9600 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hi all, It may be of interest to some that the human eye/mind does not register changes shorter than 1/70th a second. Take the monitor you are looking at. It appears the image is static, yet it is being completely refreshed more than 50 times a second. If it is considered a sign of wisdom/insight to be able to discern changes at a more rapid rate than the average worldling, perhaps rebirth as a fly would be appealing. The fly sees at 120 Hz (refreshes the visual field 120 times per second). All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > Dear Victor, > I think Dan has made it fairly plain that it is not a matter of > counting cittas. He was relying on the suttas and the ancient > commentaries and provided references to these in other posts. What he > did say was that one can infer, just from fairly mundane insights > into the changes at the sense doors is that the rise and fall must be > exceedingly fast. > In fact, only in later stages of vipassana is the rise and fall seen > directly by developed wisdom. > best wishes > robert > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:23 AM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > > > > > > [snip] > > >Even in the time > > > of a fingersnap many trillions of cittas arise and cease. > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > How do you know there are many trillions of cittas arise and cease > in the > > time of fingersnap? Did you count it? If so, how? > > > > Regards, > > Victor 9601 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi Robert, "It is so complex how it all comes > together, just for a moment, to understand. " I saw that paragraph too. I can understand past cittas can be observed with direct insight due to sanna but future cittas that is something, I like to know how it works. Kind regards Ken O --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Ken O, and Howard > Every moment once it has passed has absolutely ceased according to > the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it can't be known. If > that was the case then we would be like newborn babies, only worse, > and know nothing. Direct seeing should be distinguished from thinking > about past events but it doesn't mean that direct seeing doesn't need > sanna. Sanna arises with every citta and thus it arises also in > cittas assocaited with panna. It is so complex how it all comes > together, just for a moment, to understand. Here are some brief > quotes: > Abhidhammattha sangaha( Anuruddha) translated as A comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > Guide(note by bodhi) p.136 "although citta experiences objects, citta > in turn can become an object. It should be noted that a citta in its > immediacy cannot become an its own object, for the cognizer cannot > cognize itself; but a citta in an individual mental continuum can > experience earlier cittas in that same continuum as well as the > cittas of other beings" > p137 "Mind-door cittas can also cognise an object belonging to any of > the three periods of time- past present and future" > p138 "the Vibhavani tika explains: acording to whether the cittas are > sense sphere javanas, direct knowledge javanas , the remaining smile- > producing javanas etc. For the sense sphere javanas...take objects of > the three times[past, present, future] and timeless objects (nibbana > and concepts]. The smile producing consciousness takes only objects > of the three times[past, present, future]. The direct knowledge > cittas take objects of the three times as well as the timeless" > p138 The door freed consciousness (ie. patisandhicitta, cuti citta > and bhavanga citta ) "can be of six kinds: it can be any of the five > sense objects, either past or present, or it can be a mental object" > best wishes > robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > > Could you kindly quote the commentary that says that. Or is it > saying > > that it is the memory of the past cittas that an enlighted person > able to > > remember past events eons ago. To me, all that is the past is only > in the > > memory as past objects have already ceased. If the past object do > not > > ceased, then I think it would be a contradiction of the standing > that > > cittas ceased. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Ken O > > > > > > > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > In a message dated 11/24/01 11:02:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > > > I do see your point. The thing is that the cittas with panna > that > > > > know a past object have that past object as the object they > > > > understand. In practice - for us- this past object is so > > > > infinitesimally close to being present that it is called the > present > > > > moment. For the Buddha and some arahants it is possible to > directly > > > > insight even moments from aeons ago. This direct insight is > different > > > > from thinking or conceptualising about the moment even though > it is > > > > past. > > > > best wishes > > > > robert > > > > > > > > > > > ============================= > > > Mmm, hmm. I get what you are saying as well. It is an > interesting > > > > > > explanation which you give, though I find myself somewhat > uncomfortable > > > with > > > the notion of a past object, truly past, being the direct object > (and > > > not as > > > a memory) of a current mindstate. That is similar to the position > of the > > > > > > Sarvastivadins to the effect that dhammas exist throughout all > the three > > > time > > > periods, a position which I understand the Theravadins took issue > with > > > because of its eternalistic scent. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > 9602 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] -- Dear ken O, Great that you are getting an idea of how past moments can be insighted. The future moments are another matter....! This applies only to a Buddha or, to a very limited degree, some very wise person (I'm talking about direct insight, not the intuitions of the future that some clairvoyants may have). The Parammattha manjusa (see note 7 Visuddhimagga VII)"This is not an object for ratiocination; for the blessed one has said thus:'The objective field of Enlightened Ones is unthinkable, it cannot be thought out; anyone who tries to think it out would reap madness and frustration' Aii, 80) The agreed explanation here is this: whatever the Blessed one wants to know, there his knowlede occurs as actual experience....And the Blessed one's knowledge that has past and future as its objective field is entirely actual experience since it is devoid of assumption based on inference, tradition or conjecture"endquote best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert, > > "It is so complex how it all comes > > together, just for a moment, to understand. " > > I saw that paragraph too. I can understand past cittas can be observed > with direct insight due to sanna but future cittas that is something, I > like to know how it works. > > > Kind regards > Ken O > 9603 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi Robert K Thanks for the explanation. No wonder Buddha is called the Teacher of Gods and Man :). With thanks Ken O --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > -- > Dear ken O, > Great that you are getting an idea of how past moments can be > insighted. > The future moments are another matter....! > This applies only to a Buddha or, to a very limited degree, some very > wise person (I'm talking about direct insight, not the intuitions of > the future that some clairvoyants may have). > The Parammattha manjusa (see note 7 Visuddhimagga VII)"This is not an > object for ratiocination; for the blessed one has said thus:'The > objective field of Enlightened Ones is unthinkable, it cannot be > thought out; anyone who tries to think it out would reap madness and > frustration' Aii, 80) The agreed explanation here is this: whatever > the Blessed one wants to know, there his knowlede occurs as actual > experience....And the Blessed one's knowledge that has past and > future as its objective field is entirely actual experience since it > is devoid of assumption based on inference, tradition or > conjecture"endquote > best wishes > robert > 9604 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hello Robert and all, Is there any reference to the discourse in which the phenomenon of many trillions of cittas rising and falling in the time of a fingersnap is mentioned? What is the purpose of developing insight? To see the phenomenon of trillions of cittas rising and falling in the time of fingersnap? Is it necessary for one to see trillions of cittas rising and falling in the time of fingersnap in order to understand that citta is impermanent, is dukkha, is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self."? Rise and fall seen directly by developed wisdom? But wisdom is not self, not you, not I. :-) Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 5:34 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > --- > Dear Victor, > I think Dan has made it fairly plain that it is not a matter of > counting cittas. He was relying on the suttas and the ancient > commentaries and provided references to these in other posts. What he > did say was that one can infer, just from fairly mundane insights > into the changes at the sense doors is that the rise and fall must be > exceedingly fast. > In fact, only in later stages of vipassana is the rise and fall seen > directly by developed wisdom. > best wishes > robert > In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:23 AM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > > > > > > [snip] > > >Even in the time > > > of a fingersnap many trillions of cittas arise and cease. > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > How do you know there are many trillions of cittas arise and cease > in the > > time of fingersnap? Did you count it? If so, how? > > > > Regards, > > Victor 9605 From: Victor Yu Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hello Erik, 65 cittas are certainly much less than many trillions cittas. :-) Regards, Victor ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 6:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Victor Yu" wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 12:23 AM > > Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] > > > > > > [snip] > > >Even in the time > > > of a fingersnap many trillions of cittas arise and cease. > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > How do you know there are many trillions of cittas arise and cease > in the > > time of fingersnap? Did you count it? If so, how? > > As an aside, the Abhidharmakosa says there are 65 cittas that arise > and pass away within the span of a fingersnap. For another take on > the matter, anyway! :) 9606 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 6:35am Subject: Re: catching up with Erik;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah wrote: > Hi Erik, > > Glad to hear from you and to know you're still around;-) Around, well, sorta--been more busy than ever in my whole life, and so much to be done right now I'me feeling a bit overtaxed. > Also glad to hear that you and Mike met up, just when I was asking him if he'd > bumped into you too... Yes, I was very happy to finally meet our friend Mike! Great guy! :) > --- rikpa21@y... wrote: > > I have to say I was quite impressed with Ajahn Kantasilo in general, > > and his Khmer is WAY better than mi?e! My wife Eath was so impressed > > by him that she formally requested teachings from him after you > > left, and spent most of last night crying tears of happiness at the > > wonderful good fortune of meeting someone like that. She says she > > feels as though she knows him from somewhere :). Funny how she > > mentioned how familiar you looked to her as well, Mike! ;) > > Very glad to hear this news and I hope Eath (wasn't it Aert last time?) Try transliterating from Khmer to Roman characters and you'll understand when you hear her name pronounced. The correct transliteration is "Eath", she spelled it "Ert" (which caused her no end of laughter when I asked about "Urt" at one point. Pronunciation is closest to "eeyeht". Enough of that, though. What does aplhpabets have to do with the Dhamma anyway? Except that Cambodia has so little Dhamma now, and it is in deseprate need of those who can transmit the Dhamma correctly in the native language. Eath and I were compring the Tibetan and Khmer alphabets tonight, and how similar they are, being Sanskritic in origin both, and even the system of memorization and intonations are very similar. Now Thai, that's another story. > is > settling well in Thailand.....That's wonderful to hear that she can understand > and appreciate what A.Kantasilo is saying. Yesterday, both Phra Kantasilo remarked that she is someone of great merit, and my Vipassanana teacher from Wat Mahatat went as far to call her a "genius" after a brie conversation with her. Truly someone with a mind for the Dhamma, who's really studying hard even as I write this now. > There are one or two very learned Cambodians who sometimes visit Bkk whom she > may like to meet. K.Sujin would be happy to tell you when they're in town. The > elderly lady (forget the name) accompanied us when we were in Cambodia lst year > and was on the India trip. she has a lot of knowldege and wisdom. That would be wonderful. Please let me know when they're in town. > Anyway, Erik, hope to see you when we visit Bkk at the end of the year. You shall! The end of the year is not far off! :) Cheers, Erik 9607 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Hi, Dan - I'd like to make a couple comments about the post of yours copied below. My main comment is that it is one of the most useful, clear, and insightful posts I have read in a long time! It is *wonderful*, and I thank you for it! A second comment: My recent post entitled "Some Thoughts on Continuity, Blurs, and Cittas" was headed rather much in the same direction as this post of yours; that is, its intention was to "see" the matters addressed in the title of my post in a way that does *not* involve a separate observer, agent, or self, and also does not require convoluted explanation. Sometimes one sidesteps problems in a particular theory by using "explanations" that present more problems than the original theory! In my post, I believe I was starting to get somewhat below the outer flesh of the matter, but, in this post of yours, to paraphrase a certain Zen master, you have gotten within the bones to the very marrow. I think that if one were to continually contemplate on nothing but the fact of each mindstate being an impersonal cognitive event, following upon and conditioned by previous cognitive acts, with the only discerning of objects there ever is being these very cognitive events themselves, one could make much progress in disabusing oneself of the annoyingly persistent sense of "self". There *is* no observer standing back observing the flux of mindstates. Whatever is known is known *there*, with there being no "knower". As you imply, should ignorance sufficiently diminish and insight increase sufficiently, the arising and falling away of mindstates and of their associated objects and concomitants would be "seen", that seeing/wisdom itself being an aspect or concomitant of the mindstates, and there would be a growing realization of impersonality and emptiness, with neither continuity nor discreteness being an adequate characterization of the way things truly appear. The *details* of the map we use of this domain are less important than the critical requirement that the map be free of the views of personality and of essence. The more and more closely I look, the more I see how many, varied, and treacherous are the "pitfalls of self" waiting for us on the path, subtly hidden by dense leaf-layers of wrongly formulated, wrongly interpreted, and wrongly grasped theories. Your post goes a long way, for me, in clearing away these layers, exposing the pitfalls below. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/25/01 12:00:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, dalthorp@o... writes: > _____________________________________________ > Howard: But who (or what) is this "we" who are so overwhelmed by the > speed of cittas to think they act simultaneously when it is only the > cittas, themselves, that are aware? > > Robert Ep.: > The only question is who is it so fast for?...Since we are working on > the assumption that there is no ego that is observing these cittas > jump around like mad, who or what is watching these cittas whiz > by? ... [H]ow [can] we have overriding, comparative or relative > experiences without an ego to hold and compare it all? > _____________________________________________ > > Howdy, Howard and Robert Ep., > You've inspired me to reflect again on the nature of cittas and > cetasikas, and I thank you. I don't know if my investigations have > any relevance to what you've been talking about, and it's always > dangerous to burst into a ongoing conversation between two sharp > cookies, but you may be able to help me think more clearly about the > issues. Here's what I've been thinking... > > I looked up a wonderful passage in Brahmajala sutta (DN 1, i 34 PTS > or §49 BPS): "In this case some recluse or Brahmin is addicted to > logic and reasoning. He gives utterance to the following conclusions > of his own, beaten out by his argumentations and based on his flight > of thought thus: 'That which is [connected with] "the eye", "the > ear", "the nose", "the tongue" and "the body"--that self is > impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which > is called "citta", "mano", or "viññana"--that self is permanent, > eternal, not subject to change..." Although the rationalistic partial- > eternalist described by Buddha in the passage above posits a "who" to > experience and compare cittas, it really isn't necessary. The > commentary discusses this interesting case in more detail: "The > rationalist sees the breakup of the eye, etc.; but because every > preceding act of consciousness (citta), in ceasing, conditions the > arising of its successor, he does not see the breakup of the > consciousness, even though the latter is more pronounced than the > breakup of the eye, etc. Since he does not see the breakup of > consciousness, he assumes that when the bodily frame breaks up the > consciousness goes elsewhere...This he declares as his view." > > Blurred vision (ignorance) prevents a clear view of the moment-to- > moment breakup of consciousness. A consequence of that blurred vision > is an intensification of the impression of continuity and the > positing of a self to "hold" that sense of continuity. The > subcommentary elaborates further: "'He does not see the breakup of > consciousness': although consciousness is breaking up moment after > moment, each act of consciousness, in breaking up, becomes the > proximity condition for the following act of consciousness. Because > each succeeding act of consciousness arises concealing, as it were, > the absence of its predecessor, the aspect of presence alone is > strong and clear, not the aspect of absense. Thus he does not see the > destruction of consciousness. This matter becomes very clear by the > example of the fire-disc (i.e. the unbroken disc of flame formed by > swinging a firebrand in rapid circular motion). Because the > rationalistic partial-eternalist is still more remote from > understanding and applying the method of diversity (viz. discrete > cittas), and wrongly applies the method of unity, he arrives at the > conviction: 'This very consciousness which always occurs with a > single nature, just this is a permanent self.'" > > So the view of a self to house the and interpret the experiences will > naturally take root when each succeeding act of consciousness arises > and conceals the absence of its predecessor, and the aspect of > presence alone is strong and clear, not the aspect of absense. Then, > there is no clear view of the dissolution of consciousness. > > To resolve the problem of the "who who experiences" requires a proper > balance of the "methods of diversity and unity". B. Bodhi gives a > good description of these "methods" in the introduction to his > translation of DN 1: "The eternalist doctrine is said to originate > through a misapplication of the 'method of unity' (ekattanaya) to the > continuum of experience which is the subject of examination....The > method of unity disloses the coherence of the succession of distinct > experiential occasions making up the continuum. It shows them as > bound together in a single series, participants in a process of > transmission and development, interconnected members unified through > a law of conditional dependence. The method of diversity balances > this by showing up the difference. Though unified, the current of > experience is still a chain made up of distint links. Some of these > funciton as causes, others as effects.... When these two methods are > applied in conjunction, the current of experience will be correctly > understood; but when they are misapplied or applied in a one-sided > fashion, it will be misunderstood. The misapplication of the method > of unity will lead to the belief in an identical self and thence to > eternalism. The misapplication of the method of diversity will take > the disruptive, discontinuous element in experience as absolute and > thence lead to a doctrine of annihilationism. The correct application > of both will show the continuum to be a causally connected succession > of momentary processes, which continues so long as the causes retain > their efficacy and ceases when the causes are deactivated, in either > case without harboring a pesisting core to be grasped as a personal > self. This is the middle way which avoids the two extremes." > > With its abundance of conventional language about "this bhikkhu, that > householder" and similes about "gold" and "luminous mind", it is easy > to (mis)read the suttas with a unity bias. With its elaborate > description and classification of cittas and cetasikas, Abhidhamma > (esp. Dhammasangani and the first few chapters of Abhidhammatha > sangaha) seems to emphasize more the method of diversity. I find it > very helpful to study Abhidhamma, and then I read the suttas with a > little more of a "diversity" method than a "conventional" reading > would give. > > Ledi Sayadaw asks: "But how are we to understand the momentary > arising and ceasing of mind?" (JPTS 7(1):115-163, 1913). He draws his > discussion from the Citta chapter of Yamaka, and his answer is > typical of both the suttas and Abhidhamma. Here's my take on it... > > There are six kinds of consciousness -- those of the five special > senses and the "coordinating sense" (mano). If with seeing there is > the sense, "I see a visible object", the visual cognition has been > taken as a "self". Same with hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. > If there is the sense, "It is a mental phenomenon, an element, a > sphere of sense, it is not 'mine,' not 'I', not my 'self'", then the > sensation is not taken as self. > > But what about cognition itself (mano), considered apart from seeing > and other occasions of sense? Consider the sentiment: "I think such- > and-such", or "I experience a citta", or "I observed lots of cittas > passing by in the span of a second." Here, consciousness has been > taken as a "self" as soon as a distinction is sought between the > experience and the experiencer, between the act and the agent (or > actor). Abhidhamma makes no such distinction, and no such distinction > is necessary. The mind (citta) is not distinct from the > act "thinking". Similarly, there is no agent apart from the > act "sensation" (or "contact" or "sankhara" or "recognition"), i.e. > there is not a citta that experiences sensation. To think of citta as > something that experiences sensation is once again to make a > distinction between the experience and the experiencer; the act and > the agent; the actor and the action; the self that does this, > experiences that, and thinks this-or-that. BOOM! "Self" is found > masquerading right in the midst of a bunch of fancy Pali terminology > that merely serves as cover for sakayaditthi--and an effective cover > at that! > > Citta doesn't experience sensation; Citta IS the experience, and > sensation is one of the characteristics of that experience. > Experience (citta) at one moment differs from that at another moment, > and sensation is an aspect of each citta. So is sañña (perception, > recognition, memory). "This moment is similar to the moment a moment > ago" -- that impression is sañña, which "has the characteristic of > noting and the function of recognizing what has been previously > noted" [Asl I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 110), cited in > Nina's "Cetasikas"]. The object of sañña is the same as the object of > the citta; but the cognizing itself is "citta", while "sañña" is the > name given to a category of ingredient that flavors the cognition. > [When I was in high school, I had the good fortune to get to visit > Hawaii. I ordered a dinner at a fancy restaurant, and the waiter > asked, "What kind of starch would you like with that?" I'd never > heard it asked quite that way before (or since), but I thought it was > brilliant. "Sañña" is like "starch" -- it comes with the citta, but > it comes in different flavors.] A "function" of sañña is > the "recognition" of similarity or dissimilarity between cittas. > There is no sañña entity to do any recognizing; there is merely > cognition (with a certain sañña flavor, vedana flavor, phassa flavor, > etc.). Of course, we may speak of an act of recognition or an object > of sañña, but we must be very clear that there is no "sañña" doing > the acting and the "object" is not "experienced" by any sañña entity. > And although the temptation is overwhelming, the sañña flavor of > cittas does not necessitate a the positing of a self to explain the > experience of speedy cittas. > > Dan > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9608 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 7:12am Subject: Cambodia Ch 11, no. 3 Cambodia Lectures. Ch 11, no. 3 aran: Acharn said that when there is understanding you can remember what you learnt. Did I understand this correctly? When I listen to the Dhamma and I understand what I heard, kusala citta arises. Then there is sati with the level of kusala that is listening to the Dhamma, thus, the level of theoretical understanding. Saññå cetasika that arises with sati of that level will be of such strength that one can remember what one has heard. Is that correct? Sujin: Saññå accompanies each citta and it depends on conditions what type of citta arises. Saññå accompanies kusala citta of the level of dåna, of síla, of samatha and of satipaììhåna. Thus, the degrees of saññå are different, but saññå is not sati. Amara: Saññå and sati can arise together, but they perform each their own function. Soun: All dhammas that arise do so because there are conditions, paccayas, for their arising. These conditions are realities. We should often study the Dhamma. Mahå-kusala cittas are of different degrees, and confidence, saddhå, in the Buddha is of different degrees. Also sati has different degrees: sati arises when we read the scriptures or when we listen to the Dhamma. Saññå, remembrance, arises with sati. I would like to ask what sati arising with the fivefold Path is. Sujin: It is satipaììhåna. It is of the fivefold Path, without the three abstinences 2 . Soun: When sati arises with paññå, the kusala citta is ñåùa-sampayutta (accompanied by paññå), and kusala is of the level of satipaììhåna. Jaran: What are puñña, merit, and påpa, evil? Pradip: Puñña are the citta and cetasikas that are kusala of the level of dåna, síla and bhåvanå, including samatha and satipaììhåna. When citta is not engaged with the ten meritorious actions, it is påpa, evil. Sujin: Påpa are the realities that are not good, not beautiful. Puñña are the realities that are good, that are beautiful. Dhammas are very intricate because they arise and fall away very rapidly. Citta and its accompanying cetasikas arise and fall away together. Sometimes they are kusala, sometimes akusala, and the series of kusala cittas and of akusala cittas alternate with each other extremely rapidly. Sometimes people mistakenly say that at this or that moment there is kusala or akusala. They should study the Dhamma so that they know that when lobha, dosa, moha and other akusala dhammas arise there is påpa, unwholesomeness. Jeaoulsy, isså, and stinginess, macchariya, for example, are characteristics of akusala dhammas. Kusala or puñña is the opposite of akusala, thus, at that moment citta and cetasikas that are beautiful and wholesome arise together. Body and speech are the doorways of kusala citta and of akusala citta. There are not only citta and cetasika, there is also rúpa. If there would only be citta that is kusala or akusala, could other people be troubled? There is rúpa, and thus, when akusala citta arises, there are doorways of kamma, namely, bodily action and speech that are evil. Such action and speech originate from akusala citta and they harm and trouble other people. In reality, when akusala arises someone harms himself first, because he feels unhappy. 9609 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 2:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] That's Vasubandhu, right Erik? With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/25/01 6:25:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, rikpa21@y... writes: > As an aside, the Abhidharmakosa says there are 65 cittas that arise > and pass away within the span of a fingersnap. For another take on > the matter, anyway! :) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9610 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hi, Herman - In a message dated 11/25/01 7:34:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@d... writes: > Hi all, > > It may be of interest to some that the human eye/mind does not > register changes shorter than 1/70th a second. Take the monitor you > are looking at. It appears the image is static, yet it is being > completely refreshed more than 50 times a second. > > If it is considered a sign of wisdom/insight to be able to discern > changes at a more rapid rate than the average worldling, perhaps > rebirth as a fly would be appealing. The fly sees at 120 Hz > (refreshes the visual field 120 times per second). > > All the best > > Herman > > ============================ You make an amusing point here! ;-)) As I noted in a recent post, far more important than being able to see microscopic detail, is to see whatever appears as impermanent, unsatisfactory, impersonal, and without core. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 9611 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Robert Ep.] _______________________________ Robert Ep.: You wrote that the Buddha did not exhort us to get involved with people who were suffering, to be 'good people' and try to free those who were being oppressed. Dan: That's right. The Buddha's message was strictly spiritual. As wisdom develops, then compassion is deepened and the impulse to relieve suffering of all kinds is increased. Buddha did not teach that liberation comes through this particular good deed or that particular political view or even that these political struggles are helpful in any way. The reason is simply because these issues are ultimately not relevant to the real roots of suffering. Can these political struggles help soften material conditions to temporarily lessen the sting of suffering? Of course! But such struggles are not particularly Buddhist. Neither are they un-Buddhist. Just different. Historically speaking, confusing political issues with religious issues is a recipe for disaster, as anyone with an interest in Buddhism can attest for Christianity (e.g., Pat Robertson, Jesse Jackson in the U.S.; crusade and inquisitions in Europe; etc.), Islam (e.g., Omar and bin Laden in Afghanistan; Khomeini in Iran), Communism (a secular, rationalist, materialist "religion") in USSR and Cambodia. Dan 9612 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:42am Subject: Re: "engaged" [Christine] > I recall that there was an occasion where the Buddha literally ran > for his life, being pursued by someone who wanted to harm him. > Is this an act of self-preservation, an indication of chains, bonds > fetters etc. This is the story of Angulimala, who was going to kill the Buddha (MN 86). If he had been scared, it would certainly have been an act of self-preservation and an indication of fetters. But he wasn't the slightest bit scared. Angulimala was so impressed that he struck up a conversation with Buddha and was converted on the spot. Later, he became a sotapanna! If Buddha had not "run", he would have been killed, and Angulimala would not have been freed. > Don't you think there is room for wise "interference" with one's > environment? Of course there is. In a sense, that's the whole ball game. Dan 9613 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] Hi Victor, This is just a quote from the commentaties. I don't know the rate at which cittas arise and pass away; suffice it to say that the rate is fast, and that can readily be observed. Dan > [snip] > >Even in the time > > of a fingersnap many trillions of cittas arise and cease. > > Hi Dan, > > How do you know there are many trillions of cittas arise and cease in the > time of fingersnap? Did you count it? If so, how? > > Regards, > Victor 9614 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: _[DhammaStudyGroup]_Vipassana Dear Jon, I basically agree with what you are saying, and I agree that to let a lack of clarity on the exact nature of Nibbana keep one from trying to discern the present reality and develop mindfulness, would be a terrible shame. I certainly would never encourage anyone, including myself, to refrain from the obvious practices that give sanity and centeredness to one's life until they have solved the conceptual secret of Nibbana! This would be replacing intellectual pursuits for the real practice of Buddhism and is as unnecessary as it is distracting. However, I will just put in my two cents that I do think that if one is not just practicing for one's momentary benefit, but is committed to the path of Buddhism as a life's endeavor, that they would want to know what the expected end result would be. It does not have to be spelled out or agreed upon in explicit detail. Again, this would be silly or distracting. But they should be clear enough that they know that this is the result they seek. We may not agree, or ever come to agree, about whether Nibbana involves an annihilation of all experience, or whether it may resolve into a sort of 'base awareness' totally removed from the five kandhas, but we can certainly both agree that Nibbana must be the 'perfect state of Peace, free from further rebirth into forms of suffering'. And I'm sure that's all that's necessary to embark upon real practice with some confidence. Best, Robert Ep. ============== --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > I think perhaps you are saying that while the *experience* of nibbana is > speculative for us, a clear understanding of the *concept* of nibbana is > necessary or at least worthwhile, in the sense that only if we have a > clear concept of nibbana as the final destination can we have the > confidence to embark on the practice or, as you put it, to commit > ourselves to the path. > > I think one should regard such thoughts as a purely personal perspective, > in the sense that there would I think be many here for whom these > considerations would be a non-issue. While some may see the need for the > kind of clarification you are seeking, others find the teachings on, say, > different realities appearing through different doorways so fresh and yet > so 'obvious' once pointed out as to inspire immediate further study > without the need for a detailed grasp of the ultimate goal. > > I mention this only to suggest that it would be a pity to let one's quest > for a satisfactory grasp of the nibbana concept to be an obstacle to the > more relevant task of the present reality! > > Jon > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Dear Jon, > > I think you are right that the 'experience' of nibbana or parinibbana is > > speculative for us, and is not of practical benefit on a > > moment-to-moment everyday > > level on which we must focus in order to develop. > > > > However, I think the limited benefit of these topics is simple: If we > > are > > committing ourselves to a path, possibly an extremely long one, we want > > to know at > > least provisionally that the end goal of that path is something that we > > at least > > theoretically understand, and, if it is not too bold, that it is > > something that we > > actually want to achieve. I don't think there's anyone who follows > > Buddhism who > > does not attempt to some extent to emulate and understand the Buddha, > > his > > experience and his reasons for prescribing the path he does. Even to > > come to > > understand that the path is a path of discernment, and not one of > > achievement or > > self-transformation [in the sense that anatta does not allow for > > personal > > ownership of the process] is to focus on both the method or lack > > thereof, and the > > goal of the path. > > > > So I think that some of us rightly want to know where our long focus > > should be, > > where we are headed if we are able to continue on this path, and why it > > is the way > > it is. Of course, we won't understand directly until we get there, if > > and when we > > get there, but it still seems important to understand the components of > > the whole > > system on some level. > > > > And then, I would agree with you, at some point we have to put our focus > > on right > > where we are and what we need to do now to keep learning. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 9615 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Eightfold Path (esp. right effort) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob Ep > > Your comments (below) certainly don’t *seem* like the comments of a > 'confused' mind, Rob! I think I got a little less confused in thinking out loud, Jon. But I was confused when I started out!! > I think you are saying that a person who has not heard about and > understood at some level the notion of anatta could not develop the > factors of the path (such as right effort)? I would agree with this as > far as it goes. > > It is sometimes overlooked that anatta is given not as a concept to ponder > on, and to be related to our views and our experience of life, but as a > verifiable characteristic of each and every reality (dhamma). As such, > anatta can only be *realised* as an adjunct of the direct experience and > awareness of a characteristic of a reality appearing at the present > moment. To my understanding, any other pondering over or understanding > about the notion of anatta, even to the extent of 'enlightening' or > life-changing moments when we see things differently, is not a level of > *realisation* of anatta, since there is no aspect of directly experiencing > a characteristic of a reality (dhamma). > > Let me suggest something that you may well wish to take issue with. > Without the direct awareness of the characteristic of a present reality > (dhamma) at a given moment, any 'understanding' of anatta at that or any > other moment is understanding at the thinking level. In other words, I am > suggesting that, regardless of the depth of one's pondering over anatta > and one's ability to relate that concept to one's 'self' or the > experiences of the present moment, it is thinking only and so is > understanding at a purely conceptual level. Let me just ask you on the way, do you think that one's 'self' can be the object of discernment to see the principle of anatta at play in the present moment? Can one look to the 'self' to see that it is really not an entity but a thought-form? > So even for someone who has heard the teachings and has a highly developed > understanding of anatta in the sense I have described, a moment of kusala > of any kind, other than satipatthana, is no more capable of being a path > factor moment than for the person who has never heard the teaching of > anatta. > > Were it otherwise then, according to the 'factors to be individually and > separately developed' view, any person exerting conventional effort to > perform kusala would be developing the path factor of Right Effort. > > This is why, for me, all paths lead back to the understanding of the > characteristic of the present reality, and the factors that form the > foundation for this understanding. I don't mean to be dense, Jon, but I'm not sure exactly what you are or aren't taking exception to in my discussion below. If the 'separate factors to be developed' theory is wrong, then it is just as wrong for people who think they're Buddhists. If I am aware of anatta as a concept, as you describe, and this will not help to develop satipatthana, then how am I better off than a mundanely aware non-Buddhist? I think that what you are saying implies that there are no true pracitioners of Buddhism who have not entered the supra-mundane level. All else, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist is just conventional effort that has nothing really to do with the Buddha's teachings. You seem to be saying here that even being subjected to the teachings of the suttas will not help if one is still conceptualizing. Thus this seems to put the mundane Buddhist on the same par as the mundane non-Buddhist. I would tend to have a less severe view of mundane efforts, whether Buddhist or non-Buddhist and tend to think that they are gradually leading to an ability to really discern the characteristics of the moment with satipatthana. Moments of mindfulness, of sati, should in either case gradually accumulate to allow for satipatthana, real insight, and in those moments the truth of anatta, anicca and dukkha should perhaps be visible to the experiencer. I tend to think that the Buddha found real and actual principles that exist 'in nature', and therefore, anyone who practices discernment for a period of time should eventually get some glimpse of this. I would certainly think that reading the Suttas and knowing 'what to look for' conceptually should help the focus and speed up the time that one might see the truth of these principles in actual living observation. Anyway, I am really not sure what the conclusion of this is, but I think that the mundane path leads slowly to the supra-mundane path, and that the non-Buddhist mundan path may be a lot less efficient than the Buddhist mundane path, but that even this path, if followed sincerely, *may* eventually open a door to an understanding of non-entity, impermanence, and the universal nature of dissatisfaction or suffering. Whaddaya think? And if this is not true, how *do* the supra-mundane path factors ever 'kick in'? Good talking to you, and I mean that! I like this topic. Best, Robert Ep. ============ > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > It might perhaps be suggested that the fact that someone who has not > > heard > > > the dhamma has no notion of the teaching of 'not-self' makes a > > difference. > > > However, I do not think this can truly be said. Both the one who has > > > studied dhamma and the non-Buddhist have an innate view of self, and > > both > > > can strive without at that moment there being a manifest view of a > > self > > > who is making effort. So there is not necessarily any difference > > between > > > the two here. > > > > > > I would be interested to hear your views on this. > > > > > > Jon > > > > Well Jon, for some reason this question is very confusing to me. I kind > > of enjoy > > being confused, but I'll see if I can get out of it. I have always > > thought that > > the difference between Buddhism and all other teachings, is that the > > Buddha > > inherently recognized that the path was one of consciousness and not of > > changing, > > altering or somehow fixing up the self. > > > > If a Buddhist is doing Buddhism to accumulate kusala, in the sense of > > 'bettering > > his self', then he is not really practicing Buddhism at that time. > > :Perhaps > > eventually he will see that the self is an illusion in the sense that he > > normally > > thinks of it, and then he will be practicing Buddhism. The attempt to > > see through > > the ordinary self and see that it is not one's actual identity, and the > > attempt to > > see what the nature of consciousness is beyond that, based on that > > discovery, to > > me is the Buddhist path. > > > > So the person who was trying to accumulate kusala without this > > understanding may > > call himself a Buddhist or something else, but he is not rightly on the > > path the > > Buddha discovered. > > > > The truth of anatta, that the psychophysical being that we find > > ourselves being in > > this life, is not a 'self', but a filter for the experience of > > consciousness, I > > think in some language or another we can all agree on -- you may not > > like my > > wording, or you may disagree on my emphasis on 'consciousness', but we > > can agree > > that the ordinary self is really not-self, or an empty concept that we > > mistake for > > the being that we think we are. That's what makes it a 'Buddhist' > > discussion. > > > > Beyond this, I see no reason to differentiate between mundane and > > supra-mundane > > Right Effort, in the sense that all Effort should be made with the > > understanding > > that there is no one at the center of such effort. Does that mean that > > effort is > > non-volitional? Does there need to be a self in order to have volition > > or will? > > Can consciousness, through focussing on certain factors, increase it's > > discernment? And is such focussing totally predetermined by kamma and > > khandas? > > These questions are open to dispute and might be disagreed about between > > us. But > > the basic truth that there is no central self coordinating the action, > > we would > > agree upon. And that would be a basic Buddhist perspective. > > > > So I see this view as making all the difference, and I don't see the > > path as being > > basically about accumulating kusala states, except in so far as this > > allows for > > greater discernment. In the past, I have argued for the application of > > Buddhist > > principles to the experience of kusala in the affairs of daily life. > > But this is > > because I was focussed in those issues on daily life and how to improve > > it. In > > truth, being around this list has 'killed' some of that for me. I have > > realized > > that fixing daily living is more a property of attachment and aversion > > than of > > progressing on the path of discernment. So perhaps I have either made > > some > > progress, or fallen into a trap of another kind. > > > > Anyway, Right Effort in a Buddhist sense does not exist without a notion > > of > > anatta. Without that, it is not Buddhist, and if it has that, it is > > Buddhist, > > whether it is on the mundane level or on the supramundane. I will be > > anxious to > > hear your comments on this. both Jon and Howard, and others. > > > > Best, > > Robert Ep. 9616 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 0:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meththa meditation Dear Sarah, Your reassurance that there can only be one citta for a particular cetasika, including sati, takes away the particular question I was confused about. Of course it raises other ones But I have raised them separately and won't repeat them at this time. There are mainly about how can 'impressions regarding the flow of cittas' be created, whether this is one of speed, confusion, blur, etc. For another time! Regards, Robert Ep. =========================== --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > > --- Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for your thoughtful answers to my questions, which I have snipped > > below, > > but which were much appreciated. > > > > I have only one question about what you said: You said that cetasikas, such > > as > > sati for instance, can have one or more cittas as its object. > > I think you'd have to quote my words as this doesn't ring any bells or sound > like my words... > > >Do the mental > > factors function independently of individual cittas? > > There cannot be mental factors without a citta and they all condition and > affect each other, even though they all have their own distinct functions. > There is no moment without citta. > > >I had had the > > impression > > that the cetasikas were tied to their specific citta, but if that is not the > > case, > > that would be very interesting. > > Sorry, I'm not sure how I confused you to think otherwise. > > >Can a single occurence of sati take in a > > stream > > of several cittas? And if so, how does this work. > > No, only one object or reality at a time (citta, cetasika or rupa). > > > > > Other than that, I am not raising any new issues in this post!!! > > Not sure whether to be happy or sad!!! > > > > ==================== > > > > I wish I was standing on my head. Lately I've been too busy to stand > > on my > > head, I'm too busy running around on my feet. > > ...and glad to see, busy at the keyboard too;-)..keeping up to speed with all > those cittas..... (speed as in 'fast', not as in 'standard', Christine;-) > > > > > But I'm going to have to go back to look at that post. I have saved some > > posts > > that I couldn't answer at the time, and I believe that was one of them. > > Like Howard put so well, no obligations or pressures or apologies ever > necessary here in this regard;-) > > > Sometimes > > the more interesting or complicated messages wind up getting left for later, > > especially when there have been 35-40 new posts a day here lately! Yikes!! > > ...and we all know who is the main trouble-maker in this regard;-) > > Let me know if I misunderstood anything above, > > Sarah 9617 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 0:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Dear Rob, I would be very grateful if you could tell me the mechanism by which a moment once completely passed, can be seen as an object by a new, emergent citta. I just don't understand it, but I'm sure there is a good structural explanation. It must be involved in how one citta passes its attributes to the next. And I am equally confused about how this 'handing-off' takes place, since each citta is 'flattened' before the next arises...or is this not the case? Regards, Robert Ep. ================= --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Ken O, and Howard > Every moment once it has passed has absolutely ceased according to > the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it can't be known. If > that was the case then we would be like newborn babies, only worse, > and know nothing. Direct seeing should be distinguished from thinking > about past events but it doesn't mean that direct seeing doesn't need > sanna. Sanna arises with every citta and thus it arises also in > cittas assocaited with panna. It is so complex how it all comes > together, just for a moment, to understand. Here are some brief > quotes: > Abhidhammattha sangaha( Anuruddha) translated as A comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > Guide(note by bodhi) p.136 "although citta experiences objects, citta > in turn can become an object. It should be noted that a citta in its > immediacy cannot become an its own object, for the cognizer cannot > cognize itself; but a citta in an individual mental continuum can > experience earlier cittas in that same continuum as well as the > cittas of other beings" > p137 "Mind-door cittas can also cognise an object belonging to any of > the three periods of time- past present and future" > p138 "the Vibhavani tika explains: acording to whether the cittas are > sense sphere javanas, direct knowledge javanas , the remaining smile- > producing javanas etc. For the sense sphere javanas...take objects of > the three times[past, present, future] and timeless objects (nibbana > and concepts]. The smile producing consciousness takes only objects > of the three times[past, present, future]. The direct knowledge > cittas take objects of the three times as well as the timeless" > p138 The door freed consciousness (ie. patisandhicitta, cuti citta > and bhavanga citta ) "can be of six kinds: it can be any of the five > sense objects, either past or present, or it can be a mental object" > best wishes > robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > > Could you kindly quote the commentary that says that. Or is it > saying > > that it is the memory of the past cittas that an enlighted person > able to > > remember past events eons ago. To me, all that is the past is only > in the > > memory as past objects have already ceased. If the past object do > not > > ceased, then I think it would be a contradiction of the standing > that > > cittas ceased. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Ken O > > > > > > > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > In a message dated 11/24/01 11:02:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, > > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > > > I do see your point. The thing is that the cittas with panna > that > > > > know a past object have that past object as the object they > > > > understand. In practice - for us- this past object is so > > > > infinitesimally close to being present that it is called the > present > > > > moment. For the Buddha and some arahants it is possible to > directly > > > > insight even moments from aeons ago. This direct insight is > different > > > > from thinking or conceptualising about the moment even though > it is > > > > past. > > > > best wishes > > > > robert > > > > > > > > > > > ============================= > > > Mmm, hmm. I get what you are saying as well. It is an > interesting > > > > > > explanation which you give, though I find myself somewhat > uncomfortable > > > with > > > the notion of a past object, truly past, being the direct object > (and > > > not as > > > a memory) of a current mindstate. That is similar to the position > of the > > > > > > Sarvastivadins to the effect that dhammas exist throughout all > the three > > > time > > > periods, a position which I understand the Theravadins took issue > with > > > because of its eternalistic scent. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard > > > 9618 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 0:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: speed of cittas [Erik] --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Hi all, > > It may be of interest to some that the human eye/mind does not > register changes shorter than 1/70th a second. Take the monitor you > are looking at. It appears the image is static, yet it is being > completely refreshed more than 50 times a second. > > If it is considered a sign of wisdom/insight to be able to discern > changes at a more rapid rate than the average worldling, perhaps > rebirth as a fly would be appealing. The fly sees at 120 Hz > (refreshes the visual field 120 times per second). That's pretty funny, Herman. Robert Ep. 9619 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 0:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > -- > Dear ken O, > Great that you are getting an idea of how past moments can be > insighted. That makes two of you. How can past moments be insighted after they are 'completely gone'? Where are they present to be inspected or insighted? Where, alternatively, are their contents recorded? Robert Ep. ============================= > The future moments are another matter....! > This applies only to a Buddha or, to a very limited degree, some very > wise person (I'm talking about direct insight, not the intuitions of > the future that some clairvoyants may have). > The Parammattha manjusa (see note 7 Visuddhimagga VII)"This is not an > object for ratiocination; for the blessed one has said thus:'The > objective field of Enlightened Ones is unthinkable, it cannot be > thought out; anyone who tries to think it out would reap madness and > frustration' Aii, 80) The agreed explanation here is this: whatever > the Blessed one wants to know, there his knowlede occurs as actual > experience....And the Blessed one's knowledge that has past and > future as its objective field is entirely actual experience since it > is devoid of assumption based on inference, tradition or > conjecture"endquote > best wishes > robert > > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong wrote: > > Hi Robert, > > > > "It is so complex how it all comes > > > together, just for a moment, to understand. " > > > > I saw that paragraph too. I can understand past cittas can be > observed > > with direct insight due to sanna but future cittas that is > something, I > > like to know how it works. > > > > > > Kind regards > > Ken O 9620 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 2:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Hi Howard, Comments interspersed... _________________________________ Howard: >My recent post entitled "Some Thoughts on > Continuity, Blurs, and Cittas" was headed rather much in the same direction > as this post of yours; that is, its intention was to "see" the matters > addressed in the title of my post in a way that does *not* involve a separate > observer, agent, or self, and also does not require convoluted explanation. > Sometimes one sidesteps problems in a particular theory by using > "explanations" that present more problems than the original theory! Using Occam's razor, why not just excise the "self"? Well, it's easier said than done, as you note. > have gotten within the bones to the very marrow. I think that if one were to > continually contemplate on nothing but the fact of each mindstate being an > impersonal cognitive event, following upon and conditioned by previous > cognitive acts, with the only discerning of objects there ever is being these > very cognitive events themselves, one could make much progress in disabusing > oneself of the annoyingly persistent sense of "self". Dan: Basically, I agree [But I'd change the "continually contemplate...the fact" to "thoroughly understand the fact"], and this is where the anatta flavor of Abhidhamma can be so helpful -- not as a bunch of lists and dogmas to memorize, but as a beautiful description of the meaning of anatta via a decomposition of "self" into the five aggregates and a reconstruction of experience after an Occam's razor excising of "self". __________________________________ Howard: >There *is* no observer > standing back observing the flux of mindstates. Whatever is known is known > *there*, with there being no "knower". As you imply, should ignorance > sufficiently diminish and insight increase sufficiently, the arising and > falling away of mindstates and of their associated objects and concomitants > would be "seen", that seeing/wisdom itself being an aspect or concomitant of > the mindstates, and there would be a growing realization of impersonality and > emptiness, with neither continuity nor discreteness being an adequate > characterization of the way things truly appear. Dan: Well said (or should I say, "sadhu, sadhu, sadhu"). __________________________________ Howard: The *details* of the map we > use of this domain are less important than the critical requirement that the > map be free of the views of personality and of essence. Dan: This is a great insight, Howard--we need to always bear in mind that our theorizing and book learning is not helpful per se, but if it helps condition a little more clarity in our observations, then it can be most helpful. In a similar vein, U Narada [Guide to Conditional Relations, part I) wrote: "Patthana is understood if the table of contents of Dhammasangani is understood." If you have ever seen how cryptic and bizarre looking, how detailed and extensive the Patthana really is, the import of this statement is clear: Penetrating insight is where it's at, not the memorizing and reading of a scores of lists and doctrines. > The more and more closely I look, the more I see how many, varied, and > treacherous are the "pitfalls of self" waiting for us on the path, subtly > hidden by dense leaf-layers of wrongly formulated, wrongly interpreted, and > wrongly grasped theories. Your post goes a long way, for me, in clearing away > these layers, exposing the pitfalls below. The depth and intricacy of sakayaditti are astounding, as are the consequences. We are indeed fortunate to STILL be able to read the Tipitaka and listen to Dhamma. Dan 9621 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Dan, Thanks very much for another well-reasoned and -cited post. It's a good example of how abhidhamma can help to clarify the meanings in the suttas, I think. mike --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > _____________________________________________ > Howard: But who (or what) is this "we" who are so > overwhelmed by the > speed of cittas to think they act simultaneously > when it is only the > cittas, themselves, that are aware? > > Robert Ep.: > The only question is who is it so fast for?...Since > we are working on > the assumption that there is no ego that is > observing these cittas > jump around like mad, who or what is watching these > cittas whiz > by? ... [H]ow [can] we have overriding, comparative > or relative > experiences without an ego to hold and compare it > all? > _____________________________________________ > > Howdy, Howard and Robert Ep., > You've inspired me to reflect again on the nature of > cittas and > cetasikas, and I thank you. I don't know if my > investigations have > any relevance to what you've been talking about, and > it's always > dangerous to burst into a ongoing conversation > between two sharp > cookies, but you may be able to help me think more > clearly about the > issues. Here's what I've been thinking... > > I looked up a wonderful passage in Brahmajala sutta > (DN 1, i 34 PTS > or §49 BPS): "In this case some recluse or Brahmin > is addicted to > logic and reasoning. He gives utterance to the > following conclusions > of his own, beaten out by his argumentations and > based on his flight > of thought thus: 'That which is [connected with] > "the eye", "the > ear", "the nose", "the tongue" and "the body"--that > self is > impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to > change. But that which > is called "citta", "mano", or "viññana"--that self > is permanent, > eternal, not subject to change..." Although the > rationalistic partial- > eternalist described by Buddha in the passage above > posits a "who" to > experience and compare cittas, it really isn't > necessary. The > commentary discusses this interesting case in more > detail: "The > rationalist sees the breakup of the eye, etc.; but > because every > preceding act of consciousness (citta), in ceasing, > conditions the > arising of its successor, he does not see the > breakup of the > consciousness, even though the latter is more > pronounced than the > breakup of the eye, etc. Since he does not see the > breakup of > consciousness, he assumes that when the bodily frame > breaks up the > consciousness goes elsewhere...This he declares as > his view." > > Blurred vision (ignorance) prevents a clear view of > the moment-to- > moment breakup of consciousness. A consequence of > that blurred vision > is an intensification of the impression of > continuity and the > positing of a self to "hold" that sense of > continuity. The > subcommentary elaborates further: "'He does not see > the breakup of > consciousness': although consciousness is breaking > up moment after > moment, each act of consciousness, in breaking up, > becomes the > proximity condition for the following act of > consciousness. Because > each succeeding act of consciousness arises > concealing, as it were, > the absence of its predecessor, the aspect of > presence alone is > strong and clear, not the aspect of absense. Thus he > does not see the > destruction of consciousness. This matter becomes > very clear by the > example of the fire-disc (i.e. the unbroken disc of > flame formed by > swinging a firebrand in rapid circular motion). > Because the > rationalistic partial-eternalist is still more > remote from > understanding and applying the method of diversity > (viz. discrete > cittas), and wrongly applies the method of unity, he > arrives at the > conviction: 'This very consciousness which always > occurs with a > single nature, just this is a permanent self.'" > > So the view of a self to house the and interpret the > experiences will > naturally take root when each succeeding act of > consciousness arises > and conceals the absence of its predecessor, and the > aspect of > presence alone is strong and clear, not the aspect > of absense. Then, > there is no clear view of the dissolution of > consciousness. > > To resolve the problem of the "who who experiences" > requires a proper > balance of the "methods of diversity and unity". B. > Bodhi gives a > good description of these "methods" in the > introduction to his > translation of DN 1: "The eternalist doctrine is > said to originate > through a misapplication of the 'method of unity' > (ekattanaya) to the > continuum of experience which is the subject of > examination....The > method of unity disloses the coherence of the > succession of distinct > experiential occasions making up the continuum. It > shows them as > bound together in a single series, participants in a > process of > transmission and development, interconnected members > unified through > a law of conditional dependence. The method of > diversity balances > this by showing up the difference. Though unified, > the current of > experience is still a chain made up of distint > links. Some of these > funciton as causes, others as effects.... When these > two methods are > applied in conjunction, the current of experience > will be correctly > understood; but when they are misapplied or applied > in a one-sided > fashion, it will be misunderstood. The > misapplication of the method > of unity will lead to the belief in an identical > self and thence to > eternalism. The misapplication of the method of > diversity will take > the disruptive, discontinuous element in experience > as absolute and > thence lead to a doctrine of annihilationism. The > correct application > of both will show the continuum to be a causally > connected succession > of momentary processes, which continues so long as > the causes retain > their efficacy and ceases when the causes are > deactivated, in either > case without harboring a pesisting core to be > grasped as a personal > self. This is the middle way which avoids the two > extremes." > > With its abundance of conventional language about > "this bhikkhu, that > householder" and similes about "gold" and "luminous > mind", it is easy > to (mis)read the suttas with a unity bias. With its > elaborate > description and classification of cittas and > cetasikas, Abhidhamma > (esp. Dhammasangani and the first few chapters of > Abhidhammatha > sangaha) seems to emphasize more the method of > diversity. I find it > very helpful to study Abhidhamma, and then I read > the suttas with a > little more of a "diversity" method than a > "conventional" reading > would give. > > Ledi Sayadaw asks: "But how are we to understand the > momentary > arising and ceasing of mind?" (JPTS 7(1):115-163, > 1913). He draws his > discussion from the Citta chapter of Yamaka, and his > answer is > typical of both the suttas and Abhidhamma. Here's my > take on it... > > There are six kinds of consciousness -- those of the > five special > senses and the "coordinating sense" (mano). If with > seeing there is > the sense, "I see a visible object", the visual > cognition has been > taken as a "self". Same with hearing, smelling, > tasting, and feeling. > If there is the sense, "It is a mental phenomenon, > an element, a > sphere of sense, it is not 'mine,' not 'I', not my > 'self'", then the > sensation is not taken as self. > > But what about cognition itself (mano), considered > apart from seeing > and other occasions of sense? Consider the > sentiment: "I think such- > and-such", or "I experience a citta", or "I observed > lots of cittas > passing by in the span of a second." Here, > consciousness has been > taken as a "self" as soon as a distinction is sought > between the > experience and the experiencer, between the act and > the agent (or > actor). Abhidhamma makes no such distinction, and no > such distinction > is necessary. The mind (citta) is not distinct from > the > act "thinking". Similarly, there is no agent apart > from the > act "sensation" (or "contact" or "sankhara" or > "recognition"), i.e. > there is not a citta that experiences sensation. To > think of citta as > something that experiences sensation is once again > to make a > distinction between the experience and the > experiencer; the act and > the agent; the actor and the action; the self that > does this, > experiences that, and thinks this-or-that. BOOM! > "Self" is found > masquerading right in the midst of a bunch of fancy > Pali terminology > that merely serves as cover for sakayaditthi--and an > effective cover > at that! > > Citta doesn't experience sensation; Citta IS the > experience, and > sensation is one of the characteristics of that > experience. > Experience (citta) at one moment differs from that > at another moment, > and sensation is an aspect of each citta. So is > sañña (perception, > recognition, memory). "This moment is similar to the > moment a moment > ago" -- that impression is sañña, which "has the > characteristic of > noting and the function of recognizing what has been > previously > noted" [Asl I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 110), cited in > Nina's "Cetasikas"]. The object of sañña is the same > as the object of > the citta; but the cognizing itself is "citta", > while "sañña" is the > name given to a category of ingredient that flavors > the cognition. > [When I was in high school, I had the good fortune > to get to visit > Hawaii. I ordered a dinner at a fancy restaurant, > and the waiter > asked, "What kind of starch would you like with > that?" I'd never > heard it asked quite that way before (or since), but > I thought it was > brilliant. "Sañña" is like "starch" -- it comes with > the citta, but > it comes in different flavors.] A "function" of > sañña is > the "recognition" of similarity or dissimilarity > between cittas. > There is no sañña entity to do any recognizing; > there is merely > cognition (with a certain sañña flavor, vedana > flavor, phassa flavor, > etc.). Of course, we may speak of an act of > recognition or an object > of sañña, but we must be very clear that there is no > "sañña" doing > the acting and the "object" is not "experienced" by > any sañña entity. > And although the temptation is overwhelming, the > sañña flavor of > cittas does not necessitate a the positing of a self > to explain the > experience of speedy cittas. > > Dan 9622 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Very well-said, both! mike --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Comments interspersed... > _________________________________ > Howard: > >My recent post entitled "Some Thoughts on > > Continuity, Blurs, and Cittas" was headed rather > much in the same > direction > > as this post of yours; that is, its intention was > to "see" the > matters > > addressed in the title of my post in a way that > does *not* involve > a separate > > observer, agent, or self, and also does not > require convoluted > explanation. > > Sometimes one sidesteps problems in a particular > theory by using > > "explanations" that present more problems than the > original theory! > > Using Occam's razor, why not just excise the "self"? > Well, it's > easier said than done, as you note. > > > have gotten within the bones to the very marrow. I > think that if > one were to > > continually contemplate on nothing but the fact of > each mindstate > being an > > impersonal cognitive event, following upon and > conditioned by > previous > > cognitive acts, with the only discerning of > objects there ever is > being these > > very cognitive events themselves, one could make > much progress in > disabusing > > oneself of the annoyingly persistent sense of > "self". > > Dan: > Basically, I agree [But I'd change the "continually > contemplate...the > fact" to "thoroughly understand the fact"], and this > is where the > anatta flavor of Abhidhamma can be so helpful -- not > as a bunch of > lists and dogmas to memorize, but as a beautiful > description of the > meaning of anatta via a decomposition of "self" into > the five > aggregates and a reconstruction of experience after > an Occam's razor > excising of "self". > > __________________________________ > Howard: > >There *is* no observer > > standing back observing the flux of mindstates. > Whatever is known > is known > > *there*, with there being no "knower". As you > imply, should > ignorance > > sufficiently diminish and insight increase > sufficiently, the > arising and > > falling away of mindstates and of their associated > objects and > concomitants > > would be "seen", that seeing/wisdom itself being > an aspect or > concomitant of > > the mindstates, and there would be a growing > realization of > impersonality and > > emptiness, with neither continuity nor > discreteness being an > adequate > > characterization of the way things truly appear. > > Dan: > Well said (or should I say, "sadhu, sadhu, sadhu"). > __________________________________ > Howard: > The *details* of the map we > > use of this domain are less important than the > critical requirement > that the > > map be free of the views of personality and of > essence. > > Dan: > This is a great insight, Howard--we need to always > bear in mind that > our theorizing and book learning is not helpful per > se, but if it > helps condition a little more clarity in our > observations, then it > can be most helpful. In a similar vein, U Narada > [Guide to > Conditional Relations, part I) wrote: "Patthana is > understood if the > table of contents of Dhammasangani is understood." > If you have ever > seen how cryptic and bizarre looking, how detailed > and extensive the > Patthana really is, the import of this statement is > clear: > Penetrating insight is where it's at, not the > memorizing and reading > of a scores of lists and doctrines. > > > The more and more closely I look, the more > I see how many, > varied, and > > treacherous are the "pitfalls of self" waiting for > us on the path, > subtly > > hidden by dense leaf-layers of wrongly formulated, > wrongly > interpreted, and > > wrongly grasped theories. Your post goes a long > way, for me, in > clearing away > > these layers, exposing the pitfalls below. > > The depth and intricacy of sakayaditti are > astounding, as are the > consequences. We are indeed fortunate to STILL be > able to read the > Tipitaka and listen to Dhamma. > > Dan 9623 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "engaged" [Christine] Hi Herman, --- hhofman@d... wrote: > Dan, > > I recall that there was an occasion where the Buddha > literally ran > for his life, being pursued by someone who wanted to > harm him. This certainly never occurred in the parts of the Tipitaka I've read and seems highly unlikely. If you can cite this event I'd be most interested. I wonder if you're thinking of Angulimala, who chased the Buddha as fast as he could to murder him and cut off one of his fingers for his necklace--though the Buddha continued walking at his regular pace, Angulimala was unable to catch up with him. > Is this an act of self-preservation, an indication > of chains, bonds > fetters etc. It's an interesting story but certainly has nothing to do either with self-preservation or social activism. The Buddha's approach to Angulimala was to teach him the Dhamma. When the Buddha spoke about chains, bonds, fetters etc., he was generally speaking about unskilled mental states. For what it's worth, mike 9624 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] worldling Jon and Robert, The question I have is, is a 'trainer' (sekkha?) necessarily a sotaapanna, or can a kalyana-putthujana be a sekkha? This does have some bearing on issues rather than semantic ones. mike --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob K > > Thanks for this point. I am indeed relieved to hear > that those who are > developing the path are no longer regarded as > 'uninstructed and foolish'. > I'm not sure if the same distinction is always > maintained in the suttas, > but in any event it would have been better to use > the term 'worldling' in > the context below. > > Jon > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > In > dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > > > > > > 2. It is a 'path' in the sense that once this > moment has been > > experienced > > > final enlightenment is inevitable in the > fullness of time. Prior > > to the > > > first of the 4 stages of enlightenment (ie. at > the mundane level), > > > attainment to final enlightenment is not > assured. The texts refer > > to one > > > who has attained to stream entry as a > *'path-winner'* or 'trainer', > > > whereas one who has not attained to a moment of > supramundane > > experience is > > > referred to as an `uninstructed worldling'. So > it is not a path in > > the > > > sense of being a 'path of practice' for the > worldling, as the term > > seems > > > to be understood nowadays. > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dear Jon, > > The commentaries talk about two types of > putthujana (worldling): 1) > > the uninstructed, foolish one and 2) the > kalyana-putthujana (good > > worldling) who is learning and developing the > path. > > best wishes > > robert 9625 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] worldling --Dear Mike, I think a sekkha is always a sotapanna or above best wishes robert - In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Jon and Robert, > > The question I have is, is a 'trainer' (sekkha?) > necessarily a sotaapanna, or can a kalyana-putthujana > be a sekkha? This does have some bearing on issues > rather than semantic ones. > > mike > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Rob K > > > > Thanks for this point. I am indeed relieved to hear > > that those who are > > developing the path are no longer regarded as > > 'uninstructed and foolish'. > > I'm not sure if the same distinction is always > > maintained in the suttas, > > but in any event it would have been better to use > > the term 'worldling' in > > the context below. > > > > Jon > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > > In > > dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2. It is a 'path' in the sense that once this > > moment has been > > > experienced > > > > final enlightenment is inevitable in the > > fullness of time. Prior > > > to the > > > > first of the 4 stages of enlightenment (ie. at > > the mundane level), > > > > attainment to final enlightenment is not > > assured. The texts refer > > > to one > > > > who has attained to stream entry as a > > *'path-winner'* or 'trainer', > > > > whereas one who has not attained to a moment of > > supramundane > > > experience is > > > > referred to as an `uninstructed worldling'. So > > it is not a path in > > > the > > > > sense of being a 'path of practice' for the > > worldling, as the term > > > seems > > > > to be understood nowadays. > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > Dear Jon, > > > The commentaries talk about two types of > > putthujana (worldling): 1) > > > the uninstructed, foolish one and 2) the > > kalyana-putthujana (good > > > worldling) who is learning and developing the > > path. > > > best wishes > > > robert > 9626 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi Robert, Very interesting and I'm glad to see this documented. Completely baffling, though. Must rethink a few things. mike --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > Dear Ken O, and Howard > Every moment once it has passed has absolutely > ceased according to > the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it > can't be known. If > that was the case then we would be like newborn > babies, only worse, > and know nothing. Direct seeing should be > distinguished from thinking > about past events but it doesn't mean that direct > seeing doesn't need > sanna. Sanna arises with every citta and thus it > arises also in > cittas assocaited with panna. It is so complex how > it all comes > together, just for a moment, to understand. Here are > some brief > quotes: > Abhidhammattha sangaha( Anuruddha) translated as A > comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > Guide(note by bodhi) p.136 "although citta > experiences objects, citta > in turn can become an object. It should be noted > that a citta in its > immediacy cannot become an its own object, for the > cognizer cannot > cognize itself; but a citta in an individual mental > continuum can > experience earlier cittas in that same continuum as > well as the > cittas of other beings" > p137 "Mind-door cittas can also cognise an object > belonging to any of > the three periods of time- past present and future" > p138 "the Vibhavani tika explains: acording to > whether the cittas are > sense sphere javanas, direct knowledge javanas , the > remaining smile- > producing javanas etc. For the sense sphere > javanas...take objects of > the three times[past, present, future] and timeless > objects (nibbana > and concepts]. The smile producing consciousness > takes only objects > of the three times[past, present, future]. The > direct knowledge > cittas take objects of the three times as well as > the timeless" > p138 The door freed consciousness (ie. > patisandhicitta, cuti citta > and bhavanga citta ) "can be of six kinds: it can be > any of the five > sense objects, either past or present, or it can be > a mental object" > best wishes > robert > > In dhammastudygroup@y..., Kenneth Ong > wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > > Could you kindly quote the commentary that says > that. Or is it > saying > > that it is the memory of the past cittas that an > enlighted person > able to > > remember past events eons ago. To me, all that is > the past is only > in the > > memory as past objects have already ceased. If > the past object do > not > > ceased, then I think it would be a contradiction > of the standing > that > > cittas ceased. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards > > Ken O > > > > > > > > > > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > > > > > In a message dated 11/24/01 11:02:11 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > > > robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > > > > > > > > > > Dear Howard, > > > > I do see your point. The thing is that the > cittas with panna > that > > > > know a past object have that past object as > the object they > > > > understand. In practice - for us- this past > object is so > > > > infinitesimally close to being present that it > is called the > present > > > > moment. For the Buddha and some arahants it is > possible to > directly > > > > insight even moments from aeons ago. This > direct insight is > different > > > > from thinking or conceptualising about the > moment even though > it is > > > > past. > > > > best wishes > > > > robert > > > > > > > > > > > ============================= > > > Mmm, hmm. I get what you are saying as > well. It is an > interesting > > > > > > explanation which you give, though I find myself > somewhat > uncomfortable > > > with > > > the notion of a past object, truly past, being > the direct object > (and > > > not as > > > a memory) of a current mindstate. That is > similar to the position > of the > > > > > > Sarvastivadins to the effect that dhammas exist > throughout all > the three > > > time > > > periods, a position which I understand the > Theravadins took issue > with > > > because of its eternalistic scent. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Howard 9627 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] worldling Thanks Rob, So, for the kalyana-puthujjana, what means 'learning and developing the path'? Does this refer to sammuti-sacca, pariyatti or...? As it has been explained that the path refers to magga-citta? mike --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --Dear Mike, > I think a sekkha is always a sotapanna or above > best wishes > robert > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" > wrote: > > Jon and Robert, > > > > The question I have is, is a 'trainer' (sekkha?) > > necessarily a sotaapanna, or can a > kalyana-putthujana > > be a sekkha? This does have some bearing on > issues > > rather than semantic ones. > > > > mike > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > Rob K > > > > > > Thanks for this point. I am indeed relieved to > hear > > > that those who are > > > developing the path are no longer regarded as > > > 'uninstructed and foolish'. > > > I'm not sure if the same distinction is always > > > maintained in the suttas, > > > but in any event it would have been better to > use > > > the term 'worldling' in > > > the context below. > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > > > In > > > dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is a 'path' in the sense that once > this > > > moment has been > > > > experienced > > > > > final enlightenment is inevitable in the > > > fullness of time. Prior > > > > to the > > > > > first of the 4 stages of enlightenment (ie. > at > > > the mundane level), > > > > > attainment to final enlightenment is not > > > assured. The texts refer > > > > to one > > > > > who has attained to stream entry as a > > > *'path-winner'* or 'trainer', > > > > > whereas one who has not attained to a moment > of > > > supramundane > > > > experience is > > > > > referred to as an `uninstructed worldling'. > So > > > it is not a path in > > > > the > > > > > sense of being a 'path of practice' for the > > > worldling, as the term > > > > seems > > > > > to be understood nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Dear Jon, > > > > The commentaries talk about two types of > > > putthujana (worldling): 1) > > > > the uninstructed, foolish one and 2) the > > > kalyana-putthujana (good > > > > worldling) who is learning and developing the > > > path. > > > > best wishes > > > > robert 9628 From: m. nease Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Robert Ep.] Thanks again, Dan. mike --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > _______________________________ > Robert Ep.: You wrote that the Buddha did not exhort > us to get > involved with people who were suffering, to be 'good > people' and try > to free those who were being oppressed. > > Dan: That's right. The Buddha's message was strictly > spiritual. As > wisdom develops, then compassion is deepened and the > impulse to > relieve suffering of all kinds is increased. Buddha > did not teach > that liberation comes through this particular good > deed or that > particular political view or even that these > political struggles are > helpful in any way. The reason is simply because > these issues are > ultimately not relevant to the real roots of > suffering. Can these > political struggles help soften material conditions > to temporarily > lessen the sting of suffering? Of course! But such > struggles are not > particularly Buddhist. Neither are they un-Buddhist. > Just different. > > Historically speaking, confusing political issues > with religious > issues is a recipe for disaster, as anyone with an > interest in > Buddhism can attest for Christianity (e.g., Pat > Robertson, Jesse > Jackson in the U.S.; crusade and inquisitions in > Europe; etc.), Islam > (e.g., Omar and bin Laden in Afghanistan; Khomeini > in Iran), > Communism (a secular, rationalist, materialist > "religion") in USSR > and Cambodia. > > Dan 9629 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 7:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] worldling ---Good point Mike, I should have said :developing the way to the path: It gets confusing when we are refering to specific nuances of words. Best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Thanks Rob, > > So, for the kalyana-puthujjana, what means 'learning > and developing the path'? Does this refer to > sammuti-sacca, pariyatti or...? As it has been > explained that the path refers to magga-citta? > > mike > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > --Dear Mike, > > I think a sekkha is always a sotapanna or above > > best wishes > > robert > > > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" > > wrote: > > > Jon and Robert, > > > > > > The question I have is, is a 'trainer' (sekkha?) > > > necessarily a sotaapanna, or can a > > kalyana-putthujana > > > be a sekkha? This does have some bearing on > > issues > > > rather than semantic ones. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > Rob K > > > > > > > > Thanks for this point. I am indeed relieved to > > hear > > > > that those who are > > > > developing the path are no longer regarded as > > > > 'uninstructed and foolish'. > > > > I'm not sure if the same distinction is always > > > > maintained in the suttas, > > > > but in any event it would have been better to > > use > > > > the term 'worldling' in > > > > the context below. > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > > > > In > > > > dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is a 'path' in the sense that once > > this > > > > moment has been > > > > > experienced > > > > > > final enlightenment is inevitable in the > > > > fullness of time. Prior > > > > > to the > > > > > > first of the 4 stages of enlightenment (ie. > > at > > > > the mundane level), > > > > > > attainment to final enlightenment is not > > > > assured. The texts refer > > > > > to one > > > > > > who has attained to stream entry as a > > > > *'path-winner'* or 'trainer', > > > > > > whereas one who has not attained to a moment > > of > > > > supramundane > > > > > experience is > > > > > > referred to as an `uninstructed worldling'. > > So > > > > it is not a path in > > > > > the > > > > > > sense of being a 'path of practice' for the > > > > worldling, as the term > > > > > seems > > > > > > to be understood nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > > > The commentaries talk about two types of > > > > putthujana (worldling): 1) > > > > > the uninstructed, foolish one and 2) the > > > > kalyana-putthujana (good > > > > > worldling) who is learning and developing the > > > > path. > > > > > best wishes > > > > > robert 9630 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 7:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] worldling And, of course, there is the five-fold path, which can be pre-magga, such as moments of genuine satipatthana as seen by kayana-putthujhana. best wishes robert--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > ---Good point Mike, > I should have said :developing the way to the path: It gets confusing > when we are refering to specific nuances of words. > Best wishes > robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > > Thanks Rob, > > > > So, for the kalyana-puthujjana, what means 'learning > > and developing the path'? Does this refer to > > sammuti-sacca, pariyatti or...? As it has been > > explained that the path refers to magga-citta? > > > > mike > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > > --Dear Mike, > > > I think a sekkha is always a sotapanna or above > > > best wishes > > > robert > > > > > > - In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" > > > wrote: > > > > Jon and Robert, > > > > > > > > The question I have is, is a 'trainer' (sekkha?) > > > > necessarily a sotaapanna, or can a > > > kalyana-putthujana > > > > be a sekkha? This does have some bearing on > > > issues > > > > rather than semantic ones. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > > > Rob K > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this point. I am indeed relieved to > > > hear > > > > > that those who are > > > > > developing the path are no longer regarded as > > > > > 'uninstructed and foolish'. > > > > > I'm not sure if the same distinction is always > > > > > maintained in the suttas, > > > > > but in any event it would have been better to > > > use > > > > > the term 'worldling' in > > > > > the context below. > > > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- > > > > > In > > > > > dhammastudygroup@y..., Jonothan Abbott > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is a 'path' in the sense that once > > > this > > > > > moment has been > > > > > > experienced > > > > > > > final enlightenment is inevitable in the > > > > > fullness of time. Prior > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > first of the 4 stages of enlightenment (ie. > > > at > > > > > the mundane level), > > > > > > > attainment to final enlightenment is not > > > > > assured. The texts refer > > > > > > to one > > > > > > > who has attained to stream entry as a > > > > > *'path-winner'* or 'trainer', > > > > > > > whereas one who has not attained to a moment > > > of > > > > > supramundane > > > > > > experience is > > > > > > > referred to as an `uninstructed worldling'. > > > So > > > > > it is not a path in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > sense of being a 'path of practice' for the > > > > > worldling, as the term > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > to be understood nowadays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Dear Jon, > > > > > > The commentaries talk about two types of > > > > > putthujana (worldling): 1) > > > > > > the uninstructed, foolish one and 2) the > > > > > kalyana-putthujana (good > > > > > > worldling) who is learning and developing the > > > > > path. > > > > > > best wishes > > > > > > robert 9631 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Dear Dan, I would agree with Mike here that your explanation below is both impressive and very helpful in understanding the mechanics of how the cittas and their cetasikas function. If you tell me that sanna can have an 'impression' of a number of recently passed moments, that it has received and carried over from one single citta to the next, so that a given consequent citta can get the impression of 'speedy' or 'blurring' cittas having passed by recently, then I will have my question about how single cittas can have such an experience of a series of cittas resolved. Please tell me this is possible, and I will stop hammering on this topic with great relief! Best, Robert Ep. ====================== --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Dan - > > I'd like to make a couple comments about the post of yours copied > below. My main comment is that it is one of the most useful, clear, and > insightful posts I have read in a long time! It is *wonderful*, and I thank > you for it! > A second comment: My recent post entitled "Some Thoughts on > Continuity, Blurs, and Cittas" was headed rather much in the same direction > as this post of yours; that is, its intention was to "see" the matters > addressed in the title of my post in a way that does *not* involve a separate > observer, agent, or self, and also does not require convoluted explanation. > Sometimes one sidesteps problems in a particular theory by using > "explanations" that present more problems than the original theory! In my > post, I believe I was starting to get somewhat below the outer flesh of the > matter, but, in this post of yours, to paraphrase a certain Zen master, you > have gotten within the bones to the very marrow. I think that if one were to > continually contemplate on nothing but the fact of each mindstate being an > impersonal cognitive event, following upon and conditioned by previous > cognitive acts, with the only discerning of objects there ever is being these > very cognitive events themselves, one could make much progress in disabusing > oneself of the annoyingly persistent sense of "self". There *is* no observer > standing back observing the flux of mindstates. Whatever is known is known > *there*, with there being no "knower". As you imply, should ignorance > sufficiently diminish and insight increase sufficiently, the arising and > falling away of mindstates and of their associated objects and concomitants > would be "seen", that seeing/wisdom itself being an aspect or concomitant of > the mindstates, and there would be a growing realization of impersonality and > emptiness, with neither continuity nor discreteness being an adequate > characterization of the way things truly appear. The *details* of the map we > use of this domain are less important than the critical requirement that the > map be free of the views of personality and of essence. > The more and more closely I look, the more I see how many, varied, and > treacherous are the "pitfalls of self" waiting for us on the path, subtly > hidden by dense leaf-layers of wrongly formulated, wrongly interpreted, and > wrongly grasped theories. Your post goes a long way, for me, in clearing away > these layers, exposing the pitfalls below. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 11/25/01 12:00:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, > dalthorp@o... writes: > > > > _____________________________________________ > > Howard: But who (or what) is this "we" who are so overwhelmed by the > > speed of cittas to think they act simultaneously when it is only the > > cittas, themselves, that are aware? > > > > Robert Ep.: > > The only question is who is it so fast for?...Since we are working on > > the assumption that there is no ego that is observing these cittas > > jump around like mad, who or what is watching these cittas whiz > > by? ... [H]ow [can] we have overriding, comparative or relative > > experiences without an ego to hold and compare it all? > > _____________________________________________ > > > > Howdy, Howard and Robert Ep., > > You've inspired me to reflect again on the nature of cittas and > > cetasikas, and I thank you. I don't know if my investigations have > > any relevance to what you've been talking about, and it's always > > dangerous to burst into a ongoing conversation between two sharp > > cookies, but you may be able to help me think more clearly about the > > issues. Here's what I've been thinking... > > > > I looked up a wonderful passage in Brahmajala sutta (DN 1, i 34 PTS > > or §49 BPS): "In this case some recluse or Brahmin is addicted to > > logic and reasoning. He gives utterance to the following conclusions > > of his own, beaten out by his argumentations and based on his flight > > of thought thus: 'That which is [connected with] "the eye", "the > > ear", "the nose", "the tongue" and "the body"--that self is > > impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which > > is called "citta", "mano", or "viññana"--that self is permanent, > > eternal, not subject to change..." Although the rationalistic partial- > > eternalist described by Buddha in the passage above posits a "who" to > > experience and compare cittas, it really isn't necessary. The > > commentary discusses this interesting case in more detail: "The > > rationalist sees the breakup of the eye, etc.; but because every > > preceding act of consciousness (citta), in ceasing, conditions the > > arising of its successor, he does not see the breakup of the > > consciousness, even though the latter is more pronounced than the > > breakup of the eye, etc. Since he does not see the breakup of > > consciousness, he assumes that when the bodily frame breaks up the > > consciousness goes elsewhere...This he declares as his view." > > > > Blurred vision (ignorance) prevents a clear view of the moment-to- > > moment breakup of consciousness. A consequence of that blurred vision > > is an intensification of the impression of continuity and the > > positing of a self to "hold" that sense of continuity. The > > subcommentary elaborates further: "'He does not see the breakup of > > consciousness': although consciousness is breaking up moment after > > moment, each act of consciousness, in breaking up, becomes the > > proximity condition for the following act of consciousness. Because > > each succeeding act of consciousness arises concealing, as it were, > > the absence of its predecessor, the aspect of presence alone is > > strong and clear, not the aspect of absense. Thus he does not see the > > destruction of consciousness. This matter becomes very clear by the > > example of the fire-disc (i.e. the unbroken disc of flame formed by > > swinging a firebrand in rapid circular motion). Because the > > rationalistic partial-eternalist is still more remote from > > understanding and applying the method of diversity (viz. discrete > > cittas), and wrongly applies the method of unity, he arrives at the > > conviction: 'This very consciousness which always occurs with a > > single nature, just this is a permanent self.'" > > > > So the view of a self to house the and interpret the experiences will > > naturally take root when each succeeding act of consciousness arises > > and conceals the absence of its predecessor, and the aspect of > > presence alone is strong and clear, not the aspect of absense. Then, > > there is no clear view of the dissolution of consciousness. > > > > To resolve the problem of the "who who experiences" requires a proper > > balance of the "methods of diversity and unity". B. Bodhi gives a > > good description of these "methods" in the introduction to his > > translation of DN 1: "The eternalist doctrine is said to originate > > through a misapplication of the 'method of unity' (ekattanaya) to the > > continuum of experience which is the subject of examination....The > > method of unity disloses the coherence of the succession of distinct > > experiential occasions making up the continuum. It shows them as > > bound together in a single series, participants in a process of > > transmission and development, interconnected members unified through > > a law of conditional dependence. The method of diversity balances > > this by showing up the difference. Though unified, the current of > > experience is still a chain made up of distint links. Some of these > > funciton as causes, others as effects.... When these two methods are > > applied in conjunction, the current of experience will be correctly > > understood; but when they are misapplied or applied in a one-sided > > fashion, it will be misunderstood. The misapplication of the method > > of unity will lead to the belief in an identical self and thence to > > eternalism. The misapplication of the method of diversity will take > > the disruptive, discontinuous element in experience as absolute and > > thence lead to a doctrine of annihilationism. The correct application > > of both will show the continuum to be a causally connected succession > > of momentary processes, which continues so long as the causes retain > > their efficacy and ceases when the causes are deactivated, in either > > case without harboring a pesisting core to be grasped as a personal > > self. This is the middle way which avoids the two extremes." > > > > With its abundance of conventional language about "this bhikkhu, that > > householder" and similes about "gold" and "luminous mind", it is easy > > to (mis)read the suttas with a unity bias. With its elaborate > > description and classification of cittas and cetasikas, Abhidhamma > > (esp. Dhammasangani and the first few chapters of Abhidhammatha > > sangaha) seems to emphasize more the method of diversity. I find it > > very helpful to study Abhidhamma, and then I read the suttas with a > > little more of a "diversity" method than a "conventional" reading > > would give. > > > > Ledi Sayadaw asks: "But how are we to understand the momentary > > arising and ceasing of mind?" (JPTS 7(1):115-163, 1913). He draws his > > discussion from the Citta chapter of Yamaka, and his answer is > > typical of both the suttas and Abhidhamma. Here's my take on it... > > > > There are six kinds of consciousness -- those of the five special > > senses and the "coordinating sense" (mano). If with seeing there is > > the sense, "I see a visible object", the visual cognition has been > > taken as a "self". Same with hearing, smelling, tasting, and feeling. > > If there is the sense, "It is a mental phenomenon, an element, a > > sphere of sense, it is not 'mine,' not 'I', not my 'self'", then the > > sensation is not taken as self. > > > > But what about cognition itself (mano), considered apart from seeing > > and other occasions of sense? Consider the sentiment: "I think such- > > and-such", or "I experience a citta", or "I observed lots of cittas > > passing by in the span of a second." Here, consciousness has been > > taken as a "self" as soon as a distinction is sought between the > > experience and the experiencer, between the act and the agent (or > > actor). Abhidhamma makes no such distinction, and no such distinction > > is necessary. The mind (citta) is not distinct from the > > act "thinking". Similarly, there is no agent apart from the > > act "sensation" (or "contact" or "sankhara" or "recognition"), i.e. > > there is not a citta that experiences sensation. To think of citta as > > something that experiences sensation is once again to make a > > distinction between the experience and the experiencer; the act and > > the agent; the actor and the action; the self that does this, > > experiences that, and thinks this-or-that. BOOM! "Self" is found > > masquerading right in the midst of a bunch of fancy Pali terminology > > that merely serves as cover for sakayaditthi--and an effective cover > > at that! > > > > Citta doesn't experience sensation; Citta IS the experience, and > > sensation is one of the characteristics of that experience. > > Experience (citta) at one moment differs from that at another moment, > > and sensation is an aspect of each citta. So is sañña (perception, > > recognition, memory). "This moment is similar to the moment a moment > > ago" -- that impression is sañña, which "has the characteristic of > > noting and the function of recognizing what has been previously > > noted" [Asl I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 110), cited in > > Nina's "Cetasikas"]. The object of sañña is the same as the object of > > the citta; but the cognizing itself is "citta", while "sañña" is the > > name given to a category of ingredient that flavors the cognition. > > [When I was in high school, I had the good fortune to get to visit > > Hawaii. I ordered a dinner at a fancy restaurant, and the waiter > > asked, "What kind of starch would you like with that?" I'd never > > heard it asked quite that way before (or since), but I thought it was > > brilliant. "Sañña" is like "starch" -- it comes with the citta, but > > it comes in different flavors.] A "function" of sañña is > > the "recognition" of similarity or dissimilarity between cittas. > > There is no sañña entity to do any recognizing; there is merely > > cognition (with a certain sañña flavor, vedana flavor, phassa flavor, > > etc.). Of course, we may speak of an act of recognition or an object > > of sañña, but we must be very clear that there is no "sañña" doing > > the acting and the "object" is not "experienced" by any sañña entity. > > And although the temptation is overwhelming, the sañña flavor of > > cittas does not necessitate a the positing of a self to explain the > > experience of speedy cittas. > > > > Dan 9632 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 9:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Robert Ep.] Dan, I agree that confusing religion and politics can be disastrous. As you say, as understanding and compassion increase, one will naturally be moved to alleviate suffering without having to reason it out. And I agree that to end the source of suffering is ultimately far more valuable. At the same time, I don't think it's a coincidence, and by your words here neither do you, that those with a spiritual bent are often the ones to step forward and try to ease suffering in the moment. Best, Robert Ep. =================================== --- dalthorp@o... wrote: > _______________________________ > Robert Ep.: You wrote that the Buddha did not exhort us to get > involved with people who were suffering, to be 'good people' and try > to free those who were being oppressed. > > Dan: That's right. The Buddha's message was strictly spiritual. As > wisdom develops, then compassion is deepened and the impulse to > relieve suffering of all kinds is increased. Buddha did not teach > that liberation comes through this particular good deed or that > particular political view or even that these political struggles are > helpful in any way. The reason is simply because these issues are > ultimately not relevant to the real roots of suffering. Can these > political struggles help soften material conditions to temporarily > lessen the sting of suffering? Of course! But such struggles are not > particularly Buddhist. Neither are they un-Buddhist. Just different. > > Historically speaking, confusing political issues with religious > issues is a recipe for disaster, as anyone with an interest in > Buddhism can attest for Christianity (e.g., Pat Robertson, Jesse > Jackson in the U.S.; crusade and inquisitions in Europe; etc.), Islam > (e.g., Omar and bin Laden in Afghanistan; Khomeini in Iran), > Communism (a secular, rationalist, materialist "religion") in USSR > and Cambodia. > > Dan 9633 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- DEar Mike, I thought this might be a little confusing. It is simply theory, useful for understanding how the past can be insighted. For us, in practice, as I said to Howard, the moments that are insighted are so infinitesimally close to being present that they are considered as the present moment. best wishes robert In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Very interesting and I'm glad to see this documented. > Completely baffling, though. Must rethink a few > things. > > mike > > --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > > Dear Ken O, and Howard > > Every moment once it has passed has absolutely > > ceased according to > > the Theravada. However, this doesn't mean that it > > can't be known. If 9634 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "engaged" [Christine] Hi there, Mike, Just out of a purely theoretical interest, are you saying that this story is not in the Tipitaka, or that the story is in the Tipitaka but that my memory served me incorrectly about the Buddha running instead of walking, and possibly other details? All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > --- hhofman@d... wrote: > > > Dan, > > > > I recall that there was an occasion where the Buddha > > literally ran > > for his life, being pursued by someone who wanted to > > harm him. > > This certainly never occurred in the parts of the > Tipitaka I've read and seems highly unlikely. If you > can cite this event I'd be most interested. I wonder > if you're thinking of Angulimala, who chased the > Buddha as fast as he could to murder him and cut off > one of his fingers for his necklace--though the Buddha > continued walking at his regular pace, Angulimala was > unable to catch up with him. > > > Is this an act of self-preservation, an indication > > of chains, bonds > > fetters etc. > > It's an interesting story but certainly has nothing to > do either with self-preservation or social activism. > The Buddha's approach to Angulimala was to teach him > the Dhamma. When the Buddha spoke about chains, > bonds, fetters etc., he was generally speaking about > unskilled mental states. > > For what it's worth, > > mike 9635 From: Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > Dear Rob, > I would be very grateful if you could tell me the mechanism by which a moment once > completely passed, can be seen as an object by a new, emergent citta. I just > don't understand it, but I'm sure there is a good structural explanation. > > It must be involved in how one citta passes its attributes to the next. And I am > equally confused about how this 'handing-off' takes place, since each citta is > 'flattened' before the next arises...or is this not the case? > > Regards, > Robert Ep. > > ================= >Dear Rob E., I'm not sure what you mean by 'flattened'? Each citta has completely passed away, ceased, ended before the next arises. But there is no space between them, no time gap. I've mentioned to you before the Patthana, which is considered the most profound section of the Tipitaka and it is there that the 24 conditions are elucidated. Ken O and Christine are now studying Nina Van Gorkoms introduction to it and you could download it from http://www.zolag.co.uk and we could all look at it together. It will make things clearer I think. best wishes robert 9636 From: Sarah Date: Sun Nov 25, 2001 11:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] lucid dreaming and seafood vegetarians Hi Frank, --- frank kuan wrote: > I had an interesting lucid dream today. I was rather hoping that someone more knowledgable would reply to your unusual post, but we seem to be 'fated' to talk together again;-) > My question is, do other members lucid dream with all > 6 sense bases? Which ones work better? Do they all > work? I know that dream analysis and dream therapy are considered very important by many people and especially by many psychotherapists. From a dhamma point of view, I understand that dreams are merely an indication of our kilesa which even follow us around as we sleep. This is the reason that arahats don't dream as I've heard (pls don't ask for the reference;-) When we give particular importance to certain dreams or to their lucidity or otherwise, I wonder if this isn't just attachment in the way there is attachment to any other stories we get 'lost' in or carried away by. In other words, if we attach importance to the papanca (proliferations) in themselves, rather than developing awareness of the present seeing or thinking, it can be most unhelpful I feel. People have expressed the idea before on dsg of different senses working whilst we sleep and dream. it's true that it really seems as though there is seeing and hearing and other sense door experiences at these times. In reality, aren't these just tricks of the mind, conditioned by sanna (perception/memory) and many other factors? In fact nothing is being seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched, but the thinking through the mind-door is very busy and active. Of course, as soon as we're just a 'little' awake, seeing, hearing and so on are active again and sometimes it can be unclear for a few minutes whether we're dreaming or really experiencing sights and sounds and so on. So devious is the mind. Sorry if I've misunderstood or not given the kind of response you were looking for, Frank. Hope to hear your comments. Sarah 9637 From: Sarah Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] "engaged" [Robert Ep.] Hi Dan, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Thanks again, Dan. Like Mike, Howard, Jon and others, I've also really appreciated some of your amazing posts recently, starting with your first 'Human Rights' one and especially the one Howard commented on...(sorry, too rushed to find them now). Many thanks and hope Lisa is 'hangin' in' as best she can.....;-) Howard, also greatly appreciated your correspondence with Dan of late and your fine considerations in your 'Dear All' post.....so very glad to hear all the points you make so well. Thanks everyone else too for all the great contributions....too many to mention;-) Sarah 9638 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Rob, > > I would be very grateful if you could tell me the mechanism by > which a moment once > > completely passed, can be seen as an object by a new, emergent > citta. I just > > don't understand it, but I'm sure there is a good structural > explanation. > > > > It must be involved in how one citta passes its attributes to the > next. And I am > > equally confused about how this 'handing-off' takes place, since > each citta is > > 'flattened' before the next arises...or is this not the case? > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ================= > >Dear Rob E., > I'm not sure what you mean by 'flattened'? Each citta has completely > passed away, ceased, ended before the next arises. that's what I meant. But there is no > space between them, no time gap. So they 'touch' in a sense? And thus the material is able to be transmitted from one to the next? > I've mentioned to you before the Patthana, which is considered the > most profound section of the Tipitaka and it is there that the 24 > conditions are elucidated. Ken O and Christine are now studying Nina > Van Gorkoms introduction to it and you could download it from > http://www.zolag.co.uk and we could all look at it together. It will > make things clearer I think. > best wishes > robert That is such a nice invitation, I can't resist. I can't promise I'll keep up too well, but I will try. After all, posting on dsg is a full time job. Best, Robert Ep. 9639 From: Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:41am Subject: latest edition of Buddhism in Daily Life I see that at http://www.zolag.co.uk the new editions of Buddhism in Daily Life and Abhidhamma in Daily life are now available for free download as pdf files (has the correct pali fonts). Rather nice of the publisher to do this since these books can still be purchased in hard copy. robert 9640 From: Robert Epstein Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] Hi Rob. Could you please tell me where on the site the intro to the Patthana is? I can't find it in the index on the site. I looked through Abhidhamma in Daily Life and a couple other of Nina's books and couldn't find it there....... Thanks, Robert ======== --- robertkirkpatrick@r... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Rob, > > I would be very grateful if you could tell me the mechanism by > which a moment once > > completely passed, can be seen as an object by a new, emergent > citta. I just > > don't understand it, but I'm sure there is a good structural > explanation. > > > > It must be involved in how one citta passes its attributes to the > next. And I am > > equally confused about how this 'handing-off' takes place, since > each citta is > > 'flattened' before the next arises...or is this not the case? > > > > Regards, > > Robert Ep. > > > > ================= > >Dear Rob E., > I'm not sure what you mean by 'flattened'? Each citta has completely > passed away, ceased, ended before the next arises. But there is no > space between them, no time gap. > I've mentioned to you before the Patthana, which is considered the > most profound section of the Tipitaka and it is there that the 24 > conditions are elucidated. Ken O and Christine are now studying Nina > Van Gorkoms introduction to it and you could download it from > http://www.zolag.co.uk and we could all look at it together. It will > make things clearer I think. > best wishes > robert 9641 From: Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] speed of cittas [Howard] --- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Robert Epstein wrote: > > > > Rob K: But there is no > > space between them, no time gap. > > So they 'touch' in a sense? And thus the material is able to be transmitted from > one to the next?= ++++++++++++ Dear Rob E., I used to have this simple mental picture like that. But then I found about about the plane where there is no nama at all, it is completely supressed for aeons and the state called nirodha-samapatti which some arahants attain(no nama for up to seven days). Conditions work in complex ways . Naturally we try to imagine how it works using what we know about the world we can see and so we think about nama(mentality) as if was like rupa(matter); but it is not like rupa. Actually even the world of rupa is much harder to visualise and put into words than it seems. Scientists have ever more complicated models of the atomic world but none of it really can tell us what it is exactly like. When we learned the solar system model in elementary chemistry, with electrons spinning round the atom this helped to explain some behaviour but if we thought that an atom actually looked like that we were wrong. What the Dhamma points to is seeing how it(nama or rupa) appears directly and so we don't have to have a mental picture really. Anyway you'll see more after studying conditions: the url for it is http://www.zolag.co.uk/condf.pdf best wishes robert > > > I've mentioned to you before the Patthana, which is considered the > > most profound section of the Tipitaka and it is there that the 24 > > conditions are elucidated. Ken O and Christine are now studying Nina > > Van Gorkoms introduction to it and you could download it from > > http://www.zolag.co.uk and we could all look at it together. It will > > make things clearer I think. > > best wishes > > robert > > That is such a nice invitation, I can't resist. I can't promise I'll keep up too > well, but I will try. > > After all, posting on dsg is a full time job. > > Best, > Robert Ep. 9642 From: Date: Mon Nov 26, 2001 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cheetahs and owls Hi Robert Ep., > function. If you tell me that sanna can have an 'impression' of a number of > recently passed moments, that it has received and carried over from one single > citta to the next, so that a given consequent citta can get the impression of > 'speedy' or 'blurring' cittas having passed by recently, then I will have my > question about how single cittas can have such an experience of a series of cittas > resolved. > > Ple