Fundamentals of Theravāda - Bhante Maggavihāri

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

IIT - Nissayamuttaka Course

Handout 5 Ārammaṇa (Object) (not in exam) #editing
- 2 aspects of the object of mind
  - the actual object of reference / representation:
    - paramattha
    - exists apart from consciousness
    - yogācāra believe the obj is also byproduct of csn
    - has its own existence independent of the consciousness
    - . It means the object of representation exists even if it was not known by the consciousness. When it is been cognized, this is what towards which the consciousness is directed.
  - the mental content (idea or the mind image)
    - how the actual object manifests to the mind or is being considered by the consciousness. When we take an object it manifests to us in a certain away. Sometimes we consider about it in a certain manner. This way of manifestation and consideration is the mental content of the consciousness.
    - (citta) nimitta or ākāra
- [Sometimes, it is possible to cognize or imagine an object that does not exit. Even a truly existing object can be imagined in a different way to its actual nature. In such cases, the above classification is a bit complex than what has been mentioned. We shall not talk about those complex scenarios in this lesson. Only the “object of representation” and the “mental content” of an ordinary cognition will be discussed here in this lesson.] UR as UR, UR as Pñt or just Pñt
  - notes from class:
    - thinking of the kuti in the present moment somewhere else, but it was destroyed; what is the object?
    - thinking of a creator god; what is the object?
    - it can be complicated
    - when citta takes UR as UR the obj is considered to be the UR when it takes UR as pñt, the obj can be both when it takes just pñt, only the pñt is the obj
- extra notes:
  - physical outcomes are predictable, but not mental
  - consider the cittas that cannot see paññattis, do they not have the cittanimitta?
    - 2 types of cittanimitta: UR or paññatti; it is "more difficult" to see as paññatti, bc only some stronger cittas can make that;
    - so making a cittanimitta in acc. with reality is easier than making a paññatti?
      - the way it manifests to the citta; normally the image is considered the paramattha; they cannot create a nimitta;
    - parikappana (page 3
    - refer to the handout on atthas
    - parikappanā vikappanā: process of production of paññatti;
    - how are reflection on a mirror classified?
    - sub-c: somewhere discusses this
    - cakkhupasāda "reflects" the colors like a mirror an image
    - obj and nimitta are not differentiated in paramatthacittanimitta
  - rūpam attato samanupassati (assutavā puthujjano): done by diṭṭhi
    - rūpa is the obj, atta is the nimitta
      - couldn't it be rūpa as atta as the nimitta
    - nimitta or chāya (prmtdpn) or ākāra (sub-c)
    - correct to say the obj is a prmt or a pñt
    - parittārammaṇa mahāggatārammaṇa appamāṇārammaṇa tika mātika
      - parittārammaṇa: cittas that take kmvcr obj
      - mahaggata: rupa / arupa
      - appamana: lokuttara
      - there is an obj wchih is neither: paññatti navatabbarammaṇa
        
        obj of diṭṭhi is pñt, but it is based on the paramattha, therefore it is khandhārammaṇa as well;
  - cittanimitta has some contribution to the kamma, but the main contributer is the obj of reference
  - in the abscence of the obj
  - cariyapitaka: prophecy is like a magga citta;
  - buddha promulgates lokavajja rule in savatthi; in other places, one monk commits that and does not know about it; does that hinder him?
  - can it happen with a manomaya buddha?
  - comm or sub-c: the Buddha is said to be necessary to give the prophecy
    - some suggest it is like a kammavācā;
  - or it is a dhammatā that the Buddha must be present; that is seems that it happens always with his presence, but his presence is not a necessary condition;
  - or it is an aparacetanā that strengthens the abhinīhāra; then, it would not be necessary, since only muñcana completes it
  - with the present object one has a stronger mind
  - ārammaṇa purejāta is gained with present objects only
  - giving to someone in nirodha is higher than after emerging? seems not; is the presence of citta better / higher than no citta?
  - if kusala without the buddha is the same, why can't the abhinihara work without the buddha; if with the buddha is higher, sakka's saying same citte samaṁ phalaṁ does not seem to always apply; maybe the "same citte": cannot have the same powerful mind as with the Buddha
    - sakkas saying has been mentioned in many places and taken as a basic fundamental
  - another discussion:
    - paying respect to a statue thinking it is the Buddha, but it's not
    - or to a real person who is not Buddha thinking it is: merit / demerit for the other person, not the Buddha
    - paying respect to buddha thinking nigantha: merit for buddha
    - destroying the Buddha statue thinking it is of nigaṇṭha
    - paying respect to the statue whinking whoever it refers to: it could be what the intended person is
    - destroying nigantha / buddha statue thinking buddha and other permutations:
  - other questions:
    - about dhātus
    - bodhi trees
    - 24/03/2025
      - paying respect to nigantha thinking it is a buddha, merit for nigantha; but statute, not so clear;
      - destroying a buddha statue thinking buddha; demerit
      - if buddha statue, but thinkin nigantha statue;
        
        some think it just depends on one's perception
        
        some give validity to the object itself (seems more correct)
      - hierarchy of cetiyas: body parts, paribhogika, uddesika;
        
        just thinking about the buddha falls under uddesika (bhante's opinion); i think it could be higher than uddesika
        
        doing abhinihara in front of cetiyas, is not the same merit as with the buddha; giving to the buddha statue is not offering to the buddha;
        
        instructions to do sanghika dana after parinibbana; they instruct with dhātu;
        
        same citte samam phalaṁ: seems to be not 100 equal
      - respecting bodhi is not respecting the buddha; merit, but not as high as buddha himself;
      - not confirmed; just theories;
      - cdvml: all 3 statues, same merit; respect to the bodhi, it is not the buddha;
- The relationship between the object of representation and the mental content
- The object of representation is an ultimate reality and it can be considered either as an ultimate reality or a paññatti. For example, take the five aggregates. They are a collection of mental and physical realities. When considering about the five aggregates, usually people take it be a “human” having collectively taken all the aggregates at once. The “idea of human” is the way the five aggregates were taken by the mind. That idea is the “mental content.” The idea of human can be intellectually dissected into it components. Therefore, it is an hīnattha. This is considering a group of paramatthas as a hīnattha. A yogi who practices vipassanā, takes the five aggregates as five aggregates as five aggregates, not as a human. That is the act of taking ultimate realities as ultimate realities.
- Therefore, there are two types of mental content:
  - (1). Paññatti mental content (paññatti citta nimitta) – considering an existing reality or realities as a non-existing entity (e.g., idea of a human)
  - (2). Paramattha mental content (paramattha citta nimitta) – considering an existing reality or realities as existing realities (e.g., idea of feeling, perception etc.)
- One should not misunderstand the “paramattha mental content” as another ultimate reality. It is the consideration of an ultimate reality as an ultimate reality. Paññattis are the paññatti citta nimitta. We do not discuss about the paramattha citta nimitta separately in Dhamma.1
- In sentences such as “Rūpaṃ attato samanupassati” are examples of the consciousness considering ultimate realities as a paññati (concept). In the above piece of teaching “rūpa” (matter) indicates the “object of reference” which is an ultimate reality. The term “attato” (as self) indicates the “mental content” (citta nimitta) which is an hīnattha (concept/paññatti). That mental content about a self is also called “atta chāyā” (reflection (reflected image) of a self). However, according to Dhamma, it is also correct to say that the object of the mind, at that time, is a paramattha (the matter) or a paññatti (the atta chāyā).2
- An object of reference can be taken by the mind in various ways. There are many ways an object of reference can be taken. An object of reference can be taken as a paramattha. It can also be taken as a paññatti. Such an object can be taken as a “pleasant thing” (subha), “unpleasant thing” (asubha) or “neutral thing” (majjhatta). Moreover, an object of reference can be taken as a “permanent thing” (nicca), “impermanent thing” (anicca), “thing which begets suffering” (dukkha), “thing which begets bliss” (sukha), “self” (atta) or “non-self thing” (anatta). Consider the following examples
- (1). Sometimes, the consciousness takes object of reference (which is a paramattha) as a paramattha. Ten viññāṇas, two sampaṭicchanas, three santīraṇas and eight mahāvipākas take paramattha objects as paramattha.
  - C (UR) ⇒ UR
- (2). Sometimes, akusala cittas take object of reference as paramatthas but either with attachment, anger (disliking) or delusion. Attaching to a very beautiful scenery and disliking the heat are good examples for this type of cognition.
  - Dosamūlacitta (UR) ⇒ UR (disliking heat)
- (3). Mahākusala and mahākiriya cittas, too, can take paramattha objects as paramatthas. On some (correction) occasions, they understand the universal characteristics and consider them either as impermanent, suffering or non-self.
- (4). Sometimes, unwholesome consciousnesses can take paramattha objects either as a being who has been living for a long time or permanent (hīnattha). Moreover, bunches or realities can be taken as things such as chair, table, house etc., (hīnatthas) At that time the mind either attaches to the object, dislike it or is deluded about it.
- (5). Even the mahākusala and mahāvipāka cittasi can take paramattha objects as a living being and spread loving kindness towards that being. Sometimes, bunches of realities can be taken as houses, chairs, tables, etc., and perform wholesome acts such as donating them.
- can ptbg nimitta be taken with akusalacitta? yes, but maybe not nīvaraṇa.
  - yes,
- wrong: some monks : the outher world cannot be known directly; they argue that rupa cannot be taken in its exact nature; if you think you are seeing as it is, that's delusion;
  - so then, an arahant, who always "knows one is not seeing a reality" (acc to them) would not take a paññatti as object;
- What is the actual object of a consciousness? The question that arises here is on what is the actual object of the consciousness? Is it the object of reference or the mental content?
- 1The image of a visible object falling on the eye sensitivity is such a “paramattha nimitta.”
- 2"ප තාර මණා වෙසන න ව තබා" එෙතන නව තබාර මණා ඛ ධාර මණා දස්ෙස . (අ . . ii. 33.). ඛ ෙධ එව ස්සාය උපජ , පෙගව Svāyaṃ attaggāho atthato khandhārammaṇo eva daṭṭhabbo. (Vsm-ṭ. II. 329.). "Parittārammaṇādivasena na vattabbā"ti etena navattabbārammaṇāpi diṭṭhi khandhe eva nissāya uppajjati, pageva khandhārammaṇāti dasseti. (Anu-ṭ. II. 33.).
- The general explanation would be the object of reference is the actual object of the consciousness. It is the thing that the citta refers to. It is what is being known with the consciousness. The mental content is about the object of reference. Therefore, object of reference is the actual object of the citta. This idea must be further elaborated. When a paramattha object is being taken as a paññatti object, it is possible to say that the object of the citta is the paramattha object of reference or it is the paññatti mental content. This idea becomes well illustrated by the explanation on the object of the diṭṭhi cetasika. When someone considers about a self which does good and bad deeds and experience there results, the object is a “na-vattabbārammaṇa” according to the parittārammaṇa tika of Dhammasaṅgaṇī. “Na vattabbārammaṇa” of the parittārammaṇa tika are the paññatti. But what happens is the five aggregates, which are ultimate realities, are being considered as a “self.”
- "Parittārammaṇādivasena na vattabbā"ti etena navattabbārammaṇāpi diṭṭhi khandhe eva nissāya uppajjati, pageva khandhārammaṇāti dasseti.3
- However, when a paramattha is known as a paramattha, it must be said, the actual object of the consciousness is always the object of reference. Paramattha citta nimitta (paramattha mental content) is never said to be the object of the consciousness. However, when the mind is focusing on a suddha paññatti nimitta like the paṭibhāga nimitta, which does not have an object of reference, the object of the consciousness is the paññatti citta nimitta (paññatti). Every consciousness has an object. It is also not possible to avoid the manifestation of a citta nimitta (mental content) to the mind. Every consciousness has a certain idea about the object or the object manifests in a certain way to consciousness. Even when the consciousness is focusing on a pure paññatti such as the paṭibhāga nimitta, a certain nimitta manifests to the mind. When the there is an object of reference, the actual object of the consciousness can either be the “object of reference” or the “mental content.”4 If there is no object of reference, the object will be the mental content. As the mental content is a must in every consciousness, according to Theravada, no citta arises without an object.5
- Differences between the Object of Reference and the Mental Content
  - It is imperative to have known the difference between the object of reference and the mental content to have a clear understanding about the object of a consciousness. The mind takes the object of reference in a certain manner at a time. Object of reference and the mental content being similar or dissimilar does not affect the cognition. We shall look into this notion by considering an occasion in which you recall an object that was seen in the past. When the object that
- 3Anu-ṭ. II. 33. 4However, when a paramattha object is taken as a paramattha object, the object is always the object of reference. At that time, the mental content is never refered to as the object of the citta. 5Sometimes, the object of the consciousness is not very vivid to us. For example, think of the object of the mind when one intends to walk. At that time, though the “intention to walk” is very obvious to the mind, the object is vague. On other occasions, when a strong happiness or a sorrow arises, the emotion becomes more conspicuous but not the object of the consciousness. Though the object of the mind is not clear, according to Theravada, every consciousness arises focusing on an object. This is one of the fundamental features of mentality under Theravada fundamentals. Cittas and cetasikas are called “nāma” because they always arise bending towards an object as if looking at them – “Ārammaṇaṃa namatīti nāmaṃ.”
- notes: not possible to take an all emcompassing knowledge of an object at one given moment; always one aspect of the object;
- has arisen and passed away is being recalled, it manifests to your mind in a certain way. That manifestation is the mental content. The object of reference is the reality that existed while been seen and has passed away. The similarity or dissimilarity of the mental content with the object of reference mainly depends on the fact of how clearly you remember the object of reference. Even the manifestation is not similar to the actual object which existed due to weak memory, according to Theravada, the real object of the mind at that time is the past object which existed and vanished. Even if the mental content is utterly dissimilar to the object of reference, there is no obstacle to cognize the object of reference as the object.
- Now think about an occasion on which you think about the Ratnamālī Mahācetiya at Anuradhapura while being in the kuṭi. At that time, Mahāceti appears to you either as you had seen it before with your own eyes or as you had seen it in a picture. But the actual object of the mind is the present Mahāceti of Anuradhapura. Regardless of our ability to think about the Mahāceti accurately, we will never be able to notice the changes it undergoes at the moment. Maybe it has been newly painted, or it is under renovation. Still, the object of our mind is the Mahāceti at Anuradhapura which is existing while you think about it. According to Theravada, there is no obstacle to cognize a certain object even if its actual natures are not clearly known.
- note: object of reference (ārammaṇa)
- mental content, cittanimitta, idea, ākāra
- Kamma, Object of Reference and the Mental Content
  - Under the law of kamma, what matters the most is not the mental content but the object of reference. If we are to perform a certain wholesome or unwholesome act towards a person, the kamma is accumulated not mainly on the nature of the mental content, but according to the nature of the object of reference. Let’s take an example story. One of your friends tells you a story about a monk he knows, whom you have not met before. While listening to the story, an idea appears in your mind about the particular monk. That idea (mental content) is constructed with your imagination listening to the story, and your past experiences about figures of monks greatly influence the nature of the content. That content most probably does not correspond with the true figure of the monk story refers to. However, according to Theravada, at that time, the object of your mind is ‘the monk about whom the story is,’ it means, the person your content refers to, that is to say, the object of reference – monk about whom the story is.
  - How do we prove this notion within the Tradition? For that first we extend our story. Now during the discussion, your friend talks bad about that monk. Listening to that, you, too, joins him and accuses the monk with harsh words (upavadati). Unfortunately, that monk happens to be an Arahant. What will be the result? You commit the unwholesome deed called ariyūpavāda (accusation of a noble being). One can argue that the content of your mind did not fit with the actual nature of that monk, so that you are not liable to bad results of the immoral deed. According to Theravada, content of the mind is not the actual object of the mind. The real object of the mind is the object of reference, it means, according to the example story, it is the monk about whom the story is. In the above incident, you have accumulated the kamma based on the nature of the object of reference. Your mental content was about the unvirtuous puthujjana monk who does improper acts. However, that monk you referred to happen to be an Arahant. The kamma was accumulated not based on the mental content but based on the object of reference.
  - Evidence can be fetched from the literature to strengthen this argument. Once a sister of the Buddha Sikhī who was a nun, saw a lump of phlegm on the compound of a Pagoda. She got angry and scolded “Which prostitute has split phlegm on this sacred ground?”. Unfortunately for her, that lump of phlegm was of an Arahant bhikkhuṇī. While sneezing, unconsciously she had split phlegm on the compound of
  - the ceti, had not noticed it or cleaned it. Literature states that as a result of this terrible accusation, the sister of the past Buddha had to encounter great suffering in the saṃsāra and had to be a prostitute for ten thousand lives. In her last life, she was known as Ambapālī.6
  - Analyzing the story, the sister of the Buddha Sikhī (Ambapālī in her past life) had no idea exactly who was responsible for making the sacred compound dirty. Maybe even a very vivid image like content (which did not match with the exact appearance of the Arahant bhikkhuṇī) had occurred in her mind while she was accusing. Whatever the content she had, her mind was directed towards the person who actually split the phlegm. Therefore, the object of her mind was the person out of whom phlegm came. Hence, she accumulated the kamma of ariyūpavāda.
  - In the same manner, when we pay respect to the Buddha, we imagine his appearance based on the Buddha statues we have seen or information we have heard about him. Those statues never look like the actual Tathāgata. Nevertheless, when we pay homage to him, despite the nature of the content we have in our mind, our mind is directed to the Gotama Buddha who actually lived. So, we accumulate the merit of paying respect to the Buddha. Does such an act of paying respect to the Buddha by us equals with the act of paying homage to the living Buddha? It depends upon the mindset of the worshiper. If a person’s level of faith, happiness and wisdom while paying homage to the deceased Buddha is as same as while he pays homage to the living Buddha, the strength of the accumulated merit is equal. This notion is thus mentioned in the Vimānavatthupāḷi.
  - Tiṭṭhante nibbute cā’pi – same citte samaṃ phalaṃ Cetopaṇidhihetu hi – sattā gacchanti suggatiṁ.7 When someone does a wholesome deed towards the Buddha, either while he is alive or after he has deceased, if the person has similar mindset, he will get similar results. By placing the mind in a proper beneficial manner, as in the presence of the Buddha (even after the Buddha has passed away), beings go to blissful abodes.
    - some arguments against it
      - monk with abhiññā, can become arahant, has desire to be a buddha, does sacrifice in mahācetiya not the Buddha;
        
        sub-c: to get the profecy; abhinihara makes you certain to be a buddha, not the profecy itself;
        
        in the presence of the buddha, the mind is stronger;
        
        it seems that to a living buddha is stronger than past buddha
      - same for paccekabuddha
      - just imagining the recipient emerged from nirodhasamāpatti is not the same
  - As far as the Tradition of Theravadins is concerned, in the kammica aspect of a consciousness experience, the content or idea we have in our mind while referring to an object of reference does not have much significance; the actual object (object of reference) which is been referred is what matters. However, when it comes to vipassanā meditation, the mental content starts to play a significant role.
  - 6Therī-a. 214. 7Vmv. 66.
  - notes:
  - if cittanimitta is attributed to citta...nothing other than mentalities themselves; some say it is the function of saññā; in the end paññattis have to be exclusded; because it cannot be the object of reference; these monks say paññatti is a later addition; there can be different mentalities towards the content;
  - cittanimitta it is something other than the mentalities
  - physicalism, neurons are mental states
  - normally they are not differentiated;paññatti must be on the content side, not on the object side;
    - when taking UR as a concept; object of diṭṭhi is paññatti (dhmsgn); what is taken as concept is the 5 aggregates; so these are mixed objects;
    - suddhapaññatti does not have a coreresponding reality for it as a base;
  - sometimes UR as UR, UR as concept, or just concept
  - minimum to be ārammaṇa: the mental content
  - danger of explaining the obj of citta is only mental content; not correct; the real obj is the object of reference; if there is no obj, menal content suffices as obj; comm.. even though the obj of diṭṭhi is a paññatti the actual obj is UR
  - should not say mental content is the object
  - hen dealing with kamma, what matters is the object of reference; kamma is accumulated based on the qualities of the obj of reference; killing what one thinks is an animal but is a human is killing a human.
  - elakacatukka
  - kamma is accumulated based on the obj of reference
  - there is a certain connection between the mind and the object;
abhiññāṇa
- before abhi occurs, there is a striking of the object in Na, before the abhi
- mohavicchedanī a book : some say apart from iddhividha, the abhi occurs repeatedly without need for preliminary acts; (is it addressed in other places? #q🙋🏼‍♂
- āvajjana patipada
- with abhi there is a clearer object; but normally the mind can take the distant objects;
- if there were no connection between the mind an the object, kamma ccannot be explained; thinking niganthanathaputta as the Buddha one offers sth, the merit is for offering to nigantha not the buddha
- buddha statue
moment of strike
- is the kamma set to occur before the asaññasatta life? or is it determined by the time of death of the asaññāsatta being?
- what makes the group A object strike later than 1 ck?
- another school say mind processes are just vibhūta and avibhūta;
- moghavara for mind door
- another approach: the mind may take all the present objects available of various life spans
- maybe the strength of the causes that present the object
- some may think it is random
- some remove the other cittavīthis and simplify into 2 vīthis
ñāṇamukhe āpattaṁ āgacchanti
- for the Buddha all objects are "closer" to his bhavanga after ratanaghara week; that caused a change in his body; maybe after ratanaghara the omniscience occurred more swiftly;
- his mind is "like" pervading all things in the sense of having them close to it;
extra notes:
- ussahana: bearing the pain ‒ one of the characteristics of vīriya
- arht with patisandhbhia matures it more by giving dhamma talks
- the previous life viññāṇa supporting present life rūpa is mostly discussed under ekavokāra realm, but it is sometimes mentioned in other realms as well, in which it supports the cittajarūpas
- ontological or epistemological
- abstract defition, because in an active voice definition, the subject and the act are separated;
  - that which knows is viññāṇa
  - the act of knowing is viññāṇa
- nāgasena mixed lakkhaṇa and kicca
āsevana within one ck
- within on ck from thiti to bhanga it is said that the asevana is found (not during uppāda moment)
  - under the explanation of the first jhāna
QnA thursday
- page 78 amoha
- page 71 moha
  - muyhatīti moho (not knowing is delusion)
    - 2 opinions in theravāda
      - 1
        
        moha screens, prevent the mind from knowing the actual nature of the object;
        
        does not have the capacity to know things
        
        andhīkaraṇa
      - 2
        
        prevents the mind from seeing the reality and also gives a distorted version, seeing it wrongly
        
        it knows wrongly;
      - mulatika refuses saying moha cannot see; just make the mind blind
      - micchāñāṇa
        
        comm.: moha that acts like ñāṇa in unwholesome activities; thinking how to kill;
        
        mulatika: no, it is micchāvitakka (like micchāsaṅkappa)
        
        jnkbvs: follows comm.; moha is not like sleeping, moha knows things wrongly;
        
        what about diṭṭhi? diṭṭhi grasps and thinks deeply, critical, hold strongly; moha is fundamental to diṭṭhi
        
        mulatika: no, just making blind;
        
        what about diṭṭhivip. cittas sometimes take impermanent as permanent, etc; who does this? mulatika: either diṭṭhi or saññā or citta; so without diṭṭhi wrong perceptions can happen; citta and saññā take them wrongly bc they r being hindered made blind by moha
      - unanimous:
        
        moha makes blind
        
        moha prevents thes arising of ñāṇa
QnA
- why more diversity of ku vip over aku vip
  - standard
    - uddhacca weakens cittas; bc of that, uddhaccasapayutta citta cannot produce ptsd and the other akusalacittas; vicikicchā has the weakest ekaggata; so ekaggata is not the main factor for the strength; vicikicchā expects another object, so it drags the continuum to another object, which weakens ekaggatā even more than the pure restlessness;
  - lack of adhimokkha also is not the main factor
  - another way
    - 10 cetasikas for basic cognition; 7 + vit vic adhi
    - when chanda n viriya are lacking beings cannot work for a longer period for a goal
    - each factor in the Bh contributes to the capacity of the being, not only ñāṇa;
    - viriya is needed to make a decision about the object
    - som Sn is only bc of the intensity of the object, tf it cannot occur as patisandhi
    - bhante: pa, sp, sn, vo are the "same citta" but performing different functions; it is called Sn bc it is the strongest function (isn't it Vo?)
looking at hell from 100y would burn our eyes
paṭusaññākicca: saññā in nevasaññānāsaññāyatana; does not become a prominent object to paccavekkhaṇa / vipassanā citta; it does not perform paṭusaññākicca
in some places, the power of a reality of performing a function (sampattirasa II) is called paccayasatti
noble beings dont lose jhana bc of defilements, only negligence
after losing jhāna,
to attain phalasamāpatti one has to practice vipassanā with that intention, notwith the intention of achieving a higher stage
jīvitasaṅkhāratāpana phalasamāpatti
buddha sick; vas vipassanā to enter phala; it affect the phala
some ariyas are unable to enter phalasamāpatti when involved with defilements'
having lost the jhāna, the phala samāpatti
1st attainment is 1st jhāna magga phala if no jhāna
if higher jhāṇāṁ, attain 3rd hj maggaphala, then phalacitta is the same vipāka of the magga, so the phala is 3rd jhāna even if he lost jhāna
dhammasangani comm: can have som jhāna in arupa? how? mahathera said yes, attains 2st jhāna magga, then his vipāka in arūpa realm as a brahma is somanassa
jhāṇa is not needed for phalasamāpatti
arupa brahmas do not have lower jhānas and can attain higher jhānas
phala cittas can be strengthened or weakened
rupa is object of kāmataṇhā, tf is always kāmāvacara; based on the taṇhā; object of rūparaṇhā is rūpāvacara, arupāvacara same; beyond taṇhā, apariyāpanna / lokuttara
all comm exc paramatthadipani, no dosa in jhanalabhi; ledi: based on a certain sutta; personal opinion, a slight dosa is possible; brahma no dosa, clear cut statement; bc kāmarāga is suppressed in the kāma realm; due to the absence of kāmarāga there is no chance for dosa; in kāma realm, slight dosa is possible for jhānalabhi (ledi only);
metta as pñt obj producing kmvr ptsd
māna in ariyas
- Seyyassa: monks and kings
  - Seyyamana: thinking oneself superior
  - sadisamana: thinking oneself equal
  - hinamana: thinking oneself lower
- Sadisa...: ministers to householders
- Hinassa...: slaves
- note: Seyya sadisa and hina are types of beings basd on social class
- divided into 2
  - Yathava suitable, makes sense, justifiable
    - Only their own level: seyyassa seyyamana...
  - Ayathava not suitable, other levels
- Sotapanna
  - Only yathavamana remains until arahantship
  - He would never feel equal or inferior to others
  - There are opinions on this matter
- Universal hierarchy as an ultimate sense? if not, magganyana would not eradicate only such types.
- Beings read the social hierarchy and tf know what is suitable and not
- Cant sopapanna have hina mana about another monk?
- Sotapanna as householder and then becomes king so does it change?
- Defilements agree with the position in society
- Sakadagami posess kamaraga but not to have sex not enough
- We should understand our position in society and that shows wisdom
- Social norms are important . Affect parajika. Kidnapping a child is not parajika, but a slave is.
- If the rules are righteous.
- Not following rules create a negative mind.
- Completely neglecting becomes an impediment
Postulate
if asaññasatta can be reborn as dvihetukas afterwards, how does that help understand when the kamma is decided? in brahma realm, can dvihetuka get a chance to give result?
maybe the bodhisatta didn't know his mother was not mahapajapati until his renunciation
sammā ājīva in ariyas
- sotapanna would have sammakammanta when abstaining form killing for livelihood? sammāajiva?
- all ariyas are free from miccha ajiva, so can samma ajiva arise in them?
- what type of defilement is sammaajiva in higher maggas removing? maybe some subtle types of micchaajiva
āyu
- ayu 1: time we live
- ayu 2: lifespan at a specific time
- ayu 3: determined by the kamma (cannot be extended) (āyuvaṇṇo sukhaṁ balaṁ)

Fundamentals of Theravāda (Semester V) – Bhante Maggavihāri

Fundamentals of Theravāda - Bhante Maggavihāri