#128400 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Robert E, > > ------ > > RE: I'm probably the last one to say anything that would rate an official check mark, but I think it is possible to translate "acts of X" into cetana + rupas. > ------ > > KH: I am sure you're right – so an unofficial check mark from me! Thanks - any check mark is appreciated! :-) My problem, however, has been in thinking it was a fairly straightforward translation. There seem to be some difficulties. > > --------- > > RE: So an "act of dana," like the "act of murder" in kammapatha, a physical act > represents the completion of the intention/mental act of volition. > --------- > > KH: I think it would have to be a single-moment act of volition. Otherwise it would still be a concept. I still think it's a mistake to think that the actions of cittas and rupas can be understood as completely independent single-moment acts. Though there are interspersed dhammas of various kinds, there are many moments of particular types of cittas or rupas that lead to a particular result, not just isolated single dhammas unrelated to each other. Rupas that arise in kalapas are a very clear example of dhammas that must be organized in a series, and do not arise as single moments alone. There is a difference as far as I understand between the mechanism of a dhamma, which is always a completed single-moment event, and the way in which dhammas behave in creating accumulated results, which has to do with the development and passing on of tendencies and accumulations from dhamma to dhamma. In my view there is not a single moment of cetana that yields a discernable result, but cetana of the strength of kamma-patha for instance inevitably involves many many many moments of related arisings of cetana in order to move towards that very strong result. A single moment in isolation would not register on the scale. > --------------- > > RE: Rupas that > are produced by citta [if I've got that right] would fit neatly with that > formulation. One has the intention to commit murder, many cittas of rage and > revenge and imagining the 'killing of a being' with akusala cetana arise and if > strong enough lead to the production of physical rupas that we call "the act of > murder." > ---------------- > > KH: According to my understanding, rupas do not act together to form concepts. > > But what do I know? :-) I would say that they don't form concepts; what we call concepts are a false understanding of the actual arising of many cittas and rupas that are produced by citta. That is the actuality, the concept is the false understanding of such. > ---------------- > > RE: If one likewise imagines and intends a wholesome act "towards a being" > the fact that the being doesn't exist is beside the point, as it is a focal > point for the production of kusala citta, > ----------------- > > KH: That sounds right to me, but I would leave the explanation there. I wouldn't add a theory about rupas `forming physical actions.' Well, I am trying to explain the 'kamma patha' part of this, which is said to necessitate a physical act. To my understanding, what we call a physical act is really a series of rupas produced by cetana. > ------ > > RE: This is probably a very approximate idea of what happens, even if somewhat correct, but maybe gives an idea of the possibility of the cetana leading to "an act of dana" consisting purely of namas and rupas in paramatha terms. > ------ > > KH: Thanks for your help Robert, it will be good to see what others think of your theory. I would like to see that too, since I don't strictly know what I'm talking about. But what I am saying does represent many inquiries with people around here who are smarter in these areas. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128401 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: For example, 'recipient' means a stream of bhavanga cittas other than that of the 'giver'. > --------- > > KH: I don't want to side-track the conversation, but it would be good to know why you specify bhavanga cittas. > =============== J: As I recall, bhavanga cittas are said to be the dhammas denoted by references to the individual. I would assume this is because bhavanga cittas represent life in samsara, in the sense that all existences comprise at least a patisandhi and a cuti citta (both being bhavanga cittas). As regards the 5 senses realm, it is said that bhavanga cittas arise continuously except when there are sense- and mind-door processes. > =============== > KH: Apart from that, however, I am not helped much by the term `stream of cittas.' A stream is not a nama or a rupa, is it? It is just a concept. > =============== J: Yes, 'stream of cittas' is a concept. It denotes successive cittas that are related by disappearance condition (forget the Pali name), among others. Jon #128402 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > J: Yes, I agree, although I tend to think of it more in terms of the value > > of discussing Dhamma with persons interested in the teachings as recorded > > and passed down to us. Discussion works only if there's an agreed point of > > reference or authority, and in our case that's the original teachings and > > the commentarial tradition. > > > > > > HH: I guess you meant to say the Theravadin commentarial tradition? > > I mention it only because there are many rich and varied commentarial > traditions that are based on the Suttas. > =============== J: I know only the Theravadin (commonly referred to, together with the Tipitaka, as the Pali Canon). Jon #128403 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and KenH), > > > > =============== > > H: And to follow up, what, > > > > if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced > > through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door? > > > =============== > > > > J: To my understanding, the characteristic of a dhamma remains the same > > regardless of whether it is being experienced through a sense-door or > > through the mind-door. > > > > HH: Thanks for expanding. > > It seems to me from your descriptions there is no distinction possible > between entirely mind-made percepts and eye-sense based percepts. > =============== J: In your previous post you asked about visible object, one of the dhammas mentioned in the suttas, whereas you now refer to 'mind-made percepts' and 'eye-sense based percepts', terms not found in the texts (and not defined by you either). Perhaps you could explain the relation. Going back to your original question, to my understanding it is possible for the dhamma known as 'visible object' to be experienced, momentarily, through the mind-door after having been experienced through the eye-door. Subsequent experiences through the mind-door, however, are not of the visible object but of a concept of it. Jon #128404 From: "truth_aerator" RE: Thanks for that - what you are saying seems very well justified >by the quote. However, I don't really understand it. It seems to >me that the whole idea of kamma is that the forces put into play by >intentional action will eventually be satisfied by yielding the >fruit or result that is the natural outcome of that intention. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One possible, non-mystical interpretation is that Kamma is intentional action which brings intentional result. Example1: If you are get angry at co-worker (bad kamma) the co-worker can get angry at you in return (vipaka). Example2: If you behave with kindness to someone, then that person can also behave kindly to you. Or at least you have kind mental states. I have doubts that Kamma-vipaka can cause weather events and natural cataclysmic phenomena, unless it is somehow connected to intentional human action. IMHO, With metta, Alex #128405 From: Nina van Gorkom JJ: During India trip this year, Than Acharn Sujin gave short words > explaining aditthaana paarami. T.A. Sujin said: > > "Living this live for panna to be developed" > > This is aditthaana paarami. ------ N: Wonderful reminder, thank you. It helps seeing the right aim in life, instead of regretting the loss of a dear person. It depends on the moment whether one can really apply it. ------- Nina. #128406 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:40 am Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Jon, Going back a bit: ---- > > > J: There are different kinds of kusala cetana. The cetana concerned with 'giving something of use to another' is different from that which is (simply) 'kindly disposed towards another' (i.e., metta) or which 'abstains from doing an akusala act' (i.e., sila). ----- KH: There are three types of kusala, aren't there? dana, sila and bhavana. And I think metta is in the bhavana category. It can arise when there is right understanding of how kusala differs from akusala, or when there is right understanding of how reality differs from unreality. ---- > J: The situation/view we're discussing is this: Different kinds of kusala where the cetasikas involved are the same, but the conventional situation/set of facts differs. ---- KH: OK, but I had been under the impression that different cetasikas *were* involved. I would have thought sila had virati, metta had panna, and dana had neither of those. But I could be persuaded otherwise. :-) ------------ > J: Example: The same kusala cetasikas are involved in both metta and dana, but in the latter there is, in addition to metta, the 'giving of something useful'. ------------- KH: I think you said before that `gift' could refer to a paramattha dhamma. If I understood you correctly I would like to know what that paramattha dhamma might be. And if `gift' can refer to a paramattha dhamma, do we still need to concern ourselves with the concept of a gift? ------------------------ > J: Your question is whether holding this view involves vesting the concepts with some kind of 'ultimate validity'. I don't think it does. It means, however, that the 'only dhammas' aspect of the teachings cannot be fully appreciated by taking a snapshot of a single moment. ------------------------ KH: That could be my problem; I seem to be limited to the "snapshot" way of understanding. I should harder to see the other way. What would you call it, the "motion picture" way? :-) ------------------ > J: Consider the fact that the teachings can only be understood at times when the lifespan of human beings is within a certain range (not too short, not too long), so that if the lifespan is too long, the truths of old age, sickness and death cannot become sufficiently apparent (no 'sense of urgency' arises). ------------------ KH: The old "snapshot" Ken H would have found an explanation for that, no trouble! But my new "motion picture compliant" persona will try to see it your way. :-) Ken H #128408 From: "sarah" wrote: > I'm probably the last one to say anything that would rate an official check mark, but I think it is possible to translate "acts of X" into cetana + rupas. So an "act of dana," like the "act of murder" in kammapatha, a physical act represents the completion of the intention/mental act of volition. Rupas that are produced by citta [if I've got that right] would fit neatly with that formulation. One has the intention to commit murder, many cittas of rage and revenge and imagining the 'killing of a being' with akusala cetana arise and if strong enough lead to the production of physical rupas that we all "the act of murder." If one likewise imagines and intends a wholesome act "towards a being" the fact that the being doesn't exist is beside the point, as it is a focal point for the production of kusala citta, which, if strong enough, lead to the production of rupas that we call "an act of dana." This is probably a very approximate idea of what happens, even if somewhat correct, but maybe gives an idea of the possibility of the cetana leading to "an act of dana" consisting purely of namas and rupas in paramatha terms. ======= #128409 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > ------------------------ > > J: Your question is whether holding this view involves vesting the concepts with some kind of 'ultimate validity'. > > I don't think it does. It means, however, that the 'only dhammas' aspect of the teachings cannot be fully appreciated by taking a snapshot of a single moment. > ------------------------ > > KH: That could be my problem; I seem to be limited to the "snapshot" way of understanding. I should harder to see the other way. > > What would you call it, the "motion picture" way? :-) > =============== J: To be honest, I don't like either 'snapshot' or 'motion picture' :-)) Both tend to involve too much intellectualising :-)). > =============== > > J: Consider the fact that the teachings can only be understood at times when the > lifespan of human beings is within a certain range (not too short, not too > long), so that if the lifespan is too long, the truths of old age, sickness and > death cannot become sufficiently apparent (no 'sense of urgency' arises). > > ------------------ > > KH: The old "snapshot" Ken H would have found an explanation for that, no trouble! But my new "motion picture compliant" persona will try to see it your way. :-) > =============== J: Let's see how trying to see things a certain way helps. Might as well not bother :-)) While we're on the subject of sense of urgency, here's the entry for that term from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: *********************************** samvega-vatthu 'the sources of emotion', or of a sense of urgency, are 8: "birth, old age, disease, death, being 4; the suffering in the lower states of existence being the 5th; further, the misery of the past rooted in the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the future rooted in the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the present rooted in the search after food" (Vis.M. III.). *********************************** I would like to have included also the passage from the texts about the relevance of lifespan to the possibility of development of the path, but I have no idea where it's to be found (any suggestions anyone?). Jon #128410 From: "sarah" wrote: > >Pt: When it comes to "the act of dana", i don't know either. My guess is that it > has something to do with the fact that for sila and dana cittas - concepts are > objects of cittas at the time. Particularly, concepts of persons, but I don't > know if concepts of acts, gifts, etc, would also need to be present for dana to > take place. That's an interesting question. > ------------ S: Atthasaalinii 373: "Of these bases of meritorious action, charity arises with the thought 'I will give charity,' when he is making the gift, and when he reflects 'I have given it.' Thus the three volitions - preliminary volition, volition at the time of making the gift, subsequent volition - become one, and constitute the basis of meritorious act consisting of charity." "Etesu pana pu~n~nairiyavatthusu daanamaya.m naama 'daana.m dassaamii ti' cintentassa uppajjati, daana.m dadato uppajjati, 'dinnam me ti' paccavekkhantassa uppajjati. Evam pubbacetanaa mu~ncanacetanaa ti tisso pi cetanaa ekato katvaa daanamayam pu~n~nakiriyvatthu naama hoti." *** Alobha, non-attachment arises with all sobhana cittas and of course, there are many degrees and kinds of alobha - unselfishness, generosity, dispassion. As Ken pointed out, it can arise in sense-door as well as mind-door processes. When daana is performed, there must be alobha and there must be thoughts of others and of the gift or act which is given. Metta Sarah ==== #128411 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > KH: There are three types of kusala, aren't there? dana, sila and bhavana. And I think metta is in the bhavana category. It can arise when there is right understanding of how kusala differs from akusala, or when there is right understanding of how reality differs from unreality. > =============== J: My present understanding regarding the 3-fold classification of kusala as dana, sila and bhavana is that sila includes both restraint/avoidance (vaaritta-siila) and the performance of acts of, for example, courtesy, kindness and consideration, etc. (caaritta-siila). So I would suppose that metta would be included here. Certainly, there can be metta without panna. > =============== > KH: I think you said before that `gift' could refer to a paramattha dhamma. If I understood you correctly I would like to know what that paramattha dhamma might be. > =============== J: It does not refer to any specific paramattha dhamma/s. A gift may take many forms. The exact paramattha dhamma/s that are taken to be the 'gift' in a given case are not really relevant to the discussion we're having. But there must be a 'gift' in some form or another. > =============== > KH: And if `gift' can refer to a paramattha dhamma, do we still need to concern ourselves with the concept of a gift? > =============== J: For reasons just given, I believe we do need to concern ourselves with the concept of a gift, just as we need to concern ourselves with concepts of old age, sickness and death. Jon #128412 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Thanks Sarah for explaination. I like the Bodhi transl and can learn a lot from it. .. S: So glad to know you're reading the posts, Hang and to be able to welcome you here! For others, Hang was one of the very keen listeners during all our discussions in N.Vietnam. I also remember all your kindness and thoughtfulness for us all, Hang. Looking forward to seeing you again in Thailand soon. Metta Sarah ===== #128413 From: "sarah" wrote: > > > S: Pariyatti understanding becomes firmer and firmer as it is directly > > "tested". When there is direct understanding of attachment, hardness, > > seeing, visible object and other realities, no more doubt or hypothesising > > about the theory. > > > > For example, you agreed that the characteristic of attachment can be > > known. If someone tells you that this is just a hypothesis and cannot be > > tested, what will you say? ... >H: Attachment, like anything else that is experienced, is known directly. It > doesn't require understanding or hypothesis of any kind. ... S: It is known directly when there is understanding. When there is understanding it's meaningless to say that it is "just a hypothesis and cannot be tested". Most of the time attachment arises and there is no understanding of its nature at all. Metta Sarah ==== #128414 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept > > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is > > real but the concept is not. ... >H: There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts > that refer to realities of the world. ... S: Yes. Either way, they are concepts. ... > >H: While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real heat, > very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept > makes known. ... S: Yes, sammuti sacca, conventional truth. ... > > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment, > > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a > > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing > > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self > > or thing. .. >H: A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a > concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they? ... S: They "make known" or describe conventional truths "the being who can light a fire". It depends on the understanding when reading such statements as to whether there is any understanding of realities or not. Metta Sarah ===== #128415 From: "salaflowers" wrote: > > Dear Lan, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "salaflowers" wrote: > > > Thank you for your care about me :) > > > > Sarah, do you want to put me into the hot seat, again, hehe? > ... > S: Always happy to do this, Lan:-) > ... > > > > There are a lot of things useful, detailed and clear about realities which arise and pass away when listening to discussions here. Deep and professional ;) > > > > That's a good way to discuss because even reading the same sutta or same book but different understanding about those things written. > ... > S: Very true. L: But sometimes I also get lost in following discussions. Because you know, I'm almost new to Abhidhamma, still at the period of receiving basic knowledge while some questions or answers are not firm or of personal opinion :) > > > > It's not a problem for me to practise or not practise. Just did it, in a traditional way, by conditions. That's not to attach, not to reject. > ... > S: Actually, just conditioned dhammas, no matter how our lives go. > .. > > > > The first time, last year, Sis Tambach sent me some short teachings of Achan, I read a bit then informed her that could not get in, later see more usefulness. Some books already in my rack for years but didnt open those (but others) until one day, read and feel interest. That is, by conditions. > ... > S: Yes, we never know what will happen or what we'll take an interest in. > ... > > > > Everyday waking up, checking mail, reading some messages from DSG, raising question if any comes, naturally. That's enough for me. Here and now, not ready for Jan or anything else :) > ... > S: Good. Look forward to any qus anytime. Just "here and now", realities to be known. Ready for whatever appears now! > > Did you listen to any of the edited recordings from Poland or the ones we're editing and uploading now from Kaeng Krachan 2012? I think you'd appreciate these a lot. L: I've just downloaded some and will listen to them later. Sadhu for all what you all have done to propagate the Dhamma! > Metta > > Sarah > > p.s would be nice if you and Tam and any of the other members could put your photos in the member album on the homepage. L: Okey, I'll :) With metta, Lan./. #128416 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > >RE: Thanks for that - what you are saying seems very well justified >by the quote. However, I don't really understand it. It seems to >me that the whole idea of kamma is that the forces put into play by >intentional action will eventually be satisfied by yielding the >fruit or result that is the natural outcome of that intention. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > One possible, non-mystical interpretation is that Kamma is intentional action which brings intentional result. > > Example1: If you are get angry at co-worker (bad kamma) the co-worker can get angry at you in return (vipaka). No offense, but that seems like a somewhat degraded version of kamma to me, though I'm sure it's true as far as it goes. I do agree that putting out 'bad vibes' all the time will get you an accumulated negative return, but I would not reduce it down to something that only operates on the level of common-sense personality and day-to-day physical interaction. The Buddhist idea of kamma is dependent on a belief in the supernatural, though you can be an empirically-based Buddhist and reduce kamma to a kind of ordinary psychology principle, and some do. My understanding of it - and I alone am responsible for my own warped understanding - is that kamma is like an energy or vibration that is put out into the "Universe" by cetana and any actions or tendencies that are created by cetana, and those energy-waves will cause effects that eventually boomerang back to the sender. There is no contradiction, ultimately, between the law of physics and the law of kamma, except that you have to believe in additional dimensions in which the energy of the kamma can go from lifetime to lifetime, or from thought-form to physical result, and produce new configurations of life-experience [vipaka] at a future time, when conditions allow. That's my view of it anyway. I don't see it as a big deal, just that modern people don't tend to believe in anything they can't see and measure. > Example2: If you behave with kindness to someone, then that person can also behave kindly to you. Or at least you have kind mental states. I think you are right about the quality of mental states. You cause your own suffering when you harbor negative mental states, as they are always painful. And you also tend to cause physical discomforts of various times if you think, act and live in a negative way. But again I think that is just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to the negative energy of an akusala mental state and how does it get transmitted, stored and translated into vipaka, is very intriguing, and according to the local experts as well as the Buddha is too complex for us to fully trace. But we can understand the principle that "what goes around comes around" on many different levels. > I have doubts that Kamma-vipaka can cause weather events and natural cataclysmic phenomena, unless it is somehow connected to intentional human action. Hey Alex - I don't think anyone has proposed that kamma can be used to predict the weather! Even meteorologists can't do it very accurately! I am content to worry about the basic "garbage in-garbage out" level of vipaka. If you produce a bunch of negative kamma, you can surely look forward to a bunch of negative vipaka at some point, whenever it pops out of the Big Computer. So better to cultivate kusala states, unless one enjoys suffering, both now and later. The question is not weather bad kamma makes it rain, but whether bad kamma will lead to you in particular getting caught in the rain. Negative kamma will lead you to wind up in bad circumstances, when they become available. Until that time the negative vipaka remains in latency, but when bad conditions become available, and you are due for negative vipaka, then you will mysteriously leave the house without your umbrella. As Bob Dylan once said: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." If you are experiencing a bunch of negative states all the time, chances are there is a decent proportion of akusala vipaka at play. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = == #128417 From: "truth_aerator" No offense, but that seems like a somewhat degraded version of >kamma to me, though I'm sure it's true as far as it goes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is version that we can empirically observe and agree on. It is also a useful belief. >just that modern people don't tend to believe in anything they can't >see and measure. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people believe in many strange things. If someone says "the reason for such and such unexplained event is invisible goblin that deliberately hides behind phenomena" then it is only reasonable to ask for a proof of that. That person can reply: "This goblin is invisible thus we can not see it, and the proof of his invisibility is that we can't find him! Have faith, see his working in daily life!" Would you believe such a fairy tale? Or that "G-d sends circumstances to develop us and also sends evidence contrary to his own existence to test our faith. Have faith!" Would you believe it? I don't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. With best wishes, Alex #128418 From: "ptaus1" KH: But in a Dhamma discussion we are considering the *Buddha's* answers, aren't we? We are helping each other to consider what we have heard indirectly *from the Buddha*. pt: Objectively it seems we're discussing interpretations of what we read the Buddha allegedly said. > KH: It doesn't really matter if we are talking to a troll who is using DSG to vent his spleen. The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the present moment. Pt: That is the best case scenario, which happens almost never, mostly just more intellectualising in my case. > KH: Go back to the beginning and ask, "The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?" (Loka Sutta). I think you will agree with the Buddha's answer: there are seven worlds in one of which absolute realities are rising and falling away now. > > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it? I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time. And what about divine eye and all that. So, how much of what I think is seeing is in fact just concepts and thinking, I don't know. I don't think I was ever aware of "eye consciousness". But I don't mind taking your conclusion as a working hypothesis. Perhaps one day the eye consciousness bit will present itself to whatever other bits it needs to present itself to make sense. Best wishes pt #128419 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > On 21 December 2012 17:05, sarah wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > >S: Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction really > > not be known? > > > > >H: Hearing is the collective term for all the conditions that give sound. > > ... > > S: Not according to the Buddha's Teachings. Sound and the other rupas in > > the kalapa arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether they are > > heard or not. If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not be > > the hearing of it. > > ... > > > > > I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Unheard sound is not > something I intend to pursue, mainly because it is impossible to do so :-) > > I would have to say, though, that for you unheard sound has to have > implications for the reality of the present moment. Surely, there is a lot > of unheard sound happening right now, not to mention all those unseen > sights. Ahh, and the unfelt pleasures, what unfelt bliss! > > > > > >H:We know the difference because we know sound, > > ... > > S: The distinction is only known when there is clear comprehension of both > > sound and hearing - two distinct realities with very different > > characteristics. Sound cannot experience anything at all for a start, > > whereas hearing experiences sound. > > > > Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be clearer > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) like > a little atta to me. --------------------------------- HCW: I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. And I also agree that a sound and the hearing of it are, indeed, like two sides of a coin. There's no heads side of a coin without a tails side & vice-versa, and, for a container there's no inside without an outside & vice-versa. HOWEVER, are the tails side and the heads side of a coin one and the same? Are the inside and outside of a container one and the same? No, they are not. Mutual dependence (and consistent co-occurence) are NOT identity. ----------------------------------- > > > > ... > > >H: but not all the conditions for it arising. I don't believe that the > > Buddha taught that we need to know all the conditions that give rise to > > hearing of sound in order to end suffering. He was an ethicist, not a > > scientist. > > ... > > S: He taught a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound > > because they have to be understood as dhammas, as anatta. The sense objects > > experienced have to be understood as impermanent dhammas, distinct from > > those realities which experience them. This is the only way the > > unsatisfactoriness of dhammas can be known. > > > > From SN 35:136, "Delight in Forms" (Bodhi transl): > > > > "Forms, sounds, odours, tastes, > > Tactiles and all objects of mind - > > Desirable, lovely, agreeable, > > So long as it's said: 'They are.' > > > > "These are considered happiness > > By the world with its devas; > > But where these cease, > > That they consider suffereing. > > > > "The noble ones have seen as happiness > > The ceasing of identity. > > This [view] of those who clearly see > > Runs counter to the entire world. > > > > "What others speak of as happiness, > > That the noble ones say is suffering; > > What others speak of as suffering, > > That the noble ones know as bliss. > > > > "Behold this Dhamma hard to comprehend: > > Here the foolish are bewildered. > > For those with blocked minds it is obscure, > > Sheer darkness for those who do not see. > > > > "But for the good it is disclosed, > > It is light here for those who see. > > The dullards unskilled in the Dhamma > > Don't understand it in its presence. > > > > "This Dhamma isn't easily understood > > By those afflicted with lust for existence, > > Who flew along in the stream of existence, > > Deeply mired in Maara's realm. > > > > "Who else apart from the noble ones > > Are able to understand this state? > > When they have rightly known that state, > > The taintless ones are fully quenched." > > **** > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ==== > > > > > Thank you for the discussion. > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > > Herman > > > I do not know what I do not know ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128420 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Dec 24, 2012 11:22 am Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Rob E, ----- <. . .> > KH: I think it would have to be a single-moment act of volition. Otherwise it would still be a concept. > RE: I still think it's a mistake to think that the actions of cittas and rupas can be understood as completely independent single-moment acts. ------ KH: I am starting to think you might be right. :-) After many years at DSG I at last realise that I have been missing the point. Better late than never! So it's back to the beginning for me. But even that is easier said than done. Where is the beginning? Ken H #128421 From: "azita" wrote: > > Hi again Ken H > J: As I recall, bhavanga cittas are said to be the dhammas denoted by references to the individual. I would assume this is because bhavanga cittas represent life in samsara, in the sense that all existences comprise at least a patisandhi and a cuti citta (both being bhavanga cittas). > > As regards the 5 senses realm, it is said that bhavanga cittas arise continuously except when there are sense- and mind-door processes. Azita: I appreciate this very much, Jon. Very sobering words; if this is not understood now with a degree of right understanding then 'we' wander on and on in samsara endlessly. As it is now even with intellectual understanding there is wandering on and on but maybe not endlessly. Right now and like now. patience, courage and good cheer azita #128422 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > hallo Jon and KenH, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > > Hi again Ken H > > > J: As I recall, bhavanga cittas are said to be the dhammas denoted by references to the individual. I would assume this is because bhavanga cittas represent life in samsara, in the sense that all existences comprise at least a patisandhi and a cuti citta (both being bhavanga cittas). > > > > As regards the 5 senses realm, it is said that bhavanga cittas arise continuously except when there are sense- and mind-door processes. > > Azita: I appreciate this very much, Jon. Very sobering words; if this is not understood now with a degree of right understanding then 'we' wander on and on in samsara endlessly. As it is now even with intellectual understanding there is wandering on and on but maybe not endlessly. > =============== Jon: Thanks, and I agree. At the same time, we are not to take the role/existence of bhavanga as a given but only as a possible explanation of the way things are, to be tested against the world as we know it and our understanding of dhammas such as it is. So perhaps we are still some distance from even intellectual understanding :-)) > =============== > Azita: Right now and like now. > =============== Jon: Always good to be reminded :-)) Jon AdChoices #128423 From: "philip" > At the same time, we are not to take the role/existence of bhavanga as a given but only as a possible explanation of the way things are, to be tested against the world as we know it and our understanding of dhammas such as it is. > I disagree. The bhavangas are to be taken as a given, it is the only way they can possibly be understood. "...to be tested against the world as we know it and our understanding of dhammas such that it is.". Yuck! Sounds like a Kalamite. Stick with the texts when it comes to dhammas such as bhavangas, Jon. They cannot be "tested" by our piss-poor understanding. Phil #128424 From: Nina van Gorkom : due to giving, having the volition of giving as its condition is the meaning. (the achieving of giving) daana.m adhigaccha : [the understanding of] one who is coming to [adhigacchantassa]; of one who is arriving at [paapu.nantassa], is the meaning. yaa uppajjati : that understanding which arises associated in this way with the volition (cetana cetasika, kamma) of giving, this is called (wisdom by means of giving, daanamayaa pa~n~naa). But that has three forms, namely, prior volition, volition of relinquishing and subsequent volition according as it arises in one who thinks: 'I shall give a gift,' in one giving a gift or in one reviewing having given a gift. [paali]: [Vibhanga muula] 16. ~naa.navibha"ngo [...] tikamaatikaa 753. tividhena ~naa.navatthu -- (1) cintaamayaa pa~n~naa, sutamayaa pa~n~naa, bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa ** (2) daanamayaa pa~n~naa, siilamayaa pa~n~naa, bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa ** (3) adhisiile pa~n~naa, adhicitte pa~n~naa, adhipa~n~naaya pa~n~naa [...] tikaniddeso [...] ** 769. (20 ka) tattha katamaa daanamayaa pa~n~naa? daana.m aarabbha daanaadhigaccha yaa uppajjati pa~n~naa pajaananaa...pe0... amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi -- aya.m vuccati ``daanamayaa pa~n~naa''. ** (kha) tattha katamaa siilamayaa pa~n~naa? siila.m aarabbha siilaadhigaccha yaa uppajjati pa~n~naa pajaananaa...pe0... amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi -- aya.m vuccati ``siilamayaa pa~n~naa''. (ga) sabbaapi samaapannassa pa~n~naa bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa. [Vibhanga atthakatha, (Sammohavinodani)]: ** 769. Daana.m aarabbhaa ti daana.m pa.ticca; daanacetanaapaccayaati attho. Daanaadhigacchaa ti daana.m adhigacchantassa; paapu.nantassaati attho. Yaa uppajjatii ti yaa eva.m daanacetanaasampayuttaa pa~n~naa uppajjati, aya.m daanamayaa pa~n~naa naama. Saa panesaa 'daana.m dassaamii'ti cintentassa, daana.m dentassa, daana.m datvaa ta.m paccavekkhantassa [p: 413] pubbacetanaa, mu~ncacetanaa, aparacetanaati tividhena uppajjati. ** Siila.m aarabbha siilaadhigacchaa ti idhaapi siilacetanaasampayuttaava siilamayaa pa~n~naa ti adhippetaa. Ayampi 'siila.m puuressaamii'ti cintentassa, siila.m puurentassa, siila.m puuretvaa ta.m paccavekkhantassa pubbacetanaa, mu~ncacetanaa, aparacetanaati tividheneva uppajjati. #128426 From: "sarah" > Hi Sarah (pt and all), > > To pa~n~na realities like kamma (cetana cetasika arising in javana processes), or vipaaka (like seeing or birth/life-continuum/death consciousness) make sense; > while to the the self (avijja and its conditionally arisen associated realities) they don't, since all of them are no self, anatta. > All the self (avijja and its akusala associated realities) can do is to condition the future arising of more realities, including kusala ones, piling up more bricks on top of those already there. ... S: Well said and I liked the metaphor which followed Without the development of (insight) pa~n~naa, even moments of dana, sila and even samatha bhavana inc jhana just lead to more brick-laying. There can be dana, sila and samatha with or without any understanding at all. Thx for the added good quotes: ... > [Abhidhamma pitaka, Vibhanga] > > [3. Threefold exposition] > [...] > Therein what is 'wisdom by way of giving'? > Concerning giving, the achieving of giving, that which arises is wisdom, understanding ... (the standard definition of pa~n~na) ... absence of dullness, truth investigation, right view. > This is called wisdom by means of giving. > > Therein what is 'wisdom by way of morality (siila)'? > Concerning morality, the achieving of ... (as for giving) > This is called wisdom by means of morality (siila). > > All the wisdom of one who has attained is wisdom by means of development (bhaavanaamaya). <...> > > [Commentary to the Vibhanga, Dispeller of Delusion, PTS, p. 158 (vol.2)] > > (Concerning giving): daana.m aarabbha : due to giving, having the volition of giving as its condition is the meaning. > > (the achieving of giving) daana.m adhigaccha : [the understanding of] one who is coming to [adhigacchantassa]; of one who is arriving at [paapu.nantassa], is the meaning. > > yaa uppajjati : that understanding which arises associated in this way with the volition (cetana cetasika, kamma) of giving, this is called (wisdom by means of giving, daanamayaa pa~n~naa). > But that has three forms, namely, prior volition, volition of relinquishing and subsequent volition according as it arises in one who thinks: 'I shall give a gift,' in one giving a gift or in one reviewing having given a gift. ... S; Thx again for helpful text and Pali. Metta Sarah ====== #128427 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob E (& Ken H), > > I think that what you wrote below my sign off was a very good summary. > > I'd just stress that of course it's not just cittas with cetana, but many other mental factors are involved as well, but you're right to state it is cetana that is kamma. > > Some particularly good points such as this one: > > "If one likewise imagines and intends a wholesome act "towards a being" the fact that the being doesn't exist is beside the point, as it is a focal point for the production of kusala citta, which, if strong enough, lead to the production of rupas that we call "an act of dana."" > > Metta > > Sarah Thanks, Sarah - it is helpful for me to know that this is somewhat on the right track -- additional mental factors noted. That is an important addition for me to keep in mind. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128428 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Pt & Ken H, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > > >Pt: When it comes to "the act of dana", i don't know either. My guess is that it > > has something to do with the fact that for sila and dana cittas - concepts are > > objects of cittas at the time. Particularly, concepts of persons, but I don't > > know if concepts of acts, gifts, etc, would also need to be present for dana to > > take place. That's an interesting question. > > ------------ > > S: Atthasaalinii 373: > > "Of these bases of meritorious action, charity arises with the thought 'I will give charity,' when he is making the gift, and when he reflects 'I have given it.' Thus the three volitions - preliminary volition, volition at the time of making the gift, subsequent volition - become one, and constitute the basis of meritorious act consisting of charity." > > "Etesu pana pu~n~nairiyavatthusu daanamaya.m naama 'daana.m dassaamii ti' cintentassa uppajjati, daana.m dadato uppajjati, 'dinnam me ti' paccavekkhantassa uppajjati. Evam pubbacetanaa mu~ncanacetanaa ti tisso pi cetanaa ekato katvaa daanamayam pu~n~nakiriyvatthu naama hoti." > *** > Alobha, non-attachment arises with all sobhana cittas and of course, there are many degrees and kinds of alobha - unselfishness, generosity, dispassion. As Ken pointed out, it can arise in sense-door as well as mind-door processes. When daana is performed, there must be alobha and there must be thoughts of others and of the gift or act which is given. It occurs to me that thoughts of self and others, although both equally conceptual, can counterbalance each other. If the thought of self is associated with clinging, lobha, then the thought of others without clinging, with alobha, can be almost like an antidote for the self-engrossed state. I am just thinking of how dana may lead to higher states in that way by defeating lobha that clings to self and the benefits to the self. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128429 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi RobertE, all, > > > >No offense, but that seems like a somewhat degraded version of >kamma to me, though I'm sure it's true as far as it goes. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It is version that we can empirically observe and agree on. It is also a useful belief. Well there are all kinds of levels of things that we can discuss, agree on, think are useful. I guess it depends on the context how useful it really is. Reducing kamma to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is not bad in itself, as it is a wholesome principle, but it may not do justice to the understanding of kamma. For instance, to me kamma stands for the endless series of results that come from codependent arising, which is a little bit more of a sort of structural reality than being nice to someone and having them be nice in return. I'm just as happy to strive for a balanced and harmonious life as anyone else, and I do think that's part of the understanding of kamma, but just the tip of the iceberg. > >just that modern people don't tend to believe in anything they can't >see and measure. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Some people believe in many strange things. Red herring, anyone? The strange things that one may believe in if one accepts Buddha as teacher are not just any old strange things, though I do have a problem with cloud gods causing rainstorms. That seems very "Thor" to me. > If someone says "the reason for such and such unexplained event is invisible goblin that deliberately hides behind phenomena" then it is only reasonable to ask for a proof of that. > > That person can reply: > > "This goblin is invisible thus we can not see it, and the proof of his invisibility is that we can't find him! Have faith, see his working in daily life!" > > Would you believe such a fairy tale? No, but I think you are implying that all the mystical ideas in Buddhist suttas are dismissed by you because you don't have proof? If that is correct, then you are judging Buddhism by the scientific method and will not accept anything that doesn't live in a testube or respond to a voltmeter? None of the structures of the personality can really be analyzed in a purely scientific way. I think Buddha's psychology of the personality is probably the most sophisticated. > Or that "G-d sends circumstances to develop us and also sends evidence contrary to his own existence to test our faith. Have faith!" > > Would you believe it? I don't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Well I think a lot that cannot be "seen" can still be experienced either subjectively or mentally. There are other levels of even common reality that are not dependent on the external senses and that which can be concretely apprehended. When we understand a nuance of language or the meaning of a particular type of smile, that can't be broken down into concrete empirical terms. We have levels of meaning and interpretation that are beyond objective science, and they are created by a different order of events that take place in and through consciousness, not through what we identify as objective structures. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128431 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Hi Rob E, > > ----- > <. . .> > > KH: I think it would have to be a single-moment act of volition. Otherwise it would still be a concept. > > > RE: I still think it's a mistake to think that the actions of cittas and rupas can be understood as completely independent single-moment acts. > ------ > > KH: I am starting to think you might be right. :-) After many years at DSG I at last realise that I have been missing the point. Better late than never! > > So it's back to the beginning for me. But even that is easier said than done. Where is the beginning? Well, it takes a very brave person to declare themselves a beginner - I think we'd all benefit from taking that approach. It also shows your dedication to the "truth." If it turns out that the truth is inconvenient, you will bend towards it rather than the other way around. I'm so far from understanding how things really work, I say this with an accompanying grain of salt, but this is how I would approach the whole subject: - Use your understanding of single-moment dhammas to realize the basic "unit" of reality, because that is still it - a single dhamma rising and falling. - Understand the importance of accumulations and tendencies and start to look at what is passed on and developed from dhamma to dhamma, even as each individual dhamma falls completely away. - Look at the relationship between namas and rupas and the distinction between them, since that represents the most important initial stage of insight. I'm sure there's a lot more, but I think that gives a simple context for everything else. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - #128432 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > ... > > HH: Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be clearer > > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) like > > a little atta to me. > --------------------------------- > HCW: > I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. > =============== J: I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by 'no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on'. Taking sound, for example, do you mean that no thunder occurs, that the wind does not howl, or that the babbling brook doesn't babble, unless there is a sentient being within earshot (presumably not)? How is the statement to be understood? Thanks. Jon #128433 From: "truth_aerator" RE:For instance, to me kamma stands for the endless series of >results that come from codependent arising, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the difference between kamma and 22 other paccayas? http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/paccaya.htm >RE:No, but I think you are implying that all the mystical ideas in >Buddhist suttas are dismissed by you because you don't have proof? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like you don't believe in various fairy tales found in Bible or some other religious books, same with Tipitaka. >RE:If that is correct, then you are judging Buddhism by the >scientific method and will not accept anything that doesn't live in >a testube or respond to a voltmeter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we don't have EVIDENCE for, is "faith" of which there are "dime a dozen". By sources of knowledge I take sense-perception and proper inference. I believe that inference is valid only if it can be verified empirically. Improper inference: Just because someone was right 9 times doesn't make one right the 10th time. Induction has its problems. With best wishes, Alex #128434 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > ... > > > HH: Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > > > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be clearer > > > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) like > > > a little atta to me. > > --------------------------------- > > HCW: > > I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. > > =============== > > J: I'd be interested to understand more about what you mean by 'no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on'. > > Taking sound, for example, do you mean that no thunder occurs, that the wind does not howl, or that the babbling brook doesn't babble, unless there is a sentient being within earshot (presumably not)? How is the statement to be understood? Thanks. ------------------------------------ HCW: I take "the thunder," the howling wind," and "the babbling brook" to be reasonable stories of ours - concepts - constructed from the interrelated sounds, sensations, and sights that we experience, and these latter more fundamental elements of experience, these "paramattha dhammas," if you will, I take to be object-contents of 5-sense-door consciousness. Moreover, beings with similar histories and, especially, similar kamma, encounter similar/corresponding experiences. ------------------------------------- > > Jon > ==================================== With metta, Howard P. S. Jon, have you no comments or questions pertaining to the rest of my post? Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128435 From: "connie" RE: > Red herring, anyone? > cp: thank you, no, Rob. Really, full of beans already but who ever gets their bellyfull of stories? Btw, Alex, your harping about trains and trees almost drove me over the edge here awhile back. Sure enough, slammed the old samurai smack dab into a rusty guard rail on ice between the rock wall and way down. Cheap thrills can be so hard to come by, thanks! Guess it pays to be careful who you listen to, though. > The strange things that one may believe in if one accepts Buddha as teacher are not just any old strange things, though I do have a problem with cloud gods causing rainstorms. That seems very "Thor" to me. > "Shoten zenjin" to me; not that i always believe they're out to protect me. Still just "characteristic functions" that don't depend on faith; no need to look outside or believe in anyone at all. To disenchantment! connie #128436 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > > RE: > > Red herring, anyone? > > cp: > thank you, no, Rob. Really, full of beans already but who ever gets their bellyfull of stories? > > Btw, Alex, your harping about trains and trees almost drove me over the edge here awhile back. Sure enough, slammed the old samurai smack dab into a rusty guard rail on ice between the rock wall and way down. Cheap thrills can be so hard to come by, thanks! Guess it pays to be careful who you listen to, though. > > > > RE: The strange things that one may believe in if one accepts Buddha as teacher are not just any old strange things, though I do have a problem with cloud gods causing rainstorms. That seems very "Thor" to me. > > > > cp: "Shoten zenjin" to me; not that i always believe they're out to protect me. > =============== J: For those of you who, like me, have difficulty keeping up with Connie's eclectic references (direct and indirect :-)), I've done a quick google for shoten zenjin - see below. > =============== > cp: Still just "characteristic functions" that don't depend on faith; no need to look outside or believe in anyone at all. To disenchantment! > =============== J: I'll drink to that! Jon Jpn shoten-zenjin: "heavenly gods and benevolent deities. Also, Buddhist gods, protective gods, tutelary gods, guardian deities, etc. The gods that protect the correct Buddhist teaching and its practitioners. Shoten Zenjin is a borrowed Chinese word for the protective forces of nature. What are shoten-zenjin (Buddhist gods)? Shoten-zenjin are occurrences that are not humanly possible, can't be seen and are not scientifically explained. They are inexplicable phenomena that occur. In Buddhism first there is the Law, then the Buddha. What protects the Law and the Buddha are shoten zenjin. #128437 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Jon - > ... > HCW: > I take "the thunder," the howling wind," and "the babbling brook" to be reasonable stories of ours - concepts - constructed from the interrelated sounds, sensations, and sights that we experience, and these latter more fundamental elements of experience, these "paramattha dhammas," if you will, I take to be object-contents of 5-sense-door consciousness. > =============== J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your terminology, audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental elements' arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not independently of hearing consciousness? If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to experience it. Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for the occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as temperature, air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > =============== > HCW: > P. S. Jon, have you no comments or questions pertaining to the rest of my post? > =============== J: My recollection is that the rest of your post follows from the opening assertion now being discussed, but I'll have another look and get back separately on it. Jon #128438 From: "sarah" wrote: > > S: The rupas in a kalapa are realities regardless of whether they are > > experienced or not. If any rupa is not experienced now, it is not an > > experienced reality at the present moment. > > > > Note: only one rupa in a kalapa that has arisen can be experienced at a > > time. ... >H: Thank you - that clarifies. > > How are kalapas known? ... S: Only by highly developed panna. The third vipassana nana is the comprehension by groups "sammasana ~naana" . This comes about through the panna which directly understands the rapid succession of namas and rupas as they arise and fall away. This is quite different from an intellectual understanding now that they must fall away very fast and it's far more developed than at the first 2 stages of insight when namas and rupas are directly understood when they appear, quite distinct from each other, but there is not yet the direct penetration of their impermanence. Metta Sarah ==== #128439 From: "sarah" wrote: > We see dana described as the giving of a suitable gift to a person who accepts that gift. But, since there is ultimately no person to give to, and no gift (no article of a permanent, non-momentary, nature), why isn't there ultimately no dana? ... S: Like now when we share our reflections on the Dhamma, there is Dhamma dana. In the ultimate sense, there are the intentions to give and there are the bodily intimations and other rupas conditioned by those thoughts and intentions. Whether or not there is any understanding of paramattha dhammas, there is the good thought about the other's welfare, the presentation of visible objects that there may or may not be conditons for the vipaka cittas (of the 'other') to experience. What we see or hear depends on kamma, but visible objects and sounds are not all the same. Hearing the sound of a friendly voice is different from hearing the sound of a hostile voice. Everyone prefers hearing the sound of a friendly voice or seeing pleasant visible object. Back to the example of the Dhamma dana, it depends on the kamma as to what is seen and on the accumulations of the reader as to whether the visible objects seen are a condition for attachment, wisdom or aversion. We just develop confidence in the value of kusala of all kinds without expectation or fear about the response. We know that in truth, there is no person or 'gift' as you describe above - just various dhammas that can be referred to in such a way. Not sure if this helps at all..... Metta Sarah ===== #128440 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > HCW: > > I take "the thunder," the howling wind," and "the babbling brook" to be reasonable stories of ours - concepts - constructed from the interrelated sounds, sensations, and sights that we experience, and these latter more fundamental elements of experience, these "paramattha dhammas," if you will, I take to be object-contents of 5-sense-door consciousness. > > =============== > > J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your terminology, audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. > > My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental elements' arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not independently of hearing consciousness? -------------------------------------- HCW: I believe so, though I certainly do not KNOW it to be so. I interpret certain suttas to assert that, but if I'm wrong, it does not bother me. -------------------------------------- > > If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to experience it. -------------------------------------- HCW: No sound other than as content of consciousness. ------------------------------------- Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for the occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as temperature, air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. ------------------------------------- HCW: I view this as experiences, conscious or subliminal, serving as conditions for other experiences. ------------------------------------- > > Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > > > =============== > > HCW: > > P. S. Jon, have you no comments or questions pertaining to the rest of my post? > > =============== > > J: My recollection is that the rest of your post follows from the opening assertion now being discussed, but I'll have another look and get back separately on it. --------------------------------- HCW: Okay, because I suspect you may agree with the rest of what I wrote. --------------------------------- > > Jon > ============================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128442 From: "aungsoeminuk" ================================ > DMR _ Dhamma Rakkhita: Dear Jon, Howard, and all.Long time no see no hear. I am old Htoo. Htoo Tint Naing.I was revising Paa.li grammatical texts so that I can surf along Paa.li cannon (the original texts spoken/preached by The Lord Buddha). > >> With Unlimited Metta, >> DMR_ Dhamma Rakkhita ( Htoo Tint Naing ) ----------------------------------------------- Christine: How wonderful to read you again Htoo!! I have often wondered where you were and what you were doing. with metta Christine --------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks Christine. I just found this message. I was being on studying Pi.taka and Paa.li. I am non-exhausting in connection with Dhamma. The problem is the connection status. I am almost alway with at least a dhamma book. Without book I will be citing in my mind Abhidhamma, samatha and vipassanaa. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ( Dhamma Rakkhita _DMR ) #128443 From: Nina van Gorkom I was being on studying Pi.taka and Paa.li. I am non-exhausting in > connection with Dhamma. The problem is the connection status. I am > almost alway with at least a dhamma book. Without book I will be > citing in my mind Abhidhamma, samatha and vipassanaa. ------ N: I know that you are always busy with the teachings and thoroughly studying it, including the Pali, in order to get a better understanding of the meaning of the words. I am always appreciating Khun Sujin who stresses again and again that we have to investigate the reality appearing at this moment, and this is not easy. We have to hear this again and again. In this way we shall read the texts in a different way, they become much more related to daily life. If you care to listen to the audio, the discussions in Poland, that Jon and Sarah posted (DSG), you will hear many helpful reminders about the present moment. Scroll down to below, work under construction. http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Nina. #128444 From: Nina van Gorkom I feel sad when I don't have opportunity to go to India and to > attend Dhamma discussion like before. Whenever I feel that way, I > calm myself with what Than ajarn Sujin keeps saying " Dhamma is > Now". Can you please advice? > ------ N: Thank you for your good wishes. We have to follow conditions, whatever happens in our life. We cannot go against conditions. For you the conditions are such that you cannot go to India. There are realities presenting themselves through six doors, no matter in India or in Greece or Nice. Study the present reality now, wherever you are. Visible object here, visible object there, just that which can be seen through eyesense. There is seeing when we do not think about what is experienced. Seeing is different from thinking of a table or tree we perceive. In this way we can learn what a reality, a dhamma is, we can learn that there is dhamma now. At first this may not mean much to us, or we may just repeat the words. But understanding of dhamma can very, very gradually grow, just a little. It does not matter that it is just a little. Remember, development is ciira kaala bhaavanaa as Acharn says, it takes many lives, a long time (ciira kaala). ------- Nina. #128445 From: "Robert E" wrote: > What we don't have EVIDENCE for, is "faith" of which there are > "dime a dozen". I think you sort of conveniently skipped the examples I gave that are not amenable to objective inquiry. It would be more worthwhile to look at how those are properly understood, not whether an invisible being exists or whatever. > By sources of knowledge I take sense-perception and proper inference. > I believe that inference is valid only if it can be verified empirically. > > Improper inference: Just because someone was right 9 times doesn't make one right the 10th time. Induction has its problems. That's not a really pertinent example. No one is saying that Buddha is right because he's always right. Instead it is the logic and applicability of the whole system that is at issue. Why not look at an example from Buddhist analysis and see if it holds up? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = #128446 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > The strange things that one may believe in if one accepts Buddha as teacher are not just any old strange things, though I do have a problem with cloud gods causing rainstorms. That seems very "Thor" to me. > > > > "Shoten zenjin" to me; not that i always believe they're out to protect me. Still just "characteristic functions" that don't depend on faith; no need to look outside or believe in anyone at all. To disenchantment! www.udumbarafoundation.org/Interests/shotenzenjin.html "Shoten-zenjin are occurrences that are not humanly possible, can't be seen and are not scientifically explained. They are inexplicable phenomena that occur." Just "characteristic functions?" Still, whether or not they exist/actually take place may still be an issue...? Do you have a handy example? Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128447 From: "truth_aerator" RE:I think you sort of conveniently skipped the examples I gave that >are not amenable to objective inquiry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many teachings are not amenable to objective inquiry and many teachings contradict what we today know about the world. It is one thing to take it on faith. But it is faith. In this way it is more proper to go about it. > That's not a really pertinent example. No one is saying that >Buddha is right because he's always right. Instead it is the logic >and applicability of the whole system that is at issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And what logic in rain-gods or 5,000km long fish? IMHO, With best wishes, Alex #128448 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:43 pm Subject: Re: The non-issue of control kenhowardau Hi Pt, --- <. . .> > > KH: The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the present moment. > Pt: That is the best case scenario, which happens almost never, mostly just more intellectualising in my case. --- KH: Yes, it is the best case scenario. Kusala cittas are very rare, and cittas with panna are rarer still. ------- <. . .> >> KH: > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it? > Pt: I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time. -------- KH: I once would have said there were seeing cittas in amongst lucid-thinking cittas. But now I am not sure if I've got that right. We are not blind and the sphere into which we were born does contain light. Therefore the eye rupa can arise and contact a visible rupa that comes within its range. If we are in a darkened room with our eyes closed there won't be many visible rupas within range - just blackness. But (if I understand correctly) seeing a black visible object is still seeing. That could be wrong though. I once suggested smelling consciousness was always occurring in daily life too - even if we weren't aware of any particular odour. But I think I was told otherwise. Therefore, I might also be wrong to suggest there is seeing (of blackness) when there is no awareness of blackness. This is very difficult, Pt, we need to listen more! Ken H #128449 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:08 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Robert E, Thanks for your help in my hour of need. :-) ----- > RE: I'm so far from understanding how things really work, I say this with an accompanying grain of salt, but this is how I would approach the whole subject: > - Use your understanding of single-moment dhammas to realize the basic "unit" of reality, because that is still it - a single dhamma rising and falling. ----- KH: With you so far; there is always only one citta at a time. --------- > RE: > - Understand the importance of accumulations and tendencies and start to look at what is passed on and developed from dhamma to dhamma, even as each individual dhamma falls completely away. --------- KH: Yes, the present reality was conditioned by the past reality. That's how it came to be the way it is. ------------- > RE: > - Look at the relationship between namas and rupas and the distinction between them, since that represents the most important initial stage of insight. > I'm sure there's a lot more, but I think that gives a simple context for everything else. ----- KH: Thanks again, Robert. Ken H #128450 From: "Ken H" Date: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:57 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ----------- >> KH: <. . .> why isn't there ultimately no dana? > S: Like now when we share our reflections on the Dhamma, there is Dhamma dana. ----------- KH: I think what I mean (in my confused state) is that alobha exists in a single moment of consciousness whereas dana (I am told) does not. By my (incorrect) reckoning that makes alobha a reality and dana a concept. From now on I will be trying to see that my "snapshot" way of understanding reality is wrong, and another (as yet unnamed) way of understanding is required. ------ <. . .> > S: Not sure if this helps at all..... ------ KH: I am sure it did, a little bit. Thank you, every little bit helps. Ken H #128451 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Hi Alex. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" > wrote: > > > > Hello RobertE, Herman, Howard, all, > > > > >RE: Is there any scriptural material that would clarify the > >exclusivity of vipaka to influence of kamma? Since it is called >"kamma > vipaka" my assumption is that whatever is correctly called >vipaka is the > direct [though delayed] result of kamma. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > There is interesting Sivaka sutta. > > > > > > "There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on > internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the > change of the seasons... from uneven[2] care of the body... from harsh > treatment... from the result of kamma. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.than.html#fnt-2 > > > > > > Note that kamma is one of many conditions. > > Thanks for that - what you are saying seems very well justified by the > quote. However, I don't really understand it. It seems to me that the whole > idea of kamma is that the forces put into play by intentional action will > eventually be satisfied by yielding the fruit or result that is the natural > outcome of that intention. > > So the seeming arbitrariness of all these other conditions that may or may > not bring out a particular result along with kamma, depending on how they > all interact, doesn't seem to do much justice to the "lawful" realization > of kamma as vipaka. As far as I understand, many conditions cause various > results, but only kamma causes vipaka. So these other events that come from > other causes are not vipaka. > > It makes sense that kamma needs other conditions to arise to allow for the > realization of the consequent vipaka, but that is as supporting conditions, > while the kamma is causal. > > HH: Sorry for the delay in posting. There is a new baby girl in the world - Grace, born on Christmas day. The linchpin of my understanding of kamma remains this well-known text: >'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its > result is experienced,' Kamma, and it's result, is all about mindedness towards "the world". If in certain circumstances we are impatient, angry, caring, dismissive etc about whatever is happening, then at other times and in similar circumstances, we will feel as though this is how "the world" is feeling about us. A trivial, but very real, example may help to illustrate; If there is regular annoyance with drivers at the head of the queue who do not move when the light turns green, when we are at the head of the queue and realise that we have been daydreaming while the light has changed colour, we will feel as though the drivers behind us are annoyed with us. Of course we have no way of knowing that to be fact, and we are, of course, projecting.... The result of kamma, vipakka, is projection. > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know AdChoices #128453 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon (and KenH), > > > > > > > =============== > > > H: And to follow up, what, > > > > > > if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object > experienced > > > through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind > door? > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: To my understanding, the characteristic of a dhamma remains the same > > > regardless of whether it is being experienced through a sense-door or > > > through the mind-door. > > > > > > > HH: Thanks for expanding. > > > > > It seems to me from your descriptions there is no distinction possible > > between entirely mind-made percepts and eye-sense based percepts. > > =============== > > J: In your previous post you asked about visible object, one of the > dhammas mentioned in the suttas, whereas you now refer to 'mind-made > percepts' and 'eye-sense based percepts', terms not found in the texts (and > not defined by you either). Perhaps you could explain the relation. > HH: Certainly. Somewhere in the texts, I am sure, there is a story about whether an object is a rope or a snake. This is a story about the possibility of misperception. There are accurate concepts of the world, and there are inaccurate ones. Now, whether a seen object is a snake or a rope relies on seeing with the eyes first, and then again and again. When you are in jhana, and a cobra wraps itself around you to shield you from the weather, and all of this for seven days and seven nights, this does not depend on seeing at all. It is totally mind-made. We are talking about the spectrum perception-illusion-hallucination. > Going back to your original question, to my understanding it is possible > for the dhamma known as 'visible object' to be experienced, momentarily, > through the mind-door after having been experienced through the eye-door. > Subsequent experiences through the mind-door, however, are not of the > visible object but of a concept of it. > > I question the relevance of anything "momentary" in coming to understand whether there is perception, illusion or hallucination. > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128454 From: "connie" > Just "characteristic functions?" Still, whether or not they exist/actually take place may still be an issue...? > > Do you have a handy example? > con: Nice thing about the shoten zenjin is that they can be anyone or anything, depending on how one's own particular brand of "science" shapes things up. Fire's a fairly obvious one. Another example, from Phil (at grandpa Herman's dentist's): To the understanding that ends the rains. #128455 From: "connie" HH: Sorry for the delay in posting. There is a new baby girl in the world - > Grace, born on Christmas day. > connie: Always more or less sad to hear of another birth, but happy she's in the realm of a hope of a chance. Any particular significance to the name? Or the day, for that matter. .... > > The result of kamma, vipakka, is projection. > connie: Rather, that projection, generally akusala thinking, is new kamma. Happy for you having your life touched by Grace. #128456 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > S: Pariyatti understanding becomes firmer and firmer as it is directly > > > "tested". When there is direct understanding of attachment, hardness, > > > seeing, visible object and other realities, no more doubt or > hypothesising > > > about the theory. > > > > > > For example, you agreed that the characteristic of attachment can be > > > known. If someone tells you that this is just a hypothesis and cannot > be > > > tested, what will you say? > ... > >H: Attachment, like anything else that is experienced, is known directly. > It > > > doesn't require understanding or hypothesis of any kind. > ... > S: It is known directly when there is understanding. When there is > understanding it's meaningless to say that it is "just a hypothesis and > cannot be tested". > > Most of the time attachment arises and there is no understanding of its > nature at all. > > I get the feeling we are talking at cross purposes - ships in the night :-) I do not think that knowing and understanding are the same thing. For example, knowing pain and understanding pain are very different. We all know pain, none of us understand it. > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128457 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Alex! > > My understanding of it - and I alone am responsible for my own warped > understanding > HH: :-) :-) > - is that kamma is like an energy or vibration that is put out into the > "Universe" by cetana and any actions or tendencies that are created by > cetana, and those energy-waves will cause effects that eventually boomerang > back to the sender. > HH: Do you believe that those energy waves can cause other beings to behave in a certain way? I'll say upfront here that I don't believe that. Kamma-vipaka is a one way street only :-) No further comments below. > There is no contradiction, ultimately, between the law of physics and the > law of kamma, except that you have to believe in additional dimensions in > which the energy of the kamma can go from lifetime to lifetime, or from > thought-form to physical result, and produce new configurations of > life-experience [vipaka] at a future time, when conditions allow. That's my > view of it anyway. I don't see it as a big deal, just that modern people > don't tend to believe in anything they can't see and measure. > > > > Example2: If you behave with kindness to someone, then that person can > also behave kindly to you. Or at least you have kind mental states. > > I think you are right about the quality of mental states. You cause your > own suffering when you harbor negative mental states, as they are always > painful. And you also tend to cause physical discomforts of various times > if you think, act and live in a negative way. But again I think that is > just the tip of the iceberg. What happens to the negative energy of an > akusala mental state and how does it get transmitted, stored and translated > into vipaka, is very intriguing, and according to the local experts as well > as the Buddha is too complex for us to fully trace. But we can understand > the principle that "what goes around comes around" on many different levels. > > > > I have doubts that Kamma-vipaka can cause weather events and natural > cataclysmic phenomena, unless it is somehow connected to intentional human > action. > > Hey Alex - I don't think anyone has proposed that kamma can be used to > predict the weather! Even meteorologists can't do it very accurately! I am > content to worry about the basic "garbage in-garbage out" level of vipaka. > If you produce a bunch of negative kamma, you can surely look forward to a > bunch of negative vipaka at some point, whenever it pops out of the Big > Computer. So better to cultivate kusala states, unless one enjoys > suffering, both now and later. The question is not weather bad kamma makes > it rain, but whether bad kamma will lead to you in particular getting > caught in the rain. Negative kamma will lead you to wind up in bad > circumstances, when they become available. Until that time the negative > vipaka remains in latency, but when bad conditions become available, and > you are due for negative vipaka, then you will mysteriously leave the house > without your umbrella. > > As Bob Dylan once said: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the > wind blows." If you are experiencing a bunch of negative states all the > time, chances are there is a decent proportion of akusala vipaka at play. > > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = = = = == > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128458 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > HH: I hope things are settling down for you after the rampage of the weather gods. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > On 21 December 2012 17:05, sarah wrote: > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > >S: Is hearing and the sound heard the same? Can the distinction > really > > > not be known? > > > > > > >H: Hearing is the collective term for all the conditions that give > sound. > > > ... > > > S: Not according to the Buddha's Teachings. Sound and the other rupas > in > > > the kalapa arise and fall away all the time, regardless of whether > they are > > > heard or not. If there were no sound that had arisen, there could not > be > > > the hearing of it. > > > ... > > > > > > > > > I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. Unheard sound is not > > something I intend to pursue, mainly because it is impossible to do so > :-) > > > > I would have to say, though, that for you unheard sound has to have > > implications for the reality of the present moment. Surely, there is a > lot > > of unheard sound happening right now, not to mention all those unseen > > sights. Ahh, and the unfelt pleasures, what unfelt bliss! > > > > > > > > > >H:We know the difference because we know sound, > > > ... > > > S: The distinction is only known when there is clear comprehension of > both > > > sound and hearing - two distinct realities with very different > > > characteristics. Sound cannot experience anything at all for a start, > > > whereas hearing experiences sound. > > > > > > > Sound and it's causes - hearing - remain inseparable for me. You cannot > > have one without the other, like two sides of one coin. I can't be > clearer > > than that, sorry. Hearing, according to your description, sounds (sic) > like > > a little atta to me. > --------------------------------- > HCW: > I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard > sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. And I also agree > that a sound and the hearing of it are, indeed, like two sides of a coin. > There's no heads side of a coin without a tails side & vice-versa, and, > for a container there's no inside without an outside & vice-versa. HOWEVER, > are the tails side and the heads side of a coin one and the same? Are the > inside and outside of a container one and the same? No, they are not. > Mutual dependence (and consistent co-occurence) are NOT identity. > ----------------------------------- > > HH: I think you are right. A boundary draws attention to a real difference, it doesn't create that difference. > > > > > > > ... > > > >H: but not all the conditions for it arising. I don't believe that the > > > Buddha taught that we need to know all the conditions that give rise to > > > hearing of sound in order to end suffering. He was an ethicist, not a > > > scientist. > > > ... > > > S: He taught a lot about seeing and visible object, hearing and sound > > > because they have to be understood as dhammas, as anatta. The sense > objects > > > experienced have to be understood as impermanent dhammas, distinct from > > > those realities which experience them. This is the only way the > > > unsatisfactoriness of dhammas can be known. > > > > > > From SN 35:136, "Delight in Forms" (Bodhi transl): > > > > > > "Forms, sounds, odours, tastes, > > > Tactiles and all objects of mind - > > > Desirable, lovely, agreeable, > > > So long as it's said: 'They are.' > > > > > > "These are considered happiness > > > By the world with its devas; > > > But where these cease, > > > That they consider suffereing. > > > > > > "The noble ones have seen as happiness > > > The ceasing of identity. > > > This [view] of those who clearly see > > > Runs counter to the entire world. > > > > > > "What others speak of as happiness, > > > That the noble ones say is suffering; > > > What others speak of as suffering, > > > That the noble ones know as bliss. > > > > > > "Behold this Dhamma hard to comprehend: > > > Here the foolish are bewildered. > > > For those with blocked minds it is obscure, > > > Sheer darkness for those who do not see. > > > > > > "But for the good it is disclosed, > > > It is light here for those who see. > > > The dullards unskilled in the Dhamma > > > Don't understand it in its presence. > > > > > > "This Dhamma isn't easily understood > > > By those afflicted with lust for existence, > > > Who flew along in the stream of existence, > > > Deeply mired in Maara's realm. > > > > > > "Who else apart from the noble ones > > > Are able to understand this state? > > > When they have rightly known that state, > > > The taintless ones are fully quenched." > > > **** > > > > > > Metta > > > > > > Sarah > > > ==== > > > > > > > > Thank you for the discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers > > > > Herman > > > > > > I do not know what I do not know > ============================= > With metta, > Howard > > Seamless Interdependence > > /A change in anything is a change in everything/ > > (Anonymous) > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128459 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > hi Herman, > > > > HH: Sorry for the delay in posting. There is a new baby girl in the > world - > > Grace, born on Christmas day. > > > > connie: Always more or less sad to hear of another birth, > HH: I understand what you are saying. One day, you and me both, will be able to watch the procession with equanimity :-) > but happy she's in the realm of a hope of a chance. Any particular > significance to the name? Or the day, for that matter. > > For me, there is strong significance both in the name and the date, especially in combination. You are a Pali wrangler from way back, is there a Pali equivalent to grace? > .... > > > > > The result of kamma, vipakka, is projection. > > > > connie: Rather, that projection, generally akusala thinking, is new kamma. > Happy for you having your life touched by Grace. > Thank you. Grace has no explanation, so I won't go looking. Where do you draw the boundary between vipakka and kamma? > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128460 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Hi Robert E, > > Thanks for your help in my hour of need. :-) I'm sure you will come out of it even stronger. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128461 From: "sarah" wrote: > >S: Alobha, non-attachment arises with all sobhana cittas and of course, there are many degrees and kinds of alobha - unselfishness, generosity, dispassion. As Ken pointed out, it can arise in sense-door as well as mind-door processes. When daana is performed, there must be alobha and there must be thoughts of others and of the gift or act which is given. > >R: It occurs to me that thoughts of self and others, although both equally conceptual, can counterbalance each other. If the thought of self is associated with clinging, lobha, then the thought of others without clinging, with alobha, can be almost like an antidote for the self-engrossed state. I am just thinking of how dana may lead to higher states in that way by defeating lobha that clings to self and the benefits to the self. ... S: You make some interesting comments. We read about how all the perfections, including dana, have to be developed along with panna. If there is no dana, sila or bhavana now, there is bound to be attachment and ignorance. Sometimes we may think that our interest in Buddhism is leading to all that is pure and good when really it's just leading to more self-obsession, especially if there are ideas of developing metta and dana to oneself or focussing on one's feelings or thoughts or anything else about ME. As you point out, at moments of genuinely helping others with alobha or having metta (or any kind of kusala), there is "an antidote for the self-engrossed state", at least a break from all that akusala concern about ME. Metta Sarah ===== #128462 From: "sarah" wrote: > >> KH: > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it? > > > Pt: I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time. > -------- > > KH: I once would have said there were seeing cittas in amongst lucid-thinking cittas. But now I am not sure if I've got that right. ... S: Whilst dreaming, no sense experiences, just mind-door activity, thinking about what has been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched before.... however "lucid" it may seem. ... > > We are not blind and the sphere into which we were born does contain light. Therefore the eye rupa can arise and contact a visible rupa that comes within its range. If we are in a darkened room with our eyes closed there won't be many visible rupas within range - just blackness. But (if I understand correctly) seeing a black visible object is still seeing. ... S: Yes, there can still be seeing at such times - different from dreaming. ... > That could be wrong though. I once suggested smelling consciousness was always occurring in daily life too - even if we weren't aware of any particular odour. But I think I was told otherwise. Therefore, I might also be wrong to suggest there is seeing (of blackness) when there is no awareness of blackness. ... S: Even though smelling of odour is so very common, we can't say it's always occurring. At moments of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching or thinking, there is no smelling of odour, for example. Seeing is usually mentioned first because it's the most common sense experience - so much seeing in a day and so very little awareness. Metta Sarah ===== #128463 From: "sarah" wrote: > >> KH: <. . .> why isn't there ultimately no > dana? > > > S: Like now when we share our reflections on the Dhamma, there is Dhamma dana. > ----------- > > KH: I think what I mean (in my confused state) is that alobha exists in a single moment of consciousness whereas dana (I am told) does not. > > By my (incorrect) reckoning that makes alobha a reality and dana a concept. .... S: Well, as we discuss them - they are both concepts about realities, but whereas alobha refers to a single specific cetasika, dana, unless referring specifically to alobha, refers to different realities. There cannot be an act of generosity performed by one reality only. So, I think your point is correct in this regard. .... > > From now on I will be trying to see that my "snapshot" way of understanding reality is wrong, and another (as yet unnamed) way of understanding is required. ... S: I think that the emphasis we give on the present moment, present reality is the correct one. Only one reality ever appears. However, to really appreciate the anatta nature of all realities, we have to understand that what is taken for acts of generosity, past deeds bringing results now and so on are just different elements, different realities - just like the one appearing now. Metta Sarah p.s Just noticed on the home page that tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of DSG (if I counted correctly) - that went by fast, one moment at a time! We'll be travelling back to HK tomorrow. =========== #128464 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > > HCW: > > I take "the thunder," the howling wind," and "the babbling brook" to be > reasonable stories of ours - concepts - constructed from the interrelated > sounds, sensations, and sights that we experience, and these latter more > fundamental elements of experience, these "paramattha dhammas," if you > will, I take to be object-contents of 5-sense-door consciousness. > > =============== > > J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely > audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your terminology, > audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. > > My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental elements' > arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not independently of > hearing consciousness? > > If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that > there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to experience > it. Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for the > occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as temperature, > air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. > > Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > > I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that sound ca occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > =============== > > HCW: > > > P. S. Jon, have you no comments or questions pertaining to the rest of > my post? > > =============== > > J: My recollection is that the rest of your post follows from the opening > assertion now being discussed, but I'll have another look and get back > separately on it. > > Jon > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128465 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > S: The rupas in a kalapa are realities regardless of whether they are > > > experienced or not. If any rupa is not experienced now, it is not an > > > experienced reality at the present moment. > > > > > > Note: only one rupa in a kalapa that has arisen can be experienced at a > > > time. > ... > >H: Thank you - that clarifies. > > > > How are kalapas known? > ... > S: Only by highly developed panna. > > The third vipassana nana is the comprehension by groups "sammasana ~naana" > . This comes about through the panna which directly understands the rapid > succession of namas and rupas as they arise and fall away. This is quite > different from an intellectual understanding now that they must fall away > very fast and it's far more developed than at the first 2 stages of insight > when namas and rupas are directly understood when they appear, quite > distinct from each other, but there is not yet the direct penetration of > their impermanence. > > I think it would be more useful for us to talk about the income tax laws of different countries. At least from them we can infer how people behave. > Metta > > Sarah > ==== > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128466 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > > J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely > > audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your terminology, > > audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. > > > > My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental elements' > > arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not independently of > > hearing consciousness? > > > > If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that > > there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to experience > > it. Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for the > > occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as temperature, > > air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. > > > > Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > > > > > HH: I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that sound ca > occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > =============== J: Not sure what's so perplexing about the idea of sound occurring without hearing. Indeed, as I was explaining to Howard, I'd have thought that experience in life tends to suggest that the sounds of nature (howl of wind, crash of waves, drip of falling water, etc.) occur regardless of whether there's a consciousness to experience them or not. Would be happy to hear your own thoughts on the matter. Jon #128467 From: "aungsoeminuk" wrote: Dear Htoo, Op 26-dec-2012, om 17:43 heeft aungsoeminuk het volgende geschreven: > I was being on studying Pi.taka and Paa.li. I am non------samatha and vipassanaa. ----------------------------------------------- N: I know that you are always busy with the teachings and thoroughly studying it, including the Pali, in order to get a better understanding of the meaning of the words. ----------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Nina, thanks for your suggestion. Real dhamma does not need names. But names or language have to be used for understanding. Pa~n~naapeti'iti pa~n~natti. When we talk about a 'single moment of seeing' that real seeing vanished more than 1 trillion moments ago. At this moment is no more at this moment when we talk about at this moment. Pariyatti does not give rise to pa.tiveda-~naa.na directly. Only Pa.tipatti gives rise to Pa.tiveda~naa.na. Again Pa.tipatti comes directly from Pariyatti. Pariyatti itself is in Maagadhii or Paa.li, which is beautiful phonetic language. Sentence by sentence, clause by clause, phrase by phrase, word by word, and letter by letter carry full of essence. ------------------------------------------------ N: I am always appreciating Khun Sujin who stresses again and again that we have to investigate the reality appearing at this moment, and this is not easy. -------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Yes. Not easy. But there are always ways. A single kamma.t.thaana may lead to arahatta magga. There are 38 kamma.t.thaana that The Buddha mentioned in pitakas. All are bases for attaining enlightenment. ------------------------------------------------- N: We have to hear this again and again. In this way we shall read the texts in a different way, they become much more related to daily life. --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Aasevana paccayo. Yes. I have revised abhidhammatthasangaha many times in Paa.li. Understanding is deeper and deeper. So I went over original abhidhamma. Anyway I agree with K. Sujin that understanding is the key. I study Paa.li for understanding not for Paa.li language. --------------------------------------------------- N: If you care to listen to the audio, the discussions in Poland, that Jon and Sarah posted (DSG), you will hear many helpful reminders about the present moment. Scroll down to below, work under construction. http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ Nina. ------------------------------------------ Htoo: Thanks always Nina. With Unlimited Metta Htoo Naing ( Dhamma Rakkhita_DMR ) #128468 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Sometimes we may think that our interest in Buddhism is leading to all that is pure and good when really it's just leading to more self-obsession, especially if there are ideas of developing metta and dana to oneself or focussing on one's feelings or thoughts or anything else about ME. > > As you point out, at moments of genuinely helping others with alobha or having metta (or any kind of kusala), there is "an antidote for the self-engrossed state", at least a break from all that akusala concern about ME. It is always a relief when thinking or attention turns to something that is not self-based, even briefly. I experienced this when my daughter was born. The sense of caring more about someone else than myself was very strong at that time, and seemed like a real change of perspective. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128470 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > > My understanding of it - and I alone am responsible for my own warped > > understanding > > > > HH: :-) :-) > > > - is that kamma is like an energy or vibration that is put out into the > > "Universe" by cetana and any actions or tendencies that are created by > > cetana, and those energy-waves will cause effects that eventually boomerang > > back to the sender. > > > > > HH: Do you believe that those energy waves can cause other beings to behave > in a certain way? I don't think that my energy waves can cause someone else to behave in a certain way, but... > I'll say upfront here that I don't believe that. > Kamma-vipaka is a one way street only :-) It's a one-way street in that sense, but the ways in which we interact are co-incident. In other words, the "energy pattern" of everyone's pending vipaka finds convenient ways to line up experiences and actions with each other. If someone is walking the streets in a rage, looking for someone to punch, and you are due for a vipaka-punch, you may wind up running into that person and getting punched. But you certainly didn't make the other person punch you - they were a punch waiting to happen, and as Tom Waits once said: "You just happened to come around at the right time." It's like water filling a hollow. If there is a space, something that can flow into that space will tend to fill it. Thus latent vipaka gets realized when conditions are right for it. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = #128471 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > Hi RobE, > > re: shoten zenjin > > > > > Just "characteristic functions?" Still, whether or not they exist/actually take place may still be an issue...? > > > > Do you have a handy example? > > > > con: Nice thing about the shoten zenjin is that they can be anyone or anything, depending on how one's own particular brand of "science" shapes things up. Fire's a fairly obvious one. > Another example, from Phil (at grandpa Herman's dentist's): > To the understanding that ends the rains. So what do shoten zenjin actually do? I'm still confused. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #128472 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > > J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely > > > audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your terminology, > > > audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. > > > > > > My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental elements' > > > arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not independently of > > > hearing consciousness? > > > > > > If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that > > > there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to experience > > > it. Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for the > > > occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as temperature, > > > air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. > > > > > > Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > > > > > > > > HH: I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that sound ca > > occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > =============== > > J: Not sure what's so perplexing about the idea of sound occurring without hearing. > > Indeed, as I was explaining to Howard, I'd have thought that experience in life tends to suggest that the sounds of nature (howl of wind, crash of waves, drip of falling water, etc.) occur regardless of whether there's a consciousness to experience them or not. > > Would be happy to hear your own thoughts on the matter. I think this is a terminology problem. When Herman says "there is no sound without hearing," what I think he means is "there is no hearing without hearing," because sound is defined as "that which is heard." Then by definition it doesn't exist without a hearing consciousness. But if sound is defined as the "sound vibration caused by physical phenomena" which then makes an impression on the hearing in order to become "heard sound," then I don't think there's a problem. I don't think that Herman would say that the vibration we call "thunder" does not take place without hearing, or that it is caused by the ear. But he might not define such unheard phenomena as "sound." Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = = #128473 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the > concept > > > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking > is > > > real but the concept is not. > ... > >H: There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts > > > that refer to realities of the world. > ... > S: Yes. Either way, they are concepts. > ... > HH: You can become dismissive of concepts only when you have an alternative..... > > > >H: While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real > heat, > > > very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept > > makes known. > ... > S: Yes, sammuti sacca, conventional truth. > > ... > > > > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment, > > > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a > > > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing > > > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of > self > > > or thing. > .. > >H: A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a > > > concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they? > ... > S: They "make known" or describe conventional truths "the being who can > light a fire". It depends on the understanding when reading such statements > as to whether there is any understanding of realities or not. > HH: This is just talk, Sarah, talk, talk, talk, talk....... Talk is a funny word, really, isn't it :-) > > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128474 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Pt, > This is very difficult, Pt, we need to listen more! > > Listen to what? > Ken H > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128475 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > ... > > > > J: Right, what we take for thunder (which is experienced as a purely > > > audible thing) is in reality certain audible data or, in your > terminology, > > > audible 'fundamental elements of experience'. > > > > > > My question is, are you saying that these audible 'fundamental > elements' > > > arise only as the object of hearing consciousness, and not > independently of > > > hearing consciousness? > > > > > > If so, that would mean, speaking now in conventional terms again, that > > > there could be no thunder unless there were a sentient being to > experience > > > it. Yet experience suggests to the contrary: that the conditions for > the > > > occurring of thunder have to do with events/phenomena such as > temperature, > > > air pressure, wind, moisture levels, etc. > > > > > > Just trying to understand your concept of 'no unheard sound'. > > > > > > > > HH: I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that > sound ca > > > occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > =============== > > J: Not sure what's so perplexing about the idea of sound occurring without > hearing. > HH: I am baffled by the attitude that insists on the necessity of awareness of trillionth of a second momentariness, yet carelessly describing unheard phenomena as sound. > > Indeed, as I was explaining to Howard, I'd have thought that experience in > life tends to suggest that the sounds of nature (howl of wind, crash of > waves, drip of falling water, etc.) occur regardless of whether there's a > consciousness to experience them or not. > > Would be happy to hear your own thoughts on the matter. > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight? > Jon_._,___ > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128476 From: Nina van Gorkom Htoo: > Real dhamma does not need names. But names or language have to be > used for understanding. > ----- N: So true. Its characteristic can be directly known by pa~n~naa. ------- Htoo: Pa~n~naapeti'iti pa~n~natti. When we talk about a 'single moment of seeing' that real seeing vanished more than 1 trillion moments ago. At this moment is no more at this moment when we talk about at this moment. ----- N: Yes, there is just the nimitta. Sankhaara nimitta, nimitta of ruupa, of vedanaa, of all five khandhas. ------ Htoo: Pariyatti does not give rise to pa.tiveda-~naa.na directly. Only Pa.tipatti gives rise to Pa.tiveda~naa.na. Again Pa.tipatti comes directly from Pariyatti. Pariyatti itself is in Maagadhii or Paa.li, which is beautiful phonetic language. Sentence by sentence, clause by clause, phrase by phrase, word by word, and letter by letter carry full of essence. ------ N: Yes, and as I understood pariyatti always relates to the present moment, it is not just theory. ----- > Htoo quotes N: < I am always appreciating Khun Sujin who stresses > again and again that at this moment, and this is not easy. > > Htoo: Yes. Not easy. But there are always ways. A single > kamma.t.thaana may lead to arahatta magga. There are 38 > kamma.t.thaana that The Buddha mentioned in pitakas. All are bases > for attaining enlightenment. > ------------------------------------------------- > N: Interesting that you say this. I just wrote today at the end of my Perfections installment: They would not forget the most important kamma.t.thaana: the four applications of mindfulness. When we are aware of naama or ruupa we may also appreciate the teacher, the fact that only a Buddha could teach awareness of naama and ruupa. Buddhanussati. ------- > --------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Aasevana paccayo. Yes. I have revised abhidhammatthasangaha > many times in Paa.li. Understanding is deeper and deeper. So I went > over original abhidhamma. Anyway I agree with K. Sujin that > understanding is the key. I study Paa.li for understanding not for > Paa.li language. > --------------------------------------------------- > N: Can you share with us your observations about the Abhidhammatthasangaha? If you have time? Or even some part of it? ------ With appreciation, Nina. #128478 From: "connie" > Thank you. Grace has no explanation, so I won't go looking. > > Where do you draw the boundary between vipakka and kamma? > As far as wrangling up Pali terms goes, I think "the beautiful mind" must qualify as "grace", giving us any of the sobhana cittas or cetasikas round-up to choose from. The boundary must lie at the mind door... something like a kamma workshop on one side and a vipaaka break room on the other. connie #128479 From: Htoo Naing L: There are five pairs(fields) of senses. Eye and visible object, Ear and sound, Tongue and flavour, Nose and odour, Body and tangible object, We are not aware of them. We need pa~n~na first to consider them, to investigate them in our life, so that sati can arise and know them as they appear only. Investigation comes very slowly. Many problems in life, and some wise thoughts in between. Never enought panna. But we live as we live, and this cannot be changed. There are conditions for seeing, hearin, smelling, tastin, touching and thinking to arise. And we are forgetful of them. We live only because there are conditions for kamma to bring its result. This is now, like eye arises and visible object arises. And this are bases for experience. We can think 'I see', 'I hear'...'I touch'. But in reality this are different conditioned elements that comes. We can see, hear, smell, taste and touch due to this five fields. All the experiences comes, and this is not becouse of us or a self. Only because the kamma producing this five fields. All situations and happenings in life are just dhammas. And we live in imaginary world, of my experience, my life, me in this or that situation. But we would be lived exactly like this. Though we can slowly develop more consideration of all conditoned phenomena, like this is now, only eye base and a visible object base that comes becouse of past kamma. And we can see the truth, there is no one there. Different elements comes to be, by different conditions. And this brings awarness. And no problem with anything. All input welcome. Best wishes Lukas #128481 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: to Htoo, Dhamma Rakkhita. htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Nina: Dear Htoo, As always, I appreciate it having a conversation with you. ------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks ---------------------------- > Htoo: Yes. Not easy. But there are always ways. A single > kamma.t.thaana may lead to arahatta magga. There are 38 > kamma.t.thaana that The Buddha mentioned in pitakas. All are bases > for attaining enlightenment. > ------------------------------------------------- N: Interesting that you say this. I just wrote today at the end of my Perfections installment: --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There are 4 colour-kasinas and 4 element-kasinas. Akaasa kasi.na and aaloka kasi.na do not contain in tipitaka texts. --------------------------------------------------- > Recollection of the Buddha their object of meditation, but they could > not attain it without developing satipatthåna in daily life.> --------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I said may lead to. Not directly. Like deep absorption(Jhaana), one has to depart from initial object when there is total clearance of hinderances. Arahatta magga citta and arahatta magga ~naa.na arise only from mahaasatipa.t.thaana. I said a single kamma.t.thaana as initial object. Not in the same succession of arahatta magga viithi. ---------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Aasevana paccayo. Yes. I have revised abhidhammatthasangaha > > many times in Paa.li. Understanding is deeper and deeper. So I went > > over original abhidhamma. Anyway I agree with K. Sujin that > > understanding is the key. I study Paa.li for understanding not for > > Paa.li language. > > --------------------------------------------------- N: Can you share with us your observations about the Abhidhammatthasangaha? If you have time? Or even some part of it? ------ With appreciation, Nina. ---------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Abhidhammatthasangaha is a beautiful concise text in gaathaa or verse. It is also called little-finger a.t.thakathaa or comentary. There are 9 chapters. 1. citta 2. cetasika 3. paki.n.naka 4. viithi 5. viithimutta 6. ruupa 7. samuccaya 8. paccaya & 9. kamma.t.thaana I posted as 'Dhamma Thread' from (001) to (888). Up to chapter 7 completed. What I posted and replied are from this text. But it is not complete. So I went over the original texts. Dhamma sanga.nii says 56 components are in the 1st mahaakusala citta. But Abhidhammatthasangaha say there are 39. That is 38 cetasiks along with pure citta. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128482 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:34 am Subject: Re: Pa~ncaayatana htoonaing... Dear Lucas and all Dhamma Friends, Please see below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas wrote: >Dear friends, > Here comes an extract from Milindapa~nha on five ayatanas. > L: There are five pairs(fields) of senses. > Eye and visible object, > Ear and sound, > Tongue and flavour, > Nose and odour, > Body and tangible object, > We are not aware of them. We need pa~n~na first to consider them, to investigate them in our life, so that sati can arise and know them as they appear only. ---------------------------- Htoo: Pa~n~naa for consideration arises from studying dhamma by listening, reading, teaching and so on. Without the aid of The Buddha the lokuttara pa~n~naa will not arise. ----------------------------- L: Investigation comes very slowly. Many problems in life, and some wise thoughts in between. Never enought panna. But we live as we live, and this cannot be changed. There are conditions for seeing, hearin, smelling, tastin, touching and thinking to arise. And we are forgetful of them. -------------------------------- Htoo: Dhammavicaya or investigative mind is the 2nd bojjhanga of 7 bojjhanga ( 7 factors of enlightenment). If there is not enough satipa.t.thaana and samappaddhaana (viiriya or effort) then it comes very very slowly. -------------------------------- L: We live only because there are conditions for kamma to bring its result. ------------------------------- Htoo: There is a wrong view or di.t.thi that view as everything that we meet is because of kamma. It is called 'pubbekatakamma vaadii' --------------------------- L: This is now, like eye arises and visible object arises. And this are bases for experience. We can think 'I see', 'I hear'...'I touch'. But in reality this are different conditioned elements that comes. > We can see, hear, smell, taste and touch due to this five fields. All the experiences comes, and this is not becouse of us or a self. Only because the kamma producing this five fields. -------------------------------- Htoo: 5 fields are external objects. So they all are ruupa. There are 4 causes for ruupa. But there are only 2 causes for external ruupa. They are utuja (tejo-generated) and aaharaja(foof-generated). -------------------------------- L:All situations and happenings in life are just dhammas. And we live in imaginary world, of my experience, my life, me in this or that situation. But we would be lived exactly like this. Though we can slowly develop more consideration of all conditoned phenomena, like this is now, only eye base and a visible object base that comes becouse of past kamma. And we can see the truth, there is no one there. Different elements comes to be, by different conditions. And this brings awarness. And no problem with anything. > All input welcome. > > Best wishes > Lukas ---------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks Lucas for your post which initiate the thought of dhamma. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing AdChoices #128483 From: "Lukas" ---------------------------- > Htoo: Pa~n~naa for consideration arises from studying dhamma by listening, reading, teaching and so on. Without the aid of The Buddha the lokuttara pa~n~naa will not arise. > ----------------------------- L: Actually there can be some wise thoughts without Dhamma, but that insight that leads to freedom, to ending of all defilments, this is due to Buddha-Dhamma only. So aid of Sammasambuddha needed. The worldy wisdom is not our goal. The goal is a wisdom that sees and discerns all conditioned phenomena that appears right now. So there can be more detachment from all what we call 'life'. > -------------------------------- > Htoo: Dhammavicaya or investigative mind is the 2nd bojjhanga of 7 bojjhanga ( 7 factors of enlightenment). If there is not enough satipa.t.thaana and samappaddhaana (viiriya or effort) then it comes very very slowly. > -------------------------------- L: What do mean by samappaddhaana and bojjhanga? Can u say more? > L: We live only because there are conditions for kamma to bring its result. > ------------------------------- > Htoo: There is a wrong view or di.t.thi that view as everything that we meet is because of kamma. It is called 'pubbekatakamma vaadii' > --------------------------- L: I am trying to find out in my head what kind of wrong view can it be. Is it like 'just kamma performs everything' or 'all done by kamma, no need to try to change'? I think this is good to be aware(conscious) of all different kinds of wrong view there are. Do u know more? There is this term kammasakata~nana, or something. This points out some knowladge. But I dont remember that. Best wishes Lukas #128484 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > > > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight? Speaking quasi-scientifically rather than Abhidhammically, a photon is not the same thing as a sound wave. Whether they are seen or unseen, heard or unheard, those phenomena are distinguishable as distinct forms of occurrence, and their existence in space is not dependent on perception. A tape recorder left recording in an empty room would pick up the sound that took place in that room, while it would ignore potential visual objects. A movement-sensitive camera would pick up visual objects, but would ignore sound-phenomena. I don't disagree with your reluctance to call an "unheard object" a "sound," since it tortures the definition of "sound." But in terms of what kind of physical phenomena exists and may be potentially heard or seen, such phenomena are distinguishable. The drip of water has two aspects to it - one visual, one aural in nature. The sound of the water hitting the ground creates a sound, the sight of it moving through the air from source to ground may be seen, but would not be heard. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128485 From: "connie" > So what do shoten zenjin actually do? I'm still confused. > Even death or Mara can serve as shoten zenjin when they're whatever might be construed as "the good friend" or conditions supportive of such. One class has to be sobhana cetasikas: sati and such. You bring up another aspect/side when you say to Herman: >> Speaking quasi-scientifically rather than Abhidhammically, a photon is not the same thing as a sound wave. Whether they are seen or unseen, heard or unheard, those phenomena are distinguishable as distinct forms of occurrence, and their existence in space is not dependent on perception. c: That's more an example of their tutelary function... Photon and SoundWave being gods in modern garb. ;) Just descriptive devices. Explanations. They are, if you will, just another "expedient means". The conventional truths of any particular faith group. peace, connie #128486 From: "connie" c: speaking of not recognizing them, check out this entry on the 'silent' paccekabuddhas! http://www.palikanon.de/english/pali_names/ku/khaggavisaana.htm > {khaggavisaana: (rhino) with a sword-like horn} i don't recall a single solitary female buddha story/mention. > > > > D: thanks for the link "The Commentary (SNA.i.46ff) divides the sutta into four vaggas and gives each a separate name (except the first), the name being generally derived from the first word of the stanza. It is said that the Buddha preached the Khaggavisana Sutta in response to a question asked of him by Ananda regarding the attainment of Enlightenment by Pacceka Buddhas; the Buddha gave details of their abhinihara and patthana, and illustrated them by reciting to Ananda stanzas which had been uttered by Pacceka Buddhas of old on various occasions and at different periods as their paeans of joy (udana)." Reading a.m. sutta I can't see the connection Pacceka Buddha, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html rather adressing the truthseeker: to rely on one's own, the solitude (so often emphasised) ..the metaphor of the rhino..it was the way , Prince Gotama chose, wasn't it? Are those adressed not already taught ..and by that not developing the truth by themselves alone anymore? connie: yes, missing the whole pacceka buddha connection without the Commentary to point it out to us was my point. I’m not understanding your questions, though, sorry. c. #128487 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > HH: Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts. I think we agree on the fundamentals - sound is heard. > Hi Herman. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight? > > Speaking quasi-scientifically rather than Abhidhammically, a photon is not > the same thing as a sound wave. Whether they are seen or unseen, heard or > unheard, those phenomena are distinguishable as distinct forms of > occurrence, and their existence in space is not dependent on perception. > HH: Yes, neither you or I, or the Buddha, subscribe to old Berkeley's idealist dictum - to be is to be perceived, > > > A tape recorder left recording in an empty room would pick up the sound > that took place in that room, while it would ignore potential visual > objects. A movement-sensitive camera would pick up visual objects, but > would ignore sound-phenomena. > HH: It is of no great significance, but I disagree strongly here :-) Sound is heard, there is no sound on a tape recording. Similarly, sights are seen, there is no visual object in a camera. I would agree that there are always some of the conditions for hearing and seeing around, and that evidence for those conditions exists, but the necessary condition, the sine qua non, for sound is hearing. We cannot just abstract away the sentient being. > > I don't disagree with your reluctance to call an "unheard object" a > "sound," since it tortures the definition of "sound." But in terms of what > kind of physical phenomena exists and may be potentially heard or seen, > such phenomena are distinguishable. > > HH: Yes, agreed. > The drip of water has two aspects to it - one visual, one aural in nature. > The sound of the water hitting the ground creates a sound, the sight of it > moving through the air from source to ground may be seen, but would not be > heard. > > HH: We differ here, but I don't think it matters. The Buddha is not a scientist, he is an ethicist. To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made, as is vision. When sound and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive the world as the mind would have. When sound or vision occur based on mental stimuli only, then we are hallucinating, but again, as the mind would have it. Certainly, there is a world that exists independently of perception, but knowledge of how that world is apart from perception is totally beyond the possible. The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd knowledge, but how to live. > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128488 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > ** > > > Good friend Herman, > > Please forgive my delay in responding... [bummer] > > Returned from Texas to the Philadelphia, PA USA on Christmas Day (Flight > at one-half price)... [smiles] > > Getting caught up on my e-mails. > > Would you please explain the following? > > Quote: "However, the belief that it makes no difference to the possibility > of not drowning, regardless of whether one is surrounded by friends or not, > is quite mistaken. > > HH: You wrote: Living alone in the Texas Hill Country or with friends in Havertown, PA USA, it is the same mentally... it is all Dhamma... I wrote back to say that this is mistaken understanding :-) What "drowning in the senses" means can only be appreciated once you enter jhana. Unless you are an adept, you will not enter into jhana while with your friends in Havertown, I assure you. But if you were an adept, you would not have said that seclusion and being surrounded by friends (village dwelling) are the same :-) This is what the Buddha says: (AN6:42) "Whoever cannot obtain at will — without difficulty, without trouble — as I do, the pleasure of renunciation, the pleasure of seclusion, the pleasure of peace, the pleasure of self-awakening, let him consent to this slimy-excrement-pleasure, this torpor-pleasure, this pleasure of gains, offerings, & fame. "Nagita, there is the case where I see a monk sitting in concentration in a village dwelling. The thought occurs to me, 'Soon a monastery attendant will disturb this venerable one in some way, or a novice will, and rouse him from his concentration.' And so I am not pleased with that monk's village-dwelling. HH: I hope this clarifies. Sincere warm thanks. > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > > [Rest deleted by Chuck] > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128490 From: "Robert E" wrote: > HH: We differ here, but I don't think it matters. The Buddha is not a > scientist, he is an ethicist. > > To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made, as is vision. When sound > and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive the > world as the mind would have. When sound or vision occur based on mental > stimuli only, then we are hallucinating, but again, as the mind would have > it. > > Certainly, there is a world that exists independently of perception, but > knowledge of how that world is apart from perception is totally beyond the > possible. The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd > knowledge, but how to live. I understand your view, which is highly phenomenological, and in another context I might adopt it myself. Here I think it makes sense to see certain phenomena as potentially causing sound and others causing vision. Sure the mind plays its part in shaping the object and interpreting it, but if it's not hallucination, then we have a pretty common sense of what the basic visual and heard object is in a particular situation. It doesn't vary so much that we should see it as purely subjective. It's sort of torturing things in the other direction to assert that there are no potential visual or heard objects in nature, only in the mind, rather than seeing the creation of visual or sounded phenomena as a collaboration of objective forms and mental apprehension. [rupa and nama] It brings to mind Kant's "in-itself," in which objects were seen to have a kind of self-enclosed interiority which we could not penetrate, rather than just seeing them as simply opaque all the way through, since they are insentient. [Sartre, "On the Transcendence of the Ego"] Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - #128491 From: Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > HH: We differ here, but I don't think it matters. The Buddha is not a > > scientist, he is an ethicist. > > > > To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made, as is vision. When > sound > > and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive > the > > world as the mind would have. When sound or vision occur based on mental > > stimuli only, then we are hallucinating, but again, as the mind would > have > > it. > > > > Certainly, there is a world that exists independently of perception, but > > knowledge of how that world is apart from perception is totally beyond > the > > possible. The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd > > knowledge, but how to live. > > I understand your view, which is highly phenomenological, and in another > context I might adopt it myself. Here I think it makes sense to see certain > phenomena as potentially causing sound and others causing vision. Sure the > mind plays its part in shaping the object and interpreting it, but if it's > not hallucination, then we have a pretty common sense of what the basic > visual and heard object is in a particular situation. It doesn't vary so > much that we should see it as purely subjective. It's sort of torturing > things in the other direction to assert that there are no potential visual > or heard objects in nature, only in the mind, rather than seeing the > creation of visual or sounded phenomena as a collaboration of objective > forms and mental apprehension. [rupa and nama] It brings to mind Kant's > "in-itself," in which objects were seen to have a kind of self-enclosed > interiority which we could not penetrate, rather than just seeing them as > simply opaque all the way through, since they are insentient. [Sartre, "On > the Transcendence of the Ego"] > > I think you are quite right; I love your allusions to torturing things in this respect :-) There is shared conditionality - nothing subjective about that. > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128493 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Here comes an extract from Milindapa~nha on five ayatanas. > > > "They are produced from different kammas, sire, not from one kamma." > "Make a simile" > "What do you think about this sire? If five (kinds of) seeds were sown in one field would different fruits be produced from these different seeds?" > "Yes revered sire, they would be so produced." > "Even so, sire, these five (sensory) fields are produced from different kammas, not from one kamma." > "You are dexterous revered Nagasena"> > ... #128494 From: "truth_aerator" I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that >sound can occur without hearing?? Please correct me. >>>>>>>>>>> Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. Same with color. With best wishes, Alex #128495 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > I understand your view, which is highly phenomenological, and in another > > context I might adopt it myself. Here I think it makes sense to see certain > > phenomena as potentially causing sound and others causing vision. Sure the > > mind plays its part in shaping the object and interpreting it, but if it's > > not hallucination, then we have a pretty common sense of what the basic > > visual and heard object is in a particular situation. It doesn't vary so > > much that we should see it as purely subjective. It's sort of torturing > > things in the other direction to assert that there are no potential visual > > or heard objects in nature, only in the mind, rather than seeing the > > creation of visual or sounded phenomena as a collaboration of objective > > forms and mental apprehension. [rupa and nama] It brings to mind Kant's > > "in-itself," in which objects were seen to have a kind of self-enclosed > > interiority which we could not penetrate, rather than just seeing them as > > simply opaque all the way through, since they are insentient. [Sartre, "On > > the Transcendence of the Ego"] > > > > > I think you are quite right; I love your allusions to torturing things in > this respect :-) :-) > There is shared conditionality - nothing subjective about that. Cool! Rob E. - - - - - - - - #128496 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hello Herman all, > > >I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that >sound can occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > >>>>>>>>>>> > > Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. > Same with color. Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if not turned into "sound," yes? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, no hearing takes place. You could say that no "sound" is produced, but the vibrations from the tree falling that would be interpreted as sound by a hearer still do take place, they are just not heard. Would you not agree? If a bright light is shone in a blind person's eyes they will not see it, but the light still exists, does it not? Or would you say -- solipsistically I would think -- that there is not only no object of sight, but no light? Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - #128497 From: "truth_aerator" RE:Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are >interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if >not turned into "sound," yes? > Right, there is "a wave". >RE:If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, no >hearing takes place. You could say that no "sound" is produced, but >the vibrations from the tree falling that would be interpreted as >sound by a hearer still do take place, they are just not heard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. Wave as a potential cause for sound exist. > >If a bright light is shone in a blind person's eyes they will not >see it, but the light still exists, does it not? >>>>>>>>>>> Since you see that light, for you, your experience is of seeing light. But the blind person can't see. Electromagnetic wave that is one of the causes for seeing does exist. With best wishes, Alex #128498 From: "connie" Alex: Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. > Same with color. > connie: So, I guess, reads the oft-quoted "IMHO". Turning to what might be a more, shall we say, vetted Opinion, I would *reply below* - from the Commentary section following the Summary of the Topics of the Abhidhamma, Ch4, #9: << The duration of material dhammas is seventeen of these consciousness-moments. >> Commentary: << Immaterial things change fast, material things change slowly, each being produced momentarily in their [respective] conditions as that which apprehends and that which is apprehended, and so he states the words beginning, /These/. /These/: of the same kind as these. /Seventeen-consciousness-moments/ are moments that are equivalent to the moments of seventeen consciousnesses, or they are seventeen consciousness-moments; this is the construction. But taken separately there are fifty-one consciousness moments. {p123 n2 - Seventeen multiplied by the three moments of arising, presence and dissolution.} /Of material dhammas/: of material dhammas other than the kinds of communication and the characteristic [phases]. For the two kinds of communication last for one consciousness-moment, and are therefore mentioned among the dhammas whose occurrence coincides with consciousness; and of the characteristic [phases], birth and impermanence have the same duration as the moments of arising and dissolution of consciousness, while decay lasts for forty-nine consciousness-moments. In consideration of this they say: {Sacc 60} Because of the statement in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary on dependent arising, 'so far eleven consciousness-moments have passed, there are five consciousness-moments remaining,' {Vibh-a 157; Vism 549 (ChVII, 137)} some say that material dhammas last for only sixteen consciousness-moments; they argue that the mere arising of materiality is the condition for the vibrating of the existence-continuum. But this [argument] lacks substance. That [material dhammas] last for seventeen consciousness-moments has come down in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary itself: {Vibh-a 28}. Where only sixteen consciousness-moments are declared, the method employed is with reference to the moment that is capable of acting as the condition for the activity of consciousness. For it is enough to explain that *for materiality to be capable of coming into the range [of consciousness] it must have been there for at least one consciousness-moment.* >> connie: note the "at least". it's pretty fantastic to think of the odds of approach at all. happy new worlds, connie #128499 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > dear friends, > > > Alex: Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. > > Same with color. > > > > connie: So, I guess, reads the oft-quoted "IMHO". > > Turning to what might be a more, shall we say, vetted Opinion, I would > *reply below* - from the Commentary section following the Summary of the > Topics of the Abhidhamma, Ch4, #9: << The duration of material dhammas is > seventeen of these consciousness-moments. >> > > Commentary: << Immaterial things change fast, material things change > slowly, each being produced momentarily in their [respective] conditions as > that which apprehends and that which is apprehended, and so he states the > words beginning, /These/. > /These/: of the same kind as these. /Seventeen-consciousness-moments/ are > moments that are equivalent to the moments of seventeen consciousnesses, or > they are seventeen consciousness-moments; this is the construction. But > taken separately there are fifty-one consciousness moments. {p123 n2 - > Seventeen multiplied by the three moments of arising, presence and > dissolution.} > /Of material dhammas/: of material dhammas other than the kinds of > communication and the characteristic [phases]. For the two kinds of > communication last for one consciousness-moment, and are therefore > mentioned among the dhammas whose occurrence coincides with consciousness; > and of the characteristic [phases], birth and impermanence have the same > duration as the moments of arising and dissolution of consciousness, while > decay lasts for forty-nine consciousness-moments. In consideration of this > they say: > seventeen consciousnesses.> {Sacc 60} > Because of the statement in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary on dependent > arising, 'so far eleven consciousness-moments have passed, there are five > consciousness-moments remaining,' {Vibh-a 157; Vism 549 (ChVII, 137)} some > say that material dhammas last for only sixteen consciousness-moments; they > argue that the mere arising of materiality is the condition for the > vibrating of the existence-continuum. But this [argument] lacks substance. > That [material dhammas] last for seventeen consciousness-moments has come > down in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary itself: > with the seventeenth [moment of consciousness] after that; materiality that > has arisen at the presence-moment of the relinking consciousness ceases at > the arising-moment of the eighteenth ...> {Vibh-a 28}. > Where only sixteen consciousness-moments are declared, the method employed > is with reference to the moment that is capable of acting as the condition > for the activity of consciousness. For it is enough to explain that *for > materiality to be capable of coming into the range [of consciousness] it > must have been there for at least one consciousness-moment.* >> > > > connie: note the "at least". it's pretty fantastic to think of the odds of > approach at all. > > happy new worlds, > HH: Suppose it is panna that does the counting? > connie > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128500 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Alex. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" > wrote: > > > > Hello Herman all, > > > > >I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that >sound > can occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. > > Same with color. > > Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are > interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if not > turned into "sound," yes? > > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the complexity of what we are talking about. Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we to understand by a vibration? > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, no hearing > takes place. You could say that no "sound" is produced, but the vibrations > from the tree falling that would be interpreted as sound by a hearer still > do take place, they are just not heard. > > Would you not agree? > > If a bright light is shone in a blind person's eyes they will not see it, > but the light still exists, does it not? Or would you say -- > solipsistically I would think -- that there is not only no object of sight, > but no light? > > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128501 From: "truth_aerator" HH:Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that space and time exists independent of the mind, even "idealistic" yogacara/cittamatra abhidharma says so. With best wishes, Alex #128502 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 1, 2013 1:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Robert (and Alex) - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Alex. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" wrote: > > > > Hello Herman all, > > > > >I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that >sound can occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Sound cannot be without hearing. It is process in the brain. > > Same with color. > > Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if not turned into "sound," yes? ------------------------------- HCW: With regard to sound vibrations, I see two Dhammic perspectives to be considered: 1)These are aspects of a "physics story," and hence concept only, or 2)These are instances of air element. In the latter case, they could well be conditions for (heard) sound to arise, but they are body-door rupas that condition ear-door rupas and not, themselves, ear-door rupas. As regards the first perspective, they are not what Abhidhamma views as "realities". -------------------------------- > > If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, no hearing takes place. You could say that no "sound" is produced, but the vibrations from the tree falling that would be interpreted as sound by a hearer still do take place, they are just not heard. > > Would you not agree? > > If a bright light is shone in a blind person's eyes they will not see it, but the light still exists, does it not? Or would you say -- solipsistically I would think -- that there is not only no object of sight, but no light? > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - > =============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128503 From: "ptaus1" Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if not turned into "sound," yes? > > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the complexity of what we are talking about. Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we to understand by a vibration? c: From my reading, the disturbance, vibration or "calana" is said with reference to the bhavanga citta (sota) or (flow of) mind itself rather than the object of either a sense- or mind-door “process†/ vitthi. connie Sacc 60 #128505 From: "Robert E" wrote: > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the > complexity of what we are talking about. > > Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we to > understand by a vibration? No problem - I want to be precise too. One of the things I like about you is that you accept the appearances of things without taking a closer look, whether it's Theravada or a photon. Again, I would not make a blunt statement that "time and space are mind-made" because that seems to me to gloss over a whole lot of "actuality" out there. Do Galaxies exist only in the mind? I think not. Is there a development "outside of the mind" from amoeba to polywog to Martian monkeys in space? I think there is, so there is osme form of temporal passage as well "Outside of the mind." On the other hand, *our* perception/experience of time and space are 'mind-processed,' not 100% manufactured by mental processes, but processed and shaped by mental processes, so taht our experience is...a processed experience, much like processed food, as opposed to what it's like when it's growing. Still I want to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of both idealizing the mind as the creator of all reality, and idealizing the object-world/object-pole of experience as some great unknowable mystery. So, in summary, I would say that there are objective forces, objective object-formations, objective passage of time, which is then twisted, warped, bent, processed, made sensible in a form that may only partially resemble the original "in nature," by the mind, but that this mental version of things is in similitude to them, not wholly removed from "what they are" in "what they appear to be" to the mind. That seems like a place of reason, rather than either extreme. So I think vibration exists in nature, it is movement of matter and energy. It's out there, not mind-made, but the mind is adapted to utilize those vibrations in particular ways, for its own design and purposes. Space and time have objective existence, but our apprehension/use of them is subjective, up to a point, within the limits of what their actuality allow. The real mystery is the nature of the mind, not the nature of the world. Rupa is just "stuff;" nama is more complicated. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128506 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Herman. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the > > complexity of what we are talking about. > > > > Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we to > > understand by a vibration? > > No problem - I want to be precise too. One of the things I like about you is that you accept the appearances of things without taking a closer look, whether it's Theravada or a photon. > > Again, I would not make a blunt statement that "time and space are mind-made" because that seems to me to gloss over a whole lot of "actuality" out there. Do Galaxies exist only in the mind? I think not. Is there a development "outside of the mind" from amoeba to polywog to Martian monkeys in space? I think there is, so there is osme form of temporal passage as well "Outside of the mind." > > On the other hand, *our* perception/experience of time and space are 'mind-processed,' not 100% manufactured by mental processes, but processed and shaped by mental processes, so taht our experience is...a processed experience, much like processed food, as opposed to what it's like when it's growing. Still I want to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of both idealizing the mind as the creator of all reality, and idealizing the object-world/object-pole of experience as some great unknowable mystery. > > So, in summary, I would say that there are objective forces, objective object-formations, objective passage of time, which is then twisted, warped, bent, processed, made sensible in a form that may only partially resemble the original "in nature," by the mind, but that this mental version of things is in similitude to them, not wholly removed from "what they are" in "what they appear to be" to the mind. That seems like a place of reason, rather than either extreme. > > So I think vibration exists in nature, it is movement of matter and energy. It's out there, not mind-made, but the mind is adapted to utilize those vibrations in particular ways, for its own design and purposes. Space and time have objective existence, but our apprehension/use of them is subjective, up to a point, within the limits of what their actuality allow. > > The real mystery is the nature of the mind, not the nature of the world. Rupa is just "stuff;" nama is more complicated. > > Best, > Rob E. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > #128507 From: Lukas Best wishes Lukas #128508 From: Nina van Gorkom Here is a short extract from Acharn Sujin talk in Poland, 16 > September at breakfast. > > it is now it's gone? > > Acharn: No. You see that we dont have to call it. #128509 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman, RobE, all, > > I am not RobE, but here is my current opinion: > > >HH:Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I believe that space and time exists independent of the mind, even > "idealistic" yogacara/cittamatra abhidharma says so. > > HH: No problems there. We, however, are limited to experience of 4 dimensions only - I see no reason to assume that 4 dimensions is a limit of reality. I imagine that from the perspective of a 5th or greater dimension, an understanding of reality based on 4 dimensions only is more than a bit "warped" :-) With best wishes, > > Alex > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128510 From: "truth_aerator" HH: No problems there. We, however, are limited to experience of 4 >dimensions only - I see no reason to assume that 4 dimensions is a >limit of reality. I imagine that from the perspective of a 5th or >greater dimension, an understanding of reality based on 4 dimensions >only is more than a bit "warped" :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've read that scientists propose up to 26 or even more infinite amount of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_%28mathematics_and_physics%29 I don't know how much that would affect us. With best wishes, Alex #128511 From: "philip" wrote: > ** > > > dear friends, > > HH: Suppose it is panna that does the counting? > > c: Even I can count that high, especially given the little cars to put on > the track! We'll use the cheap set - no diacritics - plus the doors need to > be painted on cars 4 & 8. > > HH: C'mon connie, be fair - the snippet you quoted explicitly said there was disagreement about the counting. Clearly, the matter wasn't, and still isn't straightforward. > 01. Past or Atita Bhavanga > 02. Vibrating or Calana Bhavanga > 03. Arrest or Bhavanguppaccheda > 04. Five-door Adverting or Panca-dvara Avajjana > 05. Eye, etc, Consciousness /Cakkhu, etc, Vinnana > 06. Receiving / Sampatichana > 07. Investigation / Santirana > 08. Determining / Votthapana > 09. "apperception" / Javana > 10. "apperception" / Javana > 11. "apperception" / Javana > 12. "apperception" / Javana > 13. "apperception" / Javana > 14. "apperception" / Javana > 15. "apperception" / Javana > 16. Registration / Tadarammana > 17. Registration / Tadarammana > A theory of this form is called a cognitive theory - one thing happens after another. It is not anything like how the brain works - it doesn't matter, the Buddha teaches how to live. > Once the "engineer"/sense arammana "manifests", we can know which cars > will roll. > > Although it may carry Kiriya or Phala, usually Kusala or Akusala Kamma > fill the Javana section; Vipaka, cars 5, 6, 7, 16 and 17. > > RobE: > Would you deny that there are vibrations taking place which are > interpreted as sound by the brain? Those vibrations exist even if not > turned into "sound," yes? > > > > > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the > complexity of what we are talking about. > > Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we to > understand by a vibration? > > c: From my reading, the disturbance, vibration or "calana" is said with > reference to the bhavanga citta (sota) or (flow of) mind itself rather than > the object of either a sense- or mind-door “process” / vitthi. > > connie > > seventeen consciousnesses.> Sacc 60 > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know AdChoices #128513 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman - I meant to say the opposite of what I said! That you: > > DON'T "accept the appearances of things without taking a closer look, > whether it's Theravada or a photon." > > HH: I was sure that that was your actual intention :-) > Best, > Rob E. > > = = = = = = = > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" > wrote: > > > > Hi Herman. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > HH: I'm not being difficult, honest ;-) I am just teasing out the > > > complexity of what we are talking about. > > > > > > Would you agree that time and space are mind-made? If so, what are we > to > > > understand by a vibration? > > > > No problem - I want to be precise too. One of the things I like about > you is that you accept the appearances of things without taking a closer > look, whether it's Theravada or a photon. > > > > Again, I would not make a blunt statement that "time and space are > mind-made" because that seems to me to gloss over a whole lot of > "actuality" out there. Do Galaxies exist only in the mind? I think not. Is > there a development "outside of the mind" from amoeba to polywog to Martian > monkeys in space? I think there is, so there is osme form of temporal > passage as well "Outside of the mind." > > > HH: I understand and accept what you are saying. Still, the kind of world that is "actual" for us is dependent on our cognitive faculties, and I would put no limit on what different kind of beings there could be and what kind of cognitive abilities they might have, and therefore what is "actual" for them. > > On the other hand, *our* perception/experience of time and space are > 'mind-processed,' not 100% manufactured by mental processes, but processed > and shaped by mental processes, so taht our experience is...a processed > experience, much like processed food, as opposed to what it's like when > it's growing. Still I want to avoid the Scylla and Charybdis of both > idealizing the mind as the creator of all reality, and idealizing the > object-world/object-pole of experience as some great unknowable mystery. > > > HH: Sure. I would try to avoid those extremes as well. > > So, in summary, I would say that there are objective forces, objective > object-formations, objective passage of time, which is then twisted, > warped, bent, processed, made sensible in a form that may only partially > resemble the original "in nature," by the mind, but that this mental > version of things is in similitude to them, not wholly removed from "what > they are" in "what they appear to be" to the mind. That seems like a place > of reason, rather than either extreme. > > > > So I think vibration exists in nature, it is movement of matter and > energy. It's out there, not mind-made, but the mind is adapted to utilize > those vibrations in particular ways, for its own design and purposes. Space > and time have objective existence, but our apprehension/use of them is > subjective, up to a point, within the limits of what their actuality allow. > > > > The real mystery is the nature of the mind, not the nature of the world. > Rupa is just "stuff;" nama is more complicated. > > > HH: All very well said. Would you agree with the following segue - that it is not so much how the world is, but how to live in whatever world that arises? > > Best, > > Rob E. > > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128514 From: Herman Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection I have heard that at one time the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi at Jeta's Grove,Anathapindika's monastery. Then a certain deva, in the far extreme of the night, her extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, approached the Blessed One. On approaching, having bowed down to the Blessed One, she stood to one side. As she stood to one side, she addressed him with a verse. Many devas and human beings give thought to protection, desiring well-being. Tell, then, the highest protection. *The Buddha:* Not consorting with fools, consorting with the wise, paying homage to those worthy of homage: This is the highest protection. Living in a civilized land, having made merit in the past, directing oneself rightly: This is the highest protection. Broad knowledge, skill, well-mastered discipline, well-spoken words: This is the highest protection. Support for one's parents, assistance to one's wife and children, consistency in one's work: This is the highest protection. Giving, living in rectitude, assistance to one's relatives, deeds that are blameless: This is the highest protection. Avoiding, abstaining from evil; refraining from intoxicants, being heedful of the qualities of the mind: This is the highest protection. Respect, humility, contentment, gratitude, hearing the Dhamma on timely occasions: This is the highest protection. Patience, compliance, seeing contemplatives, discussing the Dhamma on timely occasions: This is the highest protection. Austerity, celibacy, seeing the Noble Truths, realizing Unbinding: This is the highest protection. A mind that, when touched by the ways of the world, is unshaken, sorrowless, dustless, at rest: This is the highest protection. Everywhere undefeated when acting in this way, people go everywhere in well-being: This is their highest protection. -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128515 From: "sukinderpal narula" Suttas say that ""Whatever is felt comes under stress." - SN36.11. S: The reference here is to all kinds of feelings. You appear to be interpreting this as being, "whatever is experienced". Anyway, how does this imply that only the experience is Dukkha? ==== > When one is fully unconscious, one cannot cognize anything, including suffering, stress, etc. The dukkha of unconscious state, as I understand it, is only in the sense that it is inconstant and one can come out of it and thus regain consciousness, feelings, and experience stress and suffering again. S: Does this mean then, that during deep sleep there is no Dukkha as in the First Noble Truth? ==== > Any feeling or cognition is mental. Insentient rock doesn't experience anything. S: But the rupas that make up a rock are Dukkha in the same way that mental realities are, namely that they rise and fall away in an instant, do they not? ==== > Of course people, as conditioned phenomena, do exist. This is why you should avoid driving into a person, and when loved one dies, a person can experience lots of grief. S: Only nama and rupa are conditioned, people is concept and concepts do not exist and therefore can't be said to be conditioned. It is because namas and rupas exist and are conditioned in various ways that there is conceiving of people, cars, loves ones and the idea of driving safely or recklessly. ==== > If people didn't exist, we wouldn't grieve over death of loved one, and it would be impossible to drive into a person that doesn't exist. S: Grieving is a conditioned reality which has the concept of "death of a loved one" as object. It is impossible to drive into a person if there were not a series of realities both mental and physical. It is the nature of these realities which the Buddha taught us to understand as when he concluded that "in short the five aggregates are Dukkha". ==== > The only mode in which people don't exist is sukkha, nicca, atta. S: Being conditioned and the three general characteristics go together. What according to you are the conditions for the arising of "people" which when fallen away, would also mean that "people" fall away? ==== > > So "carrier of the burden" is just speaking conventionally or is it >not? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Conventional speaking is true, and in fact more realistic than so called "ultimate speech". S: Speech is speech, either true or not true, and not a matter of real or not real. You are unnecessarily confusing the issue. ==== > We can't experience trillions of cittas occuring every split second and various other "how many angels fit on a point of a needle". We do experience people, cars, trees, plate with food, fork, knife, etc... S: Whoever suggested that the development of understanding involves experiencing trillions of cittas? But understanding, first at the level of pariyatti and latter patipatti and pativedha, that citta is one kind of reality and distinct from say, cetasika and rupa, this is what the Buddha's teachings is about, is it not? What you are suggesting is that because we do not see trillions of cittas (btw however, that there are so many cittas rising and falling away in one second, this can be understood intellectually), the development of understanding must therefore revolve around the perception of people and things. And this according to me must mean that you have not been paying attention to what the Buddha taught! ==== > Of course all these things are anicca, dukkha, anatta. S: You mean, people, cars, trees, plate with food, fork, knife, etc. rise and fall away? Please give some description of this process. ==== > >If a reality, through which doorway is it experienced > > All are experience only through ONE doorway, the brain. S: The Buddha never referred to the brain; do you think that he missed it for lack of knowledge which certain enlightened scientists later on revealed? ==== > Distraction is cause against panna for most most beginners. > Panna of a wise worldling and Arahant is on totally different levels. > What is almost insurmountable distraction for a worldling is nothing to an Arahant. S: Well, I was pointing to something else. But never mind that. In the above context, what is the nature of distraction? ==== > And it will never develop if external elements prevent its development before it grew strong enough. S: You mean that it is not ignorance, attachment and wrong understanding, but the objects of the five senses such as visible object, sound, hardness and taste which prevents understanding from arising and developed? ==== > If you are not yet good swimmer, you should jump strait into a very hard flowing water. You start with a swimming pool or some other safe place, and train from there. S: Well, you should perhaps be reminding yourself about this the next time you decide to meditate. How can there be patipatti understanding when there is not any pariyatti? ==== > >It is "self" that looks for protection and projects in the name of >right practice what is not...It is self that seeks to have more and therefore looks for a better time, place and activity. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > So self does exist then? Because if it didn't then how could (non-existent self) look for protection? S: The reference above is to miccha ditthi, and this is a cetasika. ==== > If detachment is weak, then not very strong blow of external conditions can easily stimulate kilesas. It is matter of degrees. S: That this happens is no reason to follow wrong practice. What makes you believe that the still existent kilesas are not what is behind your decision to seek a quiet place in order to meditate? ==== > >Sukin: The metaphor can be used by anyone, even a Muslim, >Christian, Sikh or Hindu to justify a ritualistic practice. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > What I described is not ritualistic practice. S: Of course from your perspective it is not and that is why after so many years you are still at it. ==== > >In a quiet room the kilesas are still very much there to take on any >object experienced through the senses or concepts which thinking >thinks about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Right, but the key is TO A LESSER DEGREE. There are less external conditions for kilesas, thus they are temporary weaker, thus there is more chance for little seed of wisdom to develop. S: That is what you keep saying, namely that the attachment that arises in a quiet place is less of a problem as compared to that which does when in a go-go bar. And I guess you would also say that attachment to classical music is not as bad as attachment to heavy metal or that attachment to vegetarian food is not as bad as that to meat. Therefore being a vegetarian and never listening to rock music is more conducive to the development of wisdom, right? Well, this is the stuff of wrong view which leads to wrong practice and is common amongst people of all religions. ==== > Your life or life other people is at stake, nothing to say about your or their cars. Of course there is possibility of MUCH MORE attachment when driving, as much more expensive and serious things are involved. S: Depending on the accumulations, anything can be decisive support condition for panna. For some people the situation of driving a car or in a nightclub may be a condition for panna to arise more than other situations. Besides, would you not think that the gross akusala are seen more easily than the subtle ones? ==== > If you are going to consider Dhamma when driving, then chance of accident is much higher. Considering Dhamma while sitting in your room is much safer. S: Thinking about the Dhamma with understanding is not a condition for perversion of perception and of consciousness. On the other hand, perversion of view is what is behind the belief and practice of choosing a more suitable place for thinking and considering the Dhamma. Is your mind always on the concept of driving and road when you drive? ==== > >Alex: Puggala is anatta. > >Sukin: And anicca and dukkha? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Yes, and asubha. S: So Puggala rises by conditions and falls away in an instant with the falling away of those conditions? Alex and Sukin rise and fall away in the same way that seeing, hearing, thinking and so on do? ==== > >What is the individual characteristic of puggala and what function >does it perform? > >>>>>>>> > > Person is born, lives, and dies. Person can get sick, can get stronger or weaker, can learn this or that. Puggala can read or type this... S: But birth life and death are realities each with particular characteristics. You are defining puggala in terms of these realities and go on to also to suggest that it gets sick, stronger and weaker, and can learn, read and type. These latter are concepts which makes your puggala a concept built upon other concepts, would it not? How do you know puggala as a reality? ==== > > Sukin: Car is a concept, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Then jump under one... S: Car is concept, but visible object, thinking, hardness, heat, painful feeling, attachment, aversion, death, these are realities. Understanding this, why would I want to jump under a car? No silly experiment for you, but do tell me, through which doorway is car experienced and by what characteristic is it known? ==== > If concepts don't perform any function, there is no danger, right? S: Death is real and the direct and supporting causes for death are also realities. ==== > Things occur and serve function. To deny that is wrong and potentially fatal. S: Within the conventional world, there are ideas about cause and effect which we all go by and agree upon. This is so whether or not one has heard the Dhamma. After hearing the Dhamma, the conventional reality does not change, however one comes to distinguish this from the ultimate reality underlying those particular conceivings. And this is the difference the Buddha's Dhamma is supposed to make. The reality / concept distinction makes it clear that any function attributed to conventional reality is just more thinking about different concepts. ==== > >You want to make it sound silly that we drive cars while thinking >that it is not real, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It is silly to claim that they don't exist. They exist and serve function. They can be cause and effect. S: It is silly to claim that they exist because they can only ever be thought about. And while the idea of function attributed to particular concepts requires any two persons to come to an agreement, functions performed by ultimate realities do not. ==== > I believe that paramattha dhammas are concepts because it is not something invariably experienced. S: What?! Ultimate realities are being experience all the time! Is there no seeing, hearing, thinking, touching, tasting, feeling, attachment, aversion and do you not experience hardness, heat, sound, taste etc? ==== > How do you know that, lets say, Jesus or Guru Nanak, or whoever, is not the Awakened one who is end result of a very special kind of wisdom? S: Simply because when it comes to statements about the way things are, they are obviously wrong. Are you saying that they are possibly enlightened? If so, then you are more off the mark than I expected. ==== > Practical result such as cessation of Dukkha is what matters. Truth needs to be experienced and analyzed. S: Pativedha comes aeons after the development first by way of pariyatti, and later by patipatti. But practical it is, the Dhamma, from the very beginning. No other teaching can cause this, and certainly any wrong interpretation of the Dhamma can only lead to being more tangled in knots. ==== > If some nihilistic theory contradicts daily life, then I question that theory. S: I think what you are saying is that if an interpretation of Dhamma contradicts yours, then it must be wrong. I'm most happy to be going against your interpretation of the Dhamma. Metta, Sukin #128516 From: Nina van Gorkom I'll take this opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year. ------ N: Thank you, and the same to you. I listened this morning to a recording and heard very useful things. When losing a dear person, it is just like last life. Also then one departed from the world and had to leave all that is dear. We can study whatever appears as just a reality, and then there is no time to feel lonely. Nina. #128517 From: "sarah" wrote: > Acharn Sujin also said that right understanding should be developed > in order to see that all realities are the same in the sense that > they cannot stay, that they arise and fall away. In that way there > will be less clinging to them. I was inclined to think that one can > only learn about realities in situations when there are Dhamma > discussions, and I was clinging to such situations. During this > journey I came to understand more that, if we do not cling to > particular situations and we can see them as only nåma and rúpa which > are conditioned, we can learn from any kind of situation. We can > learn that there are nåma and rúpa while we are in different places > such as the Thai Embassy, while we are walking in the park or having > lunch with friends and eating delicious food. ... S: In Manly, Sydney, we were ocean swimming every morning, followed by lively breakfasts with other swimmers, usually followed by house and office work. Back in Hong Kong, busy catching up on mail, getting ready for Thailand, where we'll be meeting friends for Dhamma discussions. Just namas and rupas regardless, ordinary realities wherever we are. Just as all the various dhammas which are referred to as "swimming in Manly" are conditioned, so are those referred to as "having a dhamma discussion in Bangkok". No more choice, no more self involved whichever kind of dhammas are conditioned now. It's useless to think about whether awareness is more likely to occur at one time rather than another or that one is more suitable for present understanding. Another swimmer in Manly asked me what I thought about on our longer swims. Actually, it's just like now or at any other time - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, followed by stories about visible objects, sounds and so on. We think it's "her story or her thinking" or "my story", but actually, just thinking about different realities and concepts, no self involved at all. It's not easy to explain this simply to a friend who is just asking a curious question with no knowledge of the Dhamma and who is likely to switch off at the first mention of visible object or 'no self'. ... >N: If we see each moment as a completely new situation which is > conditioned we can be reminded to be aware of the present moment, > without planning or selecting objects, without thinking of the > future. Nåma and rúpa arise because of their own conditions and we > never know what kind of reality will arise next, we cannot plan > anything. If we really understand this we will not be distracted from > our goal, that is, the development of understanding of this moment. ... S: This is the point that is always missed when we think in terms of "situations", "places" and "times". There are just conditioned dhammas and there is never any way of knowing what will be experienced at the next moment. We think we can plan and arrange what will be visible, what will be heard, what will be experienced through the body-sense, but there's no knowing what kamma will condition from moment to moment or how our accumulatated tendencies will respond. Yes, only one goal of any meaning in life - the understanding of what appears now. So, best wishes for this one goal now, during the year and in years to come! Metta Sarah ===== #128518 From: "sarah" wrote: > I am a doctor with special interest in Theravada Buddhism. I have studied many texts of Theravada Buddhism including Paa.li grammar. I have to admit my English is not very good but I think it will function well in Dhamma discussion. The life of Theravada Buddhism is vinaya or discipline. It is a part of tipi.taka or 3 baskets. The else is Dhamma. They are suttas and abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is like pathological bases of diseases, or principle of medicine while suttas are like managements of diseases or practice of medicine. Not anyone has to know everything about abhidhamma while he is to attain enlightenment. To attain enlightenment does need at least a single > sutta however it is short or even a single sentence. ... S: So good to hear all your reflections and comments once more. Interesting analogies with medicine. Of course, none of us today can just hear a single sentence and become enlightened .....we're the dull-witted ones that need to hear and consider a lot:-) Metta Sarah === #128519 From: "sarah" wrote: > Here comes an extract from Milindapa~nha on five ayatanas. > > > "They are produced from different kammas, sire, not from one kamma." > "Make a simile" > "What do you think about this sire? If five (kinds of) seeds were sown in one field would different fruits be produced from these different seeds?" > "Yes revered sire, they would be so produced." > "Even so, sire, these five (sensory) fields are produced from different kammas, not from one kamma." > "You are dexterous revered Nagasena"> > > L: There are five pairs(fields) of senses. > Eye and visible object, > Ear and sound, > Tongue and flavour, > Nose and odour, > Body and tangible object, ... S: In the quote above, it is just the eye-, ear-, tongue-, nose- and body-sense being referred to as produced by kamma. The same cannot be said about visible object etc. There are 4 causes of these rupas. Those outside the body are never caused by kamma. ... >L:.... And we live in imaginary world, of my experience, my life, me in this or that situation. But we would be lived exactly like this. ... S: True! ... >L: Though we can slowly develop more consideration of all conditoned phenomena, like this is now, only eye base and a visible object base that comes becouse of past kamma. ... S:...."and visible object that may be conditioned by kamma, nutriment, citta or temperature" Look forward to seeing you in a few days, Lukas. Wishing you a good trip! Metta Sarah ==== #128520 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Htoo: There is a wrong view or di.t.thi that view as everything that we meet is because of kamma. It is called 'pubbekatakamma vaadii' > > --------------------------- > > L: I am trying to find out in my head what kind of wrong view can it be. Is it like 'just kamma performs everything' or 'all done by kamma, no need to try to change'? I think this is good to be aware(conscious) of all different kinds of wrong view there are. Do u know more? ... S: If we think that 'all done by kamma, no need to try to change', it's very dangerous. There is no "responsibility" for accumulations, no responsibility for developing kusala of all kinds. Past kamma becomes the "excuse" for whatever happens in life. Actually, the vipaka cittas, such as seeing or hearing, are very brief. What is important are the kusala or akusala cittas which follow them. ... > > There is this term kammasakata~nana, or something. This points out some knowladge. But I dont remember that. ... S: This refers to the knowledge of kamma, the results of kamma, (i.e. vipaka cittas and rupas condiitoned by kamma) as being produced by 'one's own' kamma, not the deeds of anyone else. We tend to think that when we're praised or blamed, hurt or helped, that the causes lie outside, but actually, the hearing and the experiencing through the body-sense at such times are a result of kamma. The attachment or aversion to what is heard or experienced through the body-sense, however, is conditioned by natural decisive support condition, not kamma. Metta Sarah ===== #128521 From: "jonoabb" > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > ... > HCW: > I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. And I also agree that a sound and the hearing of it are, indeed, like two sides of a coin. > > There's no heads side of a coin without a tails side & vice-versa, and, for a container there's no inside without an outside & vice-versa. > =============== J: I read you to be saying one or other of the following: - that sound is mind-created, or - that sound, although not mind-created, arises at the very moment it becomes object of hearing consciousness, and not a fraction of a moment earlier. Is either of these a correct statement of the way you see it? > =============== HOWEVER, are the tails side and the heads side of a coin one and the same? Are the inside and outside of a container one and the same? No, they are not. Mutual dependence (and consistent co-occurence) are NOT identity. > =============== J: If sound is mind-created, I don't see how it could have an innate characteristic that is unique to it and that differentiates it from something that does have a unique, innate characteristic, as implied by the analogy of the coin/container. Jon #128522 From: "sarah" wrote: > >S: As you point out, at moments of genuinely helping others with alobha or having metta (or any kind of kusala), there is "an antidote for the self-engrossed state", at least a break from all that akusala concern about ME. > >R: It is always a relief when thinking or attention turns to something that is not self-based, even briefly. I experienced this when my daughter was born. The sense of caring more about someone else than myself was very strong at that time, and seemed like a real change of perspective. ... S: This is what is meant by a "mother's love" in descriptions of metta - those rare moments when another's welfare is one's concern rather than one's own. Of course, as we all know, the near enemy of metta is attachment. At moments of true metta, the cittas are light, gentle and peaceful - no expectation or hope or wish, just genuine caring and attention to the other's needs. Metta Sarah ==== #128523 From: "Lukas" Just as all the various dhammas which are referred to as "swimming in Manly" are conditioned, so are those referred to as "having a dhamma discussion in Bangkok". No more choice, no more self involved whichever kind of dhammas are conditioned now. It's useless to think about whether awareness is more likely to occur at one time rather than another or that one is more suitable for present understanding. > > Another swimmer in Manly asked me what I thought about on our longer swims. Actually, it's just like now or at any other time - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, followed by stories about visible objects, sounds and so on. We think it's "her story or her thinking" or "my story", but actually, just thinking about different realities and concepts, no self involved at all. > ... > S: This is the point that is always missed when we think in terms of "situations", "places" and "times". There are just conditioned dhammas and there is never any way of knowing what will be experienced at the next moment. We think we can plan and arrange what will be visible, what will be heard, what will be experienced through the body-sense, but there's no knowing what kamma will condition from moment to moment or how our accumulatated tendencies will respond. Yes, only one goal of any meaning in life - the understanding of what appears now. #128524 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > ... > > J: In your previous post you asked about visible object, one of the > > dhammas mentioned in the suttas, whereas you now refer to 'mind-made > > percepts' and 'eye-sense based percepts', terms not found in the texts (and > > not defined by you either). Perhaps you could explain the relation. > > > > HH: Certainly. Somewhere in the texts, I am sure, there is a story about > whether an object is a rope or a snake. This is a story about the > possibility of misperception. There are accurate concepts of the world, and > there are inaccurate ones. > > Now, whether a seen object is a snake or a rope relies on seeing with the > eyes first, and then again and again. > > When you are in jhana, and a cobra wraps itself around you to shield you > from the weather, and all of this for seven days and seven nights, this > does not depend on seeing at all. It is totally mind-made. > > We are talking about the spectrum perception-illusion-hallucination. > =============== J: Thanks for mentioning this, otherwise I'd not have known :-)) Your original question was, "what, if any, is the difference (in quality) between visible object experienced through the eye door and visible object experienced through the mind door?" To me, this asks about the experience of visible object, one of the dhammas spoken of frequently by the Buddha, and whether there is any difference in that dhamma as experienced through the eye-door compared to when experienced through the mind-door. I'm afraid I don't see how this raises the issue of the perception-illusion-hallucination spectrum (whatever that means - could you please define these terms if we are to discuss them). If I have misunderstood the question, please feel free to indicate how the question is to be read :-)) > =============== > > J: Going back to your original question, to my understanding it is possible > > for the dhamma known as 'visible object' to be experienced, momentarily, > > through the mind-door after having been experienced through the eye-door. > > Subsequent experiences through the mind-door, however, are not of the > > visible object but of a concept of it. > > > > > HH: I question the relevance of anything "momentary" in coming to understand > whether there is perception, illusion or hallucination. > =============== J: Interesting, but would you mind expanding upon the reasoning/thinking behind your statement, so that I can understand it better. Thanks. Jon #128525 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon and Herman. > ... > RE: I think this is a terminology problem. When Herman says "there is no sound without hearing," what I think he means is "there is no hearing without hearing," because sound is defined as "that which is heard." > =============== J: Thanks for this description of Herman's (possible) position, given with your usual clarity. Yes, sound is often described as "that which is heard", since it is *experienced* only as object of hearing consciousness and not of any of the other 5 sense-door consciousnesses. But that description is not meant to define sound as something that *arises* only as object of hearing consciousness. Sound is a dhamma having a unique inherent characteristic. Nowhere in the Pali Canon is it said that the conditions for its arising (as opposed to the conditions for its being experienced by hearing consciousness) have any relation to consciousness or to kamma. > =============== > RE: Then by definition it doesn't exist without a hearing consciousness. > > But if sound is defined as the "sound vibration caused by physical phenomena" which then makes an impression on the hearing in order to become "heard sound," then I don't think there's a problem. I don't think that Herman would say that the vibration we call "thunder" does not take place without hearing, or that it is caused by the ear. > =============== J: As someone (I think Howard) has pointed out, this is a scientific definition of sound. As such it tends to take us away from the idea of sound as that which is (now being) experienced by hearing consciousness. > ===============> > RE: But he might not define such unheard phenomena as "sound." > =============== J: We are not particularly concerned with such `unheard phenomena'. The only area of interest is, I think, whether or not sound appearing as object of hearing consciousness is mind-created or whether it has arisen independently of the mind. I've yet to hear any solid reason from the `no unheard sound' camp why the latter could not be the case :-)) Jon #128526 From: "sarah" wrote: > I think this is a terminology problem. When Herman says "there is no sound without hearing," what I think he means is "there is no hearing without hearing," because sound is defined as "that which is heard." > Then by definition it doesn't exist without a hearing consciousness. ... S: We're discussing the Buddha's Teachings! Sound is that which is 'cognizable', which can be heard, *when there are the conditions in place*. SN 35:93 The Dyad(2) [Bodhi transl] "And how, bhikkhus, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on the eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.........in dependence on the ear and sounds there arises ear-consciousness....." S: Without sound, ear-sense, contact and other mental factors, kamma, no hearing. ***** SN 35:95 (2) Malunkyaputta "Do you have any desire, lust, or affection for those sounds cognizable by the ear......that you have not cognized and never cognized before, that you do not cognize and would not think might be cognized?" "No, venerable sir." ***** S: In other words, all the uncountable sounds arising and falling away all the time which are not experienced now are not the objects of attachment and are therefore not of relevance to the Path and the way out of samsara. It doesn't mean that there are no other sounds arising and falling away. Metta Sarah ===== #128527 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > > HH: I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that > > sound ca > > > > > occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > > =============== > > > > J: Not sure what's so perplexing about the idea of sound occurring without > > hearing. > > HH: I am baffled by the attitude that insists on the necessity of awareness > of trillionth of a second momentariness, > =============== J: "Utterly perplexed", "baffled by the attitude" … It's becoming the usual Herman bluster (but I'm still looking for the beef :-)) BTW, I've never mentioned or implied "the necessity of awareness of trillionth of a second momentariness". That's not on the radar at this stage, given that we cannot even agree on a definition of visible object or sound :-)) > =============== > HH: yet carelessly describing unheard phenomena as sound. > =============== J: My apologies for being so careless as to mention a view that does not concur with your own :-)) Seriously though, the question is not whether `unheard phenomena' are sound, but whether the sound that is heard is mind-created or arises independently of the mind. I'd be interested to know why you feel, and obviously feel strongly, that the latter could not be the case. > =============== > > J: Indeed, as I was explaining to Howard, I'd have thought that experience in > > life tends to suggest that the sounds of nature (howl of wind, crash of > > waves, drip of falling water, etc.) occur regardless of whether there's a > > consciousness to experience them or not. > > > > Would be happy to hear your own thoughts on the matter. > > > > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight? > =============== J: The matter under discussion between Howard and me is the sound that is taken to be the sound of dripping water. We are not discussing dripping water as such. Jon #128528 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Herman. > ... > RE: I don't disagree with your reluctance to call an "unheard object" a "sound," since it tortures the definition of "sound." > =============== J: If it `tortures the definition of "sound"' it does so because you are attributing the conventional meaning of sound to the dhamma that is given the same name. The same could be said of many other dhammas when compared to their conventional counterparts, for example, concentration (samadhi), energy/effort (viriya), thinking (vitakka) to name but a few. Dhammas have to be understood in their own right and not as functional equivalents of the conventional things that carry the same label. Jon #128529 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 2, 2013 1:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi again Howard > > Just coming back to the rest of your earlier message (128419). > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - > > ... > > HCW: > > I agree, and believe that the Buddha taught, that there is no unheard sound, no unseen sight, no unfelt sensation, and so on. And I also agree that a sound and the hearing of it are, indeed, like two sides of a coin. > > > > There's no heads side of a coin without a tails side & vice-versa, and, for a container there's no inside without an outside & vice-versa. > > =============== > > J: I read you to be saying one or other of the following: > - that sound is mind-created, or > - that sound, although not mind-created, arises at the very moment it becomes object of hearing consciousness, and not a fraction of a moment earlier. > > Is either of these a correct statement of the way you see it? ---------------------------- HCW: What I mean by 'sound' is what is heard. Any sound, as I use the term, is the object-content of ear consciousness. Whether there are consciousness-independent "things" that serve as conditions for the arising of sounds is another issue. This is how I describe this matter, and I wish to stick with this formulation, for it is how I view it. ---------------------------- > > > =============== > HOWEVER, are the tails side and the heads side of a coin one and the same? Are the inside and outside of a container one and the same? No, they are not. Mutual dependence (and consistent co-occurence) are NOT identity. > > =============== > > J: If sound is mind-created, I don't see how it could have an innate characteristic that is unique to it and that differentiates it from something that does have a unique, innate characteristic, as implied by the analogy of the coin/container. ---------------------------- HCW: Given my formulation above, this is a non-problem for me. In any case, my point here to Herman was that mutual dependency and co-arising are different from being one and the same. In any case, the very notion of "identity" smacks of atta-view as I see it. There is nothing in any realm of appearance that exists as a thing-in-itself as opposed to a thing-in-relation ... as I view things. ----------------------------- > > Jon > ========================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128530 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon & Robert - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > =============== > > J: As someone (I think Howard) has pointed out, this is a scientific definition of sound. As such it tends to take us away from the idea of sound as that which is (now being) experienced by hearing consciousness. > > > ===============> > > RE: But he might not define such unheard phenomena as "sound." > > =============== > > J: We are not particularly concerned with such `unheard phenomena'. The only area of interest is, I think, whether or not sound appearing as object of hearing consciousness is mind-created or whether it has arisen independently of the mind. I've yet to hear any solid reason from the `no unheard sound' camp why the latter could not be the case :-)) --------------------------------- HCW: Here's something from someone in the "no unheard sound" camp: /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. "When hearing... "When sensing... "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ (From the Kalaka Sutta) ------------------------------- > > Jon > ================================= With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128531 From: "Ken H" Date: Wed Jan 2, 2013 2:07 pm Subject: Re: Kamma - it's only the linchpin kenhowardau Hi Sarah, ---- >> KH: By my (incorrect) reckoning that makes alobha a reality and dana a concept. > S: Well, as we discuss them - they are both concepts about realities, but whereas alobha refers to a single specific cetasika, dana, unless referring specifically to alobha, refers to different realities. There cannot be an act of generosity performed by one reality only. So, I think your point is correct in this regard. --- KH: I am tempted to say "Hooray, I was right all along!" but there is sure to be a catch. ---------- <. . .> > S: I think that the emphasis we give on the present moment, present reality is the correct one. Only one reality ever appears. However, to really appreciate the anatta nature of all realities, we have to understand that what is taken for acts of generosity, past deeds bringing results now and so on are just different elements, different realities - just like the one appearing now. ---------- KH: Good, I hope we can all agree on that. I am prepared to accept that my [personal, idiosyncratic] way of expanding on that point is incomprehensible to others and sounds like armchair philosophy, or intellectualising. I shall refrain from holding court on that particular subject for the foreseeable future. Maybe when I understand it better I will be able to bring it up again. Ken H PS: > S: p.s Just noticed on the home page that tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of DSG (if I counted correctly) - that went by fast, one moment at a time! We'll be travelling back to HK tomorrow. KH: Yes, one moment at a time. So there is really no 14 year period and no travelling to HK; there is just the present reality. KH PPS: Corrections welcome! :-) #128532 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi RobE, > > HH: > To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made, as is vision. When sound > and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive the > world as the mind would have. When sound or vision occur based on mental > stimuli only, then we are hallucinating, but again, as the mind would have > it. > =============== J: Regarding "To my understanding, sound is entirely mind-made", I'd be interested to know the basis for this understanding. You have previously made the point that sound only appears when there is hearing. True. But that goes to the *experiencing* of sound rather than to it's *arising*. Would you be open to the possibility that sound that is experienced has already arisen, by conditions unrelated to consciousness, (just) before becoming the object of hearing consciousness? Regarding, "When sound and vision occur based on stimuli that are non-mental, then we perceive the world as the mind would have", you appear to be postulating a world as perceived by the mind and a wold as perceived by `us'. Have I read you correctly? To my understanding of the teachings, however, there are simply moments of consciousness (vipaka consciousness) that experience sound followed by other moments of consciousness (javana cittas) that `run through' that object and think about it, react to it, etc. > =============== > HH: Certainly, there is a world that exists independently of perception, but > knowledge of how that world is apart from perception is totally beyond the > possible. The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd > knowledge, but how to live. > =============== J: Regarding, "The issue for Buddhists is not the pursuit of such absurd knowledge", I concur with the general sentiment. To my understanding the only knowledge to be pursued is that relating to presently arising dhammas (this includes, of course, the conditions for those dhammas' arising). Obviously, those dhammas do not include `unheard sounds', that being a term that is unknown to the Pali Canon. In fact, if you hadn't brought the subject up I wouldn't be giving it a second thought :-)) Jon #128533 From: "Robert E" wrote: > HH: I understand and accept what you are saying. Still, the kind of world > that is "actual" for us is dependent on our cognitive faculties, and I > would put no limit on what different kind of beings there could be and what > kind of cognitive abilities they might have, and therefore what is "actual" > for them. Sure, I would agree. ... > > > So, in summary, I would say that there are objective forces, objective > > object-formations, objective passage of time, which is then twisted, > > warped, bent, processed, made sensible in a form that may only partially > > resemble the original "in nature," by the mind, but that this mental > > version of things is in similitude to them, not wholly removed from "what > > they are" in "what they appear to be" to the mind. That seems like a place > > of reason, rather than either extreme. > > > > > > So I think vibration exists in nature, it is movement of matter and > > energy. It's out there, not mind-made, but the mind is adapted to utilize > > those vibrations in particular ways, for its own design and purposes. Space > > and time have objective existence, but our apprehension/use of them is > > subjective, up to a point, within the limits of what their actuality allow. > > > > > > The real mystery is the nature of the mind, not the nature of the world. > > Rupa is just "stuff;" nama is more complicated. > > > > > > > HH: All very well said. Would you agree with the following segue - that it > is not so much how the world is, but how to live in whatever world that > arises? I think I would agree with that, but maybe revise it to say: It is not so much how the world is, but how to live in whatever world arises, and what we understand it to be - but maybe that's included. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128534 From: "Robert E" wrote: > >R: It is always a relief when thinking or attention turns to something that is not self-based, even briefly. I experienced this when my daughter was born. The sense of caring more about someone else than myself was very strong at that time, and seemed like a real change of perspective. > ... > S: This is what is meant by a "mother's love" in descriptions of metta - those rare moments when another's welfare is one's concern rather than one's own. Of course, as we all know, the near enemy of metta is attachment. > > At moments of true metta, the cittas are light, gentle and peaceful - no expectation or hope or wish, just genuine caring and attention to the other's needs. That is a great description. I like the "light, gentle and peaceful" cittas. I think there were moments like that when my daughter was born, interspersed of course with attachment, overconcern, etc. But during the "lighter" moments, it was like being in a place of equilibrium, attention and love, such that one didn't need to sit down, rest or eat - very special at those moments. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128535 From: "connie" HCW: > Here's something from someone in the "no unheard sound" camp: > > /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > > "When hearing... > > "When sensing... > > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ > > (From the Kalaka Sutta) > ------------------------------- AN 4.24 alternate translations: Gradual Sayings: Thus, monks, a Tathaagata is a seer of what is to be seen, but he has no conceit* of what is seen: he has no conceit of what has not been seen, he has no conceit of what is to be sen, he has no conceit about the seer. Hearing what is to be heard, he has no conceit of what has been heard or not heard or is to be heard, he has no conceit about the hearer. So also sensing what is to be sensed ... cognizing the cognizable ... he has no conceit of the thing cognized or to be cognized or of him who has cognition. - *Deeming, fancy: ma~n~nati, as at S iv 22, KS iv 12. Numerical Discourses: (1)"So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees.# (2) Having heard what can be heard does not misconceive one who cognizes. - # note 666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." connie #128536 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > ===============> > > RE: But he might not define such unheard phenomena as "sound." > > =============== > > J: We are not particularly concerned with such `unheard phenomena'. The only area of interest is, I think, whether or not sound appearing as object of hearing consciousness is mind-created or whether it has arisen independently of the mind. I've yet to hear any solid reason from the `no unheard sound' camp why the latter could not be the case :-)) Well, to me there seem to be two issues here: one is what you're talking about, and we could agree, at least provisionally, that the arising of sound object is independent of whether it is heard or not. The other has to do with communication, and whether you are referencing the same phenomenon as Herman when talking about 'sound,' which is why I think it's worthwhile to get the terms lined up in order to discuss the subject more easily. I think there could be some agreement on rupas arising independent of hearing, with the understanding that they are only potential heard objects unless they are heard - or something like that. I don't think anyone really disagrees about that - except maybe the Buddha, depending on how you take Howard's quote. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = #128537 From: "jagkrit2012" L: It makes me to think of all of us like a cattle that all the time is leaded astray. Eat grass on the step and is leaded towards somewhere, to death. And the cattle doesnt know that, it's sure it's fine. JJ: Exactly, and I may add that the cattle is also in the deep abyss of ignorance. =========== > S: Another swimmer in Manly asked me what I thought about on our longer swims. JJ: This reminds me about T.A. Sujin's question during the boat trip in Halong Bay, Vietnam. .................Where are we now? Where exactly are we?............... ++++++ In the ocean of ignorance. ++++++ I can't imagine about long swim we will have before reaching the island of panna. ============= Looking forward to seeing you all in Hua Hin. Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128538 From: "Lukas" >L: It makes me to think of all of us like a cattle that all the time is leaded astray. Eat grass on the step and is leaded towards somewhere, to death. And the cattle doesnt know that, it's sure it's fine. > > JJ: Exactly, and I may add that the cattle is also in the deep abyss of ignorance. > =========== L: And without ignorance, there could be no life. It conditions all what appears now. Without that no seeing, hearing, no life. ignorance conditions sankhara, sankhara conditions vi~n~nana... life. > .................Where are we now? Where exactly are we?............... > > ++++++ In the ocean of ignorance. ++++++ L: Very good. Where are we now? Where exactly are we? A vithi citas arise, so there can be daily life experiences. Different mind-doors conditions different kinds of thoughts. No people and things. Different vitthi-cittas in reality. Best wishes Lukas #128539 From: "Robert E" wrote: > > Hi Rob E & Herman > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" wrote: > > > > Hi Herman. > > ... > > RE: I don't disagree with your reluctance to call an "unheard object" a "sound," since it tortures the definition of "sound." > > =============== > > J: If it `tortures the definition of "sound"' it does so because you are attributing the conventional meaning of sound to the dhamma that is given the same name. > > The same could be said of many other dhammas when compared to their conventional counterparts, for example, concentration (samadhi), energy/effort (viriya), thinking (vitakka) to name but a few. > > Dhammas have to be understood in their own right and not as functional equivalents of the conventional things that carry the same label. Could you please describe or define what constitutes the rupa of "sound" apart from being heard? Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128540 From: "jagkrit2012" L: A vithi citas arise, so there can be daily life experiences. Different mind-doors conditions different kinds of thoughts. No people and things. Different vitthi-cittas in reality. JJ: I like that you mentioning vithi citas which bring us daily life experiences of the world. If we are in deep sleep, this world never appears at all and indifferent to the death. The world appears to us by vithi citas which works like the great magician. TA. Sujin, once, said " when speaking about reality, it appears to us as surreal." Archarn again stressed that ignorance never knows reality, only panna knows. Are we living in real or surreal phenomena? Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit #128541 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Dear Lukas and Sarah > > Thank you for your good reminders. > > >L: It makes me to think of all of us like a cattle that all the time is > leaded astray. Eat grass on the step and is leaded towards somewhere, to > death. And the cattle doesnt know that, it's sure it's fine. > > JJ: Exactly, and I may add that the cattle is also in the deep abyss of > ignorance. > =========== > > HH: I guess you are all flying "cattle class" to Thailand, then ? :-) > > S: Another swimmer in Manly asked me what I thought about on our longer > swims. > > JJ: This reminds me about T.A. Sujin's question during the boat trip in > Halong Bay, Vietnam. > > .................Where are we now? Where exactly are we?............... > > ++++++ In the ocean of ignorance. ++++++ > > I can't imagine about long swim we will have before reaching the island of > panna. > ============= > > Looking forward to seeing you all in Hua Hin. > > Thank you and anumodhana > > Jagkrit > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128542 From: "sarah" wrote: > KH: I am tempted to say "Hooray, I was right all along!" but there is sure to be a catch. ... S: The catch is really when we think that it's "I" who was right (or wrong) and forget about dhammas again:-) ... > KH: Good, I hope we can all agree on that. I am prepared to accept that my [personal, idiosyncratic] way of expanding on that point is incomprehensible to others and sounds like armchair philosophy, or intellectualising. I shall refrain from holding court on that particular subject for the foreseeable future. ... S: So many DSGers including ourselves, Nina, Lukas, Alberto, the Vietnamese & Jagkrit will be travelling as from today (for those from Europe) and from tomorrow (for those like ourselves in Asia) - so look forward to reading your expansions and those of others while we're away:-) ... > KH: Yes, one moment at a time. So there is really no 14 year period and no travelling to HK; there is just the present reality. > PPS: Corrections welcome! :-) .... S: All sounds good to me. Metta Sarah ===== > AdChoices #128543 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for a report. I agree with all this, just life goes like that all the time. And no awarness when we want it to be or more proper obiects for awarness. All waht is now is conditioned to be like that. > Just normal life without any awarness. > > It makes me to think of all of us like a cattle that all the time is leaded astray. Eat grass on the step and is leaded towards somewhere, to death. And the cattle doesnt know that, it's sure it's fine. But the Buddha is like a sheapard, he knows exactly what leads to what. And out of compassion he instructs us and says the way that leads to Deathlessness. > > Even all our life we are like a cattle blinded by ignorance, there comes some moment in life, naturally that we are more prompt to listen Dhamma and understand what is real for a while. Than we can really see. But this are just a few moments in a liftime. Little by little, one moment after another. very slow way. Whyen ignorance arises it blinds us fully. #128544 From: "sarah" wrote: > > Hi all, > > HH: I am unwilling to resist this following attempt at humour. I sincerely > hope no-one is offended. > HH: I guess you are all flying "cattle class" to Thailand, then ? :-) ... S: Is that it? Very mild by Herman standards:-) Yes, off cattle-class in the morning - like now, bound to be mostly following ignorance and lobha, but like now, awareness and understanding can arise any moment at all. Metta Sarah ==== #128545 From: "sarah" wrote: > SN 35:95 (2) Malunkyaputta > > "Do you have any desire, lust, or affection for those sounds cognizable by the ear......that you have not cognized and never cognized before, that you do not cognize and would not think might be cognized?" > > "No, venerable sir." ... Pali: ``Ye te sotavi~n~neyyaa saddaa assutaa assutapubbaa, na ca su.naasi, na ca te hoti su.neyyanti? Atthi te tattha chando vaa raago vaa pema.m vaa``ti? ``No heta.m, bhante``. .... S: a few lines later, as in the Bahiya Sutta: "Here, Maalunkyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, senses and cognized by you: in the seen there will be merely the seen; in the heard there will be merely the heard; in the sensed there will be merely the sensed; in the cognized there will be merely the cognized. "When, Maalunkyaputta, regarding things seen, heard, sensed, and cognized by you, in the seen there will be merely the seen.....cognized, then, Maalunkyaputta, you will not be 'by that'. When Maalunkyaputta, you are not 'by that', then you will not be 'therein'. When, Maalunkyaputta, you are not 'therein', then you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. This itself is the end of suffering." ``Ettha ca te, maalukyaputta, di.t.thasutamutavi~n~naatabbesu dhammesu di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati. Yato kho te, maalukyaputta, di.t.thasutamutavi~n~naatabbesu dhammesu di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati , mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati; tato tva.m, maalukyaputta, na tena. Yato tva.m, maalukyaputta, na tena; tato tva.m, maalukyaputta , na tattha. Yato tva.m, maalukyaputta, na tattha; tato tva.m, maalukyaputta, nevidha, na hura.m, na ubhayamantarena. Esevanto dukkhassaa``ti. > ***** > S: In other words, all the uncountable sounds arising and falling away all the time which are not experienced now are not the objects of attachment and are therefore not of relevance to the Path and the way out of samsara. It doesn't mean that there are no other sounds arising and falling away. Metta Sarah ==== #128546 From: "sarah" wrote: > > HCW: > > Here's something from someone in the "no unheard sound" camp: > > > > /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > > > > "When hearing... > > > > "When sensing... > > > > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./ > > > > (From the Kalaka Sutta) > > ------------------------------- > > > AN 4.24 alternate translations: > > Gradual Sayings: > Thus, monks, a Tathaagata is a seer of what is to be seen, but he has no conceit* of what is seen: he has no conceit of what has not been seen, he has no conceit of what is to be sen, he has no conceit about the seer. > Hearing what is to be heard, he has no conceit of what has been heard or not heard or is to be heard, he has no conceit about the hearer. So also sensing what is to be sensed ... cognizing the cognizable ... he has no conceit of the thing cognized or to be cognized or of him who has cognition. > - > *Deeming, fancy: ma~n~nati, as at S iv 22, KS iv 12. > > Numerical Discourses: > (1)"So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees.# (2) Having heard what can be heard does not misconceive one who cognizes. > - > # note 666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." ... `Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato da.t.thaa da.t.thabba.m, di.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, adi.t.tha.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thabba.m na ma~n~nati, da.t.thaara.m na ma~n~nati; sutvaa sotabba.m, suta.m na ma~n~nati, asuta.m na ma~n~nati, sotabba.m na ma~n~nati, sotaara.m na ma~n~nati; mutvaa motabba.m, muta.m na ma~n~nati, amuta.m na ma~n~nati, motabba.m na ma~n~nati, motaara.m na ma~n~nati; vi~n~natvaa vi~n~naatabba.m, vi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati, avi~n~naata.m na ma~n~nati, vi~n~naatabba.m na ma~n~nati, vi~n~naataara.m na ma~n~nati. Iti kho, bhikkhave, tathaagato di.t.thasutamutavi~n~naatabbesu dhammesu taadiiyeva taadii [taadisova taadii (syaa. ka.m.), taadise yeva taadii (pii.), taadiiyeva taadiiyevekaa (ka.)]. Tamhaa ca pana taadimhaa [taaditamhaa (sii. pii.)] a~n~no taadii uttaritaro vaa pa.niitataro vaa natthiiti vadaamii``ti. ... Connie, good to see you around! Metta Sarah ===== #128547 From: "sarah" > Hi, Jon - > ... > > J: I read you to be saying one or other of the following: > > - that sound is mind-created, or > > - that sound, although not mind-created, arises at the very moment it becomes object of hearing consciousness, and not a fraction of a moment earlier. > > > > Is either of these a correct statement of the way you see it? > ---------------------------- > HCW: > What I mean by 'sound' is what is heard. > =============== J: OK, so we are no longer talking about sound as that term is used in the Pali Canon, but about your own preferred definition of sound :-)) No problem, but would just like to point out that in an earlier message you agreed with Herman's assertion that hearing is the cause of sound. That was more than just a matter of definition, wasn't it! So you are defining sound as what is heard – that is to say, as object of hearing consciousness. Fine, but there is still the question of the *arising*, as opposed to the experiencing, of the `what is heard' – whether it arises only as object of hearing consciousness or whether it arises prior to becoming that object. Your (strong) view, I take it, is the former. What is the `evidence', as you see it, for that? > =============== > HCW: Any sound, as I use the term, is the object-content of ear consciousness. Whether there are consciousness-independent "things" that serve as conditions for the arising of sounds is another issue. This is how I describe this matter, and I wish to stick with this formulation, for it is how I view it. > =============== J: I think we can agree that there's no point in speculating about `consciousness-independent "things" that serve as conditions for the arising of sounds'. That is not the Pali Canon teaching and has not been proposed by anyone here. Only presently arising dhammas can be directly known. > =============== > HCW: > ... my point here to Herman was that mutual dependency and co-arising are different from being one and the same. > =============== J: Yes, I agree that mutual dependency and co-arising are different from being one and the same (although I don't see why co-arising should be presumed in the case we are now discussing). > =============== > HCW: In any case, the very notion of "identity" smacks of atta-view as I see it. There is nothing in any realm of appearance that exists as a thing-in-itself as opposed to a thing-in-relation ... as I view things. > =============== J: Not sure who/what you're referring to when you say `notion of "identity"'. Was it something I said? If it's a reference to my mention of innate/inherent characteristic that is unique to each dhamma, that is a statement of the Pali canon doctrine and not a view being expressed. Jon #128548 From: Herman wrote: > ** > > > Hi Herman (and Howard) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman wrote: > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > > > HH: I am utterly perplexed. There seems to be a suggestion here that > > > sound ca > > > > > > > occur without hearing?? Please correct me. > > > > =============== > > > > > > J: Not sure what's so perplexing about the idea of sound occurring > without > > > hearing. > > > > HH: I am baffled by the attitude that insists on the necessity of > awareness > > of trillionth of a second momentariness, > > =============== > > J: "Utterly perplexed", "baffled by the attitude" … It's becoming the > usual Herman bluster (but I'm still looking for the beef :-)) > > HH: You're seeing bluster, I'm dealing with filibuster :-) HH: I'll be taking a non-lurking break. Thanks everyone for the discussions. > BTW, I've never mentioned or implied "the necessity of awareness of > trillionth of a second momentariness". That's not on the radar at this > stage, given that we cannot even agree on a definition of visible object or > sound :-)) > > > =============== > > HH: yet carelessly describing unheard phenomena as sound. > > =============== > > J: My apologies for being so careless as to mention a view that does not > concur with your own :-)) > > Seriously though, the question is not whether `unheard phenomena' are > sound, but whether the sound that is heard is mind-created or arises > independently of the mind. > > I'd be interested to know why you feel, and obviously feel strongly, that > the latter could not be the case. > > > =============== > > > J: Indeed, as I was explaining to Howard, I'd have thought that > experience in > > > > life tends to suggest that the sounds of nature (howl of wind, crash of > > > waves, drip of falling water, etc.) occur regardless of whether > there's a > > > consciousness to experience them or not. > > > > > > Would be happy to hear your own thoughts on the matter. > > > > > > > > HH: Why is the unheard drip of water a sound and not a sight? > > =============== > > J: The matter under discussion between Howard and me is the sound that is > taken to be the sound of dripping water. We are not discussing dripping > water as such. > > Jon > > > -- Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know #128549 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Howard > > (128529) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > > J: I read you to be saying one or other of the following: > > > - that sound is mind-created, or > > > - that sound, although not mind-created, arises at the very moment it becomes object of hearing consciousness, and not a fraction of a moment earlier. > > > > > > Is either of these a correct statement of the way you see it? > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > What I mean by 'sound' is what is heard. > > =============== > > J: OK, so we are no longer talking about sound as that term is used in the Pali Canon, but about your own preferred definition of sound :-)) > > No problem, but would just like to point out that in an earlier message you agreed with Herman's assertion that hearing is the cause of sound. That was more than just a matter of definition, wasn't it! > > So you are defining sound as what is heard – that is to say, as object of hearing consciousness. Fine, but there is still the question of the *arising*, as opposed to the experiencing, of the `what is heard' – whether it arises only as object of hearing consciousness or whether it arises prior to becoming that object. > > Your (strong) view, I take it, is the former. What is the `evidence', as you see it, for that? > > > =============== > > HCW: > Any sound, as I use the term, is the object-content of ear consciousness. Whether there are consciousness-independent "things" that serve as conditions for the arising of sounds is another issue. This is how I describe this matter, and I wish to stick with this formulation, for it is how I view it. > > =============== > > J: I think we can agree that there's no point in speculating about `consciousness-independent "things" that serve as conditions for the arising of sounds'. That is not the Pali Canon teaching and has not been proposed by anyone here. > > Only presently arising dhammas can be directly known. > > > =============== > > HCW: > > ... my point here to Herman was that mutual dependency and co-arising are different from being one and the same. > > =============== > > J: Yes, I agree that mutual dependency and co-arising are different from being one and the same (although I don't see why co-arising should be presumed in the case we are now discussing). > > > =============== > > HCW: > In any case, the very notion of "identity" smacks of atta-view as I see it. There is nothing in any realm of appearance that exists as a thing-in-itself as opposed to a thing-in-relation ... as I view things. > > =============== > > J: Not sure who/what you're referring to when you say `notion of "identity"'. Was it something I said? > > If it's a reference to my mention of innate/inherent characteristic that is unique to each dhamma, that is a statement of the Pali canon doctrine and not a view being expressed. > > Jon > #128550 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon, > > > J: "Utterly perplexed", "baffled by the attitude" … It's becoming the > > usual Herman bluster (but I'm still looking for the beef :-)) > > > > > > HH: You're seeing bluster, I'm dealing with filibuster :-) > > HH: I'll be taking a non-lurking break. Thanks everyone for the discussions. > =============== J: Thanks for letting us know. See you when you're back again. Jon #128551 From: "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Jon. > ... > I think there could be some agreement on rupas arising independent of hearing, ... > =============== J: Yes, I understand the teaching as set out in the Pali Canon to be that the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door arises independently of hearing. > =============== > RE: ... with the understanding that they are only potential heard objects unless they are heard - or something like that. > =============== J: Personally I wouldn't speak of `potential heard objects', since that complicates the matter unnecessarily. > =============== > RE: I don't think anyone really disagrees about that - except maybe the Buddha, depending on how you take Howard's quote. > =============== J: Well I don't know about you, but it's the Buddha's position I'm trying to identify, rather than to state my own :-)) However, I don't see Howard's quote as having any bearing on the question of whether the rupas that are cognizable through the 5 sense-doors arise independently of the 5 sense-door consciousnesses. Jon #128552 From: "jonoabb" > dear friends, > ... > AN 4.24 alternate translations: > ... > Numerical Discourses: > (1)"So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees.# (2) Having heard what can be heard does not misconceive one who cognizes. > - > # note 666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." > =============== J: Many thanks for giving us the Bh Bodhi translation and commentary notes. So the meaning is no misconceiving by way of craving, conceit or wrong view. Makes sense. Jon #128553 From: sarah abbott > Dear Friends, > > We spent time with Nina this afternoon, relaxing at our hotel. Her trip to Thailand was fine. Naturally she's very tired. > > Unpacking a little while ago, when we got a call to say our dear friend Ivan (who posted a few times here as Matt) has passed away. We don't know many details - his wife, Ell was away, he was unwell, a carer was looking after him and took him to a hospital where some medicine had a bad effect. > > There will be a service at a temple tomorrow evening which we'll be going to. > > Death can come anytime at all..... > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > > > #128555 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 4, 2013 12:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - I understand your perspective. Mine is different. I think my perspective is in line with the Dhamma, and you do not. I could be wrong! I'm not looking to debate it - if I'm wrong, then i'm wrong. That's fine with me. :-) With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: > > Hi Howard > > (128529) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Jon - > > ... > > > J: I read you to be saying one or other of the following: > > > - that sound is mind-created, or > > > - that sound, although not mind-created, arises at the very moment it becomes object of hearing consciousness, and not a fraction of a moment earlier. > > > > > > Is either of these a correct statement of the way you see it? > > ---------------------------- > > HCW: > > What I mean by 'sound' is what is heard. > > =============== > > J: OK, so we are no longer talking about sound as that term is used in the Pali Canon, but about your own preferred definition of sound :-)) > > No problem, but would just like to point out that in an earlier message you agreed with Herman's assertion that hearing is the cause of sound. That was more than just a matter of definition, wasn't it! -------------------------------- HCW: I take hearing and heard to be mutually dependent, but I take neither to be "the cause" of the other. I view prior kamma as the primary cause. ================================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128556 From: Vince Hallo Sarah, > Sad news about Ivan, and as Elle said Cuticitta can arise anytime anywhere. > Regards to Nina and hope you all have a restful time. > Coming from Europes winter time, Nina would find here very hot. > See you all soon > Patience, courage and good cheer > azita > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: >> >> Dear Friends, >> >> We spent time with Nina this afternoon, relaxing at our hotel. Her trip to Thailand was fine. Naturally she's very tired. >> >> Unpacking a little while ago, when we got a call to say our dear friend Ivan (who posted a few times here as Matt) has passed away. We don't know many details - his wife, Ell was away, he was unwell, a carer was looking after him and took him to a hospital where some medicine had a bad effect. >> >> There will be a service at a temple tomorrow evening which we'll be going to. >> >> Death can come anytime at all..... >> >> Metta >> >> Sarah >> ===== >> #128557 From: "jonoabb" > > sad news to read, he was a good man. > =============== J: Yes, Ivan was a good person, friendly and kind, and also very interested in the teachings. He will be sadly missed. Have just come back from the first of the daily gatherings at the temple where the body is lying. All the friends who had come to Thailand for the discussions were there, so the timing was a happy coincidence in that respect. We had some useful Dhamma discussion with Ajarn Sujin, with particular emphasis on the finality of all past moments. In the customary Thai style, food and drink were served to those attending. Monks came and chanted some passages from the Abhidhamma. Gifts were offered to the monks. Tomorrow we all head off for Hua Hin for a few days, returning to Bangkok on Saturday. Jon #128558 From: "Ken H" Date: Sat Jan 5, 2013 10:13 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Howard and all, Just a point of interest: ----------- > H: > Hi Jon, > I understand your perspective. Mine is different. ------------ KH: If one person's perspective on the Dhamma was a correct one, could another person both understand it and disagree with it? Or would right understanding preclude disagreement? Ken H #128559 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128560 From: "Robert E" J: Yes, I understand the teaching as set out in the Pali Canon to be that the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door arises independently of hearing. I understand the ordinary 'object of hearing' as sound vibration, as identified by science. How would you describe, in Dhamma terms, the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door when it arises independent of hearing. What is its characteristic, etc.? Thanks, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128561 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128563 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sat Jan 5, 2013 4:22 pm Subject: Re: New member but not new it is Htoo htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" wrote: Dear Htoo, -------------------------------------------- Sarah: Thank you for reintroducing yourself to everyone and adding some more detail. Some new members may not know the "famous Htoo": ------------------------------------------ Htoo: Not to that extend :) There are many in this list. ------------------------------------------- Sarah: So good to hear all your reflections and comments once more. Interesting analogies with medicine. Of course, none of us today can just hear a single sentence and become enlightened .....we're the dull-witted ones that need to hear and consider a lot:-) ------------------------------------------- Htoo: Thanks for your welcoming again. 'Di.t.the di.t.thamattam bhavissati--sute sutamattam bhavissati--mute mutamattam bhavissati--vi~n~naate vi~n~naa.namattam bhavissati--'. This is very short description. But Bahiya Daaruciriya who originally a simple layman (puthujjana) had become an arahat. Seeing. Stop thinking anew but seeing is recognised. Hearing. Stop thinking more but hearing is recognised. Reaching (of smell, taste, touch to body). Stop thinking further but reaching is recognised. Rising of thought. Stop further thinking but recognised that thought by meditating mind. This is hard to do. With practice there will be less and less intervening thought-series. When there is stronger mental power then more and more aaramma.na or objects will be recognised without intervening thought. In seeing, there is object of seeing which just last 17-mental moments, eye (which is not anatomical eye that can be seen, smelt, tasted and touched) of kamma-generated ruupa which also last 17 moment. These two are ruupakkhan.dhaa. When we say seeing, there are more than seeing or eye-consciousness. Eye-consciousness or cakkhuvi~n~naa.na just lasts only one single moment. In cakkhudvaara viithi or in a succession of seeing phenomena, there are 17 moments. 3 moments die out as bhavanga cittas or life-continuums. They are past, shaking and cutting life-continuums. There last 14 moments. The last 2 is tadaaramma.na cittas which just follow whatna cittas know. There are 12 moments. 7 are javana cittas and 5 are processing cittas. There 5 cittas can hardly be known. But javana cittas may be recognised by new-rising meditating cittas. When vipassana cittas come just-vanished javana cittas will not go into further sensuous thinking world. When vipassana citta becomes strong almost all arising naama and ruupa will be recognised as they are. While they have their each character they all have common markers or lakkha.na. This common one is anicca or dukkha or anatta. While one of these three is successively recognised then the mind becomes ripe through (naamaruupa pariccheda, paccaya pariggaha, sammasana, udayabbaya, bhanga, baya, aadiinava, nibbidaa, muncitukamyataa, patisankhaa, sankhaarupakkhaa )a seried of ripening. When there are full causes then magga citta arises and falls away. #128564 From: "Christine" > Dear Friends, > > We spent time with Nina this afternoon, relaxing at our hotel. Her trip to Thailand was fine. Naturally she's very tired. > > Unpacking a little while ago, when we got a call to say our dear friend Ivan (who posted a few times here as Matt) has passed away. We don't know many details - his wife, Ell was away, he was unwell, a carer was looking after him and took him to a hospital where some medicine had a bad effect. > > There will be a service at a temple tomorrow evening which we'll be going to. > > Death can come anytime at all..... > > Metta > > Sarah > ===== > > > > #128565 From: "Christine" > Hello Htoo, How wonderful to see you here again! - you have been missed. (I, myself, have not been around very much - but I keep in touch to access the wisdom offered here). Looking forward to learning a lot from your posts in the future. > with metta > Christine ----------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Christine. I am also off intenet most of the time. Last week my friend from Australia came to us and we had a lot of fun.I will be posting as I can. I might come to Australia one day :). We are working among physically disastrous patients. Abhidamma-in-daily-life or vipassana help a lot when we are working. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128567 From: han tun Htoo: Pa~n~naa for consideration arises from studying dhamma by listening, reading, teaching and so on. Without the aid of The Buddha the lokuttara pa~n~naa will not arise. > ----------------------------- L: Actually there can be some wise thoughts without Dhamma, but that insight that leads to freedom, to ending of all defilments, this is due to Buddha-Dhamma only. So aid of Sammasambuddha needed. -------------------------------- Htoo: I totally agree with you on this point. ------------------------------- Lucas: The worldy wisdom is not our goal. The goal is a wisdom that sees and discerns all conditioned phenomena that appears right now. So there can be more detachment from all what we call 'life'. --------------------------------- Htoo: True.Worldly wisdom also include the wisdom that can hold the Dhamma texts by heart. To discern all conditioned phenomena that appears right now is initially difficult. This is part of practice or pa.tipatti. --------------------------------- > Htoo: Dhammavicaya or investigative mind is the 2nd bojjhanga of 7 bojjhanga ( 7 factors of enlightenment). If there is not enough satipa.t.thaana and samappaddhaana (viiriya or effort) then it comes very very slowly. > -------------------------------- Lucas: What do mean by samappaddhaana and bojjhanga? Can u say more? ------------------------------------ Htoo: Sammappaddhaana is a form of viiriya or a kind of effort. It is not simple effort. It is the effort that tries to remove the existing bad kamma. It is the effort that prevents the coming bad kamma. It is the effort the helps to develop new kusala. It is the effort that exponentially proliferate kusala. Bojjhanga is factor of enlightenment. Bojjhanga = bodhi(penetrating knowledge or enlightenment) + anga (part). There are 7 factors that help to develop path-consciousness. They are sati, dhammaavicaya(wisdom), viriya (effort), piiti(joy), passaddhi (calmness), samaadhi(concentration), and upekkha (equanimity). ------------------------------------------ > L: We live only because there are conditions for kamma to bring its result. > ------------------------------- > Htoo: There is a wrong view or di.t.thi that view as everything that we meet is because of kamma. It is called 'pubbekatakamma vaadii' > --------------------------- L: I am trying to find out in my head what kind of wrong view can it be. Is it like 'just kamma performs everything' or 'all done by kamma, no need to try to change'? I think this is good to be aware(conscious) of all different kinds of wrong view there are. Do u know more? -------------------------- Htoo: Yes. As you said. Some people assume that everything that happens is brought about by kamma.That is wrong. ------------------------------------------ Lukas: There is this term kammasakata~nana, or something. This points out some knowladge. But I dont remember that. > Best wishes > Lukas ------------------------------------ Htoo: Kammassakaataa ~naana. This is that if someone does good thing good result will appear. If bad thing then bad result will appear. Kammassakaataa = kamma (doing or fate) + assa ( of ) + kata (have done). Sammaa-di.t.thi has many phases. 1. kammassakaata sammaa-di.t.thi 2. jhaana sammaa-di.t.thi 3. vipassanaa sammaa-di.t.thi 4. magga sammaa-di.t.thi 5. phala sammaa-di.t.thi With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128569 From: htoonaing@...htoonaing@... Date: Sat Jan 5, 2013 5:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New member but not new it is Htoo htoonaing... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Maipenrai Dhammasaro wrote: > > Good friend Htoo, A very sincere welcome... my best friend and lover is a retired RN (Nurse) Thai-American from the Philadelphia University Hospital in Philly... I am so lucky to have my own personal registered nurse!!! [verily beeg Texican smiles] Again, a very sincere warm welcome... yours, in the Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck <...> ----------------------- Htoo: Dear Dhammasaro, thanks for your welcome. I have a thought related to pi.taka or Buddha's cannon. It is good friend. Bhaddanta Aanandaa, brother of our Buddha said having good friend helps reaching half-way to nibbaana. The Buddha denied that and corrected as it helps to reach nibbaana not just half-way but to absoluteness. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing #128570 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128571 From: "rjkjp1" > Hello all, > > I am very sorry to hear of Ivans' passing away. If possible, please pass on my condolences to Ell. May Ivan have a fortunate rebirth with access to the Dhamma. > > with metta, > Chris > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > We spent time with Nina this afternoon, relaxing at our hotel. Her trip to Thailand was fine. Naturally she's very tired. > > > > Unpacking a little while ago, when we got a call to say our dear friend Ivan (who posted a few times here as Matt) has passed away. We don't know many details - his wife, Ell was away, he was unwell, a carer was looking after him and took him to a hospital where some medicine had a bad effect. > > > > There will be a service at a temple tomorrow evening which we'll be going to. > > > > Death can come anytime at all..... > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ===== > > > > > > > > > #128573 From: "Lukas" > Hello all, > > I am very sorry to hear of Ivans' passing away. If possible, please pass on my condolences to Ell. May Ivan have a fortunate rebirth with access to the Dhamma. > > with metta, > Chris > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > We spent time with Nina this afternoon, relaxing at our hotel. Her trip to Thailand was fine. Naturally she's very tired. > > > > Unpacking a little while ago, when we got a call to say our dear friend Ivan (who posted a few times here as Matt) has passed away. We don't know many details - his wife, Ell was away, he was unwell, a carer was looking after him and took him to a hospital where some medicine had a bad effect. > > > > There will be a service at a temple tomorrow evening which we'll be going to. > > > > Death can come anytime at all..... > > > > Metta > > > > Sarah > > ===== > > > > > > > > > AdChoices #128574 From: "sarah" > Hello all, > > I am very sorry to hear of Ivans' passing away. If possible, please pass on my condolences to Ell. May Ivan have a fortunate rebirth with access to the Dhamma. ... S: Will do. We went to the first evening of the funeral services in Bangkok yesterday and Ivan's body was laid out there. It was so obvious that he who we called Ivan was long gone and that there were just heaps of rupas there. Just visible object seen, just softness touched, no more Ivan at all. Ell felt a little sorry that she hadn't had a chance to say farewell to him - "just thinking", Ajahn said. Always back to the reality now - so useless to think about the "if only's". After the body was put in a coffin, we sat around discussing dhamma, eating, drinking a little and then there was the service with the bhikkhus. By the end of the session, Ell was smiling and glad to have a photo taken of everyone present in front of Ivan's pic. So useless to cry - just accumulating more akusala. We will miss the cremation because we're now down near Hua Hin, but Ell plans to bring the ashes here in a few days for us all to scatter at sea. Meanwhile, in a resort with a lovely, lively group for a week of Dhamma discussions. Lukas has arrived from Poland, this afternoon a group from Hanoi who we spent time with in October arrived, Tom & Bev (who asked after you, Chris) from the States, Ann from Canada, Pinna from the States, Azita, Sukin, Maeve from Aus, Thai friends, Nina, ourselves..... At one point Lukas raised the topic of listening to heavy rock music and how he forgets all Dhamma at such a time.....still just conditioned dhammas, no person at all, awareness anytime at all, studying dhamma then or now. Studying dhamma doesn't mean book-study at all. Just back to seeing, visible object and other realities any time, any occasion..... If we "compartmentalise" into diferent situations - dhamma and non-dhamma ones, we forget all about realities. "How to?" qus - all Self again, forgetting entirely about conditioned dhammas. Rather tired now.... so glad to see Htoo and others posting. If anyone has any qus they'd like us to raise here, fire away... Metta Sarah ====== #128575 From: "sarah" > Greetings from Hua-hin friends, > We were all on the funeral. Acharn, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Sukin, Ann, Azita, Tom and other friends. This was a nice event with Acharn question answer short session. As far as I know Sukin is gona upgrade photos of the ceremony. He went walking :P ... S: Can you share any of your impressions of the ceremony or points from the QA session then or today with friends on DSG? See you in the morning! Metta Sarah ==== #128576 From: "Lukas" S: Can you share any of your impressions of the ceremony or points from the QA session then or today with friends on DSG? L: Acharn said today:'Do you read books? Studying realities is like reading a book. Page by page. If you read A, B, not even there. No A or B, just different visible objects. And this is reading, we learn slowly, we read realities right now. Seeing, visible object, thinking. Page by page. Until the book is read.' She told: 'Can we read now? Without books? Yes, each reality right now'. That was very good reminder. But we all seems to forget it all the time. ignorance of each of us seems to be accumulated for eons. To be honest, when Than Ajahn says this: seeing, visible object or any reality right now I have really no idea what she means. What this realities really are? I am taken into the concept of them. Best wishes Lukas #128577 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 6, 2013 12:09 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard and all, > > Just a point of interest: > > ----------- > > H: > > Hi Jon, > > > I understand your perspective. Mine is different. > ------------ > > KH: If one person's perspective on the Dhamma was a correct one, could another person both understand it and disagree with it? -------------------------------- HCW: Certainly. ------------------------------- Or would right understanding preclude disagreement? ------------------------------- HCW: Direct *knowing* that a statement expresses truth, if that is what you mean by 'right understanding', would preclude disagreement with that statement. All of us, however, deal with opinion and interpretation. We are far more believers than knowers.(And it is important that we be able to distinguish belief from knowledge, else we are totally lost, IMO.) ----------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================ With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128578 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jan 6, 2013 11:23 am Subject: Re: New member but not new it is Htoo kenhowardau Hi Htoo, --------- <. . .> > H: This is very short description. But Bahiya Daaruciriya who originally a simple layman (puthujjana) had become an arahat. > Seeing. Stop thinking anew but seeing is recognised. Hearing. Stop thinking more but hearing is recognised. Reaching (of smell, taste, touch to body). Stop thinking further but reaching is recognised. Rising of thought. Stop further thinking but recognised that thought by meditating mind. > This is hard to do. --------- KH: Yes, but is it hard for you or me to do? I don't think it is. Nor do I think it is easy for you or me to do. I think satipatthana is practised, not by you or me, but by conditioned dhammas over which there is no control. When the conditions for those dhammas are present nothing will stop them from practising. So it will not be hard for them to do so. However, when the conditions are not present, it will be impossibly hard for them to practise. That rule applies for all conditioned dhammas, not just for Magga-citta. So, when the Buddha said the Middle Way was particularly hard to see, I think he was saying the conditions for seeing it arose very rarely. ---------------------- H: > With practice there will be less and less intervening thought-series. --------------------- KH: Do you mean with practice there will be more seeing and less thinking? How would that help? I think with practice there will be more conditions for seeing to be understood when it arises. And there will be more conditions for *thinking* to be rightly understood when *it* arises. ------------- > H: When there is stronger mental power then more and more aaramma.na or objects will be recognised without intervening thought. ------------- KH: Is that what the sutta means by, "in the cognized there will be only the cognized?" I have always thought it meant the cognized will be known as anatta (devoid of a permanent self). Ken H #128579 From: "Ken H" Date: Sun Jan 6, 2013 12:27 pm Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Howard, Thanks for your reply. ------ >> KH: If one person's perspective on the Dhamma was a correct one, could another person both understand it and disagree with it? >> > HCW: Certainly. > >> KH: Or would right understanding preclude disagreement? >> > HCW: Direct *knowing* that a statement expresses truth, if that is what you mean by 'right understanding', would preclude disagreement with that statement. ----- KH: I was talking about a perspective *on the Dhamma.* That is, a perspective on the way things are in ultimate reality. If such a perspective was a correct one then an understanding of it would be right understanding (panna). Or so it seems to me. Once panna has arisen at the level of Path consciousness there is no turning back. The conditions for contrary understanding are totally destroyed. I was wondering if the same sort of thing might apply at the level of intellectual right understanding. If (for example) someone expressed the view that only dhammas were anicca dukkha and anatta (and concepts were not) could someone else both understand that person's point of view and disagree with it at the same time? Or, if they could, would that mean the point of view must have been an incorrect one? -------------- > H: All of us, however, deal with opinion and interpretation. We are far more believers than knowers.(And it is important that we be able to distinguish belief from knowledge, else we are totally lost, IMO.) ---------------- KH: I can see that opinions on conventional matters would be just opinions (and not ultimate truths). But wouldn't the Dhamma be different in that regard? If someone was of the opinion that only dhammas could be anicca dukkha and anatta, could that person later change his mind (and decide that concepts could also be anicca dukkha and anatta)? (Assuming the initial opinion was correct) it seems to me he could change his mind only if he hadn't properly understood that opinion in the first place. Ken H #128580 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128582 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro S: Will do. We went to the first evening of the funeral services in Bangkok yesterday and Ivan's body was laid out there. It was so obvious that he who we called Ivan was long gone and that there were just heaps of rupas there. Just visible object seen, just softness touched, no more Ivan at all. <...> #128583 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro > Good friend Robert, et al > > When was Ivan at Wat Bovornniwet? Perhaps I met him when I was a bhikkhu there. > > peace... > > yours in the Dhamma-vinaya, > > Chuck > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > From: rjkjp1@... > > > This is a photo of ivan when he was a bhikkhu at wat bovornniwet in bangkok > <...> > #128585 From: "Lukas" Some few weeks ago, the spouse of my grand daughter died... very unexpected... they have a daughter [my great-grand daughter]... she has moved in with my son's family... please remember him and my son's family... He is to retire from the US Coast Guard later this year... L: Ignorance make it all happens. Without ignorance there could be no present moment, no life at all. Best wishes Lukas #128586 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 7, 2013 12:46 am Subject: Re: Seeing = Visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - I just sent a lengthy reply which got lost in cyberspace! I'll try to reproduce it! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for your reply. > > ------ > >> KH: If one person's perspective on the Dhamma was a correct one, could another > person both understand it and disagree with it? > >> > > > HCW: Certainly. > > > > >> KH: Or would right understanding preclude disagreement? > >> > > > HCW: Direct *knowing* that a statement expresses truth, if that is what you mean by 'right understanding', would preclude disagreement with that statement. > ----- > > KH: I was talking about a perspective *on the Dhamma.* That is, a perspective on the way things are in ultimate reality. If such a perspective was a correct one then an understanding of it would be right understanding (panna). Or so it seems to me. > > Once panna has arisen at the level of Path consciousness there is no turning back. The conditions for contrary understanding are totally destroyed. > > I was wondering if the same sort of thing might apply at the level of intellectual right understanding. If (for example) someone expressed the view that only dhammas were anicca dukkha and anatta (and concepts were not) could someone else both understand that person's point of view and disagree with it at the same time? Or, if they could, would that mean the point of view must have been an incorrect one? ---------------------------- HCW: Understanding what an assertion means, even if that assertion happens to be correct, doesn't preclude disbelieving it. ----------------------------- > > -------------- > > H: All of us, however, deal with opinion and interpretation. We are far more believers > than knowers.(And it is important that we be able to distinguish belief from knowledge, else we are totally lost, IMO.) > ---------------- > > KH: I can see that opinions on conventional matters would be just opinions (and not ultimate truths). But wouldn't the Dhamma be different in that regard? ----------------------------- HCW: IMO, no. OTOH, when one understands a true assertion with wisdom (or, otherwise said, when wisdom understands a truth), there is no possibility of change of perspective on the matter. ------------------------------ > > If someone was of the opinion that only dhammas could be anicca dukkha and anatta, could that person later change his mind (and decide that concepts could also be anicca dukkha and anatta)? ------------------------------ HCW: Certainly. We are talking about ordinary people, Ken - like you and me. --------------------------------- > > (Assuming the initial opinion was correct) it seems to me he could change his mind only if he hadn't properly understood that opinion in the first place. -------------------------------- HCW: I disagree. Understanding an assertion is quite different from knowing its truth status. --------------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================== With metta, Howard Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous) #128587 From: "jonoabb" > Good friend Jon, et al > > If I may ask... > > You wrote in part: > > "In the customary Thai style, food > and drink were served to those attending. Monks came and chanted some > passages from the Abhidhamma. Gifts were offered to the monks." > > 1. I have been in Thailand three times as a Theravada monk. I with Thai monks never chanted any passages from the Abhidhamma on any occasion!!! > > 2. Would you please quote the chant from the Abhidhamma? Sincere warm thanks. > =============== J: I was simply repeating something I'd been told (many years ago). I'm afraid I have no idea exactly what the chanting was. > =============== > > You also wrote in part: > > > > "Tomorrow we all head off for Hua Hin for a few days, returning to Bangkok on Saturday." > > 3. Yes, Hua Hin is a great place. I once ate a late torch lit dinner on the beach after we attended (a lawyer friend) his nephew's wedding in Manila, PI. Did you go to Hua Hin's Night Market? To me, not as great as the Night Market in Chieng (Chiang) Mai. What do you think? Thanks. > =============== J: Haven't managed to get to the night market here yet (and last visited the night market in Chieng Mai some 20 years ago), so can't really make a comparison. But the resort is a good place to stay, and the villas have wifi :-)) Jon #128588 From: "jonoabb" > Hi Jon. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > > J: Yes, I understand the teaching as set out in the Pali Canon to be that the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door arises independently of hearing. > > I understand the ordinary 'object of hearing' as sound vibration, as identified by science. How would you describe, in Dhamma terms, the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door when it arises independent of hearing. What is its characteristic, etc.? > =============== J: I know of no way of describing sound other than as that which is experienced by hearing consciousness, except that I seem to recall a mention of sound as that which is created by the collision of rupas of hardness. Don't know if that helps at all. Jon #128589 From: "connie" ------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Thanks for your welcoming again. > 'Di.t.the di.t.thamattam bhavissati--sute sutamattam bhavissati--mute mutamattam bhavissati--vi~n~naate vi~n~naa.namattam bhavissati--'. > kn 3.10: "tasmaatiha te, baahiya, eva.m sikkhitabba.m — "In that case, Ba-hiya, you should train yourself thus: `di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati, In the seen there must be only what is seen, sute sutamatta.m bhavissati, in what is heard there must be only what is heard, mute mutamatta.m bhavissati, in what is sensed there must be only what is sensed, vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissatii'ti. in what is cognized there must be only what is cognized. eva~nhi te, baahiya, sikkhitabba.m. This is the way, Ba-hiya, you should train yourself. --------- connie > This is very short description. But Bahiya Daaruciriya who originally a simple layman (puthujjana) had become an arahat. > #128590 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro #128591 From: "connie" connie #128592 From: "connie" > ... > > AN 4.24 alternate translations: > > ... > > Numerical Discourses: > > (1)"So, having seen what can be seen, the Tathaagata does not misconceive the seen, does not misconceive the unseen, does not misconceive what can be seen, does not misconceive one who sees.# (2) Having heard what can be heard does not misconceive one who cognizes. > > - > > # note 666: Mp: "He does not misconceive (na ma~n~nati) visible form by way of craving, conceit, or views; and so for the other objects. By this passage, the plane of emptiness (su~n~nataabhuumi) is explained." > > =============== > > J: Many thanks for giving us the Bh Bodhi translation and commentary notes. So the meaning is no misconceiving by way of craving, conceit or wrong view. Makes sense. > c: sure, and just to ramble on- Bodhi's note 663: Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Mp: "The Tathaagata did not become subservient to any object at the six sense doors, that is, he did not take it up (na upaga~nchi) through craving or views. For it is said: 'The Blessed One sees a form with the eye, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind ... The Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One cognizes a phenomenon with the mind, but he has no desire and lust for it; the Blessed One is fully liberated in mind' (see SN 35:232; IV 164-65). By this the plane of arahantship (khii.naasavabhuumi) is indicated." The phrase found here: "sadevakassa lokassa samaarakassa sabrahmakassa sassama.nabraahma.niyaa pajaaya sadevamanussaaya /di.t.tha.m suta.m muta.m vi~n~naata.m patta.m pariyesita.m anuvicarita.m manasaa/, tamaha.m abbha~n~naasi.m. ta.m tathaagatassa vidita.m, ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. GS trans & note: Whatsoever in the world, with its devas ... with its host of recluses and braahmins, of devas and mankind,- whatsoever is /seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, searched into, pondered over by the mind/, - that have I fully comprehended: all that is understood by the Tathaagata, but the Tathaagata is not subject to it.* *n1 Ta.m tathaagato na upa.t.thaasi. Comy has na upaga~nchi (by way of the sense doors). This is expl. by next line of gaathas, eta.m ajjhosita.m Tathaagatassa na upa.t.thaasi, 'did not occur to (? was not invented or imagined by) the T.' Bodhi: /seen, heard, sensed, cognized, reached, sought after, examined by the mind/ I think the part Howard really likes goes: Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One Would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) peace, connie #128593 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro L: Ignorance make it all happens. Without ignorance there could be no present moment, no life at all. <...> #128594 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro J: I know of no way of describing sound other than as that which is experienced by hearing consciousness, except that I seem to recall a mention of sound as that which is created by the collision of rupas of hardness. Don't know if that helps at all. Yes, that is somewhat helpful, as it is an independent physical description of the rupa without reference to the act of hearing itself. I would be content to hear that it was some form of "audible vibration" which sounds somewhat to me like the "collision of rupas of hardness," and is also not dissimilar in a way from the scientific description of sound. Best, Rob E. - - - - - - - - - - - - - #128596 From: "Robert E" > hi, > > RobE: How would you describe, in Dhamma terms, the rupa that is cognizable through the ear door when it arises independent of hearing. > > c: The short answer is sadda (sound); but I think Sarah quoted the Malunkyaputta Sutta the other day & there’s a bit more complete answer in the first line here: > > Ye te /sotavin~n~neyyaa/ saddaa assutaa > Those sounds /cognizable by the ear/, which have not been heard > > - assutapubbaa, na ca su.naasi, na ca te hoti su.neyyan-ti- > - which formerly have not been heard, (which) you are not hearing, and which you do not expect to hear - > > atthi te tattha chando vaa raago vaa pema.m vaa? ti > can there be desire or passion or love relating to them? Thank you, that is a very nice description. I like the poetry in the last line. However, it also is sometimes perplexing to me that in an analysis that is often so detailed and even convoluted, that in the basic definitions of things they are often opaque, so that sound is basically defined as...sound, or that which can be heard, which is the same thing, and does not go into any detail on what constitutes it as a unique rupa other than by reference to what otherwise would simply be the ear. We are in a sense asked to throw away the more intelligent description of sound via science as a certain form of wave or vibration which gives one some detailed understanding of its nature, and substitute for this something which really has little to say about how it is formed or constituted. To do so does not seem on its face a very intelligent choice, unless there is more experiential/phenomenological detail somewhere that can equal the descriptive power of the scientific alternative. Best, Rob E. = = = = = = = = = = #128597 From: "Ken H" Date: Mon Jan 7, 2013 5:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object kenhowardau Hi Connie and Howard, ----- > C: I think the part Howard really likes goes: > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One Would not posit as categorically true or false anything seen, heard, or sensed, clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) ----- KH: I'd like to rush in with a vaguely possible interpretation: When the Buddha is teaching Dhamma to people who can understand it, he will never imply that a concept can have inherent characteristics. (Ken H) Ken H #128598 From: Maipenrai Dhammasaro > Hi Connie and Howard, > > ----- > > C: I think the part Howard really likes goes: > > > Amid those who are self-constrained, the Stable One > Would not posit as categorically true or false > anything seen, heard, or sensed, > clung to and considered truth by others. (Bodhi) > ----- > > KH: I'd like to rush in with a vaguely possible interpretation: > > When the Buddha is teaching Dhamma to people who can understand it, he will never imply that a concept can have inherent characteristics. (Ken H) --------------------------- HCW: So, Ken, are you taking "anything seen, heard, or sensed" as concept? --------------------------- > > Ken H > ============================= With metta, Howard P. S. I'm about to be driven to the hospital for some long-scheduled BPH (*benign* enlarged prostate) laser surgery. Not fun of course, especially the aftermath, but typically not very threatening either - though there WILL be general anesthesia. Seamless Interdependence /A change in anything is a change in everything/ (Anonymous)