SarathW said
..all good except no support from Sutta. We do not need your personal opinion.
If you have figured it all out, then why have this discussion? I actually only quoted from the Tipitaka:
https://puredhamma.net/abhidhamma/pabha ... -bhavanga/
Also, see #2 below.
The key here is which set of baseline interpretation of key Pali words is correct.
1.SarathW said,
“The opposite of “pabha sara” is “pabha assara“, where “assara” means “not take part in”. It rhymes as “pabhassara“.
At least give me the reference from Pali Text society.
-Why do you think the interpretations in the Pali Text Society provide the ultimate truth? I just looked up the “Pali-English Dictionary” by T. W. Rhys Davis, and there many words without clear explanations. It does not have the word “assara”. It says “pabha” is “light, radiance, shine”, which is clearly wrong. As I explained in my post, "pabha" means "repeated bhava". That is consistent in both the verse, "Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ.." and in the word pabhassara as I pointed out in my post.
- sara is "sari sareema" or "asuru kireema" in Sinhala. Most Pali words have similar Sinhala words.
-Have you thought about the fact that those interpretations of Pali words were made by Europeans who had no background in Buddhism (or Pali or Sinhala), let alone any magga phala? (I am not bringing up race or anything else here. In fact, I am thankful to those Europeans who made the whole world aware of the value of Buddha Dhamma, even though they understood only a fraction). Actually, this point is probably easier to grasp for Europeans and people of other backgrounds who know how difficult it is to grasp the meanings of some Pali words. I am impressed by Rhys Davis and other others who were able to grasp as much as they did in the 1800's. But they devoted their whole adult lives to it. Learning Buddha Dhamma is much more difficult than learning a new language. Again, it helps to understand the historical background:
https://puredhamma.net/historical-backg ... -dhamma-2/
-Buddha Dhamma is not philosophy. The only people who are authorities are who have attained magga phala by practicing it, Ariyas like Waharaka Thero. There are many people with magga phala today, thanks to Waharaka Thero. When you go to Sri Lanka, meet Abhaya Thero and find out how many have attained magga phala in recent years; you can also talk to people who have attained magga phala and Ariya jhana.
2.I have actually quoted from the original suttas, and only from the commentaries that are in the Tipitaka. As I explained, those commentaries outside of the Tipitaka have the opinions of the commentators who came mostly after 400 CE, 900 years after the Buddha when Buddhism was in decline; see the “Historical Background” at the Pure Dhamma site.
-That is why most of the postings at this forum have contradictory information; they quote from either such commentators, or the so-called “scholars” of the present day who rely on such material with errors.
-If anyone can point out that what I have explained is not correct using material only from the Tipitaka, then I can respond.
3.Just because one can quote from another, does not mean it is the correct interpretation (obviously, they don’t believe that either and that is why they are looking for more explanations!). Please keep an open mind and make sure different aspects of what you believe are inter-consistent. If there are contradictions, then one or more of those interpretations must be incorrect. The fact that most of you are quoting others and going around in circles means that you have many unresolved issues.
- Instead of quoting others, state the key idea that you get from that source in your own words, and quote from only the Tipitaka. When you do that you will need to dig deeper and thus realize any problems with that interpretation.
4.If one understands a concept, one should be able to express it clearly, just by quoting from the Tipitaka, not from other sources. Then,
if you are interpreting the Tipitaka correctly, all those different explanations (meanings of anicca and anatta, pabhassara citta, bhavanga, etc ) will be inter-consistent.
The key is that all those explanations must be inter-consistent.
- For example, I have clearly explained why a bhavanga citta is not a pabhassara citta. If that is not correct, show evidence form the Tipitaka that they are the same. I have explained why only an Arahant phala citta is a pabhassara citta. If it is incorrect, show evidence from the Tipitaka.
5.In my scientist life, I faced a similar problem. Many scientists cannot explain a given physics concept without using many mathematical equations. While it is nice to confirm a theory with mathematical proof, a mathematical proof by itself is not enough. One should be able to explain it in one’s own words; of course one should have the necessary background on the understanding of key basic concepts first. Here it is the same. Actually Buddha Dhamma is much deeper than physics. People try to tackle advanced concepts without understanding that getting rid of dasa akuslala is the key and that is related to advanced concepts like anicca and anatta.
6.Even though I am satisfied with my explanations on these Dhamma concepts (and know that they are inter-consistent),
I cannot say that what I stated is the absolute truth. It is up to those who read and contemplate on that material to decide. Even the Buddha said not to believe what he stated without analyzing. This discussion should be about honestly trying to find the true Dhamma, because that is where the only refuge is, in this danger-filled rebirth process.
7.So, I will respond if there is a comment worthwhile responding to.
With Metta, Lal