Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Much merits Lal for the alternative translation! This has provided me with new insights into understanding more about anicca nature.
What I noticed is that here at Puredhamma, one of the posts mentioned Aniccam khayatthena. “Because one’s hope for enjoying (rupa and the other aggregates) will only lead to one’s demise (aniccam khayatthena).” Now seeing in the Petakopadesa mentioning something similar on how anicca nature induces one to engage in immoral deeds. I believe a connection I was able to make between the two concept or words “sampapana” and “aniccam khayatthena” is:
“Due to anicca nature of the 5 aggregates, it induces one to engage in immoral deeds (sampapana). (One of the reasons why anicca nature induces one to engage in immoral deeds is because we’re never able to fulfill our wishes / desires / likes, etc and we keep trying to especially through akusala deeds) and if one desires or hopes to enjoy / obtain the 5 aggregates that’s of anicca nature, it will lead one to demise (aniccam khayatthena).
This is an observation that I made, I thought I would share it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
The question to be asked is: “Is there a way to check who is teaching the correct Dhamma?”
The only way to do that is to “find holes” in a given interpretation.
– If I may add, through one’s practice as well.
What I can say is that the Buddha dhamma that I learned from Venerable Waharaka Thero, here (Puredhamma Lal), other Puredhamma participants here and other thero’s / teachers that teaches the dhamma that leads to nibbana. I can clearly see the change in my mano, vaci, kaya sankhara’s compared to 10,5,1 years ago and recently, the change has been quite dramatic . . .
On DW, I pretty much almost went through most of the comments (not all) in the topic about the teachings of Ven. Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero. As much as I can see, pretty much no one was able to refute (to my satisfaction) on what Lal posted on there. I wrote extra information about this, but decided to delete it since there’s no benefit for me to say more about this topic.
Anyways . . .I feel the Buddha dhamma situation out there is quite the mess . . . People not being taught properly; when the chance to learn and comprehend the dhamma that leads to nibbana comes, many are not able to see and use it. Through my browsing experience through Buddhist forums, I often see many . . . repeating questions being asked, some none beneficial or important and some is just a total waste of time and mind energy. Some discussions end up in arguments, with commitment of vaci abhisankhara involved. It seems likes some are there to “have fun”
It’s like . . . they go there to learn or have fun . . . but end up blocking their own path to Nibbana through akusala mula p.s. Never really thought about this deeply, but now typing this, I’m asking myself does it make sense to do something like this?But ya . . . it’s quite . . . depressing and disheartening (best way that I can put this, but not really since I have been down this road so so many times before . . . even in the mundane world ) to see the current state of the Buddha dhamma and the practitioners of the Buddha Dhamma. Recently, I came across a post that shared a part of a translated sutta, I never knew such a translation was out there.
asubhā bhāvetabbā rāgassa pahānāya, mettā bhāvetabbā byāpādassa pahānāya, ānāpānassati bhāvetabbā vitakkupacchedāya, aniccasaññā bhāvetabbā asmimānasamugghātāya. Variant: ānāpānassati → ānāpānasati (bj, pts1ed)”
“They should develop the perception of ugliness to give up greed, love to give up hate, mindfulness of breathing to cut off thinking, and perception of impermanence to uproot the conceit ‘I am’.
There are many more people out there that know more Pali and read the sutta’s more than me. But after seeing how those “bhavana’s are being translated into English, I was kinda shocked . . . It’s up to each person to decide what is right / correct for them . . .But my own understanding of those “translated bhavana’s” is totally different than what’s being translated as.
So fortunate . . . to be able to come across other explanations / teachings that makes sense, different from what’s usually taken at face value . . . Otherwise, I might try to see ugliness in everything and get patigha or try to huff and puff my way to Nibbana.
At our current time, coming across and being able to see / comprehend some truths from the Buddha, Dhamma, “Sangha”, Venerable Waharaka Abhayaratanalankara Thero, Puredhamma (Lal), us forum participants here, and other teachers of similar Dhamma. I feel / know that we are some of the most fortunate living beings in this world. May we all satta’s be able to come across the Buddha dhamma that helps us to attain and attain the supreme peace and freedom of Nibbana.
Thanks
Based on what you shared and the suttacentral translation, some additional words / idea I thought up for vivicceva kāmehi” and “vivicca akusalehi dhammehi”. Disengaged, dissociate, breaking away, withdraw and there’s possibly others.
You mentioned “In the fourth Ariya jhana, basically, all anusaya are absent, including the avijja anusaya.”
I take it that only Arahants and the Buddha can attain the fourth Ariya jhana?
I have been contemplating about certain dhamma concepts these last few days and it does have some connection to what Dipobhasadhamma mentioned here.
Dipohasadhamma mentioned “I am (at present) at a loss for WHAT this seed of consciousness is”.
I would like to share a comment for scrutiny. From what I have understood and in one of the simplest way I can describe what “seed of consciousness is” or “what” we are on the most fundamental level (to make a long story short) is that it’s “packets of energy” (karmic energy) with avija and tanha. From this packets of energy with avija and tanha, it give rise to our world. While that I’m typing this, I believe I can also call this “packets of energy” with avija and tanha the hadaya vatthu or a satta or kamma bija and probably some other names.
I’m not sure if this helps, but in a Venerable Waharaka Thero youtube discourse where I seen the similar analyses and it’s probably the same video Tobias mentioned. It’s mentioned in English subtitles.
“Petakopadesaya – an important atuwa book also contains this analysis. Also Patisambhidamaggaprakara volumes analyze these concepts similarly”
In addition to what Tobais mentioned about viparinama dukkha and annatha, my thinking is that viparinama dukkha is “expected changes” to one what dislikes / not wish or desire for. Such as old age, sickness, death, being separated from what one likes and having to associate with one dislikes. Since we know that any sankata will eventually evolve towards decay and destruction (vayo sankata lakkhanan), that’s why I believe viparinama dukkha is “expected changes”.
While a sankata is in existence, it’s subjected to “unexpected changes” and if these unexpected changes are not to our liking or not what we wish or desire for, then that cause us dukkha dukkha. (titthassa sankata lakkhanan).
Yesterday when I was contemplating on this subject, I was able to see another / additional way of describing what dukkha dukkha is and how anicca is connected to dukkha dukkha. As well using the tilakkhanan and the first noble truth to connect with the 3 sankata lakkhanan (although I could be mistaken).
Thank you for your reply Tobias.
May we all satta’s attain the supreme peace and freedom of nibbana.
Tobias G mentioned “5 stages of a sankata, which is not explained in Tipitaka. There we have only 3 stage: arising, viparinama, death.”
The Pali names for the 3 stages of a sankata, are they assada, adinava, nissarana? Or is it are they something else?
An additional post enRaiser can look into
I apologize for my second question as it wasn’t clear and end up causing some confusion. It seems like to me I must’ve erred in what I was thinking. But thanks to this discussion, I was able to gain some new valuable insights and helped to remind me / review / contemplate with new possibilities and understandings.
Thank you both Lang and Lal for your time and help. May we and others talk again in the near future.
Thank you Lang and Lal for the reply / replies.
Ooooooo
“An Arahant would not generate either akusala sankhara or kusala sankhara.
#1. This sentence can potentially answer some questions I have, as well what is written in the P.S. Based on the above sentence, is it correct for me to think that for an Arahant / Buddha, only the avyakata p.s. is initiated?
#2. For further clarification, if one initiates the “transcendental” kusala-mula p.s. Is that just sankhara or would that be considered as abhisankhara?
Thank you Lang and Lal, your feedback helped me.
In regards to a part in the vittaka, vicara post.
“avitakka vicāramattaṃ samādhi (absence of vitakka with a trace of vicāra left)”
I was wondering what is an explanation or description can be for the “absence of vitakka with a trace of vicara left”?
#1. Does “absence of vitakka” mean absence of bad thoughts?
#2. “Trace of vicara left” Is this trace of vicara bad thoughts or is it a trace of savicara?May you Alfalco and everyone be well.
Welcome to the forum and I sincerely hope that puredhamma can help you in any way along your path. This is just a personal opinion, I believe you made a wise decision in being open to investigate / explore the pure dhamma that’s was disseminate by Venerable Waharaka Thero and now his disciples / followers. I don’t suggest you take any teachings here with blind faith or any teachings/teachers for that matter. No matter how things turn out for you here at puredhamma, I’m happy to see that you at least open yourself to the Budddha dhamma that’s being shared here.
I can’t say I know or understand a lot about meditation, or that I’m doing it correctly. What I’m about to share is based on my own experiences and personal beliefs. For me, one thing that that I learned / noticed while practicing meditation and the Buddha dhamma is that most people differ in ways on how they see / understand the Buddha dhamma. As well not always one technique or way of meditation works all the time or that’s effective at a given time. What I mean by this is that for me at least, is that at certain times, a technique or way works really well for me and seems like I’m making minor progress. While hours later or the next day, I try to use the same technique or method and I end up hitting a wall or barrier or some sort within my mind. For example, one day it seems like I’m gaining momentum in investigating / exploring the different ways of understanding the Tilakkhana. The next day, I could try the same approach, same technique and nothing. No progress and at times I feel like I really have to force my mind to go back to contemplating or practicing the way I did the day before where I felt like I was making progress and felt easy / neutral. Sometimes when that happens, my mind seems to hit a barrier or a wall and not able to gain any momentum / traction in my meditation practice like I could the day or hours before. When that happens, I try to switch between different techniques / dhamma subjects to meditate on. I could be doing great in my formal meditation meditating on the Tilakkhana, but the next day, my mind doesn’t even want to go there and when I try to force my mind to go there, it just seems to be hitting barriers or walls and I’m not able to maintain my focus there. I would try to force my mind for some time, but if I feel it’s not working, then I try to switch it up to metta bhavana meditation. If that’s not working, then I switch to something else, like contemplating on different Buddhist core teachings and try to find a Buddha dhamma subject / concept that I feel my mind is more ready to accept at the time of my formal or anapanasati meditation.
I believe it’s important to be rigid yet flexible with one’s mind when practicing and learning the Buddha dhamma. What I mean by the rigid part is that whatever we’re meditating on or practice, it should be in accordance / consistent with the Buddha dhamma. For example, we’re not going to meditate on how we can get rich in this world, or how we can gain superpowers so we can show off, etc . . . Yet our meditation practice is flexible enough where we can experiment / try out different approaches/techniques that might be more effective at certain times / situations that’s in accordance with the Buddha Dhamma. Or being able to contemplating on different Buddha Dhamma subjects interchangeably.
I believe by being more flexible with one’s meditation practice it give us more ways / options / choices that we can choose / decide on that can better benefit our Buddha Dhamma practice. Remember that what one technique or contemplating on one Buddha dhamma concept might not always be the most effective or right for each individual at that current time. But this doesn’t necessary mean it won’t be at a later or any given time.
It’s unfortunate that so much emphasize is being placed on formal meditation out there and even more unfortunate that most of the things being taught to meditate on is not the most correct or beneficial that’s available to the individual. Just like how you were, including me and I’m sure others on here were once taught to focus on our breath in our formal meditation. I could be wrong about this, but it seems like not much emphasize is being placed on “what one does outside of formal meditation practice” compared to what one should do in formal meditation practice that’s being disseminated out there in the “popularly” taught Theravada Buddhism. In my personal opinion / view, what one does outside of formal meditation sessions is just as if not more important than what one does in formal meditation sessions, which is was more emphasized here at puredhamma. What I’m finding is that the more correctly / in accordance that I practice / follow the Buddha Dhamma outside of formal meditation sessions in my everyday lay life. The easier my formal meditation are. What I mean by “easier” is that I’m able to sit for longer periods of time, I’m able to go deeper into my formal meditation, I’m able to gain more clarity / understanding of the Buddha dhamma, etc . . .
For me personally, I haven’t placed much attention or emphasize satipatthana bhavana in my practice. But I do focus a lot on learning / contemplating on the Tilakkhana, 4 Noble truths and other core Buddhist teachings, as well being mindful of practicing Anapanasati whenever I can. What I’m finding is that when I focus on these two things, it seems like everything else falls into place. It’s hard to describe to others or would take very long to type this out. But I feel by practicing Anapanasati, learning / contemplating on core Buddhist teachings. All the other Buddhist meditation techniques / understanding of the Buddha dhamma comes naturally. To me at my current understanding / practice, it feels like I don’t have to do anything “extra” or need to do anything else besides focusing on the two things that I just mentioned. When I practice anapansati, it feels like I’m also practicing satipatthana bhavana. When I’m learning / contemplating / understanding of core Buddhist teachings like the Tilakkhana and others. I feel like I don’t really need to do anything else or extra. I guess this is the best that I can explain my experience so far, although it’s subject to change and once again not saying my practice is the right one, especially for others.
After saying all this, in the end my personal belief and experience is that before deciding what meditation techniques one should use or even thinking of focusing on formal meditation. I believe the most important thing is one must learn the Buddha Dhamma that facilitate the path to Nibbana from an Ariya (Noble disciple). Then investigate, experiment, and apply what one has learned into ones’ own life experiences to gain further understanding and realizations of the core Buddhist teachings such as the Tilakkhana, 4 Four Nobles, Paticca Samuppada, Assada / Adinava / Nissarana, etc . . . From my own path so far, I believe one of the most important thing is to be exposed and be able to comprehend the proper / correct meanings of the Tilakkhana and other core Buddhist teachings. Without this foundation or the “right” view, pretty much all meditation and practice would not be very beneficial or one would not be able to bring out the full potential of such practices.
This post really sums up on something that I have been realizing on a deeper level in the last past 2 weeks or so. As well give more detailed explanation on some of the things that I mentioned but didn’t give further details or explanations.
In regards to your question about the 32 parts of body meditation. In my current practice, I don’t really use it, but I have tried it before. In my personal opinion, especially this meditation technique, I feel one really needs a solid understanding / foundation of the core Buddhist teachings to be able to draw out it’s full potential, but this could be said for all the other meditation techniques. Personally for my current practice, I just keeping things as simple as possible such as learning and contemplating on key dhamma concepts especially the Tilakkhana. Practice Anapanasati in my everyday lay life as much as I can. I can’t say this is the same for others, but what I’m finding out is that when I focus on doing these two things, the other parts of the Buddhist practice just falls into place by itself. To me it seems like when my understanding of the Tilakkhana and other core Buddhist teachings is solid, all these meditation techniques and practices just comes naturally. I don’t need to look for them, but they come to me naturally at the appropriate time. When I’m practicing Anapanasati or Anuloma Khanti and Sammattaniyama, I feel like there’s nothing else that I need to do. I don’t need to any meditation techniques, don’t need to read or listen to the dhamma or really need to do anything. Just do my best to keep my mind focus there and allow the momentum to build. It seems like instead of me having to put so much effort, the process is automatic and it takes over and it becomes “effortless”. Of course I’m not always in this state in my everyday life, but it seems like that’s the direction where my practice is taking me. Once again, I’m not saying my practice is correct / right or suitable for others. It’s just that this is what’s working for me “right now”, of course this is subject to change and things might change in the future which is okay. After all I do personally believe that being flexible and being able to adapt to change is an important quality to have while one is walking on the noble 8 fold path.
If you have other questions, feel free to ask. I wish you and everyone the best in your dhamma practice.
With metta,
Suwapath wewa NN99,
Before coming across this website and Ven. Waharaka Thero teachings, I studied, learned and practiced the Thai Forest tradition for about 2-3 years. I can’t say I put 100% effort into it, but I did put some effort and did give it a good go.
You mentioned about some of us losing faith in the Thai Forest, as well you give a little talk about wisdom and intelligence. I can’t speak for others, but I stop practicing the Thai Forest tradition not because I lost faith in the tradition, but after learning from this website and through my own understanding/knowing/seeing I noticed that there are many inconsistencies with in regards to the teachings of the dhamma by the “popularly” taught Theravada Buddhism out there which includes the Thai Forest Tradition. In my opinion/view, if one really “have the “wisdom”, they would be able to see/discern these inconsistencies in the teachings. Although it’s possible that I could be bias or deluded, but when I contemplate/reflect/discern on the dhamma that’s taught by Ven. Waharaka Thero and his followers / disciples (including the website here). The core / most important teachings of the dhamma, I’m not able to find any major flaws or inconsistencies that would hide or lead one astray from the path to Nibbana, while I can’t say that with the teachings that’s being disseminated in the “popularly” taught Theravada Buddhism out there.
NN99 you mentioned that “English speakers” translate Anichcha as “changing nature of things” or “impermanent nature of all things’, I’m pretty sure most of your teachers as well. Okay, I’m sure you and many others should at least know this line. “yadaniccam tam dukkham, yam dukkham tadanattā”. We’ll just use yadaniccam tam dukkham part. I’m not sure if you would agree with me on this, but I will use the translation of “What is anicca leads dukkha (suffering)”.
So if we use the translation that I mentioned for the line “Yadaniccam tam dukkham” and your mention of “English speakers” translation of Anicca as “changing nature of things” or “impermanent nature of all things’. Then we should get something like this in English.
“The changing nature of things or impermanent nature of all things (Anicca) leads suffering (dukkha).#1. Let me ask you, the changing nature of things or impermanent nature of all things, does that “always” lead to suffering? I look forward to your answer on this question.
In regards to your mention about some Ajahn’s attaining Arahanthood in the or “your” Thai Forest tradition. There are some major red flags that I want to point out. To start off, although I can’t confirm some of these things being mentioned, after all it’s being said by others, but I still want to bring some them up.
This was mentioned in a forum, I can’t verify the accuracy of this statement.
“Ajahn Jayasaro (who appears to be no slouch) expressed the common view in a video that Maha was a arahant or, more specifically, was the go-to monk to confirm claims to arahantship.” #2. If this is true, can you see where the issue with this is?
#3. This is something that I confirmed, was that Ajahn Mahaboowa was involved with politics. I’m not exactly sure what time frame/period he was involved with politics, but from my own understanding/knowing/seeing of the dhamma, no Arahants, heck not even anagami’s or even possibly sakagami’s would even get involved with politics. I believe for those whom had attained Magga phala would understand this, especially those at the higher levels.
I can’t confirm the accuracy of these statements as this is from Ajahn Maha Bua Wikipedia page. But it mentions about Ajahn Maha Bua basic teachings on citta.
“Bua observes the essential enduring truth of the sentient being as constituted of the indestructible reality of the citta (heart/mind), which is characterized by the attribute of Awareness or Knowingness. This citta, which is intrinsically bright, clear, and aware, gets superficially tangled up in samsara but ultimately cannot be destroyed by any samsaric phenomenon. Although Bua is often at pains to emphasise the need for meditation upon the non-Self (anatta), he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence. The citta is bright, radiant, and deathless, and is its own independent reality.”
Okay . . . So I could be mistaken about this or I could be reading all this incorrectly, but is it just me or does that sentence say that Citta’s are caught up in the vortex of conditioned but at the same time is it’s own independent reality? #4. Maybe I’m not reading this or understanding this correctly, but if citta’s are in the vortex of conditioned, how can they be it’s own independent reality? From what I understood about the dhamma, only Nibbana is the independent reality since there’s no citta, rupa, or cetasika’s, while those 3 things belong to this world. . .
From the same line . . .
“he also points out that the citta, while getting caught up in the vortex of conditioned phenomena, is not subject to destruction as are those things which are impermanent, suffering, and non-Self (anicca, dukkha, anatta). The citta is ultimately not beholden to these laws of conditioned existence.”
WHAT?!?! Did I read this or understood this correctly? That citta’s “are not subject to destruction which are anicca, dukkha, anatta and the citta is not beholden to these laws” ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
#5. NN99 did I get this right? Do you agree or disagree with that citta’s are not beholden to the laws of anicca, dukkha, anatta?#6. I can’t confirm the subtitles in this youtube video but from 1:30 – 3:33 of the video . .
Any issues with what is being said here?
“This WISDOM is not, understanding the literal meaning of Anichcha Dukka Anatta as you discussed here. The real WIDOM is really seen and experience through your MIND. What they say is, without a real practice you can’t possibly experience it.”
#7. NN99, what do you think is the reason why a Buddha comes into this world? Can one that’s not a Buddha and not taught by someone that knows what is “real” in this world, know what is real? So . . . you’re saying that one does not need to understand the literal meanings of “Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta” but the real wisdom is to really see and experience through our minds. So what is that we need to see and experience through our minds to gain this “real wisdom” that your mentioning? As well, what is this “real wisdom”?
From the same link Tobias posted
“None of the vipāka citta has any unwholesome roots (greed, hate, delusion); of course, they also do not have the wholesome roots. Thus they are called rootless (ahētuka) citta.”
#1. Are all vipaka citta’s rootless without exceptions? From what I can understand right now, is yes, all vipaka citta’s are rootless.
#2. Are there any “possibilities” that “before a citta completes it’s 9 stages of change”, can change from kamma vipaka to kamma with karmic energy or before it get’s to the vinnanakkhanda stage?
#3. Is pabhassara citta a vipaka citta? If it is, maybe we can gain some clues on the question “How does a kamma vipaka come DIRECTLY to the mind-door (as a dhammā)? Possibly by looking into how Arahants experiences pabhassara citta, or how does the pabhassara citta go directly to the mind-door as dhamma to an Arahant, continuously experiencing it without the citta contaminating pass the citta stage and evolving to vinnanakhhanda? What would the process or mechanism be based on the abhidhamma? (This is one of the things that I have been contemplating on). I could be wrong about this, but for some reason I have this feeling that if we can answer this question in accordance to the dhamma. We can clarify some of the teachings in the abhidhamma and provide more explanations on what we might have missed or not explained completely in the Tipitaka.
I’m currently not 100% sure on the 3 questions. I also asked because I feel it can be relevant to our current discussion.
I also thought of how we can look to how arupa brahmins interact with dhamma since they only have the hadaya vatthu.
