සෝවාන් ඵලයට පමුණවන සතිපට්ඨානය හෙවත් යෝනිසෝමනසිකාරය

[MalSeven]

Yes, the kalyana mithra can guide you through the way he understands correct. He can even verify that you are walking along properly on "his" path. BUT do you know if his path will end up at sowan-pala? If not, how do you verify if you are on the right track or on a track someone has imagined?

This is where “ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය” comes in, this is not something you can come to terms with modern or western way of scientific reasoning where experiments observations and conclusions involved. This is achieved entirely within your mind by mapping information provided (by kalyana mithra) with information you already have, once you know the elements involved (ones you know and ones unknown) fits in like pieces of a puzzle, then you know the entire thing is correct.

This may be something new to you, but it is the only way to get around this, there is no other way, only difference is that kalyana mithra knows the specific information that is required. No one else does. This is how you verify, kalyana mithra is right and the maga is also right in one go.

What I said was the total dukka mentioned in dukka arya succa has two components. One is feelable dukka (kayika+chaitasika) which everyone knows and the other non-feelable dukka which is not feelable (so unknow to a prutakjana) but need to be seen by prajna..

I thought you said there are three parts, one is the feelable dukkha other is non- feelable dukkha and another one is unknown dukkha.

When you take the notion "mama", you are already in either existence or non-exitance. I think we talked about this long ago and thought it was clear to you at that time.

I don’t think we assume the existence nor the non- existence just because we took the notation itself, it’s just a placeholder IMO. We did talk about it, but it did not tally up with my way of thinking. If I talk your language, I am more comfortable with the wave-particle duality model. Again, this is my opinion.

This is not for me, but I was curious what you were trying to show in the OP. One can attain sowan-pala ONLY when listening to sermon? Is that what you claim?

I never claim, “One can attain sowan-pala ONLY when listening to sermon”, what I am saying is “yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana that only occurs when listening to a sermon” so there is listening to sermon and also yonisomanasikaara and dhammanudhamma patipdada which is the outcome as one enteres in to sowan pala.

 

[animation]

thanks

 

[ek_rosh]

This is where “ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය” comes in, this is not something you can come to terms with modern or western way of scientific reasoning where experiments observations and conclusions involved. This is achieved entirely within your mind by mapping information provided (by kalyana mithra) with information you already have, once you know the elements involved (ones you know and ones unknown) fits in like pieces of a puzzle, then you know the entire thing is correct.

This may be something new to you, but it is the only way to get around this, there is no other way, only difference is that kalyana mithra knows the specific information that is required. No one else does. This is how you verify, kalyana mithra is right and the maga is also right in one go.

Ok, let me understand what you say here.

1. You will develop this “ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය” in your mind BEFORE sothapanna stage.
2. With this nyaanaya, you can compare what you have achieved so far with the information kalyana mitra provided.
3. If they fit in perfectly you know you are good so far.
4. So, you assume here, the infomation provided by kalyana mitra is correct?
5. Also, you assume that perfectly fit by this far validates the path is correct till sothapanna stage?

Correct me if I am wrong on anything above.

I thought you said there are three parts, one is the feelable dukkha other is non- feelable dukkha and another one is unknown dukkha.

I don’t think we assume the existence nor the non- existence just because we took the notation itself, it’s just a placeholder IMO. We did talk about it, but it did not tally up with my way of thinking. If I talk your language, I am more comfortable with the wave-particle duality model. Again, this is my opinion.

What if there is no such thing as electron? how do you talk about wave or particle nature then?

I never claim, “One can attain sowan-pala ONLY when listening to sermon”, what I am saying is “yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana that only occurs when listening to a sermon” so there is listening to sermon and also yonisomanasikaara and dhammanudhamma patipdada which is the outcome as one enteres in to sowan pala.

Trying to understand:

I never claim, “One can attain sowan-pala ONLY when listening to sermon”

1. So, you say one can attain sowan-pala while not listening to sermon?

“yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana

2. a type of sathipattana? what are the other types of sathipattana?

3. One cant do yonisomanasikara while not listening to sermon?

 

[MalSeven]

Ok, let me understand what you say here.

1. You will develop this “ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය” in your mind BEFORE sothapanna stage.

ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය is not something we develop, it is something we all have, and it has nothing to do with sothapanna stage, this is the eastern way of coming to conclusions. The issue is, it is currently clouded with western influence within our eastern societies, so we always giving the priority to western method due to its ability to show and tell. This is subliminally affecting our thought process, as you can see, your questions based on this method of thinking (this is not a criticism, this is how we are)

2. With this nyaanaya, you can compare what you have achieved so far with the information kalyana mitra provided.
3. If they fit in perfectly you know you are good so far.

correct

4. So, you assume here, the infomation provided by kalyana mitra is correct?

there are no assumptions, becuase 2 and 3 eliminated that

5. Also, you assume that perfectly fit by this far validates the path is correct till sothapanna stage?

Correct me if I am wrong on anything above.

That is correct, again no assumptions

What if there is no such thing as electron? how do you talk about wave or particle nature then?

There is no such thing as electron, there is wave and there is particle, do you see my point here?
We can’t just name things, we simply stop the process and name the current state of it, because there is no other way, this is also called taking things as nichcha, things actually are anichcha, they are not in a stopped, static state. Even true for electron. Same goes for "මම"

Trying to understand:

I never claim, “One can attain sowan-pala ONLY when listening to sermon”

1. So, you say one can attain sowan-pala while not listening to sermon?

No, you must be listning also meditating (yonisomanasikaara)

“yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana

2. a type of sathipattana? what are the other types of sathipattana?

Method wise only one (ඒකායන මාර්ගය), level wise there can be many, 4 main divisions are there but depending on person there can be many more.

3. One cant do yonisomanasikara while not listening to sermon?

No (again my opinion from experience and thripitaka)

 

[ek_rosh]

ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය is not something we develop, it is something we all have, and it has nothing to do with sothapanna stage, this is the eastern way of coming to conclusions. The issue is, it is currently clouded with western influence within our eastern societies, so we always giving the priority to western method due to its ability to show and tell. This is subliminally affecting our thought process, as you can see, your questions based on this method of thinking (this is not a criticism, this is how we are)

correct

there are no assumptions, becuase 2 and 3 eliminated that

That is correct, again no assumptions

According to my understanding "ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is not something special. It has nothing to do with eastern or western. It is verifying something through your sensors. For example, something visual can be verified by looking at it through your eye. Neither logically nor information from someone. This is what I said in other thread "awabodhaya thulin pratyakshaya"

So, from my understanding, nivana or sothapanna-pala can only be ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය though its proper sensor which is prajna. Which means, again you cant verify it till you reach pala.

BTW, I would like to see if there is any sermon or reading supporting your claim.

There is no such thing as electron, there is wave and there is particle, do you see my point here?
We can’t just name things, we simply stop the process and name the current state of it, because there is no other way, this is also called taking things as nichcha, things actually are anichcha, they are not in a stopped, static state. Even true for electron. Same goes for "මම"

No, in physics we have a defined electron with its mass, charge, spin, etc... the nature of how it exists could be a wave or a particle.

No, you must be listning also meditating (yonisomanasikaara)

So, listening and yonisomanasikara has to be done at the same time? or no?

Method wise only one (ඒකායන මාර්ගය), level wise there can be many, 4 main divisions are there but depending on person there can be many more.

“yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana

so, why you said "a type of" ?

No (again my opinion from experience and thripitaka)

No, means one CAN do yoniso while not listening to sermons? can or cannot?

 

[MalSeven]

According to my understanding "ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is not something special. It has nothing to do with eastern or western. It is verifying something through your sensors. For example, something visual can be verified by looking at it through your eye. Neither logically nor information from someone. This is what I said in other thread "awabodhaya thulin pratyakshaya"

So, from my understanding, nivana or sothapanna-pala can only be ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය though its proper sensor which is prajna. Which means, again you cant verify it till you reach pala.

BTW, I would like to see if there is any sermon or reading supporting your claim.

Yes, I know what you mean here, that is not "ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය", what you have mentioned above is type of reasoning, it is linear, either you have or don’t have data to support your specific belief, i.e. you go to the moon and verify there is no rabbit.
"ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is about fabricating an entire ecosystem so you have everything connected, it is not linear, when one is proven, everything else is proven.

I will get back to you about sermons… can’t guarantee sorry about that.

No, in physics we have a defined electron with its mass, charge, spin, etc... the nature of how it exists could be a wave or a particle.

See, you still don’t have an electron, you call electron to a bunch of characteristics that exists in a point or period of time, those characteristics again are named characteristics of some other characteristics and so on, you will never find the electron, “මම” is exactly that it is called to a set of characteristics in a point in time by taking those characteristics as nichcha (as fixed). So does it exits? conditinally yes and conditinally no.

So, listening and yonisomanasikara has to be done at the same time? or no?

“yonisomanasikaara is a type of sathipatthana bhawana

so, why you said "a type of" ?

No, means one CAN do yoniso while not listening to sermons? can or cannot?

Yes, both has to happen at the same time, and no you can’t do yonisomanasikaara while not listening to dhamma.

Sorry sathipatthana part must be corrected as levels, not types.

 

[Emios]

 

[ek_rosh]

Yes, I know what you mean here, that is not "ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය", what you have mentioned above is type of reasoning, it is linear, either you have or don’t have data to support your specific belief, i.e. you go to the moon and verify there is no rabbit.
"ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is about fabricating an entire ecosystem so you have everything connected, it is not linear, when one is proven, everything else is proven.

I will get back to you about sermons… can’t guarantee sorry about that.

From Rerukane thero:

දැනුම වනාහි ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂඥානය ය, අනුමාන ඥානය ය කියා දෙවැදෑරුම් වේ. ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය ය කියනුයේ ඇසින් දැකිය යුත්තක් ඇසින්ම දැක දැන ගැනීම බඳු දැනීම්වලට ය. අනුමාන ඥානය යි කියනුයේ යමක් ගැන අනුන් කියනු ඇසීමෙන් හෝ පොතපත කියවීමෙන් හෝ යම්කිසි ලකුණක් දැකීමෙන් හෝ ඇතිවන දැනුම්වලට ය. ඒ ඒ දෙය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගැනීමට වෙන වෙනම ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇත්තේ ය, රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ඒ ඉන්ද්‍රියයෙන් රූපය මුත් අනිකක් දත නො හැකි ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය. ගන්ධය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය නාසය ය. රසය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය දිවය. ස්පර්ශය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කය ය.

ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය. එය ඉන්ද්‍රිය විභාගයේ දී අනඤ්ඤාතඤ්ඤස්සාමිතින්ද්‍රිය ය-අඤ්ඤින්ද්‍රිය ය-අඤ්ඤාතාවින්ද්‍රිය ය කියා ඉන්ද්‍රිය තුනක් වශයෙන් දක්වා තිබේ. ඒ සියල්ල ම ආර්‍ය්‍යපුද්ගලයන් තුළ පමණක් ඇති වන ඉන්ද්‍රියයෝ ය. ගාථාවෙහි විඤ්ඤාණං යන පදයෙන් දැක්වෙන්නේ නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ලෝකෝත්තර ඥානෙන්ත්‍රිය තුනෙන් දත යුත්තක් බව ය.


This clearly states what "ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is. In simple form it is "indriya awabodhaya thulin prathyakshaya", exactly as what I have been saying from the beginning. So, again, there is no way to verify your path until you have access to prajna.

I dont see any validity of your statement through this. How did you come up with your idea? any logic? any sources?

See, you still don’t have an electron, you call electron to a bunch of characteristics that exists in a point or period of time, those characteristics again are named characteristics of some other characteristics and so on, you will never find the electron, “මම” is exactly that it is called to a set of characteristics in a point in time by taking those characteristics as nichcha (as fixed). So does it exits? conditinally yes and conditinally no.

Ok, now let's say we call a bunch of characteristics instead of electron. So, you will have to accept the existence of these characteristics in order talk the wave or particle nature. Going back to the same thing, it is just replacing electron with something else. Nothing has changed.

Yes, both has to happen at the same time, and no you can’t do yonisomanasikaara while not listening to dhamma.

OK, "both YM and listening to sermon should happen at the same time."

So, you CANT do yonisomanasikaara while not listening OR there is no point of doing YM while not listening to?

 

[Emios]

Dan nan kiyawala kiyawala pissu wage.tikak rest eke inna one

 

[ek_rosh]

Dan nan kiyawala kiyawala pissu wage.tikak rest eke inna one

Did you learn something at last reading all these?

 

[Emios]

Did you learn something at last reading all these?

Learned so much that mind went blank.Have to rest a little

 

[MalSeven]

From Rerukane thero:

දැනුම වනාහි ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂඥානය ය, අනුමාන ඥානය ය කියා දෙවැදෑරුම් වේ. ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය ය කියනුයේ ඇසින් දැකිය යුත්තක් ඇසින්ම දැක දැන ගැනීම බඳු දැනීම්වලට ය. අනුමාන ඥානය යි කියනුයේ යමක් ගැන අනුන් කියනු ඇසීමෙන් හෝ පොතපත කියවීමෙන් හෝ යම්කිසි ලකුණක් දැකීමෙන් හෝ ඇතිවන දැනුම්වලට ය. ඒ ඒ දෙය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගැනීමට වෙන වෙනම ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇත්තේ ය, රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ඒ ඉන්ද්‍රියයෙන් රූපය මුත් අනිකක් දත නො හැකි ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය. ගන්ධය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය නාසය ය. රසය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය දිවය. ස්පර්ශය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කය ය.

ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය. එය ඉන්ද්‍රිය විභාගයේ දී අනඤ්ඤාතඤ්ඤස්සාමිතින්ද්‍රිය ය-අඤ්ඤින්ද්‍රිය ය-අඤ්ඤාතාවින්ද්‍රිය ය කියා ඉන්ද්‍රිය තුනක් වශයෙන් දක්වා තිබේ. ඒ සියල්ල ම ආර්‍ය්‍යපුද්ගලයන් තුළ පමණක් ඇති වන ඉන්ද්‍රියයෝ ය. ගාථාවෙහි විඤ්ඤාණං යන පදයෙන් දැක්වෙන්නේ නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ලෝකෝත්තර ඥානෙන්ත්‍රිය තුනෙන් දත යුත්තක් බව ය


This clearly states what "ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය" is. In simple form it is "indriya awabodhaya thulin prathyakshaya", exactly as what I have been saying from the beginning. So, again, there is no way to verify your path until you have access to prajna.

I dont see any validity of your statement through this. How did you come up with your idea? any logic? any sources?

I can’t comment on what Rerukane thero thinks about “ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය”, the one I know is something different. Things like Ayurveda, Waasthu Widaya, and Nakshasthra were unearthed using “ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥාන” and if you look at them, they are whole ecosystems. But the thero do mention “ඇසින් දැකිය යුත්තක් ඇසින්ම දැක දැන ගැනීම බඳු”, this is somewhat correct IMO, because it is not about using your eyes or any other external sensor, he used it as a parable to say, see something clearly from mind as if you see something from your own eyes. This has nothing to do with other sensors (ඉන්ද්‍රිය)

“ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය“ Is not something you gradually build, it is an extension of “මන ඉන්ද්‍රිය” that occur at the time (පෙර පසු නොවී ) of dharmawabodha (sowan pala) . So, it is not something you can use to attain sowan pala. Also, there is no logic or sources in the form of conveyable media for me to show you. Again, asking sources here means you are asking me to prove this using the modern method. Which is not possible.

Ok, now let's say we call a bunch of characteristics instead of electron. So, you will have to accept the existence of these characteristics in order talk the wave or particle nature. Going back to the same thing, it is just replacing electron with something else. Nothing has changed.

See the issue is you can’t even call bunch of characteristics because those characteristics are also characteristics of others… so on and so forth, you will never find firm ground to set your foot in. The only way to get something out of this is by freezing and combining naama (fabrications of mind or form of sankaara) to roopa at the current moment. As you know this freeze means the assumption of nichcha in each mind that get created. Process continues, and we get the feeling that there is an electron exists or මම exists etc... This process is not freezable (anichcha) in reality so anything you define this way theoretically not real. Therefore this whole freesing process also called dukkha . Don't you see there wasn’t anything to be changed in the first place?

OK, "both YM and listening to sermon should happen at the same time."
So, you CANT do yonisomanasikaara while not listening OR there is no point of doing YM while not listening to?

No point doing yonisomanasikaara if you are not listning to dhamma. In fact you can't do yonisomanasikaara without listning to dhamma.

 

[MalSeven]

Learned so much that mind went blank.Have to rest a little

Maybe you are haiving a virtual vieewarana mohotha

 

[thilina5312]

Up

 

[ek_rosh]

I can’t comment on what Rerukane thero thinks about “ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥානය”, the one I know is something different. Things like Ayurveda, Waasthu Widaya, and Nakshasthra were unearthed using “ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ ඥාන” and if you look at them, they are whole ecosystems. But the thero do mention “ඇසින් දැකිය යුත්තක් ඇසින්ම දැක දැන ගැනීම බඳු”, this is somewhat correct IMO, because it is not about using your eyes or any other external sensor, he used it as a parable to say, see something clearly from mind as if you see something from your own eyes. This has nothing to do with other sensors (ඉන්ද්‍රිය)

Im sorry but I have no idea how in the world one can verify a supramundane phenomenon by something mundane used on Ayurveda, etc.

It is clearly stated that, what is needed to verify what:

රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය. ගන්ධය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය නාසය ය. රසය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය දිවය. ස්පර්ශය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කය ය.

ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය

“ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය“ Is not something you gradually build, it is an extension of “මන ඉන්ද්‍රිය” that occur at the time (පෙර පසු නොවී ) of dharmawabodha (sowan pala) . So, it is not something you can use to attain sowan pala. Also, there is no logic or sources in the form of conveyable media for me to show you. Again, asking sources here means you are asking me to prove this using the modern method. Which is not possible.

Unfortunately, I cant agree anything here, and some are absurd.

Prajna is a chaitasika which will gradually turn into indriya level along with other bojjangas. The first citta in which the prajna has developed enough to the level capable of capturing 3 marks is the sowan-magga citta. The following citta takes nibbana as the object which is called pala citta.. So, both magga and pala cittas include prajna.

"it is not something you can use to attain sowan pala"

Indeed, prajna is essential in the magga citta. otherwise, the following pala cita won't be able to hold on to nibbana (object)


Well, im not asking a source for to prove anything. No offence, but your idea is completely insane to me. Is this something you thought, or you did listen/read this from somewhere else?

See the issue is you can’t even call bunch of characteristics because those characteristics are also characteristics of others… so on and so forth, you will never find firm ground to set your foot in. The only way to get something out of this is by freezing and combining naama (fabrications of mind or form of sankaara) to roopa at the current moment. As you know this freeze means the assumption of nichcha in each mind that get created. Process continues, and we get the feeling that there is an electron exists or මම exists etc... This process is not freezable (anichcha) in reality so anything you define this way theoretically not real. Therefore this whole freesing process also called dukkha . Don't you see there wasn’t anything to be changed in the first place?

Well, this is going way wired. Let's keep the electron and wave-particle duality as the example and continue. Once the example is clear, we can relate it "mama", nama rupa etc..

No point doing yonisomanasikaara if you are not listning to dhamma. In fact you can't do yonisomanasikaara without listning to dhamma.

OK, "You CANT do yonisomanasikara when you are NOT listning to sermon".

Your claim is clear now. How do you support this with the suttas in the OP?

 

[MalSeven]

Im sorry but I have no idea how in the world one can verify a supramundane phenomenon by something mundane used on Ayurveda, etc.

It is clearly stated that, what is needed to verify what:

රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය. ගන්ධය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය නාසය ය. රසය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය දිවය. ස්පර්ශය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කය ය.

ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය

This is the issue Mr. Rosh, you still see all these as separate entities, that is because you still base your judgement on modern way of concluding things. This is fine, I am not criticizing any of that as I have told you many times I was exactly like that. Without seeing the connections between everything we humanly know and dhamma, I will never be able to get this point across to you. What you are stating above is also made up. It is a convention that planted in your mind to say that the nirvana should be achieved in this fission. Don’t you see these things are linear? There are no connections. When you say රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය…. ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය These will just limit you.

Unfortunately, I cant agree anything here, and some are absurd.

Prajna is a chaitasika which will gradually turn into indriya level along with other bojjangas. The first citta in which the prajna has developed enough to the level capable of capturing 3 marks is the sowan-magga citta. The following citta takes nibbana as the object which is called pala citta.. So, both magga and pala cittas include prajna.

"it is not something you can use to attain sowan pala"

Indeed, prajna is essential in the magga citta. otherwise, the following pala cita won't be able to hold on to nibbana (object)


Well, im not asking a source for to prove anything. No offence, but your idea is completely insane to me. Is this something you thought, or you did listen/read this from somewhere else?

Sure, I don’t expect you to agree with me and I have taken no offence because I know for a fact that you don’t see what I see. This is merely a frame of thinking applied upon yourself, based on knowledge gathered from various sources. These are not even verified knowledge by the way, nevertheless, have you ever come across anyone who achieved something meaning full and verify that they experienced this same exact order of things? Something for you to think about …

For your sake, I tried to map as much as I can to what you already know such as thriptaka and other reading materials, but they are full of holes, so I do understand that you find this insane. To answer your question, this is something I mapped and understood by listening to dhamma.

Well, this is going way wired. Let's keep the electron and wave-particle duality as the example and continue. Once the example is clear, we can relate it "mama", nama rupa etc..

Wired indeed and you may also think this is silly , but the problem is we can’t keep it at electron and wave-particle duality, what is wave? What is particle? Again, another set of characteristics. You just freeze and name, nothing else. This will end up in a place called avidya and need to be understood at its entirety.

OK, "You CANT do yonisomanasikara when you are NOT listning to sermon".

Your claim is clear now. How do you support this with the suttas in the OP?

This is all I have from the book, expereince wise I have more. But again I don’t need to support this or prove in modern method.

 

[ek_rosh]

This is the issue Mr. Rosh, you still see all these as separate entities, that is because you still base your judgement on modern way of concluding things. This is fine, I am not criticizing any of that as I have told you many times I was exactly like that. Without seeing the connections between everything we humanly know and dhamma, I will never be able to get this point across to you. What you are stating above is also made up. It is a convention that planted in your mind to say that the nirvana should be achieved in this fission. Don’t you see these things are linear? There are no connections. When you say රූපය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂකර ගන්නා ඉන්ද්‍රිය ඇස ය. ශබ්දය ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රිය කන ය…. ලෝකෝත්තර නිර්වාණ ධාතුව ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යක්‍ෂ කරන ඉන්ද්‍රියය ලෝකෝත්තර ප්‍රඥෙන්ද්‍රිය ය These will just limit you.

A few things you say here is not clear for me.

1. What is the modern way of thinking? Someone says milk is blue. I go and see by my own eyes and verify it is not. What modern way has to do with this and what is wrong with it.

2. What do you mean by there are no connections? what connections you refer?

3. OfCourse each indriya has its own limitations, there is no doubt there. Why is it a problem here?

Sure, I don’t expect you to agree with me and I have taken no offence because I know for a fact that you don’t see what I see. This is merely a frame of thinking applied upon yourself, based on knowledge gathered from various sources. These are not even verified knowledge by the way, nevertheless, have you ever come across anyone who achieved something meaning full and verify that they experienced this same exact order of things? Something for you to think about …

For your sake, I tried to map as much as I can to what you already know such as thriptaka and other reading materials, but they are full of holes, so I do understand that you find this insane. To answer your question, this is something I mapped and understood by listening to dhamma.

It is ok to have your own framework. But, what you said about sowan magga/pala cittas/prajna through your framework is way off. So, please check.

Wired indeed and you may also think this is silly , but the problem is we can’t keep it at electron and wave-particle duality, what is wave? What is particle? Again, another set of characteristics. You just freeze and name, nothing else. This will end up in a place called avidya and need to be understood at its entirety.

"problem is we can’t keep it at electron and wave-particle duality"

What do you mean by this?

Why do you wanna freeze? What happen when you freeze?

Please keep it in physical level.

This is all I have from the book, expereince wise I have more. But again I don’t need to support this or prove in modern method.
View attachment 198653

OK, How do you interpret "nuwanin menehi kiriima"?

 

[MalSeven]

A few things you say here is not clear for me.

1. What is the modern way of thinking? Someone says milk is blue. I go and see by my own eyes and verify it is not. What modern way has to do with this and what is wrong with it.

2. What do you mean by there are no connections? what connections you refer?

3. OfCourse each indriya has its own limitations, there is no doubt there. Why is it a problem here?

1. Bingo! see the issue here? You work with the problem at hand. Milk is blue, so here you are going to verify that in a manner that you can show and tell (to yourself and others) am I correct? In this whole process, you need to have external sensors providing data to the internal sensor and you need to have milk involved. Do you see this whole issue of verifying the color of milk is extraverted? The method I am talking about is introverted, take the question and work backwards. No milk involved at all, start with milk is blue and go back as far as you can with other details you have at hand, because at the end of the day you verifying the milk being white will not serve any purpose other than more extraverted matters. In some cases (at least one case I know), you can’t do this introverted process by yourself, and that’s where you need additional data from someone who has done it previously.
2. This is about seeing connections between life and the environment around that life form. How characteristics of mind of a creature change the environment around it, if not how it comes to an equilibrium at some stage and many more other things through dhamma, not something that can be explained here. This is also basis of our “සිංහල වෙදකම”
3. Because all of them are extraverted by nature and as you correctly mentioned, they are limited.

It is ok to have your own framework. But, what you said about sowan magga/pala cittas/prajna through your framework is way off. So, please check.

Sure Mr. Rosh

"problem is we can’t keep it at electron and wave-particle duality"

What do you mean by this?

Why do you wanna freeze? What happen when you freeze?

Please keep it in physical level.

There is no such thing as physical level again, you named another set of characteristics, this how “මම” is it’s a relative set of characteristics that can be traced down to avidya,

OK, How do you interpret "nuwanin menehi kiriima"?

It is again introverted thinking but this time kalyana mithra is giving you the method and what to apply in the form of thrilakshana, and his ගති changes the environment to suite as mentioned above item 2 (bringing in to vineewarana mohotha).

 

[ek_rosh]

1. Bingo! see the issue here? You work with the problem at hand. Milk is blue, so here you are going to verify that in a manner that you can show and tell (to yourself and others) am I correct? In this whole process, you need to have external sensors providing data to the internal sensor and you need to have milk involved. Do you see this whole issue of verifying the color of milk is extraverted?

What is the external and internal sensors here?, What is the issue of milk getting involved? What is the issue of all of these? I dont see any issue and not clear what you are trying to show.

Lets keep this in conventional (sammuthi) level. No religions involved. Just regular stuff.

1. The method I am talking about is introverted, take the question and work backwards. No milk involved at all, start with milk is blue and go back as far as you can with other details you have at hand, because at the end of the day you verifying the milk being white will not serve any purpose other than more extraverted matters. In some cases (at least one case I know), you can’t do this introverted process by yourself, and that’s where you need additional data from someone who has done it previously.

Ok, can you show step by step how you verify milk that person talks is blue or not through your introverted method?

again, conventional level

1. This is about seeing connections between life and the environment around that life form. How characteristics of mind of a creature change the environment around it, if not how it comes to an equilibrium at some stage and many more other things through dhamma, not something that can be explained here. This is also basis of our “සිංහල වෙදකම”
2. Because all of them are extraverted by nature and as you correctly mentioned, they are limited.

ok, no problem. A proper answer to the previous question would solve these hopefully.

Sure Mr. Rosh

There is no such thing as physical level again, you named another set of characteristics, this how “මම” is it’s a relative set of characteristics that can be traced down to avidya,

Physical mean, conventional. No, "mama" etc..

"problem is we can’t keep it at electron and wave-particle duality"

What do you mean by this?

Why do you wanna freeze? What happen when you freeze?

It is again introverted thinking but this time kalyana mithra is giving you the method and what to apply in the form of thrilakshana, and his ගති changes the environment to suite as mentioned above item 2 (bringing in to vineewarana mohotha).

What does change his gathi while listening to bana?
What is vineewarana mohotha?
Why cant someone have a vineewarana mohotha later (after listening to bana)?

 

[Emios]

Yesterday i saw a person in my dream and when i open my eyes that person literally was standing 3 feets away and dissapered.what happen It was like dream and reality became same