Will this lead to dispassion and Nibbana?
By the way, thank God you are here! Because I have no idea about this conversation.
I know of only two alternative IDs:
In Thailand the Girimānandasutta is commonly referred to as the Ābādhasutta (though in books of paritta chants they call it the Girimānandasutta too).
The Siṅgālasutta is sometimes called the Sigalovādasutta and sometimes by one of several variant spellings of Siṅgāla.
Many other comments, especially following the above comment, above fall within this issue, directly or indirectly. Hopefully, the following answer will shine some light on this general issue. This could be a bit long, but I want to do this just once.
There is an important issue that one needs to resolve first: Is one interested in finding out what the Buddha taught? OR one is just interested in exploring all philosophical and religious doctrines?
I myself started out with the second approach. When I retired, I read on different philosophies and religions. Since I had a decent level of understating of Buddha Dhamma, I could easily see the value of it compared to all others.
But I was not fully satisfied, because some interpretations in conventional Buddhism were not consistent with the overall picture. It was only when I came across the discourses by the Waharaka Thero that I was able to finally sort things out.
Once one comprehends the real teachings of the Buddha, one can clearly see that it is not worthwhile to spend time on others. Indeed, one wants to disentangle from any “contaminations” that took place over the 2500 years since the Buddha. But I do understand that one needs to get to a certain point to see the value of the “true teachings” of the Buddha.
Another aspect that is very hard to comprehend for many, is the concept of a Buddha who “knows everything” about this world. He taught that in additions to the animal and human realms we “see and experience”, there are 29 more realms (some of you may not know that). So, his world view is much broader. Then when one takes into account rebirth anywhere in these realms, it gets very complex.
And that concept of a Buddha attaining Enlightenment over a single night and discovering all that knowledge, is very different from modern science. Science makes incremental advances. Even though Newton was a great scientist, these days a high school student may have more knowledge in physics than Newton.
But what the Buddha taught 2500 years remains far more advanced than any science today. I am a physicist by training, but I also try to keep up with other areas of science so I know how far behind science is. For example, the Buddha talked about an infinite number of planetary systems (that undergo birth and destruction). In comparison, modern science thought that the universe was Earth-centered even a few hundred years ago. Even Einstein, only a hundred years ago, thought that the universe was in steady state. But now we know that any star system in the universe will be destroyed in several billion years. For those who are interested, there is a “Dhamma and Science” section at the website and may want to at least read:
Even though Hindu Vedic teachings were there before the Buddha, it is not correct to assume that Buddha Dhamma evolved from it. This is the mistake made by those early Europeans too. Buddha Dhamma is completely different from such early concepts. A Buddha discovers the true nature of this world by himself and that ultimate truth does not change over time. That is why the desire of many (who realize the true value of the Buddha Dhamma) to find those original teachings.
As for any evidence for such a grand statement, I provided a glimpse of that in the above paragraphs. But if one studies Abhidhamma, one will realize how much the Buddha knew about our minds.
Anyway, it is up to each person to examine the evidence and come to his/her own conclusions. All I can do is to provide some material for those who are interested. But I don’t have time to do that in two places, here and at my website, basically repeating here the stuff that is already there at the website.
So, hereafter, I am going to respond only to questions that refer to the material at the website. If there are questions on a certain post at the website, please refer to the post and quote from it. This is not an attempt to get people to read my website. Buddha Dhamma is not for “selling”. It is to be pursued with respect based on one’s ability see the value of it.
I hope you all can also appreciate the fact that I do not have time to repeat the material that is already there at the website. Still I also saw the need to at least get more people exposed to the correct interpretations. Now I have provided enough material to think about. Those who don’t agree can just disregard and forget about what I said. No need to get upset about it, because that will not do any good to anyone.
Of course, for those who are interested, I can suggest which posts to read at the website, if a request is made on a certain topic. For example, the historical background that I have mostly talked about here, is discussed in the links that I have given in earlier comments.
SUMMARY
1.Buddha Dhamma did not evolve. It was discovered by the Buddha overnight, even though he went through a hard struggle.
2. If one does not yet believe that, I do not have time to steer someone there through debates in discussion forums, even though there is a lot of introductory material at the website. It is up to each person to spend the time and convince oneself that it COULD BE TRUE.
3. If one does believe that premise, then one can also see it is futile to try to find roots of Pali words in Sanskrit or any other language. One realizes that what is in the Pali Tipitaka is the pure Buddha Dhamma. Then it becomes a matter of clearing out meanings of those Pali verses.
4. The real effort should be on finding a set of inter-consistent explanations (that is how science confirms a given theory too); all suttas and Abhdhamma material in the Tipitaka must be self-consistent. That is what I try to do at my website. I do believe that everything at the website is self-consistent (even though I have much more to add) and is compatible with the Pali Tipitaka, which has remained intact through the ages. I would be happy to discuss any inconsistencies that anyone can point out.
5.By the way, I note that no one has yet contradicted what I have pointed out in previous comments with examples. I now see a new comment.[quote=“Dhammanando, post:118, topic:4986”]
There are many passages in the Tipiṭaka that unambiguously show nicca and anicca to mean ‘permanent’ and ‘impermanent’,
[/quote]
I have addressed this before. I am not saying things are not impermanent. They are. But anicca encompasses that and more. Anicca is a perception in one’s mind. Impermanence what happens to any sankata. The viparinama lakkhana of a sankata (that it changes unexpectedly) is, for example, says more than just about impermanence.
6.Finally, another important point is that when one finds true Buddha Dhamma, and follows it, one can start experiencing a “cooling down” in one’s mind that goes all the way to Nibbana.
With metta, Lal
1 Like
Bhante, I was alluding to the sutta numbering / ID .
DN. iii. 185 is not automatically linked here in D&D for this numbering system is not mapped. I risk saying the right numbering should be DN31. To find it I had to refer to the third column from the left found in the link:
https://suttacentral.net/dn/full
Thanks, Lal.
What you wrote in your post is not new to many in this forum. But you haven’t put a strong case to support your new meaning for Anatta. Do you agree that a person becomes a Sotapanna when s/he realise Anatta (emptiness liberation or Sunnata)? What do you understand by Sunnata? Is this about Anatta?
May or may not help here:
1 Like
Bhante Dhammanando,
Aggivacchagottasutta is using a simile to describe how the blessed Buddha managed to clarify the Dhamma to him.
He says it’s similar to “clearing of the foliage” of a Sala tree to “expose the pure heartwood”.
So it confirms aniccatā is most certainly not “impermanence”. Rather, it suggests the situation he faced before - dissatisfaction (i.e. anicca) of not knowing the Dhamma.
Yes, so the pavāraṇā made to one’s satisfaction (nicca). It suggests a voluntary contribution.
The calamity causes an utter “dissatisfaction” (aniccatā) in the family.
The correct way to translate is as follows.
“And how, Ānanda, would you perceive dissatisfaction? Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘Form is leads to dissatisfaction, feeling is not to one liking, perception is not to one liking, volitional activities are not to one liking, the wrong cognition is not to one liking.’ Thus he dwells contemplating dissatisfaction in these five aggregates subject to clinging. This is called the perception of dissatisfaction."
“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena? Here, a bhikkhu is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by all conditioned phenomena. This is called the perception of wishlessness regarding all conditioned phenomena.”
(AN. v. 109ff.)
The reason why impermanence idea does not really fit with things is because there are things that are indeed impermanent - although leads to satisfaction.
For example, the life of Osama Bin Ladin was impermanent and that caused an overall satisfactory outcome.
Anicca is the final meaning of things. It means - at the end of the day, absolutely nothing is to ones’ liking.
So even if Bin Ladin is not around - you still get old and die one day.
This is how it looks in finality.
Anicca - that nothing in this world can bring a permanent happiness.
Dukkha - we will be subjected to much more suffering than pleasures in the long run despite our struggles.
Anatha - therefore, we are truly helpless in this struggle to attain something that is just an illusion.
So this knowledge help five ascetics (first Sotapanna) to became Sotapanna?
Before Buddha no body realise that " we are truly helpless in this struggle to attain something that is just an illusion."?
Coughs
I can move posts to a new thread if that’s alright with everyone.
3 Likes
That is certainly the ultimate conclusion one arrives - everything leads to futility.
However, the fact there is no-soul or self is part of that package. So one realises the futility of clinging to the soul or self when in fact there isn’t one.
So if you previously thought Anatha was “no self” - that is ok because you really haven’t lost anything. Anatha idea encapsulate no-self and more.
1 Like
Besides the phonetic confusion that @Vstakan has pointed out, I wonder if the guru has noticed another problem.
It is perfectly acceptable for this proposition to use anatta as an adjective -
[quote=“LXNDR, post:1, topic:4986”] citing Rajitha’s post:
The present understanding.
Sabbe dhammā anattā
Things do not have a soul
Ven. Waharaka revision (new)
Sabbe dhammā anattā
Everything is futile
[/quote]
However, it is wrong to conclude to conclude from “Sabbe dhammā anattā” that the other anattā propositions are also adjectival. Let’s take a look at an example -
OK, let’s for a moment suspend disbelief and tentatively take it that anattā here is the adjective “futile”.
But, it is when we come to this -
that it is clear that anattā here is not an adjective. If it were an adjective, it must agree with the saṅkhārā in being inflected into the nominative plural anattāno.
Even if the guru’s disciples insist that the orthography has confused atta and attha, there’s no running away from the fact that if the Buddha had intended to say that “formations are futile”, it would have very easily been recorded as “saṅkhārā anattāno”.
It is the simple but inexcusable failure to recognise the grammatical distinction between the 2 different types of anattā propositions (as adjectival, and also as a substantive) that has led to this dead-end. For goodness sake, they can’t even differentiate the stems used -
“Sabbe dhammā anattā” uses the stem atta (soul)
while
“Rūpaṃ anattā” uses the stem attan (also soul, but without loss of the nasal)
4 Likes
I am new to this forum but have been a regular visitor to the site. Probably this thread is dead by now and I noticed numerous attempts by the moderators to move it to a private thread.
However I wanted to add one more perspective to this thread. One thing I am lucky to have developed listening to dosens of Ajahn Brahmavamso’s (if not 100s) talks is to be open to all views. Not go against it. Our duty as Buddhists is to observe nature and find truths. Not try to morph it to our liking.
Said that I have found reading the suttas with this new interpretation have helped me get rid of a lot of lobha & devesha. I can observe my mind calming down much more deeply than before. Becoming more silent; having less vachi sankara. But reading through the thread it seems to have had an opposite effect on other people.
So I would like to put the idea out there, how can any interpretation be wrong as long as you feel it’s helping you get rid of lobha & devesha?
Don’t we all agree the mind has reached nivana when all traces of lobha, devesha and moha are extinguished? If we do, then we all see one destination, so does it matter which path we take to get there?
Why not hold on to both interpretation, meditate on it and letting our minds decide which one is making us happier & stable? (Which I experienced is only achievable by mind grasping avijja and letting go of lobha & devesha).
E.g. Given my mind sees that I would not gain any meaningful outcome by understanding how languages evolved, I don’t produce thoughts ( turning into actions) that I have to research it.
(I don’t mean to offend anyone with this example and do not mistake it for passive aggression. Merely stating something my mind observed while reading the thread)
With Metta,
Oshan
2 Likes
A very warm welcome to you!
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a private thread, but at this point it’s probably best to start a new one (public or private). If there’s a particular detail or details (preferably not the ones smothered in “Grrrr” ;-)) you want to pick out for further discussion, you can for example create a splintering thread, by selecting “+ New Topic” under the 
icon.
4 Likes
You have to understand this in light of safe bet (Apannaka Sutta).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
1 Like
Like really, guys, there’s only so many hints that can be dropped - start a new thread. 
4 Likes
Hi, can you give me a sentence in Sinhalese where “Lokuttara” and “Arahant” are used as have defined above?