Posted by: Vila
« on: November 29, 2019, 04:46:00 PM »Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu Mudita
Another day, another possibility. We don't know what tomorrow might be. _()_
Ein neuer Tag, wieder eine Möglichkeit. Wir wissen nicht was morgen sein wird. _()_
ថ្ងៃ ថ្មី មួូយ ជា ឳកាស ថ្មី មួយ ទៀត។ យើង មិន អាច ដឹង មុន នូវ អ្វី ដែល នឹង កើតឡើង ថ្ងៃ ស្អែក
"Dhammo have rakkhati dammacāriṁ"
"N'atthi santi param sukham"
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
...The Blessed One said to them, "Sakyans, do you observe the eight-factored uposatha?"
"Sometimes we do, lord, and sometimes we don't."
"It's no gain for you, Sakyans. It's ill-gotten, that in this life so endangered by grief, in this life so endangered by death, you sometimes observe the eight-factored uposatha and sometimes don't.
"What do you think, Sakyans. Suppose a man, by some profession or other, without encountering an unskillful day, were to earn a half-kahapana. Would he deserve to be called a capable man, full of initiative?"
"Yes, lord."...
* Johann : Atma often links word, but not all work has been done. Althought content would be given. It's often for later generations or if some feel inspired to give into. Currently no currency changer since some weeks to work on on IGPT.
As just in the middle of reorganizing, the word is found under "k": kukkucca#vippaṭisāraṁ and should now be reachable, changing reference manual: vippaṭisāraṁ.
Mudita, that Nyom Moritz could find an explaining from Bhante Thanissaro.Quote from: at the beginn hereThere is no more desire to maintain a certain stand, group, identification. And the tendency isn't any more a turn around, but one forwardly.
One could also say that a ordinary person struggles with both relations, past and future, while the Sekha struggle very less with the past but still with the future. Not holding on possible taken on beauty, esteem, he isn't stingy o let go of it and so easier gets release, knowing that it is not the essence.
The Sekha has still a task to do and if hindered, does not walk toward it, feels remorse, become restless.
There is no more desire to maintain a certain stand, group, identification. And the tendency isn't any more a turn around, but one forwardly.
One could also say that a ordinary person struggles with both relations, past and future, while the Sekha struggle very less with the past but still with the future. Not holding on possible taken on beauty, esteem, he isn't stingy o let go of it and so easier gets release, knowing that it is not the essence.
The Sekha has still a task to do and if hindered, does not walk toward it, feels remorse, become restless.
"Anguish" here translates vippatisara, which is usually rendered into English as "remorse" or "regret." Here, however, the feeling of vippatisara relates to concerns about the future, rather than the past, and so neither remorse nor regret are appropriate to the context. The anguish alluded to in this passage is based either on the fear that Awakening would entail an end to existence or on the contrary fear that it wouldn't.
http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than_en.html#iti-030
:smile:
Also
Here are these roots of trees, and here are these empty huts. Practice absorption, mendicants! Don’t be negligent! Don’t regret it later! This is my instruction to you.”
Etāni, bhikkhave, rukkhamūlāni, etāni suññāgārāni. Jhāyatha, bhikkhave, mā pamādattha; mā pacchā vippaṭisārino ahuvattha. Ayaṃ vo amhākaṃ anusāsanī”ti.
sn43.11/en/sujato
Sadhu! Thanks for sharing. :anjali:
Maybe kukkucca/remorse means something more special than vippaṭisārino/regret (whatever grammatical form of whatever that is)? I have no understanding of Pali.
Might be worth to bring that up later in the thread. For now, I am just hoping for Bhante Dhammanando's clarification of the sotapanna having abandoned kukkucca.
Going to sleep now. :zzz:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
‘‘Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhu, ariyasāvako vippaṭisāraṃ pajānāti, vippaṭisārasamudayaṃ pajānāti, vippaṭisāranirodhaṃ pajānāti , vippaṭisāranirodhagāminiṃ paṭipadaṃ pajānāti. Tassa so vippaṭisāro nirujjhati, so parimuccati jātiyā…pe… dukkhasmāti vadāmi. Evaṃ jānaṃ kho, bhikkhu, sutavā ariyasāvako evaṃ passaṃ ‘hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipi na byākaroti…pe… ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipi na byākaroti.
Bhikkhu, the not learned ordinary man, does not know remorse the arising of remorse, the cessation of remorse and does not know the path to the cessation of remorse. His remorse develops and he is not released from birth, decay, death, grief, lament unpleasantness displeasure and distress. I say he is not released from unpleasantness.
Thank you, Bhante, for still further explaining.Yes, in regard of strong akusala. In regard of sense-pleasures, remorse remains, as not abound. In regard of maybe certain speech, as well, as not perfect... And in regard of what has to be done, in relation with present. Restlessness.
Just a quick in between:Quote from:Trying to formulate my thoughts in a different way: Remembering bad things done in the past, seeing maybe still consequences appearing indirectly, one does not dwell on remorse for the bad deed done in the past, because nothing can be done about it now. Instead, the only remorse would be about what is to be done here and now and what is (yet) not being done here and now. So one is quickly prompted to do what is to be done here and now.Quote from: Upasika Moritz thoughtThinking about it: although knowing clearly what is kusala and akusala, it could be that past done strong akusala could be a long term cause for re-occuring remorse, enough to be a hindrance, indirectly, by being pulled away from developing tranquility and insight on account of "collateral" consequences of that past strong akusala that one can still trace.
So although not being remorseful directly about "that thing done far in the past", knowing that it would be useless, cannot be changed anymore, one might still be able to trace it back, seeing: this (bad action done by me in the past) was an indirect strong contributing cause of this bad state of affairs now. But one would feel remorseful only about what could be immediately done about it but is not being done at the moment, so being prompted to do what can be done now.
This is how I understand the explained and can agree with it.
That's the wrong teaching, notiins of them, way of thinking, of the Jain, which the Buddha always rebuked speaking on kamma and it's end, best explained also in regard of psychology in: Sankha Sutta: The Conch Trumpet
I do not understand what exactly Bhante sees as wrong with my thoughts expressed above, how it is equal to the (caricature of) way of thinking of the Jains, as expressed in the sutta.
Maybe I misunderstood something. Or maybe not written so understandable.
I thought, my thoughts were actually in line with this line of thought from the same sutta:Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
”[He reflects:] 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures stealing… indulging in illicit sex… the telling of lies, and says, “Abstain from the telling of lies.” There are lies that I have told, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the telling of lies, and in the future refrains from telling lies. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
Is this not correct?
Regarding the question "sotapanna can/cannot kill/steal/lie etc. deliberately": Bhante's explanations make some sense to me.It's in the sphere of Abhidhamma and Vipassana, this investigation of qualities of actions and very practical in this regard, reflecting.
However the "grey area" of "deliberatly, promted" leaves some room for doubt.
By the way, maybe Bhante is confusing "prompted" with "unprompted"? "Prompted" would be "indirect", "pushed to do so by others", or even (arguably) "in affect".
I have doubts about "in affect", or even "prompted, pushed by others". It seems to me, whether prompted or not, whether in much stress and "itched" to do so or not, this would make no difference in it being "deliberate", done with own volition.
So I remain in some doubt. Thank you, in any case, for taking so much time to explain. As mentioned, it seems of not so much practical importance.
mudita, and "slowly", step by step.* Moritz now hurrying away to work
I am going to try to invite Bhante Dhammanando over to this place here. Not sure if I had already done so in the past. I think I had at least thought about, wanted to do so.[/url]
Trying to formulate my thoughts in a different way: Remembering bad things done in the past, seeing maybe still consequences appearing indirectly, one does not dwell on remorse for the bad deed done in the past, because nothing can be done about it now. Instead, the only remorse would be about what is to be done here and now and what is (yet) not being done here and now. So one is quickly prompted to do what is to be done here and now.Quote from: Upasika Moritz thoughtThinking about it: although knowing clearly what is kusala and akusala, it could be that past done strong akusala could be a long term cause for re-occuring remorse, enough to be a hindrance, indirectly, by being pulled away from developing tranquility and insight on account of "collateral" consequences of that past strong akusala that one can still trace.
So although not being remorseful directly about "that thing done far in the past", knowing that it would be useless, cannot be changed anymore, one might still be able to trace it back, seeing: this (bad action done by me in the past) was an indirect strong contributing cause of this bad state of affairs now. But one would feel remorseful only about what could be immediately done about it but is not being done at the moment, so being prompted to do what can be done now.
This is how I understand the explained and can agree with it.
That's the wrong teaching, notiins of them, way of thinking, of the Jain, which the Buddha always rebuked speaking on kamma and it's end, best explained also in regard of psychology in: Sankha Sutta: The Conch Trumpet
I do not understand what exactly Bhante sees as wrong with my thoughts expressed above, how it is equal to the (caricature of) way of thinking of the Jains, as expressed in the sutta.
Maybe I misunderstood something. Or maybe not written so understandable.
I thought, my thoughts were actually in line with this line of thought from the same sutta:Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
”[He reflects:] 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures stealing… indulging in illicit sex… the telling of lies, and says, “Abstain from the telling of lies.” There are lies that I have told, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the telling of lies, and in the future refrains from telling lies. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
Thinking about it: although knowing clearly what is kusala and akusala, it could be that past done strong akusala could be a long term cause for re-occuring remorse, enough to be a hindrance, indirectly, by being pulled away from developing tranquility and insight on account of "collateral" consequences of that past strong akusala that one can still trace.
So although not being remorseful directly about "that thing done far in the past", knowing that it would be useless, cannot be changed anymore, one might still be able to trace it back, seeing: this (bad action done by me in the past) was an indirect strong contributing cause of this bad state of affairs now. But one would feel remorseful only about what could be immediately done about it but is not being done at the moment, so being prompted to do what can be done now.
This is how I understand the explained and can agree with it.
It makes me wonder: Could a sotapanna never deliberately kill a moscito?
What would count as (an "excuse" of) "lack of awareness"? Is a short outburst of anger in which one intentionally kills a living being (for example a moscito) the kind of "lack of awareness" which could still happen to a sotapanna?
Thinking about it: although knowing clearly what is kusala and akusala, it could be that past done strong akusala could be a long term cause for re-occuring remorse, enough to be a hindrance, indirectly, by being pulled away from developing tranquility and insight on account of "collateral" consequences of that past strong akusala that one can still trace.
So although not being remorseful directly about "that thing done far in the past", knowing that it would be useless, cannot be changed anymore, one might still be able to trace it back, seeing: this (bad action done by me in the past) was an indirect strong contributing cause of this bad state of affairs now. But one would feel remorseful only about what could be immediately done about it but is not being done at the moment, so being prompted to do what can be done now.
This is how I understand the explained and can agree with it.
Wrong actions if done, are never considered or promted, deluberate, but can happen in times of lack of awareness.It makes me wonder: Could a sotapanna never deliberately kill a moscito?
The sotapanna is, according to statements in the suttas,This means, the sotapanna's virtue is perfect. He would at least never deliberately break any of the five precepts.Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
"endowed with the virtues that are appealing to the noble ones; untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration."
There is a sutta, which lists a number of things that an arahat categorically cannot do. I don't know which sutta now, so will try to recollect from memory:
- kill a living being
- take what is not given
- tell a deliberate lie
- engage in sexual intercourse
- store food like a householder
- ... (maybe some others, and maybe some of the above are slightly different, but quite similar)
There is also a sutta, which lists a number of things that a sotapanna categorically cannot do. Again, I don't know which sutta, so will try to recollect from memory:If a sotapanna would not be able to kill any living being, the list would state in one single point that a sotapanna cannot kill any living being. Instead it states in three points only three specific instances of killing: of mother, father, or an arahat.
- kill his/her mother
- kill his/her father
- kill an arahat
- wound a Buddha
- cause a schism in the Sangha
- accept anyone else than the Buddha as his/her foremost teacher
Therefore, it seems, a sotapanna would still be able to intentionally kill some living beings.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
...“There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person … falls into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is fear for an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.' But an instructed disciple of the noble ones does not fall into fear over what is not grounds for fear. There is no fear for an instructed disciple of the noble ones [who thinks], 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me.'
“Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to (a physical) form, supported by form (as its object), established on form, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
[the following similar with the six senses and objects of them, possible easier to grasp]
“Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to feeling, supported by feeling (as its object), established on feeling, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
“Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to perception, supported by perception (as its object), established on perception, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
“Should consciousness, when standing (still), stand attached to fabrications, supported by fabrications (as its object), established on fabrications, watered with delight, it would exhibit growth, increase, & proliferation.
“Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible.
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of form …
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of feeling …
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of perception …
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of fabrications …
“If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it stands still. Owing to its stillness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
“For one knowing in this way, seeing in this way, monk, there is the immediate ending of fermentations.”
"Maggapaṭipāṭiyā pana kukkuccanīvaraṇassa vicikicchānīvaraṇassa ca paṭhamamaggena pahānaṃ hoti, the abandoning of the hindrances of regret and doubt occurs by the first path
The Tree Pulls Itself Down
Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.
It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will
"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will, 'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees things as they actually are.
"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they actually are feels disenchantment.
"For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.
"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of release.
"In this way, dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward.
"In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore."
Sīlavato bhikkhave sīlasamapannassa na cetanāya karaṇīyaṃ 'avippaṭisāro me uppajjatū'ti. Dhammatā kho esā bhikkhave yaṃ sīlavato sīlasampannassa avippaṭisāro uppajjati.
Avippaṭisārissa1 bhikkhave na cetanāya karaṇīyaṃ 'pāmojjaṃ me uppajjatū'ti. Dhammatā esā bhikkhave yaṃ avippaṭisārissa[1] pāmojjaṃ uppajjati. ...
1. Avippaṭisārassa machasaṃ, No-wrongway-bond-lorded/slave. Release given/bond.