Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you johnny:
(for Lal’s attention as well)
Actually that is what I did. Retrieved my post going back to the Google history entry, pasted, copied and hit submit. The wonder was that then it said’duplicate’ ‘already submitted’ . Submitted, yes, but still it did not show.
y not
thanks Lal:
I edited only after about a minute or two at most. AND going back to the list of replies and voices, it said ‘ y not …minutes ago) but my post did not show.
So perhaps you will need to revise your warning, if it be not a one-off.y not
….and it is still not showing. Just checking wether NOW it disappears too.
…No it has not. Must have been a one-off indeed.
Thank you Embodied.
My post does not show. It disappeared (to me, at least) after I had edited to correct the format. I am surprised somewhat that it was there for you to read.
y not
Lal:
‘ -need to be rooted out
– breaking the asmi mana spell
-(in one’s mind)
– By being ever mindful
– one should train
– to attain Arahantship
– This is the ultimate goal
– this asmi mana is the “perception of a self”.
– when one is striving to be a Sotapanna or even an Anagami.’Who is it who needs to do this rooting out, who breaks the spell,whose mind,who is being ever mindful,who should train (in this way).who attains Arhantship,whose goal, who perceives, who is striving ??
Is there not a being who is behind and besides all these?
If this cannot be answered or should not be answered because it should not be asked, please say so. I will just put it aside.
y not
Inflib:
This is THE question. I have been pondering it for decades.
And …’ Is there still a mind in the mind plane, but without boundaries?’
Is what anyone is just part of universal mind?’And if without boundaries, and if all are within universal mind, are all notions of individuality and distinction no longer there? This is the ground why some say it amounts to annihilation. No school of the Mahāyāna has come up with a clear and definite answer. I have asked the question here before myself and got no answers.
Would it be one of those questions that even the Buddha would not answer (even today) as it does not help towards Release?
y not
Remember it refers to followers of the Dhamma. The motive of gain is there and they get what is necessary for survival by almsgiving. So for them it counts as greed. If they can heal (not applying occult practices or techniques, of course), very well and good,but expecting nothing in return, This is how I see it.
The case of healing as regards doctors of medicine is different, even though THEY practice primarirly to make a decent living for themselves.So the merit is mostly on the mundane level ( for they get their reward in the here and now) and so it decreases on higher levels the more they charge. Compare: there have been a few ‘doctors of the poor’ here where I live. They do not charge money at all.
y not
Embodied:
Lal gives the grades as three:
Kamaccanda (kama + icca+ anda), Kama raga and MettaThe instance I am refering to lies somewhere between raga and metta and includes both and is connected to what Embodied says by: ..’.however in the case of my post there was no sexual connotation’ Yes, togetherness is there, but not gross sexual passion as we crave it in this material world, but would be quite in place in a higher, finer world,finer in more senses than one. We get the feeling that we had known some one before in a close relationship, and on meeting it is more a recognition than anything else. We ‘know’ that person already.
‘Metta/compassion and/or love: there is some subjectivity to be dealt with here, if i may… Because compassion can be seen as a form of love but a love that doesn’t “tie” us (hopefully) thus compatible with Pure Dhamma.’ The ‘tie’ would be compatable with Buddhadhamma if the relationship is one carried to and also probabaly from higher realms(as well as into the human one) IF THE PARTNERS ATTAIN MAGGA PHALA here or elsewhere, and not necessarily at the same time, either. And, as an aside, I have not yet come across passages in the Tipitaka where there is, at the very least, communication or interaction between the dwellers there. But such must be the case, otherwise existence there would be totally subjective, much like the Devachan of Theosophy.
Y not
Lal:
This is not easy for me .
Which one of the dasa akusala is it then when one has removed miccha ditthi and still has strong attachment to some one without greed or lust and with Metta there as well? Is it to say that even when the love is pure it is an akusala?
A satopanna or Sakadagami has removed miccha ditthi but still has kama, so Johnny’s ‘How can this person who still has attachment for his loved ones liberate himself from Kama Loka? Bonds of kinship are harder than metal ones.’, is granted, but if one has removed the first three samyojanas, one would still be tied to the Kama Loka, but to those realms above the human one. Do I get this right? (Johnny is still right in his overall statement).
This leads into more questions, but I am finding it hard to formulate them and , at any rate, I would not need to put them if I have got it all wrong even so far.
y not
Lal
‘I ask the question even so that Lal may incorporate an answer to it in the upcoming post if he sees fit.’
It seems I am 9 minutes late.!
y not
Johnny:
‘….Also, this person might still have a strong attachment for someone and yearns to be with them in their last moments’ ‘This person’who has wrong views. What about a person who does not have wrong views? Will THIS person’s attachment and yearning to be with them in his last moments still be a hindrance?
I ask the question even so that Lal may incorporate an answer to it in the upcoming post if he sees fit.
y not
Inflib:
This is scary stuff. Yet if it is an aspect of Reality, it is important to know of its existence.
So, do you mean to imply that trying to ‘open the door’ALWAYS exposes you to the danger? WOULD THERE THEN BE NO WAY of contacting benevolent beings for assistance WITHOUT exposing yourself to these dangers.?
I am reminded of what I myself had written in another post, quoting Mme
Blavatsky: ‘….once the door is open, it is open to all. And one cannot tell who will be the next to enter’y not
Lal:
I see what you meant exactly now by “Samphassa ja vedana” .
So in what terms would the suffering caused by one person to another be described? If A hurts B, then it would be B’s turn to hurt A in this life or in a future one. Even should B refuse to hurt A back now in this life, is it possible to make a strong determination for when the cuti-patisandhi moment comes in order to carry that determination over to the next life in which B meets A again, to prevent oneself (B) from hurting A back? Otherwise, will this cycle of ‘tit-for-tat over lifetimes’ ever be terminated?
y not
Lal, Akvan, Johnny:
Lal said: ‘The mental pain that you talk about in the fourth paragraph is “samphassa ja vedana”. That is not due to previous causes’.
How so? Or, more correct to ask, How always so? There is a difference between the suffering when one just ‘feels down’ or falls into a sad mood for no apparent reason and when that sadness surfaces due to an event that took place in the past that involved another person, for instance. Here ,clearly, there is a cause and one can point to it as the cause: ‘If that did not happen, this would not be happening now.’ And as I see, this sorrow or sense of regret about the course of those past events leading to mental pain now would need, now or later, the other person too for the elimination of that pain,(no inner ‘spritual effort’ works) for ‘trying to forget all about it and moving on’ does not work, only the ‘moving on’ does, and that only because life must go on somehow, otherwise…..
It may be a ‘mind-made concept’, as Lal has it, but it is more of a ‘mind-retained’ concept; the cause was an event or events in the past, and the mind registered it.It did not create it. Or did it, if one goes deep enough? Please elaborate on this.
The other point I would like to comment on is the apayas. I come from a Catholic background, or environment is a better term in my case(for I never felt that what was I was being taught made sense, it never ‘clicked’), one of those teachings being the concept of an eternal hell. It seemed to me to be too much of a punishment, overly disproportionate to condemn someone to suffer forever, however many and however heinous the crimes committed. I feel the same about the apayas. Why should someone suffer for so long, millions of years, and in intense, unimaginable agony for just one act, however odious, and however many and full of hatred in the mind the days that led to the crime. Had anyone else but a Buddha said it, I would reject the teaching outright. Of course, I have no problem with the scale or proportion or disproportion of the cause to the effect when it comes to the rewards in the deva realms!! One short life here generating a deva bhava results in a deva birth lasting millions of years. Comments on this please.
y not
Embodied:
That is precisely why I said I can do no better (leaving some one
else to supply a comprehensive answer.) for to me ‘the All’ means something else, as I explained.And had you specified which’All’ you are refering to, quoting a sutta, I would not have replied at all. There are others who are up to that.
No disrespect to you at all, Embodied. As you put it, it would appear that the ‘All’ was YOUR description of the 5 senses + the mind.
y not
