Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for trying to explain this to me y not. I watched the youtube video’s on Lal’s post. Not an easy concept for me to understand with math and numbers especially when I’m a poor student in math. :) I’ll just keep things simple in regards to what y not and Lal said.
“There are infinite living-beings in this world.
– Even if an infinite number attain Nibbana, there ALWAYS will be an infinite number left.”That’s all I need to know for this topic :)
Thank you for your time y not and Lal.
I just wanted to say thank you Lal for having answered my inquiry.
“Dealing with average humans causes distress in the mind, even for a Buddha. ”
– I’m starting to find having long drawn out mundane conversations causes distress to my mind.
Thank you me1 for the Thanissaro Bhikkhu English translation. The part I’m wondering if the English translation can be improved upon is:
“ālayarāmā kho panāyaṁ pajā ālayaratā ālayasammuditā”
(Bhikkhu Brahmali)
“But this is a creation delighting in sensual pleasure, delighted by sensual pleasure, rejoicing in sensual pleasure.”(Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
“But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment.”It’s from Mahakhandhaka
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd1/pli/ms
Section:
5. Brahmayacanakatha
Second paragraph.
Thank you Lal
me1
– You can also think of it this way, this comes from my own understanding and contemplations. Imagine yourself as cause and effect, how would you keep the party going or Sansara or effects? If there are no causes, can this universe exist? Who or what provides the causes for effects to take place?
“Why can’t ignorance rise again?”
– Based on what Lal said, as well you can find clues to your question on what is a Satta and what Sakkaya samudaya, sakkaya nirodha.
– Ignorance doesn’t need to rise again, because ignorance is what this world is or cause and effect or Paticca Samuppada. This is how it is and always will be. This isn’t confirmed by anyone, just my belief as of this moment from my contemplation, observations and evidences that I see in the Buddha Dhamma. I believe this world or universe or cause and effect nature is avija (ignorance) and being in this world is very unfavorable for us living beings. The most obvious evidence pointing to this is the three characteristics of this world, Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and others. The only saving grace of our existence is being able put a stop to the rebirth process, or being able to cultivate wisdom to remove the avija (ignorance) as a Satta. But ignorance will always remain and be a part of what this world is or cause and effect.
Lal says:
“Even if an infinite number attain Nibbana, there ALWAYS will be an infinite number left.”
– I wonder why is that so. :) My answer would be what I have written above.
Thank you Lal for the teachable moment. May the teaching bring benefit to I and all the worldly living beings.
“– There are no “worldly objects” involved in Buddhist meditation. It is all about removing greed, anger, ignorance from one’s mind.”
Can anything related to the five aggregates be considered as the “worldly objects” you mentioned?
“That is what I thought too.
– But it would be good to see comments from those who don’t have Aphantasia (i.e., those who CAN see memories in color) whether it is a hindrance to meditation.”– I believe it depends on the person and as well what the goal of the meditation is for. For instance, there’s meditators out there that meditates on Kasina objects. Some athletes might meditate (or visualize) repetitive motions or techniques, while others have their own goals and objectives when it comes to meditation. In my opinion, there is really no correct answer to this question because what might be a hindrance to one person, might not be for the other person.
For example, I believe Aphantasia can be beneficial for us Pure Dhamma meditators, but it could be a hinderance for artist, athletes, etc . . .
When I reflect back to when I first started meditating, I would say being able to visualize and recall sensations such as taste was a hinderance to my meditation because I would start to do sankhara and kamma those thoughts. But now since I understand what they are, it doesn’t really hinder with my meditation. But for some, having Aphantasia would hinder their meditation, since some people want to visualize (in color, shapes, etc.) and feel (sensations) on whatever that their meditating on.
Now that I think more about this, having Aphantasia can possibly be a hinderance for those who does Metta bhavana trying to recall people’s faces or past events. Or trying to recall a Buddha statue.
So I believe there’s really no correct answer to this question. It really depends on the person and the objective of their meditation. It can also go both ways for the same person, hinderance and non-hinderance/beneficial or both depending on their meditation objective.
2. While some people have it from birth, others have lost their ability to visualize in the mind’s eye after heart operations. Therefore, it may not have anything to do with the brain.
– Not just heart surgery, but other types of surgery as well.
HELP – surgery induced aphantasia??
byu/LastHopeHousewife inAphantasia– I believe it’s possible prescription drugs can also cause aphantasia.
Aphantasia as aquired after use of SSRi:s
byu/Different_Produce_56 inAphantasia– There are several classes of prescription medications that can cause aphasia. Although aphasia is not the same as aphantasia, but it’s possible there might be a connection.
– In my opinion, Lipitor (a cholesterol lowering drug) is not a very beneficial prescription medication to take at all. . . Cholesterol is one of the most important things for our bodies, we cannot live without it. There’s many important functions of cholesterol that helps our body, especially for our brain.
4. Having Aphantasia could be a good thing in the following sense.
– Might be a good thing for us Buddhist practitioners, but for ordinary people, it might cause them depression and mental health issues . . Especially of those who require imaginative skills for work, such as artists, etc . .
Some links you might be interested in taking a look at.
Lal said:
“I have explained this in many ways.”Indeed you have and the many other Dhamma concepts on this website. Because of this website, I’m sure many Satta’s has benefitted from it, including myself. Any merits obtained from your meritorious act of sharing the Buddha Dhamma, may we rejoice in the merits and share/transfer/offer the merits to all the Satta’s. May the power of the merits help us all attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana. Thank you
If you can think of or see any problems or inconsistencies with understanding/seeing Sakkaya ditthi and Sakkaya as two different understandings, but are connected. Please for the compassion of me, point it out.
Lang
Thank you so much for your participation and feedback, it’s very beneficial for me. Thanks to your post, I can see and realize some of my potential misunderstandings that I may have. May we rejoice in the merits earned from your meritorious act, may we offer/share/transfer these merits with all the Satta’s and by the power of these merits help us all attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. Saddhu saddhu saddhu
“pancupadanakkhandha is a subset of pancakkhandha”
– Geez . . . never thought of it that way . . . Tremendous help.
“I tend to think that Sakkaya Ditthi is “in” pancupadanakkhandha”
– Another way we can look at this as well is that Sakkaya ditthi comes as package with all Satta’s.“I’d say that “As long as pancupadanakkhandha is there …”
For an arahant, there is still pancakkhandha (until parinibbana), but no perception of “I, me” or mana.”– That makes sense, thank you for sharing that.
I thought it was the pancakkhandha because this was subtitled “Once the five aggregates disintegrate, the perception of the “I” disappears from there. 33:33- 34:44 of the video.
– But after re-watching that part of the video, and thinking about it, I think I might not have understood that part correctly.
“(probably in the sankharakkhanda).”
– I actually think it’s in the Vinnanakkhandha. 31:35 – 33:35 of the video, let me know what you think.
with Metta,
Thank you Lang and Lal for taking the time to reply to my post and the sharing of Dhamma, much merits to the both of you. Saddhu saddhu saddhu
#1. *** Just wondering, have I understood properly what is being taught in the video below in regards to the difference between Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi? ***
From what I understand right now and believe to make the most sense, is that Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi are understood (1) differently (not exactly the same thing) but are connected. Why I say this is because if one watches the above video from the beginning to about the 38:00 mark, Waharaka Thero spent most of the video teaching about the different wrong views of a “self” (I, Me).
The definition given to Sakkaya ditthi in the sutta’s and what I understand is that Sakkaya Ditthi is having the four wrong views about the 5 aggregates or the wrong views about a “self” (I, me).
While Sakkaya is pancupadanakkhandha, a satta (attached), or taking Kaya as Sath . (37:53 – 39:45 of the video.)
(1) Why I believe Sakkaya and Sakkaya ditthi are to be understood in two different ways. 39:00 – 39:16 of the video.
Lal said: “Sakkaya Ditthi arises in those who do not understand the Paticca Samuppada process”
#2. If I have understood correctly or what I contemplated is correct, Sakkaya is the origin of Sakkaya Ditthi.
I believe the understanding of Paticca Samuppada is one of the requirements to remove Sakkaya ditthi. But even with Sakkaya Ditthi removed one would still Sakkaya until one has removed all Avija. If I understood correctly, the “perception” of “I, me” or mana is deeply embedded in our pancakkhandha, its been with us since no discernable beginning. As long as the pancakkhandha is there for the satta, the “perception” of “I, me” or mana will be there.
Lang said:
“I haven’t heard of one who connects breath meditation to sakkaya ditthi”.I come to realize that connecting breath meditation to Sakkaya ditthi was one of the many wrong understandings that I came to while contemplating on Dhamma. I apologize for wasting the person’s time for reading an inappropriate example.
with Metta,
I just thought of a “possible” and very troubling example of Sakkaya Ditthi, please share feedback and opinion.
#1. Before I started learning the Puredhamma, I was taught breathing meditation, to focus on the breath and feel it inside my body etc . . . Thinking back on this, I feel like I was taking (kaya) the 5 aggregates to be (sath) important. Thinking that by focusing on my breath will take me to Nibbana or believing the 5 aggregates is beneficial for me to attain Nibbana. If one places any emphasize or delightfully promotes any method that uses the 5 aggregates and truly believe that it will take one to Nibbana, isn’t this an example of Sakkaya Ditthi?
I understand that there are some exceptions to this. To make things simple, let’s say someone has the gati to practice breath meditation. One day, they have understood what Sakkaya ditthi is. If one has understood what sakkaya ditthi is, I believe that they would not place anymore importance on breathing meditation. They might still do it out of habit or to get into mundane jhana’s. But deep down inside, they would know that focusing on any of the 5 aggregates is Sakkaya ditthi or anatta (no essence) and they wouldn’t teach or promote such a method or at least encourage it.
Today it’s very widely taught and encourage for people to do breathing meditation (most current Buddhist :( , focus on objects, focusing on your feelings, etc . . . For people who’s teaching or learning these methods and truly believes that these methods will take one to Nibbana or a permanent happiness or whatever is that they wish for. Isn’t this one of the many examples of Sakkaya Ditthi?
Since I mentioned anatta (no essence), which is commonly translated as no-self, rather one believes anatta as no-self or not. Instead of “no-self”, it seems like it’s better to view it as “there’s nothing worth to call a self or nothing can be considered as a self” I know Lal wrote something exactly or similar as this in his posts, but now these are my own words / way of thinking.
#2. Why “there’s nothing worth to call a self or nothing can be considered as a self”? Because of anatta (no essence). From my experience so far, it seems like the more one understands what Sakkaya ditthi is, the more one understands what anatta (no essence) means.
#1. Is the example I given a Sakkaya ditthi?
#2. Am I on the right path of understanding the connection between Sakkaya ditthi and Anatta? I know there’s more learning/details to be done, but this is what I can realize for now.
with Metta,
coolguy16 said:
“Now whenever I feel myself craving something, and especially if I allow myself to think thoughts related to it, I feel pain instead of whatever it felt like before. ”I went through a similar experience, but instead of pain, I felt more of a “depressed” vedana. Even though I wasn’t depressed, but that’s the best way I can describe what I felt.
From what I can diagnose of what happened was that a part of me deep down inside knows this world to be Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, but because I’m so used to going behind kama raga, another part of me didn’t want to let go. So one part of my gati knows going behind this world is Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, but another part of my gati (been with me since Sansara) didn’t/doesn’t want to let go of these assada’s. So I was kinda fighting/battling within myself.
During this process, I was probably activating the Akusala-Mula P.S. and that’s probably why I felt this “depressed” vedana. So if one is feeling “pain” or some form of dukkha while one is craving for something, it’s quite possible that one still has avija/moha or tanha for what one is craving for or had activated the Akusala-Mula P.S.
As always Lal, thank you for your time and teachings, much merits to you. May any merits we obtain from this meritorious act be shared/transferred/offered to all the Satta’s and may the power of these merits help all of us Satta’s attain the supreme Bliss of Nibbana. Saddhu saddhu saddhu
When you said:
” Thus, “sakkāya ditthi” is to VIEW pancupadanakkhandha as good, and “should be mine”/”beneficial to be taken as mine”.”– For the “should be mine”/”beneficial to be taken as mine”. Can I understand that as the four wrong “views” for each of the 5 aggregates? “I am my; is me; me is in; I am in” or the 20 types of Sakkaya ditthi?
