Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think there may be some technical problems going on, maybe my full posts are not appearing and others’ comments are not fully appearing for me, I’ve seen others make similar comments before. That could explain some of the miscommunications and misunderstandings. I’ve noticed these kinds of peculiarities happen in my emails when contacting others too. Letting others know so they can be aware, and assume there could be the possibility of technical errors like that.
And I also apologize for my writing style, I am not the most eloquent/articulate person and struggle to make structured coherent sentences and end up being redundant, perhaps it’s a trait due to bad kamma vipaka, I try to articulate the best I can, so please bear with me.
The words “impermanence” for anicca and “no-self” for anatta do not make sense to me, however I want to make sure the alternative meanings do make sense to me, not just merely agreeing with it without contemplating on it.
All this is not for the sake of a debate. You have asked others to point out any possible contradictions for the sake of consistency. So I’m trying to point out any that I think I may have noticed.
1) “Hence Truths that deal with concepts that exist in reality in an ultimate sense eg. consciousness (citta), mental factors (cetasika). aggregates (khanda) are Ultimate or Absolute Truths.”
2) “The ultimate truths are in the Four Noble Truths.”
3) “Anatta is a fact indicating there is no essence or truth to be had in this world of 31 realms.”
4) “therefore, one who is struggling to find such “ultimate truth in this world” is helpless.” “Does not hold any ultimate truth.”
^Does not 1 and 2 contradict 3 and 4?
-1 and 2 says that ultimate truths are to be found in citta, cetasika, khanda, and Four Noble Truths.
-The Four Noble Truths are part of Buddha Dhamma.
-Citta, cetasika, khandas, Buddha Dhamma are all part of this world.
-3 and 4 say there is no ultimate truth to be had in this world. Another meaning for “sabbe dhamma anatta”.So then my question is:
is there ultimate truth to be found in this world or not? Because the above points are conflicting.^That post cleared up some of my questions. Though, I’m still unclear about the following:
From that above post:
-“Anatta is a fact indicating there is no essence or truth to be had in this world of 31 realms.”-“therefore, one who is struggling to find such “ultimate truth in this world” is helpless.”
The “ultimate truth that is timeless”, is this referring to Nibbana? Is this a case of transcendent truth as opposed to mundane truth?
Mathematical facts(like 1+1=2), nama gotta records, and Buddha Dhamma contain unchanging and timeless truths, but all are still part of this world, thus are mundane truths. But compared to Nibbana, even those truths don’t hold the same truth as Nibbana, because Nibbana is not part of this world, it is transcendent, thus Nibbana is the only ultimate transcendent truth?
I’m trying to understand how each of the definitions given for anatta nature applies to everything, to clear any confusions. I know if one hasn’t even attained the Sotapanna stage, this would be unnecessary and jumping way ahead, but I’m curious for the sake of everything being consistent and having no contradictions.
The meanings given for anatta are:
-of no use, value, essence
-The deeper meaning of “atta” is “in full control” or “the essence” or “the truth that is timeless”. Does not hold any ultimate truth.
-Anatta: helpless” in case of a living being or “useless” in case of an inert thing. Provides no refuge/protection(thus becoming helpless)From what I understood so far, Tilakhanna is 100% true only for an Arahant. I want to focus on the phrase: sabbe dhamma anatta.
There are things in this world that are of use/value/essence like punnabhisankhara, kusala kamma, nama gotta, jhanas, and Buddha Dhamma one needs and can use in order to advance on the Path. Only an Arahant would have no use for anything in this world.
I’m having trouble with the following:
1) one of meanings: ” Does not hold any ultimate truth. ”
Even for an Arahant, doesn’t Buddha Dhamma and nama gotta contain the truth, I understand they would be of no value/use anymore to an Arahant, but they would still be true nonetheless? So can anatta really be described as “not hold any ultimate truth”?2) Won’t even an Arahant have use for nama gotta, use it to see past lives. And have use for things like water, food, good air, clothes, medicine, and shelter to survive? Does “sabbe dhamma anatta” become completely true when attaining Nibbana or does it become completely true at Parinibbana? Because to me it seems, only at Parinibbana does all of this hold true in its entirety, until then even an Arahant has use for some things in this world to survive.
3) The only definition for anatta that seems to apply(at least for me) to nama gotta, is that even if it may be permanent, useful and contain truth, it still however can not provide someone with permanent refuge/protection.
4) Which brings me to another point, is this another way to look at anatta:
If something cannot provide me with ultimate and permanent refuge/protection, then it is anatta. And because something can’t provide me with permanent refuge, then it is ultimately of no value/essence.Yes, Lal. Thank you.The following paragraph made it clear. In case anyone had the same confusion as me, I highly recommend this paragraph be added to one of the essays on Tilakhanna(if something similar was not already written), it is too useful to get lost in the forum posts. Especially the part in bold:
“In the same way, sankhara are part of dhamma. But just because sankhara are of anicca nature (cannot be maintained to one’s satisfaction, like a meat-less bone, etc), other dhammas do not have such anicca nature. But sankhara also have anatta nature (without essence), because they are also included in Dhammas.“
I made a mistake, I apologize. It should have been, everything that can be attributed to describe sabbe dhamma can be used to describe sabbe sankhara. Because sabbe dhamma means everything in this world, and sankhara is part of everything is this world.
My confusion is in regards to the similar meanings given for both sankhara and dhamma. If I remember correctly, some of the descriptions like “without substance, no safety, meatless bones” for all sankhara, were also given for all dhamma. Since sankhara and dhamma are different, I thought how can both sankhara and dhamma share the common characteristic of “without substance/safety”, why was there a overlap. Wondering this, I came to the conclusion that it is because sabbe sankhara is part of sabbe dhamma. Is this incorrect?
One of the reasons those three words got my attention was because they are basically the procedure that is advised many times throughout the essays on PureDhamma. How it’s not about mere book knowledge of the material or merely reading about Tilakkhana, but actually staying away from dasa akusala and doing necessary bhavana 24/7 not just during formal sessions, so that one can get to niramisa sukha to be able to truly grasp/absorb Tilakkhana in the mind.
The way I see it, is that a puthujjana needs pariyatti and paṭipatti to get to paṭivedha(magga phala, the Sotapanna stage).
Before I can ever hope of truly grasping tilakkhana (pativedha), I want to make sure I at least have the basic intellectual understanding of it(pariyatti). This is my understanding, please let me know if I misunderstood anything:
Some of the descriptions given for nicca are:
-sense of safety
-sense of predictability, stabilityAnicca would be opposite of those above.
Other descriptions for anicca are:
-without substance like bone without meatEverything that can be attributed to sabbe sankhara(no substance,bone without meat, no safety, no predictability/stability) can also be attributed to sabbe dhamma as well. Because while sabbe dhamma does not fall under sabbe sankhara, sabbe sankhara does fall under sabbe dhamma. Because sabbe dhamma means everything in this world including nama gotta, which is permanent thus anicca cannot apply to that.
Seems to me that upadana(greedy/hateful sankappa) is like adding fuel to the fire.
Lal, previously you wrote the following:
-“Pancakkhandha is like a bottle of poison sitting on a table. One gets into trouble only if one takes it and drinks from it (panca upadanakkhandha). An Arahant has pancakkhandha, but no panca upadanakkhandha.”-“A bottle of poison sitting on a table has the potential to kill someone. But unless someone takes the bottle and drinks from it, he/she will not be affected.In the same way, we will be subjected to suffering ONLY IF we get attached to worldly things (sankata, whether it is a person, house, car, etc).”
-Panca upadanakhanda being compared to drinking the poison, seems to imply that suffering begins at the upadana stage(pulling object of greed/hatred closer), rather than beginning at the tanha stage(getting attached).
-The 2nd Noble Truth would be that suffering begins at the tanha stage.
Is there a deliberate reason why the Buddha called it “panca upadanakhanda” instead of “panca tanhakhanda?”
Hi Siebe. In case it could help, I’d like to give examples similar to what Lal has given in the past. Lal and anyone, always feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Tanha via greed:
You just finished listening to your favorite song. Even though that event has passed, you continue to consciously think about that song, with the thoughts: “that is such a lovely song, I could listen to it over and over again, I might listen to it again in a few minutes.”Tanha via hatred:
Someone you don’t like just said something mean to you. Even though that event has passed, you continue to consciously think about that person, with the thoughts: “I can’t tolerate that person, how can he say that to me, I need to think of a good comeback and tell him that the next time I see him.”Those thoughts in the quotes are the upadana step.
I’m not sure about what example to give for moha. Maybe something with micca ditthi? The thoughts: “if I do this particular procedure everyday, then I am guaranteed to get access to heaven forever in the afterlife, therefore I have to do this procedure diligently.”
1) So for every puthujjana, when they have tanha, attachment is unavoidable/inevitable, as in attachment can’t be separated from tanha? I ask this because I used to think that maybe it was possible for even puthujjana to crave for things without attachment-but now I’m thinking that this can only be done by the first three Ariyas(Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami) or maybe even yogis? Of course an Arahant has eradicated it all together.
2) So at the automatic mano sankhara stage, only tanha and attachment is there. There is no upadana at all in the mano sankhara stage?
You mentioned the connection between early stage of vaci sankhara with upadana. This early stage is sankappa right? So then every time each of start our conscious/silent/internal thoughts, this is when upadana step begins? So can it be stated in another way that sankappa/assada is synonymous with upadana? And cittanupassana involves being mindful of and controlling the upadana step?
If this is the case, controlling sankappa/assada is not a trivial matter. It is the key to gradually start reducing tanha and eventually removing it. So far I have been more focused on kammantha and vaca, and not the best at sankappa.
3) In an example of a fish who sees a pleasant object(the bait), likes what it sees, goes towards that object, takes bite out of it, gets literally hooked/attached to the shiny seemingly pleasant bait, and now vulnerable to future inevitable suffering, what here can be labeled the tanha step and what can be labeled the upadana step?
By the way, I noticed that I seem to understand concepts better when explained through the language of Abhidhamma for some reason. Maybe because it is so precise. I wonder if a particular dominant panca indriya would be more likely to gravitate towards Abhidhamma.
