases to support the Abhidhamma to be the Buddha’s teachings, once again from a scholarly approach / methodology. . .
The first point being cited from Bhikkhu Bodhi’s “A comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma” is not intended to make a strong case for the Abhidhamma was “unquestionably” expounded by the Buddha as described by Buddhist orthodox sources / materials but hope to show / present there’s a strong case to be made that the Buddha did spend time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the pandukambala or Sakka’s throne. As for whatever the Buddha did or taught in the Tavatimsa heavens, others are free to come to their own conclusions.
Please note the word “Pandukambala” and “Paricchattaka tree”.
From Bhikkhu Bodhi’s A comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, “according to this tradition, just prior to his seventh annual rain retreat the Blessed one ascended to the Tavatimsa heaven and there, seated on the PANDUKAMBALA stone at the foot of the Paricchattaka tree, for the three months of the rains he taught the Abhidhamma to the deva’s . . .”
Sakka is the ruler of the Tavatimsa heaven and according to Buddhasasana Concise Pali – English dictionary and other sources, the “Pandukambala” is Sakka’s throne. A reference is made in the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) of the Buddha having spent time in the Tavatimsa heaven and on the Pandukambala or Sakka’s throne.
Majjhima Nikāya 134 Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta
Note the Pali words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle.
“Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ. Tatra bhagavā devānaṁ tāvatiṁsānaṁ bhaddekarattassa uddesañca vibhaṅgañca abhāsi:’
“This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three at the root of the Shady Orchid Tree on the stone spread with a cream rug. There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three:”
Something I would like to mention is the translations / interpretations I sometimes use for online discussions doesn’t necessary mean I completely agree with or take them to be definite, but for convenience sake. If others take other translations / interpretations to be more accurate / correct / convincing, I would be open to others translations / interpretations. Going back to the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134), I’m not entire sure if “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ” is being translated as “stone spread with a cream rug”, but for myself I take paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ to mean the same as pandukambala, some form of stone and Sakka’s throne.
Pandukambala definition from wisdomlib
Paṇḍukambala refers to: a light red blanket, orange-coloured cloth also a kind of ornamental stone, Sakka’s throne (p. -k. -silā) is made of it.
I’m not sure what “p. -k –silā) represents, but I believe it’s the same silā in “paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ”.
This is quoted from page 85 The Buddhist Cosmos A Comprehensive Survey of the Early Buddhist Worldview; according to Theravāda and Sarvsātivāda sources*. “*By the power of this kamma, the one hundred yojana high Pāricchattaka Tree appeared inTāvatiṃsa, together with Sakka’s throne, the paṇḍukambalasilā, a huge stone slab described as being under the shade of the great tree.”
“As for Sakka, he was fearful and despondent, for he would now lose all the greatness of a Sakka: the Tāvatiṁsa Realm, which is 10,000 leagues wide; the Vejayanta palatial mansion that is 1,000 leagues tall; the Sudhammā Assembly Hall, 300 leagues wide, for listening to the Dhamma; the coral tree (paricchattaka) which is 100 leagues high; the Paṇḍukambala stab of emerald, which is 60 leagues long, 50 leagues wide and 15 leagues high;”
Taking the two words paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ and pāricchattakamūle from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) and the commentaries made on them from the last two references, I get the idea that paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ is sakka’s thorne and it’s “under the shade of the great tree” or the pāricchattakamūle. It’s my belief that another way to explain or interpret the line of “Ekamidaṁ, bhikkhu, samayaṁ bhagavā devesu tāvatiṁsesu viharati pāricchattakamūle paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ from the Lomasakaṅgiyabhaddekarattasutta (MN 134) can be something along the line of “This one time, the Buddha was staying among the gods of the thirty-three on Sakka’s throne (paṇḍukambalasilāyaṁ) sited at the root of the pāricchattakamūle. There he taught the summary recital and the analysis of the one who has one fine night to the gods of the thirty-three. “
There’s also the mentioning of pandukambala in the Khuddaka Nikāya Milindapañha (KN) and something I am aware of the word “Abhidhamma” used in the sutta’s might not actually mean / represent the same Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today and I would actually agree with those that says or believes so. But in the Milindapañha, it’s my belief the word “Abhidhamma” does mean / represent the Abhidhamma that is part of the Tipitaka we have today. I have observed there are Buddhist practitioners that don’t take the Milindapañha to be authoritative or as the Buddha’s teachings due to various reasons / arguments with the main one being it was later added material which I can understand from their thinking / position. For myself I can’t say I have read over the Milindapanha “very carefully”, but I have skimmed through all of it and pretty much everything I can understand from the translations of the work, I don’t see any major contradictions / inconsistencies comparing with what I understand of the Buddha’s teachings. Anyways . . . from the Milindapanha.
“and again in the heaven of the Thirty-Three at the preaching of the Abhidhamma (abhidhammadesanāya) on the Paṇḍu Kambala Rock eight hundred millions of the gods”
Then the venerable Rohaṇa thought thus to himself: ‘In what ought I first to instruct him, in the Discourses (Suttanta) or in the deeper things of the faith (Abhidhamma)?’ and inasmuch as he saw that Nāgasena was intelligent, and could master the Abhidhamma with ease, he gave him his first lesson in that.
And the venerable Nāgasena, after hearing it repeated but once, knew by heart the whole of the Abhidhamma—that is to say, the Dhamma Saṅgaṇi, with its great divisions into good, bad, and indifferent qualities, and its subdivisions into couples and triplets —the Vibhaṅga, with its eighteen chapters, beginning with the book on the constituent elements of beings—the Dhātu Kathā, with its fourteen books, beginning with that on compensation and non-compensation—the Puggala Paññatti, with its six divisions into discrimination of the various constituent elements, discrimination of the various senses and of the properties they apprehend, and so on —the Kathā Vatthu, with its thousand sections, five hundred on as many points of our own views, and five hundred on as many points of our opponents’ views—the Yamaka, with its ten divisions into complementary propositions as to origins, as to constituent elements, and so on—and the Paṭṭhāna, with its twenty-four chapters on the reason of causes, the reason of ideas, and the rest. And he said : ‘That will do, Sir. You need not propound it again. That will suffice for my being able to rehearse it. ’
In the same sutta, it mentions about the 7 books of the Abhidhamma:
“Then Nāgasena went to the innumerable company of the Arahats, and said: ‘I should like to propound the whole of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, without abridgement, arranging it under the three heads of good, bad, and indifferent qualities.’ And they gave him leave. And in seven months the venerable Nāgasena recited the seven books of the Abhidhamma in full.”
I understand what’s been presented so far to help authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings and the teachings belongs to the Tipitaka is not sufficient since myself have taken into account of as many arguments / reasoning I have come across on why the Abhidhdamma is not the Buddha’s teachings, the main one once again being pretty much all the materials / text / commentaries on the Abhidhamma comes from later periods / added materials according to some Buddhist practitioners standards / position / views. The next and second strongest point / reference I can make to authenticate the Abhidhamma as the Buddha’s teachings comes from the Theravada Vinayapitaka but it can also be said the source comes from a later period (later than the 4th council, according to Wikipedia and some scholars . . .) From the Parivāra Samuṭṭhānasīsasaṅkhepa
Parivāra 3. Samuṭṭhānasīsasaṅkhepa
Sabbasattuttamo sīho,piṭake tīṇi desayi;Suttantamabhidhammañca,vinayañca mahāguṇaṁ.
Please note the words “pitake tini”. I haven’t studied or claim to be well-versed in Pali but to me it’s quite obvious what “pitakam tini” means without having to rely on translations or Pali dictionary. What I can see is that Tini means three and pitaka means basket or collections . . . I can say the English translation “three collection or basket” can be open for debate, but for myself, Tini and pitakam together means the Three Basket or the Tipitaka which we have today which includes the Abhidhamma.
Translation by Bhikkhu Brahmali:
“The best of all creatures, the lion,Taught the three Collections:The Discourses, and the Philosophy, And the Monastic Law, of great quality.”
Translation by I.B. Horner:
“The best of all creatures, the lion, taught the three Piṭakas:<br /><br /><br />
The Suttantas, the Abhidhamma, and the Vinaya—a great special quality.”Whom the lion or “siho” is being referred to, it’s the Buddha and one can cross examine this from the sutta’s.
Finally the strongest case I have come across to present that supports the Abhidhamma is the Buddha’s teachings and meant to be part of the Pali Tipitaka we have today is once again found in the Vinayapitaka and if I’m not mistaken, this was recited from the “First Buddhist council” where “pitakam tini” is also cited.
Theravāda Vinayapiṭaka Cūḷavagga 21. Pañcasatikakkhandhaka
“Upāliṁ vinayaṁ pucchi,suttantānandapaṇḍitaṁ;Piṭakaṁ tīṇi saṅgītiṁ,akaṁsu jinasāvakā. “
“He asked Upāli about the Monastic Law, And the wise Ānanda about the discourses; Communal recitation of the three Collections, Was done by the disciples of the Victor.”
If others take the source to be from the First Buddhist council, last thing I can really say which can be open up for debate is what are the three collections that was communal recited? Or more specifically what was the third collection that was recited since it can be almost universally agreed upon two of the three collections would be the vinaya and suttas. But regardless what other’s views / position is, there’s no doubt for myself one of the three collections would be at least the foundational bases for the writing / teachings of the Abhidhamma we have today. Once again much credit and merits to Lal for the information / finds presented in this post. May we all living beings attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana.
My email is [email protected]
2 users thanked author for this post.
“By visiting Sri Lanka and seeing firsthand what it means to live as a monk, I hope I’ll be able to make a clear decision about how to spend the rest of my life—whether to pursue the monastic path or continue as a layperson.”
That’s a great idea! Something I can add, I didn’t think I would end up meeting quite a few PD forum members in person, some unexpectedly. These members now have either ordained, in the process or have the intention to do so.
If this is your first time visiting Sri Lanka and depending on where the temple is located, if you need any help with transportation to and from the airport or have any questions in general about traveling in Sri Lanka, feel free to ask.
Some items I highly recommend you to bring on your trip especially for the stay at the temple: Flashlight, travel power adapter, long pants that covers the leg (as many white or light color as possible), take into consideration of hot humid weather and possibly other items.Wish you all the best on the endeavor, may you have a fruitful trip and after you come back if you feel like doing so, please share with us your experience and what you learned that you feel might benefit us on the path or to get feedback on.3 users thanked author for this post.
I feel I’m quite open to others teachings and interpretations of the dhamma and can benefit from what others may say, but it doesn’t necessary mean I will take in other’s teachings and interpretations easily without some form of discernment. I looked into some of the links and discussions on Ven. Buddhaparayana teachings that was shared / provided and one of the comments that caught my attention was from this discussion:
teaching of ven. buddhaparayana 31 planes of existence and 32 marks of the Buddha! Dhammawheel
I can’t verify / confirmed the comments made by others on Ven. Buddhaparayana teachings or what was said since I don’t know Sinhalanese and the comments was based on a Sinhalanese video. But a comment that caught my attention was someone saying Ven. Buddhaparayana said that the Buddha did not talk about the four stages of sainthood and a comment that was most surprising to me and would be interested in hearing the explanation to as how the tilakkhana is not part of the Buddha teachings, “he also mentioned that Anicca, dukkha and anatta as three units also not a part of Buddha’s teaching.”
The reason why I asked Lal what was his take on the implied meaning of assāsapassāsā as breathing in and out for kaya sankhara in the Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44) was because it wasn’t immediate clear to me at that time and thought possibly the implied meaning of breathing in and out for assāsapassāsa was taken. But after seeing the comment of “4. Conclusion: Assāsapassāsā in “Assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” (discussed in the Cūḷavedalla Sutta) cannot be “breathing in and out.”, it’s clear to me now, thank you.
I would like to share it’s also my take / believe the mentioned implied meaning of breathing in and out for assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” as discussed in the Cūḷavedalla Sutta cannot be about breathing in and out. Around a year ago, I had thoughts of investigating into this very matter to see what can be done to prove / demonstrate where assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” discussed in the Cūḷavedalla Sutta isn’t about breathing, but something else which I couldn’t say for sure. For the contemplation / investigation process, whatever interpretation / line of thinking / understanding I might come up for kāyasaṅkhāro would have to be consistent with my understanding of or assist with the practice of satipatthana, specifically when it comes to kāye kāyānupassī viharati. I thought if we can understand more about kāyasaṅkhāro, it may open up new / more possibilities of understanding about Satipatthana especially when it comes to the kāye kāyānupassī viharati passage.
“As we have discussed many times, a word can have different meanings depending on the context. That holds not only for Pāli, but also for English and most languages”.
At one time in the past even though learning / knowing a word can have different meanings, I had thoughts of where assāsapassāsā mentioned as one of the definitions for vayo dhatu and the every use of assāsapassāsā in the sutta’s wouldn’t have the meaning of breathing in and out at all. But later came to see the thinking / line of thinking was possibly errored / wrong / incorrect. There seems to be more obvious examples found in the sutta’s where assāsapassāsā does mean or represent breathing in and out or respiration, but the same can also be said about where assāsapassāsā mean something else in the sutta’s other than breathing in and out or about respiration. So it seems like after all assāsapassāsā depending on the context could possibly have the meaning of breathing in and out or about respiration. Unfortunately it’s no easy task for myself anyways to see or be clear on the different implied meanings being used for assāsapassāsā in the sutta’s.
It was mentioned:
“This is a crucial yet simple point to remember. That is why “breathing in and out” cannot be a type of abhisaṅkhāra.”
“How does raga, dosa, or moha arise when breathing in and out?”
#1. I can see the case to be made where breathing doesn’t involve sañcetanā or abhisaṅkhāra like when one breathes naturally without intended effort or focus on doing so, but I can think of an example where it might demonstrate depending on one’s intention with their breathing can involve sañcetanā or abhisaṅkhāra. The example being where breath meditation is practiced for any other purpose than for nibbana or to continue to live. Like where / when there’s intention behind the focusing on or manipulating the breath for the practice / attainment of jhana’s or other some attainments besides nibbana. Another example I can think of is where one intently with the 3 unwholesome roots start a fire and use their breathing to blow on the flame making the fire bigger and stronger to do more harm or damage to the environment or other living beings. Would these cases where breathing is involved with sañcetanā or abhisaṅkhāra?
#2. Something I would like clarified / feedback; “One needs to breathe to move body parts (He quotes a Waharaka Thero‘s discourse on this, and I have also listened to it).”
I understand that I definitely won’t be able to move my body if I don’t breath for some time, but can’t one still move their body while not breathing even though only for a short period of time? For example some people can run for about 30 secs while holding on their breath.
#3. “It merely states that to cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna, one must fully comprehend how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage”.
The comprehension on how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage, would that be similar to comprehend how PUK arises and how it can be ceased, like samudaya and nirodha? My understanding / thinking is that sankappa arises due the living beings gati / asava’s / anusaya’s, samyojana’s coming into contact with mind made rupa and taken Etaṁ mama, esohamasmi, eso me attā’ti – Connection to Taṇhā, Māna, Diṭṭhi
But the PUK mind process for the satta can be ceased / eliminated. I can think of that sankappa arises in the purāna and nava kamma kamma stage can be said as samudaya. Stopping or eliminating the sankappa from arising in the purāna and nava kamma stage would be nirodha.Hello Amin,
Thank you for sharing the answers you came across and for the Thero’s desana. I didn’t know of the 6 types sankhara’s (3 being without raga, dosa, moha and 3 with) referenced from paticca samuppada vibhanga mentioned by the Thero around the beginning of time stamp, thank you and the Thero for helping me learn of.
In regards to the Thero’s description of assāsapassāsā for kāyasaṅkhāra. From the parts of video I watched, my interpretation of what the Thero is saying / teaching on assāsapassāsā relating to kāyasaṅkhāra is a description of oppositely working muscle system. Some or similar words I thought to have heard in the video, “In our body for every action is created or manipulated by 2 muscles that have opposing actions”. An example of the elbow joint was used, like the bicep triceps contracts and expands. Also the mention of the correlation between expansion and contraction and breathing in and out. I believe a teaching from Abhaya thero on kammaja vayo dhatu was provided? from the Thero to show / demonstrate how vayo element helps with the movement of the body which could possibly be related to assāsapassāsā.
Within the transcription in the OP: “It’s called Kāya Saṅkhāra because, yes, the mind is the underlying factor—the main controlling unit—but through that processing and compiling, or through that Saṅkhāra, you see a change in your body. That’s why Assāsa and Passāsa are called Kāya Saṅkhāra. To open your mouth, you relax one set of muscles and contract another; to close it, the opposite happens. That’s how the body works—with pairs of opposing muscles acting in contrary ways during operation or processing. So, that’s Kāya Saṅkhāra”.
Maybe I’m totally wrong or mistaken but I feel the interpretations / teachings that I come across or from my own thinking and understanding on kāyasaṅkhāro would have to be consistent with my understanding of or assist with the practice of satipatthana specifically relating to kāye kāyānupassī viharati. Currently I’m not sure, able to see / relate how I can apply the teaching / description / explanation of assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāra as an oppositely working muscle system to the practice of satipatthana, specifically to kāye kāyānupassī viharati. I also have a hard time believing or taking kāyasaṅkhāra especially when it comes to the Buddha teaching to be some form of oppositely working muscle system or relating to joints and muscles. Amin I would like to ask you, do yourself believe assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāra to be about an opposite working muscle system? I don’t believe or take the Thero and others teaching / explanation on kāyasaṅkhāra assāsapassāsā to be completely incorrect / wrong, but for myself I just feel there is more meaning behind or another explanation on the relationship between assāsapassāsā and kāyasaṅkhāra than as a breathing process or muscle joint contraction expansion system. But like I said, I could be wrong / mistaken in the first place about the interpretation / definition of kāyasaṅkhāra having any relationship / connection / association to the practice of satipatthana or kāye kāyānupassī viharati.
Much thanks for the valuable feedback and teachings provided for all of us to consider / think / contemplate about / on and potentially helping us all to gain a better understanding of the Buddha teachings.
It was mentioned that:
“3. (Abhi)saṅkhāra can also be categorized as kāya saṅkhāra, vacī saṅkhāra, and citta saṅkhāra. They are all done with “sañcetanā.”
A reference from the Paṭiccasamuppādavibhaṅga I came across in the past where I believe where it may support the teaching that Abhisankhara can also be categorized as the 3 sankhara’s and being all the 3 sankhara’s can be done with sañcetanā.Tattha katamo kāyasaṅkhāro? Kāyasañcetanā kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsañcetanā vacīsaṅkhāro, manosañcetanā cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti “avijjāpaccayā saṅkhārā”.
Herein, what is a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body?
(There is) an intention expressed by way of the body, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the body. (There is) an intention expressed by way of speech, a (volitional) process expressed by way of speech. (There is) an intention expressed by way of the mind, a (volitional) process expressed by way of the mind.This is said to be ‘with ignorance as condition there are (volitional) processes’
——————————————-I have a question and seek clarification on where it was mentioned;- Yes. The “Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44)” explains them as “Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.” The English translation in the link translates the first part as “Breathing is a physical process,” implying that Assāsapassāsā means “breathing in and out.”
- Of course, breathing is also controlled by the mind, but it does not involve “sañcetanā.”
Do you agree with the implied meaning from Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44) that assāsapassāsā means breathing in and out or is your line of thinking on assāsapassāsā from Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44) means what was said later on in the previous post that; “Assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro” as “one must fully comprehend how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage.” Thus, “Assāsapassāsā” is not a definition of kāya saṅkhāra. It merely states that to cultivate Satipaṭṭhāna, one must fully comprehend how sankappa arises in the purāna kamma stage.”? Or what exactly is your take on the meaning of assāsapassāsā from the Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44) where it’s implied with the meaning of breathing in and out?“Saṅkhārā is clearly understood as belonging to the mind. The five aggregates—Rūpa, Vedanā, Saññā, Saṅkhārā, and Viññāṇa—include Saṅkhārā as a mental factor. However, I find it difficult to understand how the physical movement of going to get water is defined as Kāya Saṅkhārā. It’s challenging to see how muscle movements can be considered part of the mind. The action of going to get water is generally seen as a result of mental intention. Does this mean Kāya Saṅkhārā = mind? If so, does Kāya Saṅkhārā ≠ physical movement (even though it results from the mind)? Similarly, in the case of verbal expressions, Vacī Saṅkhāra seems to function in the same way.
In the past, I understood Saṅkhāra (which refers to intention) as something more aligned with a purely mental concept. Is that understanding correct?”
Hello Amin,
What you said and the question you brought forth, from my own past experience / contemplation and view can actually be quite complicated to answer. About a year ago, I also had and still do today have a similar line of thinking and question as you have in regards to sankhara being a purely mental concept or not.The reason why I said your question / line of thinking about sankhara can actually be quite complicated to answer is because I can add more layers to your (our) question / line of thinking. For myself, I had to step away from seeking a satisfactory answer to our similar question because it got so complicated in trying to fully address the question / line of thinking. I felt when one layer of the question gets answered; it seems like another layer of questions would open up where it needs to be addressed to gain a more complete / satisfactory answer.
To give you a short example of the complexity in trying to fully answer our question about sankharas being a purely mental concept or not especially when it comes to kaya sankhara. In one of the sutta’s, it defines kaya sankhara as assasa passasa and pretty much all the translations / interpretations I have come across equates kaya sankhara to the process of breathing in and breathing out. To me if someone answers that all sankharas (mano, vaci, kaya) is purely a mental concept, then how would the translation / interpretation of kaya sankhara being tied to breathing resolve this discrepancy? If someone answers that sankharas are not purely mental, I feel an explanation would be difficult to provide in fully addressing the example you given as to why you believe the 3 sankhara’s (mano, vaci, kaya) all results from the mind or a purely mental concept. Like I said, I also have the similar line of thinking (which could possibly be wrong / incorrect / mistaken) in regard to sankhara “possibly” being a purely mental concept.
If you come across or are provided any answers / explanations to your question outside of this forum, please do share it here since I’m also interested in any answers or explanation to your question. If you’re not able to receive any satisfactory answers or explanations to your question and since this what I have to do for the time being, one can always fall back to the common interpretation / translation of sankhara being where it might not be a purely a mental concept. Like I mentioned earlier, one of the strongest case to be made where sankhara might not be a all mental concept is from the commonly and widely accepted translation / interpretation in the sutta’s where it mentions kaya sankhara being tied to breathing. From the Cūḷavedallasutta (MN 44):
“How many processes are there?”
“There are these three processes. Physical, verbal, and mental processes.”
“But ma’am, what is the physical process? What’s the verbal process? What’s the mental process?”
“Kasmā panāyye, assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro
“Breathing is a physical process. Placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes. Perception and feeling are mental processes.”
“But ma’am, why is breathing a physical process?
“Assāsapassāsā kho, āvuso visākha, kāyikā ete dhammā kāyappaṭibaddhā, tasmā assāsapassāsā kāyasaṅkhāro.
“Breathing is physical. It’s tied up with the body, that’s why breathing is a physical process.
Like I mentioned where we believe / think that sankhara might be a purely a mental concept, it’s possible that our line of thinking might be wrong / incorrect or that we’re missing something. But as of this time, to me it’s still not very clear if sankhara is purely a mental concept or not. Since currently I’m still not fully satisfied with the translation / interpretation of kaya sankhara being a “fully physical concept” getting the idea from being tied to breathing as a physical process and unsure of the answer to our similar question / line of thinking, I’m just keeping my mind open about the possibility of being wrong or correct in my thinking.
I’m not sure if the Youtube channel you linked in your post is your Youtube channel or another but seeing some of the video’s in Korean, I would like to say much merits to you or the person whom created the Korean videos and give the teachings. As far as I know, the Buddha teachings we learn from (ex. Puredhamma, Authentic Dhamma and others similar), there isn’t any or much materials on the teachings in Korean and Japanese. Much merits to the person whom give the teachings in Korean and started the channel. Saddhu saddhu saddhu.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“If after death, there is no “me” continuing into a next existence – but instead, a new stream of vinnana arises with different identity, conditions, and form (say, a “John or a dog) – then what connection do I have with that future being? Why should I care? Why should I be concerned about what happens in a future rebirth?”
Some years back I had the exact same question but never ended up asking anyone for an answer because before needing to a satisfactory answer came to mind, for myself anyways. Coming across the question again now, I would like to share what came across my mind for the very same question that I once had and hope it can be of use / assistance to others on their path.
My understanding is that initially one should put some care / concern in regards to what happens in a future rebirth because it helps one to gain a better understanding of the Buddha teachings such as the rebirth process or samsara that all living beings are trapped in. But later on when one gains a better / deeper understanding of sakkaya ditthi and the fundamental teachings of the Buddha / dhamma. Hopefully the wisdom gained / cultivated during the learning and practicing process of the teachings will help the learner / practitioner to have seen / understood some degree of the main message / teaching that the Buddha is trying to get across to us sattas. If the characteristics of our world or all conditioned phenomenon is anicca, dukkha, anatta. Through the eyes of wisdom regardless if there’s a me / self / I and so on or not, the practitioner would want to put an end to / cease the rebirth process / samsara because that’s the wise thing to do / carry out and that’s all it really matters in the end.
So for myself, it no longer really matters if there’s a self / I / me or not or be concerned what happens in a future rebirth, it’s beyond my control anyways. What I can do though is to continue to put forth the effort in learning and practicing the Buddha teachings. “To some degree”, understanding and seeing that this conditioned world or any conditioned phenomenon is meaningless, unfruitful, none beneficial, anicca, dukkha, anatta and if I have gained / cultivated any wisdom from all these years of learning and practicing the Buddha teachings. Regardless if there is a self / I / me or not, in the end the wise thing to do / carry out is to strive for the attainment of nibbana.
2 users thanked author for this post.
” Of course, this issue does not affect our goal of attaining Nibbana. “
I totally agree. Myself don’t place utmost importance on this issue but I happened to come across the document and thought to share it since I have come across some discussions in this forum and others that can relate to some of the things mentioned in the document.
Sir when you have the time or interest in taking a look at the document, please do provide some feedback at your convenience since I don’t have the familiarity / knowledge to verify or confirm all the information in the document and you’ll be much more familiar / knowledgeable with Sri Lanka’s culture, language and history.
“If each existence represents different “person”, why should one worry about future suffering?”<br /><br />
Over the years I have seen the same or similar question brought up in different places. I can understand why others might think and feel this way.
What I can say in addition to already what’s been mentioned is that if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it’s a Theravada orthodox teaching that teaches one of the sufferings preta’s (hungry ghost) experience is that the preta’s would remember the unwholesome kamma they committed from their previous lives and unpleasant vipaka such domanassa (unpleasant thoughts), lamentation, pain, grief, despair or the dukkhakkhandhassa would continuously torment (come to back) their mind and body.
Here’s a PD post that can be related to this thread.
A perspective / way of thinking that helped me to see things from another approach is that regardless what myself and others might interpret / believe what anatta means, whether there is self or no self as well the question of whether one should worry about future suffering. As long we understand the 3 characteristics anicca, dukkha, anatta takes effect for any living beings phenomenon / experience in the present and into the future and how no living beings (satta’s) are exempt from these 3 characteristics in any realms of existence. I believe the wise, intelligent, important, right or most sensible thing to do with our current jati would be to strive / walk on the Noble 8 Fold Path to attain nibbana.
Currently we’re so fortunate to have the Buddha dhamma teachings still available to us living beings to learn and practice from. The resources we have today can be considered both unfavorable and favorable for us dhamma practitioners to at least attain the sotapanna stage. For us Buddhist practitioners, we should really use the best of this opportunity in our current jati for the betterment of our life stream and all sentient beings. As one of many examples that could be given, imagine one day being able to guarantee other living beings that one won’t cause / do harm to them. If there’s a path / way to attain such a characteristic, wouldn’t this be a wise / sensible / intelligent thing to carry out as a living being regardless if there’s a self or not?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello Taryal, thank you for the video’s. They were informative and make some good points. Those that believe the Earth is flat would have a hard time to come up with some reasonable answers.Hello Waisaka, in regards to your question if I ever seen the pale blue dot picture taken by voyager, yes I have.“The creature called human at that time did not have a solid body.”“This is my wild thought, humans billions of years ago had a different form than humans today.”I also believed the same before this discussion. It’s been my belief that the first humans on this planet had brahma / deva like body or not solid body like what we currently have. Or I think similar to what Lal wrote in this thread and from the post Agganna sutta.“Why is it like there is no justice in this world if we use the perspective of no-punabbhava.. Only the sammasambudhha can explain very-very well and in detail like abhidhamma. And Buddha also has incomparable love, his love wants beings to be free from the trap of samsara. There is no benefit for Buddha to lie, he previously left power and wealth.From this small thing I am very strong in believing in Buddha, dhamma, sangha. “Wonderful to hear! Saddhu saddhu saddhu!!! May your and others belief in the triplegem and the carrying out of the Noble 8 Fold Path help us all living beings to attain the supreme bliss of nibbana!“Do those actions involve sancetana (i.e., with raga, dosa, moha in mind)?”
My apologize, I should’ve included whether there’s defiled intentions behind the examples given. For the next post in this thread, I’ll work on to better express my thoughts in a more clear and concise manner. Really thank you for your time and energy spent on answering my questions, as well for the experience showing what I can do to further improve.
Thank you sir and sorry for any inconveniences that I might have caused with my previous questioning.
2. I do not know why it asks the question, “What is kaya sankhara?” and goes on to explain the other two types as well.
- But it should not matter. Should it?
I’m not sure, maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Would moving the “physical” mouth / tongue, nose, eyes, ears be considered kaya sankhara or more specifically when we use our mouth, nose, eyes or ears for a intended purpose? For example, I’m sitting down, my arms, legs, head are not moving at all. Then all of sudden a sight catches my eyes and I would focus on the sight with the eyes without moving any parts of my body besides maybe my eyes. Or I would turn on some music with the intention of enjoying the sound that would go through the ears to the mind. Would such actions or examples be considered as kaya sankhara according to sir or others thinking?
