Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
Thank you Lang.
I’m thinking that it seems like being in Arahant-Phala Samapatti is more advantageous than being in Nirodha samapatti due to that Arahant-Phala Samapatti has no limit and nirodha samapatti does. But I need to think about the fact that if there’s something that has no limit compared to something that does, often times there’s drawbacks and benefits.
Even though Arahant – phala samapatti seems to be more advantageous due to having no limit, but the downside to this is that the Arahant probably isn’t experiencing the full bliss of Nibbana due to still being connected with citta which belongs to one of the ultimate realities of this world.
While Nirodha samapatti has limit, but an Arahant in nirodha samapatti has no connection to citta and would experience the full bliss of Nibbana which does not belong to this world.
It seems like nirodha samapatti bliss of Nibbana is a higher grade / a step above Arahant-phala samapatti?
Hi Raj,
Your question: “When we project metta bhavana to an entity, how does it reach them. I was thinking, may be, that the activity helps the performer more that the one it is performed for. It puts the person giving metta in a proper frame of mind and benefits them to progress on the path.”
Hi Raj,
You mentioned “Unfortunately I cant meditate for many hours”
One of the pieces of advice that I wanted to share with you was to expand your view and understanding of what meditation is.
Lal mentioned
“In any case, it is a good idea to read the posts in the Meditation section”
I hope you have read Lal post above carefully. One can miss out important information if you quickly just read over it without some contemplation afterwards.
“As far as English discourses by others, I think those by “Dharmayai Obayi” seem to be good”
Here’s the link to the playlist of the English sermons by Dharmayai Obai
One of my to go learning places.
Lal mentioned
“My advice is to stop trying to read/listen to all that is out there. Just focus on one path for some time. If that doesn’t seem to be right then try another.”
This is another advice that I wanted to share with you. The links that I have posted above in my opinion can “kinda” help one focus on the path with what we’re learning here. But one would have to use their discernment to see what makes sense to them or not, as I don’t agree with everything that’s being taught or mentioned in those links that I provided you. But nevertheless, they still can be beneficial. I would highly recommend that you read the material on this site first or as much as you can. If you not feeling like reading from here at the current moment or you want to listen to something instead, then you can check out the links that I have provided. As well there are desena’s (talks) on here as well. Maybe Lal can point them out to you.
Hope this helps
THANK YOU SENGKIAT AND LAL !!
Without knowing that a topic that I have been contemplating on, I recently came across a video where it mentioned that this topic has been brought up often in the past, but not necessary here on puredhamma. I have been having a question on a topic for at least over half a year now, only until recently that I felt comfortable enough to be able to understand some abhidhamma concepts without needing to be babysat through and now I’m making the determination to get this question resolve or gain as much clarity on the topic as I can.
I’m in the process of writing out this topic and the question that I have in mind. While going through this process, there was a lot of difficult questions and explanations that I had to answer to myself in what I think and believed in. I came across two different explanations for the topic and question that I had in mind, but both explanations are not completely satisfactory to me.
Last night I thought I made such a major error in my contemplation that a lot of my answers and explanations would have to be thrown out on this topic. Literally I would have to start from scratch again and that would’ve been painful and maybe would’ve made me put off seeking answers to the question again. Because I wouldn’t know where to begin again. It’s like I have been trying to put a puzzle together using an incomplete or distorted puzzle outline picture and trying to figure out how to put all the pieces together.
Thank you again Lal and Sengkiat again for the help, it has cleared up some of this puzzle outline picture for me. After seeing your answers, it confirmed to me that I didn’t have the wrong idea in what I was thinking, which I thought I did last night. But instead, just not the correct detailed mechanism of how things would work out. If I couldn’t get this detailed mechanism correctly, then pretty much all the pieces of the puzzle that I have put together wouldn’t fit or make sense. Maybe such a thing might happen again while I’m writing out what I have in mind, but if there was two major mistake’s that I could’ve made during my contemplation process. One was just corrected or helped me to at least be able to explain what I have in mind.
Question, is there a limit like nirodha samapatti on how long an Arahant can stay in Arahant-Phala samapatti?
When an Arahant is in Arahant-phala samapatti #1. are there citta vithi’s running? If there is, which citta vithi option below would you say is the closest to Arahant-Phala samapatti?
#2. B B B B B BC BU MD J J J J J J J J J J J
#3. B B B “BC BU MD U A G Pa Fr Fr Fr” B B B
#4. Something else. If it’s something else, can you please provide an example something similar to the layout of option #2 and #3
Thank you in advance.
If I was to answer this, I would say #1. “yes” there are citta vithi’s running while an Arahant is in Arahant-Phala samapatti and I would pick option #2 that I believe is closest to a citta vithi of an Arahant in Arahant-Phala samapatti.
Hi Raj,
“who want to use meditation as a tool.”
I’m not 100% certain what you mean by these words . . . But by my own definition or understanding of “meditation”. I would be very confident to say that the majority of us on puredhamma is already using meditation as a tool.
I’ll be completely honest with you, even though I didn’t listen to any of the talks you posted beside the one you just asked my opinion on. To me, most of the teachers and talks you have posted does not resonate with me “anymore”. I feel that I “spend more time and energy” filtering out information, trying to understand what’s being taught and filling in the blanks myself then doing any actual learning.
I did listen to the dhamma talk that you asked my opinion on and I do have a reply for you in mind, but I’m not sure if I will end up writing it out or it will at least take some time for me to type it out. Most likely this will be the only time that I will listen to these talks that your posting and comment on it, because I feel there are some important things that you should be aware of.
Something that I can recommend to you is that if you feel that you’re not receiving the answers or not enough discussions on the topics that’s important or of interest to you here at puredhamma. You can look into joining
I’m sure there’s a lot of experts and people on those forums that share similar interest as you. As well the majority of the people in these forums most likely have learned and practiced from similar teachers of the talks that your posting here. Just to give you a heads up at suttacentral though, I’m not sure if this has changed or hopefully it has changed, but before one of their forum guideline is that it’s “wrong speech” to them if someone mentions Anicca “does not” mean impermanence. I hope this helps.
In the mean time, if you feel like it, why don’t you share with us or me what you have learned from the talk that you asked mine and Lang opinion on. What’s your own opinion of it? What did you learn from it? What made sense or didn’t make sense to you? Was there any teachings in the talk you felt needed further clarification on? Etc . . .
