Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes, that the last thought moment determines the next birth may be quite unsettling.
However we must not forget that in many suttas it is also said that observing the 5 precepts and living a moral life leads to heavenly worlds; BUT in one other (at least) it is stated that even given that, one may still end up in a lower bhava, depending on precedent or antecedent causes. I do not remember which sutta that is. So is there anything we can do about it? This is the question.
If you have eaten sausages the whole week for breakfast, it will be the thought of sausages that comes to the mind at breakfast time next. So constantly living by the Dhamma makes it more likely that we are in that state at the moment of death. But still there seems to be no guarantee.
The guarantee is this: those who have gone for Refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, i.e. even before attaining the Sotapanna Stage, are ‘exempt from places of loss, the animal realm, hell..” That in itself means that one will not GRASP a thought (if it were to arise), an arammana, that leads to those places.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Welcome Yann,
Yes, you are right. Put simply, whatever existence you make yourself fit for, that existence you will attain. Not necessarily sooner; could be later, depending on whatever abhisankharas (‘will’ plus emotional attachment) are strongest at that particular moment.
In my case as well, Buddhadhamma is an extension of how I had conceived Reality in the main. Only, now the whole plan lay before me.
Yes, DO read the posts. You will find the details there. The Forum will prove of value as well.
‘There is no sound coming through the ears!’
So it must be the gandhabba that is hearing directly. (But you have it Lal:”It is the mind that “sees” and “hears” in a dream”). No need of physical ears there. I know that I have heard..or, let me say, I know that words were transmitted and I received those words in a dream; or, that I ‘spoke’
words that I ‘heard’ myself speaking.In contrast with Sumbodhi, in my case the words are in my own language though I can speak 4 others. Only on one occasion that I remember were the words in a foreign language (Italian).
True Sybe,
When I go to bed, in less than a minute all worldly thoughts are put aside – all events of the day and the ones to follow the next day, all my various physical ailments as well. Then I ask myself two questions:
!. Was there anything I did today, or have been doing, that I should not have done? (This ‘doing’ is about speech and thought as well. Most importantly about thought, because from thought, speech and actions follow)
2. Was there anything I did not do, or have not been doing, that I should have done?
Hardly anything comes up at first. But with persistence, minor faults or misgivings are seen. Then I see how those may lead me or others into worse situations – I mean internal situations, but those, if unchecked, may well lead to outer behaviour. The supreme value of Dhamma is seen when we are face to face with ourselves. ‘Theoretical knowledge is seen and presented as direct and true knowledge’ Dhamma then becomes one’s own true knowledge in the sense of It being the benchmark by which we set standards for ourselves. Nature pulling one way, Dhamma pointing to another.
One aspect I see of treading the Path is that of gradually rising above Nature. Our instincts are natural – greed, anger, sex – so there is nothing wrong or ‘sinful’ there, nothing that goes against the norm. It is all natural. But if we persist in this ‘normality’ we are also stuck there. And there is only suffering ahead, precisely because of indulging in and gratifying our ‘natural’ impulses. This is what Arahants achieve (and Anagamis to a lesser extent); they transcend Nature. Then instead of being slaves to Nature, Nature comes under their control, in cases even at their command. But a Buddha is needed to show the truth about this (future) suffering, because it is not easy at first to see that even apparently innocent, harmless pleasures lead to suffering in the long run.
Sybe,
Among us humans it is the norm to use or’copy’ a prevalent and popular idea as a base, as the underlying ‘common factor’ understood by all, when we want to show something on the same lines but on a deeper level.
But here we are talking about a Buddha. A Buddha is by definition the All-knowing One through self-perfection (among other things, most of which would be incomprehensible to us anyway). So the case will be quite the reverse.. it is in fact those brahmins who even unknowingly’made use’ of the knowledge proclaimed by a Buddha, by the Buddha Kassapa in this case, and incorporated that knowledge, rendered incomplete and distorted here and there through the passage of time, into the ‘body’ of their religion.
Once that is appreciated, you will see that any ULTIMATE discovery or finding in any of the various branches of science will be found to accord with Buddhadhamma – as long as it one of the (few) things that the Buddha deemed fitting to reveal. Most of what He knew he did NOT teach. See Simsapa Sutta SN 56.31.
At one time, I ‘spoke’ three words (in my own language). Then I found myself out of the dream and so could register the words in the conscious mind. In a few other dreams words were spoken, both to me and by me, but the ‘people’ there, unlike in the first case, were not ones that had impacted on my life, so I remembered what was ‘said’ for only a couple of days.
In by far the majority of cases no words are spoken, only a simple but unmistakable message is transmitted.
* Afterthought: It is also possible that I actually spoke, i.e vocally, while dreaming; as when we tell someone that they were ‘talking in their dreams’. I have no way of telling.
“…automatically sucked into contemplate deeper and deeper concepts,…a burst of joy.. realised it is in sync with my previous existing Dhamma information, the world view puzzle is HEADING IN THE RIGHT (assembly) DIRECTION.” Good. Very good, Al, and so are you!!
The rest is just the details. An idea of how things should be was already there with you; what you discovered here is that the Buddha had seen it all perfectly and in detail. That Dhamma will now lead you on.
??? Are you sure there are no mistakes in the sentence Lal? For then, just like in the case of an Anagami,a Sakadagami will go to a brahma realm, and there will be no difference between the destination of a Sakadagami and an Anagami. ???? And we know that the destination of a Sakadagami
is a deva world.Moreover, the distinction I am making is between a deva existence and Nibbana, not between a deva existence and a brahma existence
I have just clicked onto your profile to see your reply as it did not show on the Forum main page.
-“y not: Now I am totally lost. What SANNA are you talking about?
Is this regarding my post of January 7, 2020 at 4:50 pm?
Please quote the whole paragraph that I wrote (that is not clear) and re-phrase the question as if it is a new question. Do not refer to any back and forth above. Let us start afresh. Take time and formulate the question.”
No, no..we are on different wavelenghts. I had a question. Nothing to do with questioning or querying anything you wrote. I had already said that I require no answer to the could/can choice of word. (“This is just something I asked myself ‘en passant’, on reading ‘could lead’, it is not related to my main point. No answer in necessary.”)
“So let me try again. My question is:
“Let us take the case of a Sakadagami who does sankhara or regular series of sankhara:
– 1. which are punnahisankhara, leading to a deva existence.
– 2. with Nibbana as the Goal, foregoing AT THAT TIME, all relishing of a deva world.
– 3. with both at once: mindful of that deva existence, with THAT prominent as the immediate destination ,BUT, at the same time, mindful that that too will come to an end because Nibbana must follow. That is, the ANICCA NATURE IS SEEN. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SANNA HERE? ..for THAT SANNA ‘takes both in’ at once.I hope it is clear now.
Thank you for persevering with me.
Alright, point taken. My question, however, stands as put, starting:
“….A sankhara is, or sankhara are done:
– 1. with punnahisankhara,….” and onto the main point: “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SANNA HERE? ..FOR IT ‘TAKES BOTH IN’ AT ONCE.”Thank you
On going over what I wrote again and again, I realized some alterations were necessary. Please read again. Pardon me for it.
Thank you, Lal,
It is # 2 that my question falls under. All is clear about the other three.
There is ‘a higher level of comprehension of Tilakkhana’. So ‘Attachment to sensual pleasures is lost in two stages of Sakadagami and Anagami.’ But the fact is that, for a Sakadagami that attachement is not actually ‘lost’. It is only ‘on the way’ of being lost – and I know that is what you mean as well. ‘On the way’ he/she is destined for a deva existence IN THE SHORT RUN immediately following death because that is where the ‘level’ of comprehension of Tilakkhana leads. Based on that understanding comes the question:
Let us take the case of the lower one of the two: a Sakadagami does ‘punnabhisankhara that could (??) lead to rebirth in the deva realms ONLY with a higher level of comprehension of Tilakkhana.’
(Why not ‘inevitably’ rather than ‘could’ ? This is just something I asked myself ‘en passant’, on reading ‘could lead’, it is not related to my main point. No answer in necessary.) So the question based on the first para above is:A sankhara is, or sankhara are done:
– 1. with punnahisankhara, leading to a deva existence.
– 2. with Nibbana as the Goal, foregoing AT THAT TIME, all relishing of a deva world.
– 3. with both at once: mindful of that deva existence, with THAT prominent as the immediate destination ,BUT, at the same time, mindful that that too will come to an end because Nibbana must follow. That is, the anicca nature is seen. But what about the sanna here? ..for it ‘takes both in’ at once.I may have other (related) questions; those, for instance, that have to do with how all that will pan out at the moment of physical death – but that will do for now.
So how do the various types of sankhara apply to an Ariya (therefore destined for Nibbana) who has not attained the Arahanthood in this life? :
– “those “good sankhara” ( “punnabhisankhara done with comprehension of Tilakkhana).”
– Anenjabhi sankhara,
– punnabhisankhara.For a Sotapanna or a Sakadagami or an Anagami, in certain moments, does “punnabhisankhara with comprehension of Tilakkhana” and, in other moments, does sankhara of the other two types. That is,sometimes it is Nibbana that is uppermost in the mind; at other times, it is the ‘next stop’ that is; here with Nibbana as the final destination, not the immediate one.
It may be that I have not put the question right. If not I will re-phrase.
I had forgotten that the sutta I referred to in the last para above (an7.72/en/sujato) only starts off with sexual misconduct. It lists other forms of unethical conduct that may be indulged in by the bhikkhus. Please pardon this slip of mine.
Incidentally, should the doubt arise whether the Buddha was the cause of the falling away of 60 bhikkhus and of the death of 60 others by giving that discourse, the Arahant Nagasena dispels those doubts in the dialogue mil5.3.2/en/tw_rhysdavids. It is a kind of commentary on that sutta.
I understand it is not always easy to just say ‘It’s a personal matter’ because of the given situation/s and also the person/s addressed.
However, if you train yourself to be ever mindful of the consequences – in the short term, the convenience of ‘escaping with a lie’ on the one side, and, in the longer term, the benefits of keeping the precepts, on the other, you will find that in time you will become unable to lie; contemplating lying, even, will become impossible – whatever the benefits in the shorter term, whatever you have to suffer because of it all.
There is a sutta where one laywoman (or bhikkhuni – the text does not specify, if I remember correctly) was born in a deva world just because she always told the truth. Now this does not mean that one should keep the precepts with a deva existence as the Goal. The Goal is always Nibbana. But it is much better to be reborn a deva than a human , to say nothing of the lower realms (where lying could lead to). In the case that the woman (lay or bhikkhuni) was on the Path, she would strive on from there, seeing that she had not attained the Arahanthood here. In case she was not, even then, a higher existence is better than a lower one. So the long-term benefits in either case far outweigh those in the shorter term ,in the here-and-now.
The Buddha did not shudder to give stark examples of the consequences of breaking the precepts. In one particular sutta – He was here talking about another of the precepts, that of sexual misconduct- He asked the bhikkhus what they would prefer: lying down (engaging in sexual activity, we would now say) with a daughter of aristocrats or brahmins or householders or being subjected to any of a whole series of excruciating torture procedures? Even reading the account is terrifying! By the time His discourse was over, 60 bhikkhus spewed hot blood, another 60 abandoned the Training and another 60 became Arahants
