Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

A forum for Dhamma resources in languages other than English
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 9994
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by DooDoot »

Lal wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:15 pm Exactly at what time does she talk about 31 types of consciousness?
- I just watched the video and did not hear that.
Sir. Could u kindly summarize what the girl is saying. Thank you.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 4300
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by confusedlayman »

DooDoot wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:16 pm
Lal wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:15 pm Exactly at what time does she talk about 31 types of consciousness?
- I just watched the video and did not hear that.
Sir. Could u kindly summarize what the girl is saying. Thank you.
it would be good to explain in English or someone put English translation as subtitles in video
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
SarathW
Posts: 15195
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by SarathW »

Lal wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:15 pm
She is talking about 31 types of consciousness.
Exactly at what time does she talk about 31 types of consciousness?
- I just watched the video and did not hear that.
HI all
It is great to see that you came to the discussion.
I am sure you can explain this to the forum better than I.
It was in another video. I watched all the videos. So I can't recall where it was.
Would you mind watching all of them?
It is worth watching them. They are short videos.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Lal
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by Lal »

Someone had sent this video to me a few days ago. I have not had a chance to look at most of the other videos yet.

This is quite amazing. It is not just being able to recall events in previous lives.
- This child knows more Buddha Dhamma than 99% of Buddhists.

She must be a jati Sotapanna (Somone who had attained the Sotapanna stage in a previous life.)
- I say that because of the following. She can explain deep concepts using modern analogies. To do that she must UNDERSTAND the concepts. It is not just being able to recall a verse memorized in a previous life (of course, that itself is amazing).

This is exactly how Waharaka Thero was able able to explain deep Dhamma concepts.
- I will try to post something about this video later today. It is still early morning in the US.
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 4300
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by confusedlayman »

Lal wrote: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:57 pm Someone had sent this video to me a few days ago. I have not had a chance to look at most of the other videos yet.

This is quite amazing. It is not just being able to recall events in previous lives.
- This child knows more Buddha Dhamma than 99% of Buddhists.

She must be a jati Sotapanna (Somone who had attained the Sotapanna stage in a previous life.)
- I say that because of the following. She can explain deep concepts using modern analogies. To do that she must UNDERSTAND the concepts. It is not just being able to recall a verse memorized in a previous life (of course, that itself is amazing).

This is exactly how Waharaka Thero was able able to explain deep Dhamma concepts.
- I will try to post something about this video later today. It is still early morning in the US.
please post about Jati sotapanna ands if any Sinhalese experts, please tell me how the girl teaches DO? what she explained?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Lal
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by Lal »

The following are my notes on the video that SarathW posted above:



Once I started writing, I realized that it is not so easy to "translate" without providing some remarks on my own. I stopped "translating" 15 minutes into the video. But the following should be enough to get the main idea:

1. She starts by saying that Sakkāya Diṭṭhi arises via 20 ways. She will explain that deeper explanation in a future video.

2. For now, the following is a simpler analysis.

- Sakkāya = six senses (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind) My comment: This is a bit simplified version. Sakkāya is defined as "pañca upādānakkhandhā" in the "Sakkāyapañhā Sutta (SN 38.15)." Of course, the six senses are included in pañca upādānakkhandhā.

- Diṭṭhi = the way one looks at an issue (or the way one "sees")

- Thus Sakkāya Diṭṭhi is to"see" (or "take") those six senses as "mine".

3. She reminds her Dad how he describes his experiences.

It is common for us to say, "I see person X", "I hear a sound", "I taste a food", "I smell an odor", "I touched X", and 'I thought about X".

- She tells her father that is not the right way to look at those situations at a deeper level. (Of course, we all make such statements in our daily lives).

@ 6 minutes: The father says, "But isn't it "I" who can see you now?"

She explains with the following example: "When I put my finger on this cushion (on the sofa) you see the shadow of my finger on the cushion. Does that shadow belong to the finger?"

- Dad says, "yes. It belongs to the finger". She says that is not really correct.

- She asks, "Would you be able to see the shadow if we turn off the light (it is night time)?" Dad says, "No"

- Then she asks: "What if I am still holding the finger in the place, but there is no cushion or something for the shadow to fall on? Would you be able to see a shadow?" He says "No".

- Finally, she says, "If I remove the finger, again you will not see a shadow" and Dad agrees.

So, she points out that a shadow can be seen ONLY IF all three conditions are there: finger, light, and the cushion. That is why it is not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.

- The father agrees that it is really not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger.

4. @9 minutes: The father again brings up the question: "But isn't it "I" who can see you now?"

- She asks;" OK. If this light is turned off, will you still see me?" No.

- "If the light is on, but if I go out of the room, will you still see me?" No.

- "If the I am here and the light is on, but if you close your eyes would you see me?' No.

- "Furthermore, if you are sitting down here thinking deeply about something, would you notice me if I come to the room?" The father admits that if he is deep thought, he may not see her, i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise (Note: I have added this part from the 12:20 minute-segment; see #6)

Therefore, several conditions must be satisfied for the father to see her. Any sensory experience arises when ALL necessary conditions are present: an object (rupa), enough light, a sentient being with faculty of vision, AND attention of that sentient being to that object (i.e., cakkhu viññāṇa would not arise without attention).

- If all those conditions are satisfied, vision results. But it is not correct to say that, "I saw it". It is just "seeing". The mistake is to add "I" and say, "I saw it."

5. @ 11:30 minutes: To provide further evidence, she recites and explains the meaning of the verse, "Nayidaṃ attakataṃ bimbaṃ,nayidaṃ parakataṃ aghaṃ; Hetuṃ paṭicca sambhūtaṃ,hetubhaṅgā nirujjhati." (This verse is from the Selā Sutta (SN 5.9)).

- This is related to the fact that those six sense faculties arise with the birth (jāti) with a human body. That birth did not arise "due to something (kamma) that oneself did". They also did not arise due to someone else's actions. They did not arise spontaneously either. They arose (i.e., one was born) due to causes and conditions per Paṭicca Samuppāda. (By the way, in this video she does not try to explain Paṭicca Samuppāda)

(My comment: the kamma that gave rise to the father's body was not done by the father. It was done in a previous life. That previous life is NOT the same as the current life. However, the two lives are not completely separate either. These are deeper points that may not be obvious at first).

6. @ 12:20 minutes: Now she goes back to close the explanation. I have included this part in #4 above (regarding cakkhu viññāṇa.)

The following are my comments.

- In a deeper sense, it is not "I" seeing any object. It is just "a seeing event" that takes place if those conditions are met. This is what the Buddha explained to Bāhiya in the "Bāhiya Sutta (Udāna 1.10)" with the verse, "Tasmātiha te, bāhiya, evaṃ sikkhitabbaṃ: ‘diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati, sute sutamattaṃ bhavissati.."

diṭṭhe diṭṭhamattaṃ bhavissati” needs a lot of explanation by itself. But it is translated as just one sentence in English: “In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen.” There is no need to add an "I". Her above explanation has this very basic idea.
- Of course, only an Arahant would the world that way (without adding "I" or "me" or "mine")
- But a Sotapanna can "see" the truth of that verse. She apparently can, because she explains with nice analogies.

As I mentioned above, I stopped "translating" 15 minutes into the video. This should be enough to get an idea.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by mjaviem »

:clap:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
SarathW
Posts: 15195
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by SarathW »

mjaviem wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 2:36 am:clap:
:twothumbsup:
Thanks.
I am glad Lal took the burden off from me.
:D
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
SarathW
Posts: 15195
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by SarathW »

Another interesting thing about this child is her recommendation of the meditation object.
She recommend light (Aloka) and Space (Akasa) kasina.
She said when Vinnana (thinking) subdued by meditation the wisdom (Panna) arises.
She also advises that meditation is a must for the enlightenment.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 4300
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by confusedlayman »

Thanks for breaking the video in to english. It helped me
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
coconut
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:10 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by coconut »

There's no way she's 3 and a half years old. She's 6-10 years old, also that angle makes her look younger, in the other videos she looks older, and she could have possibly been born prematurely if she's around 9-10. I'd wager to say she's around 7 years old and of a smaller stature.

This is what a 3 year old child looks like

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelop ... -300px.jpg

She's clearly older than these kids who are 6 years old



Also, it's clear by the videos on that channel that the man has been training her from a young age. I'm skeptical. I would not want to impose dhamma at that level onto kids. At best just stick to the virtue training until they're young adults, and then go into no-self and all that.

Finally, no ariyas from heaven can be reborn yet..
“For the devas ruled by the four great kings, a single night and day is equivalent to fifty human years; thirty such days make up a month, and twelve such months make up a year. The life span of those devas is five hundred such celestial years. It is possible, bhikkhus, for a woman or man who observes the uposatha complete in these eight factors, with the breakup of the body, after death, to be reborn in companionship with the devas ruled by the four great kings. It was with reference to this that I said human kingship is poor compared to celestial happiness.

1 lowest heaven year = 50 human years

2500 human years ago = 50 lowest deva years ago.

Average lifespan for lowest deva years is 500 celestial years. Therefore the lowest devas will not die for another 22,500 human years.


I also doubt she would be from a previous dispensation like Buddha Kassapa's.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7189
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by Aloka »

coconut wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:42 am There's no way she's 3 and a half years old. She's 6-10 years old, also that angle makes her look younger, in the other videos she looks older, and she could have possibly been born prematurely if she's around 9-10. I'd wager to say she's around 7 years old and of a smaller stature.
I definately agree that the child appears to be older than 3 and a half.


:anjali:
Last edited by Dhammanando on Sat Jan 30, 2021 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed unsubstantiated attackl
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 5869
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by Dhammanando »

coconut wrote: Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:42 am Finally, no ariyas from heaven can be reborn yet..
The figures that you then give don't really support this claim, for they are the devas' maximum lifespan, not the average. But not every deva has enough merit to reach the maximum lifespan, just as not every human has enough to reach "a hundred years or a little over a hundred" - the human maximum for the present aeon.
Anabhirati kho, āvuso, imasmiṃ dhammavinaye dukkhā, abhirati sukhā.

“To not delight in this dhammavinaya, friend, is painful; to delight in it is bliss.”
(Sukhasutta, AN 10:66)
Lal
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 11:39 am

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by Lal »

I will reply to some comments above as clarification for the general audience. 

1.
There's no way she's 3 and a half years old
I watched the first two videos to find out where the age is stated. In video #2 posted on Nov 2, 2020, she says she is three-and-a-half years old. So, she must be about 4 years old now :https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiD_k6 ... -aKOxtIItQ


2.
Also, it's clear by the videos on that channel that the man has been training her from a young age
It would be quite clear to anyone proficient in the Sinhala language and Buddha Dhamma that her father has an average understanding of Buddha Dhamma (may be a bit more than an average Sri Lankan Buddhist). As I said, the way she explains things makes it clear to me that she understands deeper concepts. No child can explain things that way, even if she is 10 years old. By the way, Ariyas do not lie on purpose. It is not a good idea to accuse people (especially Ariyas) if one has no direct knowledge of it.

3.
Finally, no ariyas from heaven can be reborn yet
There is another explanation in addition to the comment by Ven. Dhammanando. She could have been in the human realm since she attained the Sotapanna stage. Even though some Sotapannas are born in Deva/Brahma realms, many remain in the human realm. There are several types of Sotapannas described in the suttas.

- As I have explained in many posts, the human bhava may last many thousands of years. In between births with physical bodies, even a Sotapanna can remain in the human bhava in the gandhabba state (with a mental body).

- P.S. She could also be still a Sotapanna Anugami. Once one becomes an Ariya (Sotapatti mgga/phala, Sakadagami mgga/phala, Anagami mgga/phala, Arahant mgga/phala) that will NEVER be lost.

4. I have been trying to provide a bit deeper version of her description with the past several posts starting with the post "Citta Vithi – Fundamental Sensory Unit" on  Jan 07, 2021. But when I started that series I was not aware of her videos.

- A sensory event is a natural process that happens automatically due to Paticca Samuppada. At a deep level, there is no NEED for an "I" or "me". However, the PERCEPTION of an "I" or "me" reduces in stages (at higher stages of magga phala) and completely goes away only at the Arahant stage.

- However, one becomes a Sotapanna when one "sees" the truth of that.

- My goal with this series of posts was to point out that from a deeper level. May be at least some in the audience can review those posts with that in mind. 

- However, it is becoming apparent to me that many people are not yet at a stage to be able to understand things at that level. So, I am thinking about doing a bit simpler version first to explain the terms in Paticca Samuppada without starting at that level.
Last edited by Lal on Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
auto
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Three and half years old Sri Lankan child talk about Dependent origination.

Post by auto »

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html wrote: "It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

"No, friend."

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly."
It is correct to describe shadow of a finger as shadow what belongs to the finger.

No-self bias shining in Lal imputation: "That is why it is not correct to say that the shadow belongs to the finger."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html wrote:"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html wrote: "Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession.
the 'i am' residue,
"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean & spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
to lose the shadow, the light source needs be in zenith so that the shadow and finger are no different.. something like that in theory.
Post Reply