Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Uppekha are you interested to have a noble guidance?🙏🏿
Yes Jittananto I’m interested to have a noble guidance!
Once again thank you Yash for addressing my point in number 4 about gas smell. You are correct that would be generating aversion.
Yash wrote: “That happens because this mind which is a process experiences itself as a Self.
You wrote something similar like that in the other thread about Tilakkhana. Can you explain further? About 1. no self and 2. energy vibrating at different frequencies? Is viewing the self as one continuous entity mistakenly and everything around us too as one continuous stream when it is actually something different like energy vibrating at different speeds or frequencies??
Yash wrote: “But the process is so fast, it appears as if there is one single fire.”
And: “Try to slow down time and imagine it. Every moment, the causes and conditions manifest a fire. But the process is so fast that it appears as if there is one single fire.”
For the above, do you mean everything is energy vibrating at different frequencies that the eyes are not able to see visibly with the naked eye? We can only see such energies or the fire for what it truly is with our third eye when we open it, as the Buddha did after his enlightenment.
Yes! Thank you Yash! That is what I was asking for! It was explained in a simple yet very easy to understand way! The fire example for anicca and hungry dog for ANATTA is very good way of explaining it. I can understand more easily when explained in more simpler terms like you did! Thank you again!
1 user thanked author for this post.
1. If the gandhabba does not smell odor is its body completely without any density?
2. Can it pass through walls when it is at its most subtle?
3. Can it pass through walls when it becomes more dense or will it not be able to pass through when it becomes more dense when it smells?
4. The word gandha means smell- I would know I’m Bengali. Is the word gandhabba alluding and tattle telling on what humans do unknowingly- which is intentionally sniffing and even enjoying ones gas smells- I ask because this could be one way for the Buddha to use it as tactic for humans to become detached and disillusioned with the glitz and glamour of superficial human life.
5. When a gandhabba craves for sensual pleasures but can’t -is that called a peta? ( hungry lustful ghost)?
Lal wrote: “Brahmas only have a manomaya kaya (no physical body), which is not called a gandhabba.”
Oh I see. How come it is no longer called a gandhabba if I may ask?
Before I had thought “sabbe sankhara dukkha” was a very deep verse with many implications, including bad kamma vipaka, rebirth process and the apayas. But now it seems it just means the effort/striving needed for thinking a thought is suffering.
Mano sankhara are reactions to sense inputs. They don’t last long, they are lightning quick. They are automatic. There is no effort or striving involved.
I could see how mano sankhara would be suffering if let’s say X were to see X’s enemy, and X’s reaction or mano sankhara to that sense input was one of anger. So that means there was dosa in X’s mano sankhara, and thus agitated X’s mind(which would be the suffering).
But what about let’s say an Arahant saw a handicap person, and the Arahant’s reaction/mano sankhara was of compassion, there was karuna in the mano sankhara. It was only a reaction, the Arahant did not even do anything for the handicap person.
I’m curious to know how something as brief as a good or neutral mano sankhara which does not involve sankappa, speech, bodily actions or any effort/striving can be suffering.
I’m assuming seeing the suffering in mano sankhara is something only an Arahant would be able to understand.
But it would still be good to know at least intellectually.
Since sankhara are thoughts and not the speech/bodily action itself, I was having difficulty understanding how only thoughts(merely thinking things) could be suffering. From your responses it is the EFFORT/STRIVING to think those thoughts that is the suffering.
Lal wrote:
“Furthermore, those thoughts also were not good thoughts and made X’s mind very agitated, which is also a part of the suffering at the moment of doing the bad deed.”Yes, I could see how apunnabhisankhara(simply thinking an immoral thought) can be suffering. In apunnabhisankhara there is asobhana cetasika. And asobhana cetasika stresses/heats up the mind. Whereas sobhana cetasika cools down the mind.
But sobhana cetasika arise in punnabhisankhara.
1) If sobhana cetasika cools down the mind, then can punnabhisankhara be considered as stressful?
2) I’m assuming it is the EFFORT needed to THINK good/moral thoughts that is the suffering when it comes to punnabhisankhara as well?
Sabbe sankhara dukkha=all sankhara ARE suffering.
So does that mean bad kamma vipaka and rebirths in the apayas is NOT implied in the verse “all sankhara are suffering” then?
I want to emphasize that the verse “sabbe sankhara dukkha” made more sense to me when I saw it as “all sankhara LEAD to suffering” rather than “all sankhara ARE suffering.” When you said it is “all sankhara ARE suffering” I went back to square one and became very confused and more questions arose. Perhaps others can help me understand as well.
Bad kamma vipaka is a major reason for our suffering in this world. But if the verse means “all sankhara ARE suffering”, then that means bad kamma vipaka is not implied in that verse. Because bad kamma vipaka is not sankhara but something sankhara can LEAD to.
Lal wrote:
“The verse that you quoted DOES NOT say that “sabbe sankhara LEAD TO dukkha.”
It just says, “sabbe sankhara dukkha” OR “All sankhara are suffering.”For a long time I thought the two phrases “sabbe sankhara annica” and “sabbe sankhara dukkha” meant “everything sankhara can LEAD to is anicca and causes suffering.” Not that “all sankhara ARE anicca” or “all sankhara ARE suffering.”
That makes a big difference(the sankhara itself vs what the sankhara can lead to). And changes a lot of things.
For one, if it is all sankhara are suffering then my first analysis would appear to be wrong. Because I deduced apunnabhisankhara and punnabhisankhara to be suffering in terms of what each can LEAD to rather than apunnabisankhara/punnabhisankhara as BEING suffering.
In this site sankhara has been defined as THOUGHTS, even kaya sankhara. For example vaci sankhara is not the speech itself but the THOUGHTS that lead to speech. Kaya sankhara is not the bodily action itself but the THOUGHTS that lead to the bodily action.
So in “sabbe sankhara anicca” and “sabbe sankhara dukkha”, the “sankhara” does not include speech itself or bodily action itself? It just means thoughts? As in “all THOUGHTS are anicca” or “all THOUGHTS are suffering?”
Thanks for the answers Lal.
How about the sankhara that is involved while doing Anapana. If ALL sankhara(SABBE sankhara) leads to dukkha, how can Anapana sankhara lead to dukkha when it helps end the rebirth process thus helps end suffering?
Even though it says ALL sankhara lead to dukkha, Anapana sankhara seems to be an exception.
Do we carry what we cultivate in this life to the next life?
For example someone with high dosa works on reducing it or someone with low karuna works on increasing it. Would the reduced dosa levels and increased karuna levels be carried over to the next life as well?
Idle talk(talking about weather, sports and other entertainment, politics, likes and dislikes, etc) is immoral in vaca-when speaking idle chatter with someone else.
What about idle chatter in sankappa when it is to yourself in your thoughts? Is idle talk immoral in sankappa too?
I noticed many thoughts that arise in my mind are irrelevant talk.
