Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lvalio,
Diogorbert is only correcting his having spelt Sotapanna as ‘Sottapana’
I realized that just recently I myself mis-spelt the same word as ‘Satopanna’
Metta to all.
Yes, thanks Lal,
-that was the idea that I had: no same one (‘atta’) that created the causes and also now experiences the effect. Yet,in another sense, it is the same ‘stream’, so: not I, nor another, nor both together, nor neither.
To illustrate: there is at least one instance in the suttas (one that I had come across) where a deva resolves to attain a human birth so as to be able to hear and live the Dhamma. Applied here: the same stream, yet it was ‘not I, nor another, nor both together, nor neither.’
Thanks in advance for the upcoming post.
with Metta
Hello Christian,
– 1) “Hey look at me I attained Nibbana, worship me!” – Breaking precepts
2) “I attained Nibbana, let me help you be free of suffering” – Okay to do –Exactly what I meant.
Metta
–
Puthujjhana,
How can the part of the conclusion ‘..whether truthfully’ still stand?
It is no offence for an Ariya layman to declare to lay people, how is it an offence for an Ariya Bhikkhu?
(It is of course understood that the ground of the declaration has to be one of compassion and total altruism while teaching Dhamma, with not a trace of selfish concern as to perceived respectability and so on.)
with Metta
Sorry,Lal – I had bypassed the last para altogether.
Yes it is not clear- there ‘attainments’are mentioned, not magga phala specifically.
‘Furthermore, they themselves admitted to the Buddha that they did not have magga phala/jhana.’
I have not come across this in the sutta. Have I now missed even that? !!But that will do.
Thank you.
Lal,
-‘If a bhikkhu untruthfully declares a high-achievement (i.e., magga phala or jhana), he commits an offense’-
That makes sense.
You will appreciate that I, and many others, cannot go into the original Pali to extract the true meaning in this way. So where the English translation seems at odds with established fundamental concepts in Buddhadhamma, I tend to go (until the matter is eventually resolved, like here) by whether it would follow from those established concepts or not.
In the case cited by puthujjana, it is all too easy to accept that the bhikkhus did not lie to those lay people, i,e.that they indeed had those supranormal powers, and that their wrongdoing consisted only of having declared them for selfish ends, because surely Bhikkhus should be aware of the consequences of lying about their attainments even when no Vinaya rule is in place. Which brings up another point:
Does the fact that they lied mean that those Bhikkhus had not attained any magga phala? Or, conversely, are Ariyas incapable even of such a thing? …worse, of claiming, for instance, a higher magga phala than they know to have actually attained? Are they prevented in the same definitive way as are Sotapannas, for example, prevented from committing papa kamma leading to the apayas? On the surface it is just a lie, but the claimant is thereby getting additional undeserved respect, a subtle kind of theft to add to the inflated sense of ego.
It may be that you have touched upon this point in a post or in a reply to a question somewhere already. I am not sure.
As ever, with infinite Gratitude
It is a fact that Ariyas declare their attainment in order to teach and spread the correct Dhamma. Otherwise Puredhamma.net would not exist, and we would not be here on this Forum.
This training rule must be referring to those, whatever their attainments be, who do so with selfish intentions, whatever those intentions be.
Then I looked up and found the following:
The training rule on telling truthfully
(I hope I succeeded in forwarding the link)
Apparently not.
What is spoken of at the end is uttarimanussadhammassa (superhuman qualities). The bhikkhus were truthful,they tell the Buddha so, since Bhikkhus and even lay people know full well the very grave consequences of claiming falsely (even of a higher attainment they know they have not reached at that point).Lal,
All that is quite clear. Perhaps this is more like what I mean to say:
From the standpoint of one who has Sotapatti Anga, kusala/punna, dana, sila etc.constitute,or are part of, ariyakanta sila. They WILL lead to a deva, brahma (or a good human) birth since the attainment of Arahanthood in this day and age is rare. So now, wherever the performance of kusala/punna may lead OF THEMSELVES, all that has become subordinated to, or rather, absorbed into, incorporated into, ariyakanta sila.
One does kusala kamma solely with the concern of how it affects the other, now and hopefully in future lives too; it has become part of one’s nature- YET the punna, the good rebirth in human, deva or brahma realm will NONETHELESS follow,’on the way’ to Nibbana, the true Goal. Somewhat like when sharing merits: since that in itself is a meritorious deed, merit will accrue to the doer, even if he acts with no such intention.
Is there anything in all this that is flawed, incomplete or that you would revise.
Thank you.
Thanks Lal:
When I copied and pasted the English plus the Pali version in conjunction and submitted,there showed a notification’not permitted’ in the Tags Box. Not the exact word, but one to that effect, I cannot recall it. When I deleted the Pali text (which ran sentence to sentence, English followed by Pali) the submitting was successful.
However, my whole point was: can these 4 Sotapatti Anga be considered as kusala kamma leading to punna, in turn leading to Nibbana ‘via’ a deva realm? -that very deva existence constituting the punna.
(I will have another go mastering how to provide a link at the next opportunity).
Thank you.
I did provide the source, not the link. I have been unable to do provide links, despite your clear instructions. Please excuse me for it.
SN 55.36, Devasabhāgatasutta.:
Mendicants, when someone has four things the gods are pleased and speak of what they have in common. “ Firstly, a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the Buddha … . There are deities with experiential confidence in the Buddha who passed away from here and were reborn there. They think: ‘Having such experiential confidence in the Buddha, we passed away from there and were reborn here. That noble disciple has the same kind of experiential confidence in the Buddha, so they will come into the presence of the gods.’
Furthermore, a noble disciple has experiential confidence in the teaching …… And they have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion. There are deities with the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones who passed away from here and were reborn there. They think: ‘Having such ethical conduct loved by the noble ones, we passed away from there and were reborn here. That noble disciple has the same kind of ethical conduct loved by the noble ones, so they will come into the presence of the gods.’ . When someone has four things the gods are pleased and speak of what they have in common.”
Thanks Lal
A sutta in connection with my last post is SN 55.36, Devasabhāgatasutta. as well as the two suttas immediately preceding.
It may be that I am confusing kusala kamma with the ‘four things the devas speak about having in common’ ??
Lal,
Yes. That is what I meant. One does kusala kammma to attain Nibbana not a deva existence, but punna is inherent in it, it follows nonetheless (unless one has attained Arahanthood)- in other words, that deva existence will come, if one has not gone any further until death, ON THE WAY to Nibbana.
Is this not the case with those Ariyas in the deva and brahma worlds?; ‘So-and-so, because of such-and-such a deed or view, has appeared in such-and-such a world and will attain Nibbana from there’
Christian,
Which sutta is this?
Siebe,
This is in Christian’s words what I have been saying in the Sakkaya Ditthi topic in the General Forum (May 13 +14).
Let me simplify,even at the risk now of being crude (but NOT harsh, mind you!).
I do not know, I cannot know at the stage I am at, how it is possible for an Arahant to be free of the khandhas and yet is not annihilated although He now ‘has no mind’ (Lal); how it can be that He ‘neither exists, nor does not exist….etc’. But we have the word of the Buddha, NO LESS A ONE than the Buddha, that it is the Ultimate state, and that it is nicca, sukkha and atta. He Himself went through many lives throughout many aeons to realize It. So had all the countless Buddhas before Him. Surely, They are not stu— !!
Whose word instead do you want? Lal’s? Christian’s? Mine? It is enough to have aveccappasada in the Buddha. The road ahead is long and hard enough without having to worry about concepts which are inconceivable to us at the moment. Get on the Path if you are not already on It and in time, IN TIME, those concepts will become not only conceivable but realisable. It is guaranteed. We have the Buddha’s word for it.
Alright Christian. AN 4.102
Tobias,
– I think in its category/essence, moral or immoral, it is kusala; punna is inherent in kusala and is the fruit or manifestation of it. So I would say that kusala becomes punna, rather than the other way round.
– Yes, your understanding of English is correct; for the sake of grammatical accuracy it should be ‘next lower strenght’, but I doubt whether anybody misunderstood what Lal meant. In such clear cases, not catching the error is what prevents the misunderstanding.
