[y not]

‘Yes. Dēva belong to kāma loka, and they engage in sex. However, children are born instantaneously (ōpapātika’

That the jati of beings taking on a bhava there is instantaneous is unequivocal enough. But the children of the devas – are they these same ones who take on a jati there from other realms – pulled in there, as it were, into the ‘lap of the devi’through their intercourse, of whatever nature that may be. I think it must be so.

Since devis do not menstruate (this makes sense) there is no ‘fine material’ zygote that the ‘baby deva’ may enter(also because the deva is already formed) so there would appear to be no equivalent there to the ‘material shell’ provided by parents in the human realm. I wonder,could this be the origin of the term ‘sons of will and yoga’ mentioned in the book of Dzyan for beings ‘born’ through the opapatika method? Getting a bit into it, the ‘will’ would correspond to the ‘gathi’ of the new arrival, and the yoga to the union of the devi with a deva. Just my impression. But that is of course assuming that the terms for both words in the original do mean what I understand by them.

This is one more instance where Dhamma sheds light (as I see, of course) on notions or tenets I had come across before from various sources. I have come to see that many of these are excerpts or fragments, in cases distorted to such an extent that they become unintelligible. In others, as here, a connection may be there. I am reminded of a comment of Lal’s (if others have not come across it yet) that vedic texts( and by extension, other so called esoteric teachings) are remnants of the sasana of the Buddha Kassapa. Something to reflect on.

y not

[y not]

Thank you Lal:

The question is: is this ‘me’ the gandhabba? I can imagine a ‘me’ without the physical body alright; in fact, I see the body as a hindrance in the way of ‘me’.

Again, who is it who ‘with iddhi powers can pull the manōmaya kaya out of the physical body and who does the ‘separating his/her own mental body (gandhabba) from the physical body’? For the khandhas are in themselves, singly or collectively, insentient, and the body and the brain are only organisms.

For then we have: a gandhabba ,and ‘one’ who pulls out or seperates this gandhabba from the physical body. Or, arguably, that it is the gandhabba itself doing this, but, if that were so, it would be simply stated so.

Please clarify this.

y not

[y not]

In the post: Our Mental Body – Gandhabba:

#12…those with iddhi powers can pull the manōmaya kaya out of the physical body.

In: Sanna – what it really means:

#5.. by separating his/her own mental body (gandhabba) from the physical body

In the first case, who is doing the pulling? In the second, who is seperating? ….if we ARE the Manomakaya. There is only the brain, which we have seen to be just a mechanism apart from ‘YOU are the same as GANDHABBA, the mental body’ (Lal, last post above). Surely, there in no other. Otherwise, one may as well say: the manomakaya pulls itself out, and, our mental body (gandhabba) seperates from the physical body.

I am saying this because I want to eject the ganndhabba out. Now who is this I/ (in line with the two quotes above)? Or eject myself out. Not to go on some kind of tour, but to leave this body with it brain behind, and not return. Is there a way?

Comments and condemnations welcome

y not

[y not]

Thank you Lal,

I had read the posts, perhaps not all, to be totally honest. I
will go through them again. It is clear that I either missed something
or that relevant points did not penetrate through.

Still, you have resolved the underlying doubt as it is,and,without
going into the details, it is a relief!

Ever grateful,

y not

[y not]

The question has to do with the relation and the interaction between brain and gandhabba

Refer to Lal’s post above, March 3, 2018 at 7:24 pm:

4– Those gathi and asavas are certainly not in the physical body or even in the brain
5- But that tiny gandhabba is the one making you type or speak, etc.. In fact, you are your gandhabba, the mental body…. Speaking and body movements are done with the help of the brain.

The question is this: when a decision is to be taken, this way or that, it is clear that the thought processes happen in the brain, but the brain is an organ or organism pertaining to the body along which it came into being in the present jati, but the gandhabba, in the case of a human bhava, may have existed through previous jatis in that same bhava. Now since any decision, either way, will affect the gandhabba also into the future jatis, it would seem ureasonable to suppose that the future of the gandhabba, in that bhava at least,should be determined by the functions of a meterial and temporary organ, the brain.

Put simply: who is in charge here? Does the gandhabba in any way have influence over the decisions taken by the brain? Or does the brain function regardless? Now:
‘5- But that tiny gandhabba is the one making you type or speak, etc.’ Does it follow that the gandhabba is the one NOT making you type or speak when you are weighing the pro and cons of whether to do so – NOT to submit a particular post, as in this instance, for example, or NOT to say something to someone? Because the decision will affect the gandhabba not the brain. It is the gandhabba who will experience the effects, so it would seem odd, even unreasonable, if the gandhabba does not have, at the very least, an influence on the decisions taken by the brain – IF they ARE taken by the brain.

Replies and comments greatly appreciated,

y not

[y not]

Hello Donna,

This is my experience; as to it being guidance,you make as much of that of it as you see fit, or better said, as much as you are capable of in a situation.

Only two weeks ago I stormed out before a family lunch had even started because an in-law raised his voice. Normally, I can take insults, but as soon as someone raises his/her voice, my automatic reaction is to put an end to it by walking away, not caring even to justify the words or actions that led that somebody to start shouting. Now walking away is not always possible, because a family member stood in my way at the front door, pleading for me to stay on. As calmly as I could, I kept repeating:’ I want to leave.Just let me leave’

Now that certainly is not the best way to handle such a situation; probably it is not even a good way. It may actually be a bad way. So, as to your concern that ‘I’m concerned that silent (you mean silence) may cause the niyata micca ditthi person to act out even more’ cannot arise in my case. But, to be honest, that is not my concern at all. I ADMIRE THAT IT IS YOURS, THOUGH. My only concern is to not let the matter aggravate by verbal exchanges. And THAT I cannot take. I had had more than my share of it with my ex-wife. Even when I see two strangers arguing, even if only on the phone, I just walk away from there. In my case, my ‘compassion for their current niyata views and state of being’ comes only later, when the incident is over and I am calm again.

Of course, in your case, you cannot walk away from the work place. I had done that too (!) when I was younger.. and was suspended. So, Donna, even if you find no ‘guidance’ in all I have said, you will at least know that one other at least shares your experience. I sincerely hope that the replies of others will provide you with the guidance you are looking for.

with Metta

y not

[y not]

Thank you Lal

That clears a lot of questions that may arise.

Sometimes it is the odd word that renders a sentence unclear to me. Take: ‘However,in the case of the death of an Anāgāmi, the gandhabba comes out, undergoes cuti, but CAN grasp a bhava in the rūpāvacara brahma realms reserved for the Anāgāmis.’ The question is why ‘can’ ? because that means that the gandhabba IS ABLE TO grasp a bhava in the rupavacara brahma realm, but not that it necessarily will do so. There is a choice. In other words, what determines which course the Anagami takes? (if it be so).

Now compare: ‘To put it in another way: at the dying moment, a Sōtapanna WILL NOT grasp (upādāna) a birth in the apāyās.’ Here there is no way a Sotapanna will grasp that lower bhava. Just like: ‘But an Anāgāmi‘s mind would not grasp a bhava anywhere in the kāmāvacara. This is what I meant when I wrote about the difference between ‘under what conditions’ and ‘on what condition’. The first would be the case of the Anagami( in the first para), the second the Sotapanna’s and Anagami’s here.

And, as an aside, why is an Anagami (non-returner) called such when he does return (to any of those realms reserved for Anagamis)? Only an Arahant does not return anywhere.

Please appreciate that it is not my intention to find fault or to be difficult just for the sake of being a kind of ‘enfant terrible’ on here. The questions are genuine.

Thank you for addressing (#12) a question I had raised.

Ever so grateful,

y not

[y not]

hello firewns’

I in turn thank you for your responses.

Please realise that that is just what they are, responses, so the only thing you will learn from me (I do not know about the others) is what I think on a particular topic.

I mean, when I write it is in most cases in the form of a statement (airing my viewpoint) but by that I am directing a question, the statement IS the question: what do you think about this?, what are your views? So I am not stating facts, or how the matter, whatever it is, IS in reality.

In the case when a reply from those who KNOW is expected it will be different: Is it so or not, does it conform with how it really is, refute my argument if it should be refuted. I wouldn’t say it is a challenge, but a call rather to take issue with my views. This is not always appreciated.

Thank you once again

y not

[y not]

Thank you everyone.

I did have a question – along with 5 paras following. All disappeared just when I was about to hit submit.

Perhaps so much the better for all of us!! No worries, Lal, your explanations are clear enough. It would be mine rather that arn’t.

y not

[y not]

Reference has been made to something I had written:

‘This COULD be the same issue that “y not” asking about’ -May 29, 2018 at 3:17 pm’

It is possibile it is this, or that it is connected as a ground for it:

Beings have been in sansara from beginingless time; when they attain Nibbana they will be there for endless time. (Whether any particular being must of necessity attain Nibbana in the long run is another matter and is not relevant here). Clearly then there is a continuity that is eternal, since 1) no being can COME INTO being and 2)the past can have no beginning, nor can the future have an end. For ‘being’ you can read : lifestream, entity, individual, self, soul,it does not matter, as long as the intended meaning is that of an ENDURING ‘X’ (so as not to be restricted and thus unduly influenced, even unintentionally, by the stringent meanings of those words or of any others that one may care to come up with) NOT AN UNCHANGING ‘X’. This ‘X’ must be enduring throughout the eternal process of first the timeless-in-the-past sansaric wanderings and the following timeless-in the-future abiding in Nibbana to make sense and purpose of all the striving and suffering involved.

But, ENDURING does not mean UNCHANGING

-There is a self: No. Because by ‘there is a self’ is meant or implied
that there is an enduring and unchanging ‘X’

-There is no self: No. Because by ‘there is no self’is meant or implied
that there is no enduring but changing ‘X’

In other words, how will an ‘X’ that is enduring but changing be described?

There is an enduring ‘X’ but it is ever-changing, and that up until Parinibbana.

y not

[y not]

Just found terms to better convey the two meanings of ‘conditions’ I had in mind in my post above -May 29, 2018 at 11:32 am. There I wrote:

‘My difficulty was principally due to the two possible meanings of the word ‘conditions’ : ONE, in the sense of circumstances or situations or options around oneself that may be of consequence one way or another depending on one’s choice of and response to them (on condition that, provided that),and 2)THE OTHER, in the sense of one’s state of mind independent of that( one’s state of mind BEING the condition) In fact it is the second. If it were the first, then the question WOULD arise: WHAT TO DO so as NOT to grasp that bhava? – the condition being that if one does this or that then that bhava will not be grasped; if not, it will.’

ONE) would be simply stated as: under what conditions
THE OTHER) ” ” ” on what condition

I write this so that readers who may come across that post may better understand the background of the question. I thank all who took the time to answer.

Metta to all

y not

[y not]

firewns:

Thank you.

I was aware of all you said. However, as it stands:‘Any other kamma vipaka can be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage’, on the face of it at least, would leave the possibilty of what could be read into it (as I did) open. If all that you elaborated on is ‘understood’, that notwithstanding, then it would leave no room for my question to arise. Thank you once again.

Coming to Lal, I wholly share your concern. So much so, I told him in one of my posts not to bother to answer at once,( I recall now he was actually away at the time). I was in fact surprised he replied as soon as he did. Even now I feel a little uncomfortable asking him questions; the only reason I do is because he did answer; perhaps I am taking undue advantage. I will therefore stop addressing questions to him until such time as he says it is alright to do so. Others will act as they themselves see fit.- depending on the nature and degree of importance of their questions, I would like to think.

thank you

y not

[y not]

Thank you Lal:

‘at the dying moment, a Sotapanna WILL NOT grasp (upadana) a birth in the apayas’ and that would be the very ‘suitable condition’ for such kamma vipaka to NOT materialize.

My difficulty was principally due to the two possible meanings of the word ‘conditions’ : one, in the sense of circumstances or situations or options around oneself that may be of consequence one way or another depending on one’s choice of and response to them (on condition that, provided that),and 2)the other, in the sense of one’s state of mind independent of that( one’s state of mind BEING the condition) In fact it is the second. If it were the first, then the question WOULD arise: WHAT TO DO so as NOT to grasp that bhava? – the condition being that if one does this or that then that bhava will not be grasped; if not, it will. I hope I have been clear (I have a feeling I have not)

Now, ‘Any other kamma vipaka CAN be overcome by attaining a magga phala (at least the Sotapanna stage)’ -which addresses my question itself. So one can overcome any outcome of a kamma vipaka, any bhava, that may at that moment present itself?… human,deva,rupa, arupa?

Thank you once again,

I hope your answer is relevant to others as well.

y not

[y not]

firewns:

True. ‘and here an ANANTARIYA kamma had been committed, not a mere akusala kamma’ My slip there. Thank you.

However my question lies in the para before that (the first) and that has to do with akusala kamma and though the term in its wider sense would also include anantariya kamma, my reference was to dasa akusala at normal levels.

‘Thank you very much for your time and may you accrue much merit for your willingness and sincerity to share.’ I reciprocate, unable myself to put it better than this.

y not

[y not]

firewns writes:

“.. if one commits akusala kamma that is not anantariya, its impact will be lessened if one is aware of Buddha Dharma, specifically being aware that the act one is committing is akusala and will bring bad results. This is due to the javana citta of the perpetrator being weaker as a result of a greater RELUCTANCE to carry out the act (as they are aware of the consequences), and as such the kammic effects would not be as negative.” The word RELUCTANCE given emphasis by capital letters by myself.

I have asked a question very similar in content in the Sotapanna forum because the answer has become relevant to me. I reproduce it to spare participants here the trouble of looking it up:</h1>

Does A Sotāpanna Have Perfect Sila?

I am first quoting and then addressing Lal:

‘Anyway, this is the basic idea. As one makes progress on the Ariya Path, one is AUTOMATICALLY prevented from doing dasa akusala, first at strong levels (capable of leading to births in the apayas) at the Sotapanna stage;
‘Of course, one MUST forcefully stay away from any dasa akusala when one realizes one is about to do one. If one realizes that ONE JUST DID SUCH AN ACT, one must make a determination to avoid it next time.’ Your post, April 22, #5

What of the kamma vipaka generated by akusala 1) done BEFORE setting out on the Path and 2)by the ones while on the Path? Will that determination to avoid it in the future be in itself of any direct consequence in preventing it coming to the fore at the cuti-patisandhi moment? How is that to be prevented in both cases ? Is frequent Ariya Metta Bhavana, or anything else, advised?

Here I am reminded of the instance where Angulimala had killed a thousand people, yet still attained Arahanthood…and here an ANATARIYA kamma had been committed, not a mere akusala kamma
==============================================
I am waiting for an answer

y not

[Author]

Posts