Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeos,
Thank you for this.
Your ‘conceptual’ (Ariya – involving Tilakkhana) and ‘Third hypothesis’ (related to magga phala, so also involving Tilakkhana, plus ‘living ethically and a lot of study’) to me are one. This last not ‘another subject’. I combine the two.
So to me it is: living a moral life as far as possible (occasional ‘slips’ happen, but not grave ones) – therefore sila; dana (by body, speech AND mind), ever mindful of the anicca and anatta nature and ‘how everything eventually, even all this, comes to nothing in the grandest cosmic timescale imaginable.
Metta to you
Yeos,
Thank you for your comment.
- “As for viññāna all the consulted translations lead to the following
It can’t be equated to Nibanna. How could ?”-
I am aware of that.
To which I say: If vinnana can’t be equated with Nibbana, what is? Are we doomed to accept the overly-sophisticated, pseudo-scholarly, SEEMINGLY- profound because impossible to conceive of, metaphysical NONSENSE of the Mahayanista? Because that is what it boils down to if nothing remains at Arahanthood: non-difference, dissolution, evaporation, extinction, annihilation (of consciousness and every other quality).
To wit, Yeos: If anything remains at Arahanthood, the Arahant must be conscious or aware of it, otherwise it is for Him as good as non-existent.If nothing in Him remains, then He Himself is as good as non-existent. But Nibbana is NOT non-existence. Cannot be. I hope we are agreed on THAT. And if Nibbana WERE non-existence, then better strive for a good deva or brahma bhava instead – at least final non-existence would have been preceded by a term of felicity (a double whisky before the hanging !! )
Metta
…
I HAVE been unclear !
In the para starting with: ‘The villain…’ ‘vi’would equate with tainted, not untainted, of course. I had jumped prematurely into how it applies to Arahants.
It now seems to me the matter has been put to rest. I have taken this long to write to allow time for other replies to come in so as to have a larger ‘base’ for my response. (I have already deleted two posts before submitting).
But we have run into an etymological contradiction.
First let me thank Lal for the most recent post on Vinnana. I have been looking forward to it – expecting it even, and I sense it was the result of this very discussion topic, and perhaps another one or two recent ones related to the subject matter. For this I feel deeply grateful.
Now, from that very recent post: “Viññāna – Consciousness Together With Future Expectations”:
– 1. Viññāna means “without ñāna” or without wisdom:
– Viññāna also means “defiled consciousness”; (when one attains the Arahanthood, one will have “undefiled or pure consciousness”.Lal has gone into this in depth enough. Upekkha’s summary (approved by Lal) goes:
1) Sobhana cetasika lead to good vinnana.2) An Arahant still has sobhana cetasikas.
3) A good vinnana is not contaminated.
4) An Arahant still has good vinnana
Lal concludes: “An Arahant has undefiled vinnana (one could call that “good vinnana”), which is attained at the optimum of the set of sobhana cetasika, that includes panna.”
Meaning, per the definition of Vinnana above, (vi = defiled, nana = wisdom) an Arahant has a ‘good’ defiled consciousness. Lal would have done better here,, for the purpose of clarity and consistency with root meaning of words, to stick to the conventional (though incomplete or wrong) word ‘undefiled consiousness’ instead of ‘undefiled vinnana’. Also, has an Arahant then sobhana cetasika with defiled nana, without wisdom? Certainly not.
I have understood perfectly what Lal means to say, and it is confirmation that at Arahanthood sohana cetasika are still there, which is a great relief in view of the danger, otherwise, of having to fall back into considering Mahāyāna concepts, which I dread even the mention of.
The villain in the piece is the prefix ‘vi’. Defined solely as ‘defiled’ is inadequate, because we see here that it can also mean ‘untainted’, in this case ‘untainted with tanha’, ‘untainted with the possibility of leading to rebirth’, as there is no ‘vedana paccaya tanha’ ,therefore no vipaka being generated, therefore no ayatana, no paccaya and therefore no bhava and no jati.
The ‘taint’, therefore, unlike the case with lobha, dosa and moha arising out of akusala, DO NOT INHERE IN THE QUALITIES of ALOBHA, ADOSA AND AMOHA IN THEMSELVES, but rather, for all but Arahants, in there being tanha and the expectation of reward; and the rewards will follow, re-birth will follow. In the case of Arahants, however , those sobhana cetasika are ‘ ONLY rendered powerless to be made a cause of for (good) rebirth’. The ‘good’ in them persist. Only the asobhana cetasika are utterly destroyed.
I hope I have been clear. Please do point out anything I said that is not, or that is wrong outright.
Metta to all
Lal: ‘Vinnana with sobhana cetasika are not considered contaminated.’
Upekkha: “…even a good vinnana is contaminated and … AN ARAHANT CAN’T HAVE ANY SOBHANA CETASIKA..”
In the absence of ANY vinnana, what constitutes an Arahant, what distinctive qualities make him up? If none, we then have to fall back to consider concepts like annihilation of individuality, evaporation, dissolution , a ‘mass of undifferentiated consciousness’….which to me is no different from extinction, non-existence.
Metta
I had often wondered myself how long ago was, for instance, the Kasssapa sasana, the Konagamana sasana, and so on back into this mahakalpa and those even prior to this mahakalpa, in simple, direct millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions or billions of years.
Then you get into the times of the Buddhas in other world-systems in this galaxy, then on to other galaxies, then yet on to other superclusters of galaxies. In truth, the numbers will be infinite – even of past Buddhas.
And all those Buddhas proclaimed the same Dhamma.But all this is of no real value to the IMMEDIATE task of treading the Path – as Lal has pointed out. It is just an eagerness to satisfy curiosity, but that, if pursued to any lenght of time, will be at the expense of that immediate task.
For that reason, I have given up looking into these things. The one prevailing motive, the ‘ruling idea’ being that it is difficult to be born a human, and moreover being born a human in a Buddha sasana – and we are here, in a human bhava and in a Buddha sasana. It is a duty to oneself to make the most of it.
With Noble Ones it is a duty to others as well, as we can see for ourselves.
firewns,
“There are those who crave…”, so they ARE cravings.
So I would say they may be subtle forms of kamasava, but still the bhavasava for them can be very strong. Though gross sensuality (sexuality) is not there, the craving for that love, respect, admiration may be very strong.
From /seeking-nibbana/nibbana-removal-of-asavas/:
- Bhavāsava is the craving for particular kind of existence, say as a human, deva, or a brahma; any living being, in any realm, craves for existence.-
And just preceding that:
-Kāmāsava are associated with sense pleasures.-
The question is : Is love a sense pleasure? I do not include respect and admiration here, because there is a sense of ego in both – respect FOR ME, admiration FOR ME. And, yes, craving love FOR ME. But when love is for the other, pleasure is derived from giving that love, so a subtle form of selfishness remains even there.
Personally, I do not regard love or loving (in the purest sense possible for a human)as a sense pleasure because that love will be the same just thinking lovingly of the other without the need of the five physical senses. (Mind is the sixth,true, but it in not physical).
Others will have different views, which I welcome.
Metta
‘– It is best to keep striving regardless of what the status is. That effort will not go to waste.’
Thank you Lal.
That princess was Visakha. Googling the name I came across several references (AN 1 chp 14; Dhp v 53; Dha 1.383 and viii.i. 243 ff). I am sure some one else can do better.
http://creative.sulekha.com/the-early-buddhist-women-stories-five-visakha
“3.1. When Visakha was about seven years old, the Buddha visited Bhaddiya with a large company of monks. Mendaka offered several gifts to the Sangha; and invited the Buddha and his monks to his mansion and offered hospitality for a fortnight. Visakha an active, inquisitive and a lively child played around the monks and the Buddha. She was always questioning about the things that the monks did and said; and about Dhamma. The Buddha was fond of the little girl.
3.2. It is said when the Buddha departed from Bhaddiya for Anguttarapa (another city in Anga province), Mendaka instructed his servants to follow the Buddha with abundant provisions, food and fresh milk; as also ghee and butter until the party reached its destination. (DhA.i.384)(Viii.i.243ff).”
And….
http://ariyamagga.net/story-visakha/:“When Visakha was seven years old, the Buddha came on a tour to Bhaddiya. On that occasion, the rich man Mendaka took Visakha and her five hundred companions with him to pay homage to the Buddha. After hearing the discourse given by the Buddha, Visakha, her grandfather and all her five hundred companions attained Sotapatti Fruition.”
Christian,
I did not say that it was. My question (para 3) was another, based on the two preceding quotes.
Your’reply’ deals with my closing line ‘ I felt a breakthrough…’ but that was just sharing my experience to add up to the listening/reading effect, but it was never a question (about it being the Sotapanna Stage).
I edited this post to make sure there is no misunderstanding
Metta
“It is essential that one must learn about the Tilakkhana from an Ariya to get to the Sotapanna stage.” Should that not be ‘listen’ rather than ‘learn’ ?
“However, if one truly believes that one has an understanding of the “unfruitful nature” or the “anicca nature” one could be a Sotapanna or a Sotapanna Anugami”
So, does it follow that ‘if one truly believes that one has an understanding of the unfruitful nature or the anicca nature” yet never listened to a desana from an Ariya, he must have done so in a previous life.
I feel this is important to point out, as, like Vince and Lvalio (and probably others as well) I too find the impact of reading greater than listening. I share totally Lvalio’s quote from Vince’s post. (December 26, 2018 at 10:01 am). Also, in my case, I felt the breakthrough had happened the moment I discovered Puredhamma..as if.. ‘the rest will now follow as a matter of course’.
Has anyone else experienced this?
“…one of the stages of Nibbana was attained without listening to a desana by an Ariya. …But they were for the higher stages of Nibbana after the Sotapanna stage(Sakadagami, Anagami, Arahant).”
This would be the case for jati Sotapannas, I figure out. (Those who are at least Sotapannas, or higher, and do not know it). That IS a question.
Metta
Lal:
My comment was as a result of having read Upekkha’s “There is no need to be repeatedly harsh with one person so much.” with the difference that I had no one person in particular in mind, least of all yourself.
It has happened in the past that rather ‘strong’ statements were directed towards one person or other, but, at the same time, it has to be appreciated that when it comes to writing, in the absence of telling vocal and facial expressions, it is easy for the reader to magnify the intended criticism to levels that would fall under ‘harsh speech’.
If I have been inadvertently guilty of this myself, I sincerely apologize to all readers.
Metta to all
We will do well to keep in mind that harsh speech refers not only to the spoken, but also to the written word. The effect on the reader is only delayed.
Metta
- “As for viññāna all the consulted translations lead to the following
