Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Just thought of;
We been satta’s since no discernable beginning which means we been doing Sakkaya Samudaya. Avija and the 4 other causes in Sakkaya Samudaya causing the 5 effects, would give rise to a satta. As long as a satta has avija, the perception of a “self” will always be there since this perception of a “self” can be equated to avija. It seems like Sakkaya samudaya is what causes/give rise/ maintains Sakkaya ditthi while Sakkaya ditthi in turns fuels/feeds Sakkaya samudaya, feeding each other.
Just would like to share something that might be of benefit to others in understanding about the 4 noble truths.
from 19:40-29:02 minutes.This is the only resource/material in English so far that I came across that gives an explanation of what the “Pi” is in jati-pi dukkha, jara-pi dukkha, maranam-pi dukkha from the first noble truth. If the “pi” is piya like mentioned in the video then that really opens up some new possibilities for a individual to gain further understanding about the noble truths.
Just wondering if anyone else come across any teachings or have any opinions on what is taught in the video in regards to “pi” from the first noble truth?
For those who don’t know what piya is, this is what I found from doing a search on the puredhamma website.
“6. We attach to things that we like. This “attachment” is described in several ways by the Buddha: icchā, taṇhā, nandi, piya, kāma, etc. When exposed to such ‘likable things” in this world, we become joyful and try to get more of them, even using immoral deeds.”
As well there’s this sutta. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ati/tipitaka/mn/mn.087.than.html
I feel that I might have something to contribute to this discussion.
Lal says:
“One becomes a Sotapnna Anugami by hearing/reading about these explanations. If one really comprehends, one ‘sees” that the rebirth process is a “cause and effect” effect and that there is no “self” or a “soul” going through various rebirths. However, since there is a causal connection among all those rebirths, one cannot also say that rebirth happens without there being a previous “satta” existing in one of the realms.”
Sometime ago, a sudden thought came to my mind. I asked myself “why am I practicing the Buddha dhamma for?” Since after this jati, if there’s a next bhava/jati, I wouldn’t be able to remember anything from this jati, as well it won’t be the current “I/me/self” that is suffering or enjoying, why should I care what happens to my next bhava/jati? The interesting thing is my wife asked me the exact same question a few weeks later when I was trying to explain the Buddha dhamma to her. Luckily, I was able to come up with an answer for myself right away, otherwise I would’ve had a difficult time to continue my Buddha dhamma practice. The answers that I was able to come up for myself are:
#1. To reduce/remove/minimize the amount of suffering that this jati has to go through, but this is not the most important thing. The most important thing is
#2. If I’m not able to attain Nibbana in this very jati, I know the next bhava/jati would have to go through some form of suffering. The next bhava/jati would most likely do harm to oneself and as well to other living beings. I do not wish/like/want or at least minimize the next bhava/jati suffering, but most importantly not hurting oneself or other living beings. It’s like . . I do not want/wish to create more suffering in this world for any living beings currently and into the future. This is the main reason why I walk the noble eightfold path.
It’s also kinda interesting, but I find thinking this way is also like Metta bhavana. I believe this is what works for me in regards to Metta bhavana.
#3. Another way to answer the question that I had for myself is to see my next bhava/jati as my own children. I’m sure almost all parents can agree that they would want the very best for their children. I would like/wish the very best for my next bhava/jati if I’m not able to attain Nibbana. I hope to minimize the amount of suffering the next bhava/jati would have to go through and most importantly, finish walking the noble eightfold path and eventually attain Nibbana.
Thinking in the above ways, I feel it’s no longer all about a “me/I/self”. I started contemplating more about the five aggregates and trying to see deeper that this “me/I/self” is really nothing more than the five aggregates with gati/asava’s and avija/moha creating this “I/me/self” view. Simplifying things for myself, really I’m just the five aggregates that attaches/seeks the five aggregates to create assada. Pancakkhandha —> panca upadanakkhanda —> pancakkhanda —> panca upadanakkhanda and continues on until I can put a stop to the upadanakkhanda.
Lal says
“So, it is an interesting point. Furthermore, he seems to think that the “phala moment” can come at any time, not necessarily while listening to a discourse.”
I don’t know if or when I attained any phala moments, but from my own experiences. Most of my profound moments comes from contemplation after I read something on this website or listen to some sermons or out of nowhere. If I felt that I read or listened to something that is important at that moment, I would stop reading or listening and start contemplating on what I felt was important to me at that time and sometimes I would get profound insights/moments. Hardly that I can remember that I would get profound moments while I’m actively reading or listening, but maybe this is how things work for me at this moment. I’m sure some can gain profound insights while actively listening or reading. As well, sometimes out of nowhere, while I’m not reading or listening, the Buddha dhamma would come to my mind and sometimes I would get profound insights/moments then.
Walking on the noble eightfold path would be so difficult without kalana mitta’s, especially ariya one’s. I have been unsure of my own answer to what I asked in my previous post for a few weeks. I feel it’s so important to get feedback on what one contemplates and comprehends to make sure one doesn’t have the wrong views about the Buddha Dhamma.
Thank you Lal and everyone else for your time and responding accordingly to what one feel is appropriate. It’s a tremendous help and beneficial. Thank you again. Saddhu saddhu saddhu.
Lal says:
“We need to ALWAYS think about suffering from INSIGHT/WISDOM, and NOT with FEELINGS”
I believe examples of that would be seeing “dukkha” from anicca, P.S., Assada/Adinava/Nissarana. As well like you emphasize “suffering in the rebirth process” and “future suffering”.
May any merits obtained from this discussion, be shared/offered to all the worldly living beings wherever they might be. May the power of these merits help all worldly living beings attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. Saddhu saddhu saddhu.
Waharaka Thero – Universal Truth Exposure | Episode 07 – Know the Thilakuna
Have I understood this correctly? At 39:57 of the video. The subtitle says the “Dukkhaskandha (the aggregate of suffering) is panchaskandha. Is that the same as saying the pancakkhandha is dukkha?
I have been contemplating on this recently and still am. “Is the Pancakkhandha dukkha?” The answer that I’m able to come up with, pancakkhandha “is” dukkha, but it’s not the cause of dukkha. To me “is” and “cause” of dukkha is two different things, but can be one of the same. The “cause” of dukkha is of course the panca upadanakkhandha or tanha. From what I contemplated on, the Panca upadanakkhanda is the kamma or the causes of dukkha, while pancakkhandha is the vipaka or the effect of dukkha. One can argue that there is sukha vipaka in the pancakkhandha, but the sukha vipaka is anicca and anatta for sure. It’s like the bait on the fishing hook. The pancakkhandha is the bait, while the panca upadanakkhandha is biting on the bait.
Or
Another way that I support my answer to the question “Is the pancakkhandha dukkha?”. Is that the pancakkhandha belongs to this world that is anicca, dukkha, anatta or “Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayō hōti “. Nibbana, which is the end of suffering, there is no pancakkhandha. There’s also other ways that I can think of to support my answer. If anyone has any feedback or notice any gaps in my understanding, please do share.
The way I see dukkha dukkha is the first dukkha comes from Anicca -> dukkha or “Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayō hōti” from the P.S. As long as I’m anywhere in the 31 realms of existence, I would still consider myself in the whole mass of suffering or dukkha
The second dukkha comes from what Lal had mentioned kamma vipaka, body pains, illnesses, etc . . . or something simple such as being hungry, being too cold, etc . . .
Why this makes sense to me is because Lal mentions that there’s very little dukkha dukkha in the higher realms while there’s more dukkha dukkha in the lower realms. If one is in the highest realms, I believe they would have very little or next to none dukkha kamma vipaka’s. But even if that’s the case, the sukha that one is enjoying in the higher realms is still considered as Anicca therefore it will still lead to dukkha and as well one is still in Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayō hōti or whole mass of suffering.
In the lowest realms any relief from dukkha would be anicca, as well one is in Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayō hōti or whole mass of suffering. The second dukkha that comes from kamma vipaka would be the most prevalent there. The opposite of being in the higher realms.
Because it’s dukkha dukkha, not dukha dukha, both the dukkha dukkha can be removed or put an end to but attaining Nibbana. When one attains Nibbana, one is no longer in a world that’s anicca or Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayō hōti or whole mass of suffering. Thereby removing the first dukkha. As well when one attains Nibbana, one is no longer subject to dukkha that comes from kamma vipaka, thereby removing the second dukkha.
This is what makes sense to me so far, if anyone has any advice/opinions/feedback please advise. I’m looking to improve my understanding/knowing/seeing of the Buddha Dhamma and to make sure my understanding/knowing/seeing of the Buddha Dhamma remains consistent with the Buddha Dhamma taught by Lord Buddha. That’s why it’s important that we have Buddha Dhamma friends, to help us see/know/understand certain things in regards to the Buddha Dhamma that we didn’t know or thought about or able to see ourselves.
with Metta,
Glad to see a few of us discussing the Buddha Dhamma :)
Lal said:
“It is the sota pasada rupa that makes it possible to communicate with others.
– Rupavcara Brahmas (as well as human gandhabbas) communicate directly (without words) via that sota pasada rupa.
– Arupavacara Brahmas (and those in the asanna realm) do not have the sota pasada rupa. That is why they cannot communicate with others.”That’s exactly what I thought, I wasn’t sure of my own answer though because I thought one might need a mouth as well to communicate through sound. I was thinking, if Rupavcara Brahmas can communicate with Lord Buddha, but Arupavacara Brahmas aren’t able to, what’s the difference between them? I thought of the sota pasada rupa.
Thanks to you Lal, Seng Kiat, Y not and Sharma for participating on this discussion. I don’t have anything else to add, as my questions are answered in regards to this topic.
Nibbana parama sukhaya sukithatara wethwa to you all !
Much thanks and merits to Seng Kiat and Lal.
I thought of a good question to ask that I believe can bring a beneficial conclusion to this topic.
For rupa Brahma’s since they are missing the faculties of “touch” and “taste”. Without taste, that means they don’t have a mouth. How do they communicate with Lord Buddha?
Sharma said:
-Space is infinite, all-pervasive, eternal, so is consciousness?
-Is it also possible to perceive the entire universe while being in contact with infinite space and infinite consciousness?
– Both space and consciousness are subtler than the Suddashtaka?I suggest you read this post
Sharma, what is the main goal for the people practicing Buddhism? Do you even want to attain infinite consciousness, if it’s even possible besides a Buddha . . ? Do you have the time to do so?
There’s a story about a yogi whom wanted to explore the whole universe. He ended up getting lost and died. There’s also a story about one of Lord Buddha’s disciple who wanted to explore the universe, he ended up getting lost. Lucky for him, Lord Buddha was able to find him.
Sharma said:
Memory records from beginning-less time are stored in the consciousness property. In other words, what we have thought, done, everything. (I wonder if the rumors’ of Akashic records originated from that, except it should be Vinnanic, not Akashic.) is that correct? could it also be possible to retrieve those records for one self?
– I suggest you read these two post and as well do a search on this website on “Nama gota”
I can’t say for certain as I only have a general idea of what the Akashic records are, but I’m pretty sure the Akashic records is the same as the Nama gota or the concept anyways . . .
Sharma said
“I would recommend this book. It shows the immense(but ultimately) limited possibilities of attaining anariya jhanas.”
Thank you for the recommendations, but anyone that understands the Buddha Dhamma and the rebirth process would know this already. It might not be the best use of time reading some book about it when one can just focus on the Buddha Dhamma and they would learn that from it. As well, one can see the example of Devadatta for the easiest and quickest example . . .
with Metta,
I can’t say I have read many sutta’s, but I did a quick search and couldn’t find any material states “that Venerable Ugga obtained Arhatship in the pure abodes and came to Buddha to tell about it and pay his respects” I thought if any sutta’s stated this, it would be here https://suttacentral.net/vb6/pli/ms (paticca samuppada vibhanga) but didn’t see anything in there.
It’s like Lal says, “need to verify that”.
Sharma, instead of reading other commentaries that’s not included in the Tipitaka. I suggest you go straight to the sutta’s in the Tipitaka, even though the English translations might not be the best.
I started to do this, sometimes comparing the English words to the Pali words in the Sutta’s and with my own understanding/know/seeing of the Buddha Dhamma, I try to make sense for myself what the Sutta is saying. I’m actually having some ah-ha moments when doing this, although I’m not always right about things, but this process really makes me reflect and contemplate on the Buddha Dhamma that I have learned. It’s been a beneficial process, but one will need a kalana mitta to help confirm what you have contemplated on and set you straight if you got the wrong ideas/concepts.
With Metta,
