Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Siebe:
“This makes no sense, so there must be…”
As far as I can see, the Unconditioned is attained by the conditioned. This DOES make sense, because if the Unconditioned is attained only by the Unconditioned, then what would there be to attain? The Unconditioned would be at once the means and the goal – so there would be nothing to attain.
We find Suttas like Dutiyasannasutta (AN 7.49), for instance, that list 7 perceptions (in one other Sutta at least more are added) that ‘gain a footing'(amatogadha) in the Deathless (i.e in Nibbana, the Unconditioned) leading to (amatapariyosana) that Deathless. All the aggregates of conditions which you list are developed through the brain, as a channel, an intermediary, to the mind ( hadaya vatthu) where the progress takes place, is registered and stored.
This is where ‘The basic suggestion by the Buddha to make one’s mind better is to remove lobha, dosa, moha from one’s mind’ (Lal) becomes relevant. Because the ‘ground work’ for all that is done by the brain; the ‘front line’is the brain making use of the conditioned to the best of its ability.
I hope I have been clear.
much Metta
Hello Siebe,
“Why would the Buddha suggest to make an island or refuge of ourselves when we would only be fleeting processes……,”
You mean, Siebe, how could the Buddha advise taking refuge in the fleeting? I take this to mean: rely only on your own efforts (not even He could attain anything for any one else). And what effort would that be?: “I take refuge in the Buddha…the Dhamma…the Sangha”.
Now if there is something that is forever unfleeting it is the Dhamma, for, strictly speaking, even the Buddhas who periodically discover it and their Sangha(s) who spread it come and go, are fleeting (as far as their appearance and disappearance, their connection to ‘the world’ is concerned). But the Dhamma is forever the same.
with Metta
Snp 2.14 Dhammikasutta (SC verse 398):
What is “ungiven”—anything, anywhere,
THAT’S KNOWN TO BE OTHERS’, its theft one should avoid.
Neither order things taken,
nor others’ removal approve—
all of this “ungiven” let the hearkener avoidTato adinnaṃ parivajjayeyya,
Kiñci kvaci sāvako bujjhamāno;
Na hāraye harataṃ nānujaññā,
Sabbaṃ adinnaṃ parivajjayeyyaHere,’what is ungiven’ is qualified (at long last!) with ‘that’s known to be others’. Not that I was in any doubt after all that has been said in this topic, but here we have it plainly from the Suttas.
Otherwise, ‘taking what is not given’, taken literally, would mean that, just as it would be wrong to pick a fruit from tree in the forest,so would be drinking water from a river and taking the very air that we breathe – which is absurd. This reminds me of what I had read once: anything that does not make sense cannot be a teaching of the Buddha.
Metta to all
Yes Johnny.
I am with you there.
Always – the interests, the necessities, the feelings of the other are the same as yours. There is no difference.
with Metta
Johnny, why ‘to err’? To ‘err’ means to act in a wrong way due to not being able to tell between kusala and akusala – vicikicca. And if you ARE able to tell, then it (snatching a bag) is stealing.
If only we were able to always put ourselves in the shoes of ‘that other’ most of these questions would not even arise.
Much Metta
“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.”
This is not to ‘correct’ Upekkha in any way, just my viewpoint. Yes, miccha ditthi: The thoughts:” If i do……..” seems to me to be miccha ditthi in the forms of, at once, moha and vicikicca (forever in an after life), sakkayaditthi(it is fruitful for ME) and Silabbata Paramasa (do this particular procedure…do this procedure diligently).
As to Tanha via greed: it is hard to resist going back to enjoying something one likes(of course, in cases where you are thereby not harming any one else in any way). I myself cannot resist, to quote the example Upekkha gives, listening over and over again to a song I like. I see nothing wrong in it at all, per se. It is just the attachment, the fact that one is becoming attached and spending time which could otherwise have been dedicated to more beneficial activities – reading Dhamma, for instance.
The real danger to me seems to be Tanha via hatred, not only in the sense of the harm that one may be induced to commit to another as a result of that Tanha (via hatred) ; for that may or may not happen, depending on the degree of hatred so generated inside oneself. The harm to oneself is clear, though, and certain to follow. For years I have been training myself to prevent hate from arising from Tanha or from any other cause (with success, I humbly say); for instance, after watching some documentary about some despot or tyrant in history who caused great suffering to others. It is the feeling of hatred itself that I used to find most harmful; if not checked, it would go on for hours inside me, in some cases into the following days. Now I see the suffering which those perpetrators of all this suffering must go through themselves. It is all about compassion, even with regard to them.
Please correct me anyone if anything I said is not quite right.
Metta to all beings
Thank you Akvan:
-for taking the time.
I see what you mean. To myself it is like this, and this is what I go by: all these ‘laws’, absolute/conventional, are meant to deter people from stealing, or, one can say, to protect people from having their belongings stolen, a kind of enforcement; on the one side, as to the moral aspect, on the other, as to the legal (laws of the land) aspect of it.
However, there is a higher law – that of the Heart. At times this ‘inner’law clashes with external ones (what is legal), and even when an external law would give me he ‘right’to do something, still I go by the inner law if I feel that is the right way to go.
Even saying that intention plays a vital part…intention plays an all-important part, THE important part. In the case you mention – where person A loses an object and drops it on the road as well as if B walks by and picks it up and keeps it for himself he has not stolen anything… This is in the ultimate sense- To me this is not the ultimate sense. I place myself in the state of mind in which the one who lost the object must be in. Would he/she not like to have that object back? How would I feel if it were I who lost it and someone returns it? Would I not be overjoyed? As it is, I am overjoyed myself thinking how overjoyed that person would be.
Then there are the benefits. The merits of the good deed can be transferred to others (more good taking place). This does not occur to me until hours after. On the selfish side, I must admit,(in my case)I have prevented myself from accumulating another object, another burden.
Metta to you and to all
Thank you Lal,
-“He will show remorse without doubt”.-
That is clear, but it did not ‘surface’,it eluded me, when I was absorbed in formulating the question.
One other point (unrelated to this) I have been meaning to raise concerns the wording: ‘taking that which is not given’ instead of the single words ‘theft’ or ‘stealing’. I do not know whether it is the only way possible to convey the idea of stealing in Pali, but in English there is of course a difference.
Say one comes across a fruit tree in the woods or finds a valuable object in a public place. In both instances, one is taking, if he does, that which is not given. In the first case he just helps himself to the fruit without even the idea of doing something immoral (still, the fruit is ‘not given’); now if it is a companion who picks the fruit and gives it to him, he would now be taking only that which ‘has been given’. But the ‘act’ remains the same, something which had not been given was taken. In contrast, in the case of the valuable object one feels a moral obligation to hand it over to the authorities, sincerely hoping that in this way it finds its way back to its owner.
The moral, as I see, is that of always being mindful of how one’s actions may affect others; if adversely, refrain, if beneficially, persist. Here the case of the fruit would fall under neither, but under ‘does not affect them at all’
Is there more that one should see …or, is this understanding enough to live by and apply? Does it satisfy all that is meant by ‘not taking that WHICH IS NOT GIVEN’?
Ever so grateful
P.S… excluding, no need to say, other subtle forms of theft like time-wasting or deliberate negligence at work, immoral though ‘legal’ forms of transactions and all else done to one’s benefit at the expense of others.
Thank you so much Lal:
I did ask the question (below) but it was ‘drowned out’ by the length of my statement; but yes, I should make it easier for the question to stand out. I tend to take great pains to ‘set the background’ to a question, or even to a statement of my own. I have been told before, even in conversation, ‘Come out with it’ It is just that I do not want to be misunderstood.
….”That is, how is it that they (the four Magga stages) warrant the 4 (of the 8) ‘types of people’, since they cannot be found (because they have by then already moved ON to the Phala stage).”
I will follow your leads.
Ever grateful
Thank you Lal.
What is it that I am missing here? I apparently do not see that you addressed this in your reply:
How does the phrase attha purisa puggalā” refer to both:
- “….they are referred to as “attha purisa puggalā” …Thus there are eight types of people belonging to the sangha. Who are the eight?”, and on to the listing them as those who have satisfied the conditions (Magga) and those who have reaped the fruits (Phala) of the four Stages – Sōtapanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi, and Arahant.” Again, “how is it that they (the four Magga stages) warrant the 4 (of the 8) ‘types of people’, since they cannot be found (because they have by then already moved ON to the Phala stage). How are there eight here when 4 (the 4 Magga) exist only for the duration of a chitta? This is my question. The four do not exist but for the duration of a chitta. How do they belong to the Sangha if they do not exist but for the duration of that chitta. How can you ‘salute a chitta’? This is what I mean.
and (at the same time) to:
- Thus it is clear that “attha purisa puggalā” consist of the eight Ariyas (Noble Persons): Sōtapanna Anugāmi, Sōtapanna, Sakadāgāmi Anugāmi, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi Anugāmi, Anāgāmi, Arahant Anugāmi, and Arahant.” With this I have no problems.
Infinite gratitude
I hope this makes it in time before Lal answers Akvan:
“1. Thus when one gets into the Sōtapanna magga stage, for example, one receives the Sōtapanna phala in the very next citta, and thus one becomes a Sōtapanna virtually at the same time.”
“5. Similarly, a Sōtapanna magga anugami spends time contemplating the newly learned concepts of anicca, dukkha, anatta, paticca samuppada, etc.”
As I see it, as there is virtually no time to differentiate between a Sotapanna Magga and a Sotapanna Phala (it happens instantly and on its own accord), unlike the case of a Sotapanna Anugami becoming a Sotapanna, (where there is something to be consciously done by him, which takes time) I fail to see …
” 1. THERE ARE FOUR who have fulfilled the conditions for the four stages of Nibbāna: Sōtapanna, Sakadāgāmi, Anāgāmi, and Arahant. They are said to be in the magga stage for respective stage. AND THERE ARE FOUR who have received the fruits (phala)” ….why the Magga in any of the four stages is treated as distinct from its Phala stage, as to all practical purposes, the time spent by a Sotapanna in the Magga stage is insignificant. That is, how is it that they (the four Magga stages) warrant the 4 (of the 8) ‘types of people’, since they cannot be found (because they have by then already moved ON to the Phala stage).I hope I have been clear. By the same reasoning, I can see the 8 ‘types’ of Ariyas (the 4 Anugamis and their respective 4 full Stages.)
As to Akvan’s second point, if it were so, that one Stage leads into the next higher one automatically, where is the place for the striving to attain those higher Stages.? There would be only Arahants around!
Lest I be misunderstood,this is different from the inevitable attainment of Nibbana as a matter of course on even setting foot on the Path (the Anugami Satopanna stage), but this involves effort and time, even though that time (within 7 bhava) is set.
Metta to all beings
I was reading through somewhat old posts and came across this excellent last comment by Akvan.
Lal says somewhere that the practical value of Metta Bhavana, in contrast with the mere wishing ,and in truer terms the futility of it all as far as the attainment of Nibbana of those beings is concerned, is that Metta Bhavana helps cleanse one’s OWN mind.
For, if Metta Bhavana had any real effect on the beings in the whole of Existence, and keeping in mind that it would necessarily have been going on from ‘an indiscernible beginning’, suffering would likewise not only be eliminated by now, but would have been eliminated at a point likewise indiscernible in the past, i.e., there would be no such point, and the validity of the first Noble Truth, to start with, that the Buddhas ever teach would not apply, and would never have applied…and there would be no end to the dizzying ramifications that arise and no way out of the tangle.
Akvan has it in different words. My own reason for sharing Akvan’s view that – ‘No amount of metta bavana will lead to someone else to understand the dhamma. Also it is foolish for us to think that we can get the infinite number of beings to attain nibbana (by say teaching them the Dhamma or in any other way)’ – is, as ever with me, that ‘It must be so because it cannot be otherwise’. (for the reason given in the preceding para): There is suffering. It is the Dhamma proclaimed by all the Buddhas and that Dhamma does not change, therefore suffering always will be. It is only ‘individual’beings that can be free of suffering – through that Dhamma.
So, when I am doing Bhavana I concentrate on Pattidana, the Metta Bhavana serving only as a door to enter into the first. For IT IS A FACT that we are indebted to an innumerable number of beings, and so are they likewise indebted to us. The merits thus transferred do IN ACTUAL FACT serve to pay off those debts, helping to reduce the time spent in sansara for both giver and receiver (it would appear) because ultimately, the cessation of suffering in sansara will depend on those beings attaining Magga Phala, thus leading to the nullifying of all debts contracted in sansara.
(still !) Metta to all beings
“These connections prevail though many lives, and can block the path to Nibbana.”
“These connections prevail though many lives……….”: I have been aware of this before coming across anything even in ‘popular Buddhism’ in my early twenties. It was as if a chapter in a long story is yet to be written, but it does not belong to such a coarse material world like this one. Of course, I did not have, I could not possibly have had, any idea of the 31 realms, but I knew there were ‘worlds’ perfectly suited for that, where the senses are refined and in perfect harmony with the very fabric of those worlds. I could only imagine them as planets made ‘of finer stuff’. as would be the humanity ,the various animal forms there and all of nature all around .
“……and can block the path to Nibbana.”: and the path to Nibbana is therefore blocked. Deferred, willingly blocked, is a better word. The danger would be that, without magga phala, after that chapter, another may follow, and another, and yet another….and in between one may find oneself in a chapter of some horror book ..
Unlike Tien, I am therefore not even willing to contemplate the Anagami stage as there is still Kama raga, subtle yet VERY strong. Attachment to material things is long gone. Even food I am now seeing only as necessary fuel for the body in which I have to strive, like having to buy petrol and service a car because you need to maintain it; television as an attempt to rob me of my precious time (I perhaps watch the news, most times only the headlines).
I still enjoy music, soft, relaxing, ballads and so, and reading poetry. And, of course, Puredhamma. It is impossible for me to give expression to the gratitude I feel to Lal for setting up the Site. Even if he were standing in front of me right now, I would be lost for words.Metta to all beings
1 user thanked author for this post.
Eric,
You say,
“Maybe this is the time I need to start contemplating dhamma concepts?”
If I may ….NOW is the time, but how much will depend on the stage in life you are at. If I were younger coming to Buddhadhamma, still married and with a wife and 2 children to support, I do not know how much time I would have been able to dedicate to it, but certainly it would be less.
Now, past my mid-sixties, with life-energy at a premium and with all the household chores, shopping and so on, I have been diagnosed with CLL – that’s the fourth stage, the most benign form, of leukemia. The specialist, an old-school doc, announced very slowly and deliberately: ‘Ummm .. this is a very common condition with people your age, you know. You may live 15 years more; probably you will die due to something else before that !!! ” Very direct, good.
Thing is, there was a sense of urgency inside me the moment I discovered this site a year ago (I could not ignore the age factor; but even without that, I can be dead the next moment). Now it is no longer a question of ‘there may not be much time left’, but of ‘there is not much time left’ The whole future, which is endless, depends on that little time left. On NOW. Not just a matter of life and death, but of what kind of life after death. The stress of all that is relieved only by seeing that progress on the Path has in fact been made.
Finally, by meditation is not necessarily meant sitting down and doing formal techniques. There are many related posts on the site; just go to the Bhavana(meditation) section. The one I apply most of the time, and the one I have found out to be most effective in my case, because it is compatible with my nature, is the contemplation/reflection kind done when engaged in other activities, and that is, for the greater part of my waking hours.
Much Metta to you
