75 Sekhiya Rules
Categorized into three main sections: Proper Conduct in Public, Proper Behavior During Meals, and Teaching and Proper Communication.
This chart and table are dedicated to my teacher, whose instruction made this possible.
With Respectfully
Sao Dhammasami
အမှာကံ ဗုဒ္ဓဓာတုဿ ဂန္ဓကုဋိသ္မိံ အာရက္ခ ပုဂ္ဂလာ.....
Conflit Resolution Methodology
ဤကျမ်းကိုမလေ့လာမီ ရှေးဦးစွာ သတိပြုသင့်သော အကြောင်းအရာ
အသမ္ဘိန္န ဓာတ်တော်ခုနစ်ဆူ
ဓာတုသာသနာကွယ်ပုံ
ချွတ်ချော်သာသနာ နောင်သောခါဝယ်၊
ရှိန်ဝါပျက်ကြွေ ကွယ်ပချေသော်၊
ထွေထွေရပ်နယ် ဓာတ်သွယ်သွယ်လည်း၊
ကိုးကွယ်ကြမည့် လူမရှိ၍၊
ဗောဓိပင်မှာ စုပေါင်းကာဖြင့်၊
ရောင်ဝါလွှတ်ပြီး ရွှေတုံးကြီးသို့၊
ဓာတ်မီးလောင်တောက် ကုန်ဆုံးပျောက်က၊
လာရောက်ကြရှာ နတ်ဗြဟ္မာတို့၊
သာသနာဗုဒ္ဓ ယခုမှပင်၊
မုချအတည် ကွယ်ရပြီဟု၊
ငိုမြည်းတမ်းတ သံဝေဂဖြင့်၊
မရယူကြုံး ကိုယ်စိတ်ချုံးသည်၊
နောက်ဆုံးသာသနာပွဲတော်ပါဘုရား။
Breaking Through Personality-View Through Understanding Form(ရုပ်ကို နားလည်ခြင်းဖြင့် သက္ကာယဒိဋ္ဌိ ကျော်လွှားခြင်း)
Isn't there wrong attention (micchā manasikāra) regarding persons and beings upon the aggregates? Think about it.
In seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and knowing, #the_aggregates_are_present.
If you understand these aggregates clearly and precisely, the wrong views of clinging to humans, devas, and brahmas will fall away. #Understanding_aggregates_is_necessary.
What is seen is covered by perception (saññā). When doubt about perception is cleared, uncertainty disappears. What is seen is just visible form (rūpa-dhātu), but perception mistakes it for princes and princesses. Isn't this mistaking marks on medicine bottles?
Wrong perception is saññā-vipallāsa
Wrong knowing is citta-vipallāsa
Wrong view is diṭṭhi-vipallāsa
Personality-belief (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) arises due to wrong perception, wrong knowing, and wrong view. Therefore, what is seen is covered by perception, and doubt will only clear when perception is investigated.
When looking through the lens of wisdom at visible form:
Are you seeing a person or just visible form?
Are you seeing a deva or just visible form?
Are you seeing a brahma or just visible form?
#You_see_only_form - isn't this worth investigating?
When you truly see only visible form:
Do you still find a person?
Do you still find a deva?
Do you still find a brahma?
Do you still find princes and princesses?
Why don't you find them? Because they don't exist.
For one who truly sees and knows they don't exist,
Can they still cling? How can they cling when #there_is_nothing_to_cling_to?
Isn't this worth examining? Let's study this...
Breaking the cycle of suffering
"For those studying Vipassana and Path knowledge, isn't it worth asking what teachings the Mogok Sayadaw gave to Nakulapita and Nakulamata?
Nakulapita, being over 70, couldn't sit, stand, walk, or lie down for long. He requested appropriate teachings. The Buddha taught: 'Let the body be ill but not the mind.'
The 'body' here doesn't just mean limbs, but #refers_to_the_five_aggregates_which_are_signless_and_impermanent. When meditating, don't various sensations arise - stiffness, aches, heat, cold, itching?
Is this #self_or_physical_phenomena? #These_are_physical_phenomena_appearing. Isn't this taught as rūpakkhandha?
In truth, is it stiffness or change? Pain or change? Aching or change? #Not_stable_for_even_a_second_in_the_aggregates - just constant change.
Didn't the Buddha teach that in the blink of an eye, a hundred thousand koṭi arise and pass away? How incredibly fast!
When there's change, #don't_we_experience it? 'Oh, it hurts so much!' Is this a person's feeling or just feeling (vedanā)? God's feeling or just feeling? Brahma's feeling or just feeling? Just feeling. #Is_it_substantial?
When someone says 'You're crying out too much, just endure it,' don't we say 'It hurts!'? When asked where, don't we say 'stomach pain'?
Think carefully - when you check, #do_you_find_stomach_or_softness? If all softness were stomach, wouldn't everything soft have to be called stomach? Can this be so?"
Nakulapita, being over 70, couldn't sit, stand, walk, or lie down for long. He requested appropriate teachings. The Buddha taught: 'Let the body be ill but not the mind.'
The 'body' here doesn't just mean limbs, but #refers_to_the_five_aggregates_which_are_signless_and_impermanent. When meditating, don't various sensations arise - stiffness, aches, heat, cold, itching?
Is this #self_or_physical_phenomena? #These_are_physical_phenomena_appearing. Isn't this taught as rūpakkhandha?
In truth, is it stiffness or change? Pain or change? Aching or change? #Not_stable_for_even_a_second_in_the_aggregates - just constant change.
Didn't the Buddha teach that in the blink of an eye, a hundred thousand koṭi arise and pass away? How incredibly fast!
When there's change, #don't_we_experience it? 'Oh, it hurts so much!' Is this a person's feeling or just feeling (vedanā)? God's feeling or just feeling? Brahma's feeling or just feeling? Just feeling. #Is_it_substantial?
When someone says 'You're crying out too much, just endure it,' don't we say 'It hurts!'? When asked where, don't we say 'stomach pain'?
Think carefully - when you check, #do_you_find_stomach_or_softness? If all softness were stomach, wouldn't everything soft have to be called stomach? Can this be so?"
"Looking at the three Piṭakas collectively, aren't the five aggregates taught? Rūpakkhandha, vedanakkhandha, saññakkhandha, saṅkhārakkhandha, viññāṇakkhandha.
When searching for 'stomach', what's found - #stomach_or_saññakkhandha (perception)? It's perception.
When children are born, do they come with names? Parents give names. #If_you_search_for_these_names_physically_can_you_find_them? No.
#Saññakkhandha_gives_names. Therefore, it's the manager of marking/noting. Is saññakkhandha self (atta) or non-self (anatta)? If it's non-self, how could it give names alone?
Doesn't it need feeling (vedanā) as co-arising factor? Doesn't it need volition (cetanā) that conditions? Doesn't it need consciousness (viññāṇa) that knows?
#By_nature_it's_empty_phenomena_non-self. It can't name anything by itself. Only when feeling, volition, and consciousness arise can naming happen. So is it stomach or perception?
When someone says 'Shouldn't you apply some medicine?' Yes, #shouldn't_we_adjust_with_wisdom? Is the adjusting done by self or by volition (cetanā)? #It's_cetanā. Do we find stomach or cetanā? Only cetanā is found.
When there's change, isn't it known? When feeling, isn't it known? When marking, isn't it known? When prompting, isn't it known? #The_knowing_is_consciousness. These are the #five_aggregates. This is what's called 'body'. That's why 'Let the body be ill but not the mind.' Isn't this worth studying?"
When searching for 'stomach', what's found - #stomach_or_saññakkhandha (perception)? It's perception.
When children are born, do they come with names? Parents give names. #If_you_search_for_these_names_physically_can_you_find_them? No.
#Saññakkhandha_gives_names. Therefore, it's the manager of marking/noting. Is saññakkhandha self (atta) or non-self (anatta)? If it's non-self, how could it give names alone?
Doesn't it need feeling (vedanā) as co-arising factor? Doesn't it need volition (cetanā) that conditions? Doesn't it need consciousness (viññāṇa) that knows?
#By_nature_it's_empty_phenomena_non-self. It can't name anything by itself. Only when feeling, volition, and consciousness arise can naming happen. So is it stomach or perception?
When someone says 'Shouldn't you apply some medicine?' Yes, #shouldn't_we_adjust_with_wisdom? Is the adjusting done by self or by volition (cetanā)? #It's_cetanā. Do we find stomach or cetanā? Only cetanā is found.
When there's change, isn't it known? When feeling, isn't it known? When marking, isn't it known? When prompting, isn't it known? #The_knowing_is_consciousness. These are the #five_aggregates. This is what's called 'body'. That's why 'Let the body be ill but not the mind.' Isn't this worth studying?"
"Is that crying out a person, a deva, or a brahma? #It's_vedanā. Isn't it taught as consciousness, mind-matter, six sense bases, contact, feeling?
When we label it vedanakkhandha, aren't other aggregates co-arising? #What's_prominent_is_vedanā. When we know it's vedanā, we might think 'person' but find vedanā, think 'deva' but find vedanā, think 'brahma' but find vedanā. Is vedanā taught as sakkāya (personality belief)?
#Do_we_find_actual_humans? Devas? Brahmas? Who proves they don't exist? (Vedanā proves it, Lord). Ah, vedanā is sakkāya. Isn't it clear? #Doesn't_wrong_view_fall_away?
When wrong view falls away, will we still believe in creation by Great Brahmas, Eternal God, or Vishnu? #Doesn't_doubt_cease? Isn't it taught that the āsavas of wrong view and ignorance cease?
When vedanā ceases, do we find vedanā or its absence? We find its absence.
#We_don't_find_vedanā_itself. Do we find vedanā or anicca? Isn't it taught as the characteristic of impermanence as suffering, characteristic of suffering as suffering, characteristic of non-self as suffering?
When we find impermanence, do we still find vedanā? When we find suffering, do we find vedanā? When we find non-self, do we find vedanā? #No_owner_exists.
If there's no owner, #can_we_command 'Don't feel pain, I don't like it'? #We_experience_it_because_there's_no_owner.
This is #the_nature_of_non-self, isn't it taught?
Don't we need to distinguish between impermanence and vedanā? Between suffering and vedanā? Between non-self and vedanā? This is #tīraṇa_pariññā (full understanding by investigation).
When finding impermanence, suffering, and non-self, do we find vedanā? Perception? Volition? Consciousness? Form? We only find impermanence, suffering, and non-self.
When finding vedanā, do we find persons or beings? This is #ñāta_pariññā (full understanding of the known).
When we combine impermanence, suffering, and non-self, isn't it taught as arising and passing away? Is this happiness or suffering? Isn't this worth knowing truly? This is #yathābhūta_ñāṇa (knowledge of things as they really are)."
When we label it vedanakkhandha, aren't other aggregates co-arising? #What's_prominent_is_vedanā. When we know it's vedanā, we might think 'person' but find vedanā, think 'deva' but find vedanā, think 'brahma' but find vedanā. Is vedanā taught as sakkāya (personality belief)?
#Do_we_find_actual_humans? Devas? Brahmas? Who proves they don't exist? (Vedanā proves it, Lord). Ah, vedanā is sakkāya. Isn't it clear? #Doesn't_wrong_view_fall_away?
When wrong view falls away, will we still believe in creation by Great Brahmas, Eternal God, or Vishnu? #Doesn't_doubt_cease? Isn't it taught that the āsavas of wrong view and ignorance cease?
When vedanā ceases, do we find vedanā or its absence? We find its absence.
#We_don't_find_vedanā_itself. Do we find vedanā or anicca? Isn't it taught as the characteristic of impermanence as suffering, characteristic of suffering as suffering, characteristic of non-self as suffering?
When we find impermanence, do we still find vedanā? When we find suffering, do we find vedanā? When we find non-self, do we find vedanā? #No_owner_exists.
If there's no owner, #can_we_command 'Don't feel pain, I don't like it'? #We_experience_it_because_there's_no_owner.
This is #the_nature_of_non-self, isn't it taught?
Don't we need to distinguish between impermanence and vedanā? Between suffering and vedanā? Between non-self and vedanā? This is #tīraṇa_pariññā (full understanding by investigation).
When finding impermanence, suffering, and non-self, do we find vedanā? Perception? Volition? Consciousness? Form? We only find impermanence, suffering, and non-self.
When finding vedanā, do we find persons or beings? This is #ñāta_pariññā (full understanding of the known).
When we combine impermanence, suffering, and non-self, isn't it taught as arising and passing away? Is this happiness or suffering? Isn't this worth knowing truly? This is #yathābhūta_ñāṇa (knowledge of things as they really are)."
"Isn't it taught that when Dhamma is lost, search in the body, and when searching in the body, Dhamma is found? Is what's found happiness or suffering? Now you truly know it's suffering.
When you know it's suffering, does the wrong perception (avijjā) of human happiness, deva happiness, or brahma happiness cease or not? Avijjā ceases.
#When_the_root_falls_don't_the_branches_wither? As the great teachers taught.
Avijjā (ignorance), taṇhā (craving), upādāna (clinging) - aren't these taught as kilesa vaṭṭa (cycle of defilements)? If avijjā ceases among these three, will taṇhā come? Will upādāna come? Will kamma come?
See, when the root falls, the branches wither. Will there be future aggregates? No more.
Then #can_2_still_lead_to_3? No more. Isn't this worth studying?"
When you know it's suffering, does the wrong perception (avijjā) of human happiness, deva happiness, or brahma happiness cease or not? Avijjā ceases.
#When_the_root_falls_don't_the_branches_wither? As the great teachers taught.
Avijjā (ignorance), taṇhā (craving), upādāna (clinging) - aren't these taught as kilesa vaṭṭa (cycle of defilements)? If avijjā ceases among these three, will taṇhā come? Will upādāna come? Will kamma come?
See, when the root falls, the branches wither. Will there be future aggregates? No more.
Then #can_2_still_lead_to_3? No more. Isn't this worth studying?"
The Past Causal Continuum
"The Past Causal Continuum" is a forthcoming ebook that simplifies complex concepts through flow charts, mind maps, and visual aids. By visualizing connections between causes and effects, the book aims to make intricate ideas more accessible and engaging. The content, currently being refined for clarity and coherence, will be available by the third week of September. This practical guide goes beyond theory, empowering readers to grasp and apply the concepts in their own learning journeys. I am dedicated to delivering a high-quality and effective final product.
Set for completion by the third week of September, this ebook will also be available on Amazon. My first ebook, The Law of Dependent Origination, was successfully displayed on Amazon, and I am excited for The Past Causal Continuum to become my second publication there. As I refine the content, I am committed to ensuring that this book meets the same high standards, providing readers with practical insights that they can apply in their own learning journeys.
Q & A
Q & A
The importance of understanding and believing in kamma as a foundation for spiritual practice.
"In conventional truth through consciousness-seeing, isn't it taught that we must believe in two things - wholesome and unwholesome kamma (kammassakatā sammādiṭṭhi)?
From killing to intoxicants, from killing to wrong view - when transgressing, is it wholesome or unwholesome? Isn't it taught that due to unwholesome kamma, the result is hell, animal realm, peta realm, asura realm after death? Is this happiness or suffering? #This_is_due_to_unwholesome_kamma. Isn't it frightening?
When avoiding these, is it unwholesome or wholesome? Due to wholesome kamma, isn't the result human realm and six deva realms? Suffering or happiness? #Must_believe_in_kamma.
Doesn't the Mogok Sayadaw teach five types of right view:
1. Right view of ownership of kamma (Kammassakatā)
2. Right view of jhāna
3. Right view of insight
4. Right view of the path
5. Right view of fruition
One who believes in kamma, will they still consult astrology? Fortune tellers? Mediums? #No_more_consulting. Consulting these shows lack of faith in kamma.
When hearing harmful speech or false accusations, #one_who_believes_in_kamma_creates_no_new_unwholesome_kamma. They understand causality.
When faced with accusations, they understand #when_time_comes_past_kamma_ripens. Understanding cause and effect (kammaṃ vipākassa), don't old kammic debts get cleared? #Are_new_debts_created?
Without belief in kamma, doesn't anger surge? If it does, is that wholesome or unwholesome? Old debts aren't cleared and new ones are made. This is #due_to_not_believing_in_kamma.
When one understands, knowing cause brings effects, do they still get angry? Aren't old debts cleared? Are new ones created? See how perfectly this fits..."
Sadhu! Together let us keep the Dharma wheel rolling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)