Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-“is careless attention not the same as wrong view”
Reading the whole of the sutta:
Ayonisomanasikara gives rise to and strenghtens micchaditthi
Yonisomanasikara gives rise to and strenghtens sammaditthiBut the immediate, the direct cause of what type of destination follows (sugata or dugata) is ditthi (samma or michha), the manasikara (yoniso or ayoniso) being only the means towards ditthi.
So, as I read, ‘careless attention’ is not the same as wrong view. Yet, ditthi, of either type, in turn lead to manisikara, yoniso or ayoniso , what Lal expounds as Dhamma/kusala and aDhamma/akusala.
Correct me anyone if that is not quite right.
“– May be it is a “mental construction” that happens AUTOMATICALLY based on bhava.”
This makes sense to me. Taking the case of lemons in particular, you and I both experience the distinctive taste of lemon,but since childhood I love lemons, I eat them raw, pulp and all, while most people wince at just the thought of it. And if is is based on bhava (or, on second thoughts, on gati )then it will be no different for an Arahant. (i.e the distinction will persist if both you and I were Arahants)
Metta to all
Thank you Lal,
What I had in mind by “..so this must be referring to Sakadagamis here (ABSENCE of desire and ill-will)..” was Sakadagamis working for the Anagami Stage and attaining it. Yes, it goes for Sotapannas as well.
Your answer is not only quite satisfactory, but goes beyond. Thank you.
Incidentally, something I have pondered for quite a while: for Sotapannas and Sakadagamis working towards the elimination of desire and ill-will, will there be a different destination for those who have completely eliminated ill-will but not kama raga? Somewhere between Sakadagamis and Anagamis. As such they are not Anagamis yet (kama raga is still there), so another way to put it is: for Sakadagamis totally free of ill-will?Speaking of that, AN 10.63 Nitthangatasutta opens with: all those who have come to a conclusion about me are accomplished in view. (“Ye keci, bhikkhave, mayi niṭṭhaṃ gatā sabbe te diṭṭhisampannā.) The two single words’mayi. and ‘nittham’ are not translated into English, only a ? is supplied. By ‘“all those who have come to a conclusion about me” I felt a surge of joy in the heart, taking that to mean ‘those whose confidence and faith in the Buddha has become well-grounded, unshakable , the very basis of their lives – and so they have come to hold right view” Does the original Pali justify this rendering?
Then the sutta goes on to list ‘five conclude their path in this realm ..and five conclude their path after leaving this realm behind. Apparently these last five are brahma realms, so is it saying that they conclude their path in their very next existence in a brahma realm?
– Antarāparinibbāyissa, upahaccaparinibbāyissa, asaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa,sasaṅkhāraparinibbāyissa, uddhaṃsotassa akaniṭṭhagāmino –Lastly, I would like to share a verse I came across in AN 4.34 ..(Aggappasadasutta)
– Having confidence in the best, the result is the best.
(Agge kho pana pasannānaṃ aggo vipāko hoti.)May all beings make an end of suffering
Thank you Lal,
I will not be addressing anything to you until you say it is ok to do so.
I wish you a fruitful trip
Metta
Cubibobi mentions LISTENING to a desana by an Ariya. This reminds me that Lal said he would say whether listening is a requirement in attaining the Sotapanna
Stage when he finds that information. Perhaps Lal has since and I missed it?At any rate, yes, Cubibobi, for me it has worked like that. Those four. But I included vimansa (analysis, investigation), mainly as to whether anything in particular is consistent with the rest of Dhamma.
May you progress on the Path.Johnny,
“If there is no suitable condition to facilitate a kamma vipaka, then one would not be able to experience the kamma vipaka even though the cause is still out there..
If all kamma vipaka done by a person must be experienced by that person, then this spiritual path is not possible to practise.”Precisely. That is my understanding too. But this sutta is saying otherwise.Or, on the face of it, this sutta is saying otherwise. It must be the translation, or the way the words are put that give this meaning. That is why I provided the Pali version, so that anyone who can may give an answer based on that. The two points (that you mention) are valid, so it cannot be that these verses undo all that.
Intentional deeds that have been performed and accumulated are either:
– not eliminated by not being experienced,
– eliminated by being experienced, or
– eliminated by not being experienced (through the attainment of Arahanthood), i.e.where suitable conditions cannot arise.) But the verse does not support this last case, beginning: “I DON’T say that….are eliminated without being experienced”. That is the whole question.Or, what is being stated applies to Anagamis (about whom the sutta is talking) and not beyond; so it is not given as a general, all-inclusive statement.
Thank you for your time
Thank you Lal,
Granted “..the main goal: to end future suffering in the rebirth process.”
That is always at the back of my mind.However, the question revolved around whether a deva bhava is or may comprise more than one jati. It is not one of the four ‘imponderables’, at least not directly. By the same token many questions asked on the forum, and some posts as well, would fall under ‘questions not leading to release from suffering’.
To myself, and it appears also to some others, the notion of more than one jati within a deva bhava is a new one (even if not an important one) hence the lenght to which this topic has gone.
Personally I am happy to just put the question aside and concentrate on what has to be done to end future suffering. After all, the question is of no consequence whatsoever in that regard. Lal say ‘it appears’, and in two instances; so if no definitive answer to the question has yet been found it is no problem with me at all. Perhaps this could have been made clear earlier on, though, thereby saving everybody (ESPECIALLY you Lal) valuable time.
ever so grateful
Upekkha,
As I see, your question arises because all through relevant posts, jati and bhava are shown to be synonymous in realms other than the human and animal. So how does Lal say that the king had 7 different jati in a single deva bhava? (“There are only two bhava involved here, 7 births in each bhava”). Might as well say he had 7 deva bhava, doing away with all possible misunderstanding.?
(Note”..so when a deva DIES…)..so he DOES die, so that would constitute a deva bhava. Full stop, it would appear. Therefore the next birth will be another bhava. But because the birth, and the six subsequent ones, takes place in the same realm, although’in another location’, they are said to be jati (within the same bhava).
I can see that deva as well as brahma realms will have many, many ‘locations’ fitting exactly the kamma of the beings that caused them to be ‘born’ specifically there (just like we can see happening in the human realm, for that matter).
The only explanation I can see that would reconcile how the king was ‘born’ seven times within the same deva bhava is through strong abhisankara causing his sudden appearance in another ‘location’ within that realm, i.e. that his six ‘deaths’ there were due to anantariya kamma vipaka, NOT through old age and death because the time for that deva bhava had run out.
Lal please clarify
“our gati are AUTOMATICALLY taken into account via our RELATIONSHIP with the object that we see.”
It does not even have to be a relationship with that person or object. That person or object may act only as a trigger. For instance, we may be attracted to an object because it resembles one we were in contact with or possessed before. Yes ,gati comes in just the same.
It becomes more complex when it comes to persons. We are attracted or repulsed by something about a person, and immediately a person we actually know in this life may come to mind. It may well turn out to be that person in fact. If a real person does not come to mind, then it will be that we knew some one with a like physical feature or characteristic in past lives.
I see this happening mostly in relationships. Speaking now as a man, we have this ‘dream girl’ image built over many lives. This is how I see it. But what normally happens is that when we meet a woman with something of that dream girl about her, we at once project ALL of the dream girl onto her. Now we expect the woman to live up to that dream girl image; but, of course, the woman is real, not a dream; she can never fulfill those expectations. You will try to ‘make adjustments’ to her to conform to that image; on her part, if she is intent on pursuing the relationship further, she will try to adjust. But it cannot work. The only way for it to work is for both to accept the reality of the other as he and she is and make the best of it.
Then there is the case of ‘recognition’ rather than of projection. We KNOW ‘at first sight’ that we know that person (“our gati are AUTOMATICALLY taken into account via our RELATIONSHIP with the object that we see.”). Here the gati of both are involved; in the case of projection, for the most part it is the gati of the one doing most of the projection. If now you ask me, how to tell one kind of attraction from the other: one can tell, but not to another.
I wonder how others see this.
“It is the “inner feeling” or “how strongly one feels” that matters. This is why just reciting verses is not effective. One must understand the embedded idea and must feel it too.”
This is just how it is with me. Nothing formal, no set procedures, no plan whatsoever. First the idea (of compassion, or the determination to transfer merits for instance) then follow the thought-words to ‘develop’ that in the mind, then that is transformed into feeling and lastly going deeper into the feeling until I’hit rock bottom’. Then I know it is done. I do not set out to follow that ‘plan’ either, it is not a plan – only the initial idea is determined upon, the sequence follows of itself.
There are no body sensations, only emotional ones. The only time I felt needle-pricks in the scalp, or a tingling sensation there was on first coming upon Puredhamma.
Metta to all.
Applying it to myself:
Give it away to those who need it most, keeping to myself only as much as I need to live a decent life. No useless luxuries, extravagant lifestyle etc – all pointless in the end.
What is a luxury (from excessive wealth) to one is a bare necessity to another.
Apart from that, this constant preoccupation about being robbed of the wealth, the stress resultant from the harassment, the fame and so on is a constant burden on the mind. To progress on the Path one should have as little of that as possible. And one will lose it anyway at death. So it is well said: ‘What is given is well saved’ ( I do not remember the Sutta, I think some verse in the Dhammapada). Not to mention the merits (to oneself) of giving, but that should NOT be the reason for giving, it should not even come to mind.
Upekkha,
With me what you call ‘aha’ moments come in both situations you mention. In my case they are modified somewhat:
1) when I am thinking about a totally different thing, even a very mundane one, and up pops something about Dhamma I had been contemplating well before. Usually it turns out to be a significant point I had missed before
2) The other case is when I am writing a post on here. I do not talk out loud at all. I do no formal meditations – I am by nature averse to anything requiring laid- out methods and structures; in short, anything ‘formal’. I see it as forcing it on oneself and feel it to be quite out of time and out of place.
As to your question: to me any situation that takes you deeper into Dhamma IS meditation.
No, Vilas, I have not. I do not even recall coming across the word.
I am writing only to show my appreciation of this remarkable insight of yours (irrespective of whether others have ‘seen’ it before). It makes sense to me.
But speaking of ‘taking refuge’ : I found myself reflecting precisely on this ‘taking refuge’matter last night.It is said: 1) Take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. and also 2) take only yourself as a refuge; take no other as a refuge (and that includes The Buddha, IT WOULD APPEAR).
At first this may seem to pose a problem. Which of the two then,? But going into it, I saw that if you take refuge in the Triple Gem, who is going there for refuge? That is , when I see that there can be no other refuge BUT the Triple Gem, and it is I who sees this,it is I who have come to this understanding, then I am thereby taking myself as the refuge, taking MY understanding (that led to going to the Triple Gem for refuge) as the refuge.
And if one, a layman, goes to the Triple Gem just out of curiosity (to see what ‘buddhism’ is all about ) not expecting to find any refuge there, he will be told : take yourself as a refuge, i.e. examine it yourself , see whether it makes sense. And if he does, and it does, then HIS refuge will become the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. So the two refuges are really one.
Much Metta to you and to all
–“I am not sure what issue is that we are trying to resolve”–
On October 28, 2018 at 11:56 pm, it was this: (AKVAN)
“King Bimbisara that AFTER attaining sotapanna he has been born seven times in the deva realms and seven times in the human realms.”, followed by:
“If King Bimbisara was a Sotapanna how come he was born 14 times in deva and human realms? Isn’t this contradictory to the maximum seven bava that a sotapanna is supposed to have?”.The fundamental error here was “IF the King was a Sotapanna…being reborn fourteen times”, when in fact he was NOT a Sotapanna. That has been resolved. What may appear to be still outstanding is the matter of whether those 14 rebirths had been 14 bhavas or eight , the human bhave being taken as 7 jatis to arrive at the total of 14 ‘rebirths.
I personally do not think that matters much. What would have been of far more serious consequence, because of inconsistency with the fact that a Sotapanna has at most 7 more bhava, is if it were found that the sutta said that a Sotapanna has more than seven bhava left, (whether 7 deva and one human bhava, adding up to 8 or 7 deva and seven human ,adding up to fourteen, is irrelevant to the point in question: in both cases, it is more than 7 bhava)
The main point was that those 14 rebirths were not referring to a Sotapanna at all’, but that was clear on reading the sutta. I do not know whether others see other significant points that need elucidation. I do not see any not covered by Lal by the points in his post of Oct 28.
Metta to all
