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:
      <Except for communication and the characteristic [phases], it lasts for
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:
      <Materiality that has arisen along with the relinking consciousness ceases
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.* >>

<end quotes>
connie: note the "at least".  it's pretty fantastic to think of the odds of
approach at all.

happy new worlds,
connie

Hi connie,

On 31 December 2012 13:37, connie <nichicon@...> 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:
> <Except for communication and the characteristic [phases], it lasts for
> 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:
> <Materiality that has arisen along with the relinking consciousness ceases
> 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.* >>
>
> <end quotes>
> 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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi RobE,

On 31 December 2012 11:34, Robert E <epsteinrob@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi Alex.
>
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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.


With best wishes,

Alex

Hi, Robert (and Alex) -

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex.
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <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)

Hi KenH, Sarah, Alberto,

Thanks for your replies.

Happy New Year to all :)

Best wishes
pt

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.

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

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


<Except for communication and the characteristic [phases], it lasts for
seventeen consciousnesses.>  Sacc 60

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Herman.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

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."

Best,
Rob E.

= = = = = = =


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Herman.
>
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> 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.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>

Dear friends,
Here is a short extract from Acharn Sujin talk in Poland, 16 September at
breakfast.

<L: Acharn, you said once, that it's gone now, like seeing, hearing it is now
it's gone?

Acharn: No. You see that we dont have to call it. But it's is seeing that sees
and we have that idea before. this is just a momentary seeing which arises and
experiences an object and than go away instantly. No one there from birth to
death. But there are kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma and avyakata dhamma. So the
best thing is that one can understand, that takes quite a long long time. To
really understand each of reality right now as usuall, as dhamma or reality, and
no one there. But it has to be very natural, until panna is limited so how can
it develop? When something that has to be goal or somewhere else not now. That's
why the teachings are all about now. At this very moment of seeing, at this
moment of hearing, at this moment of touching. Each moment. Past, gone without
understanding, when there is no awarness. So awarness is very natural like now,
touching without awarness, when awarness is aware exactly the same. exactly.
Otherwise it cannot
  understand that which arises and falls away. So the techings of Buddha leads to
more and more understanding with more and more wholsomeness. Otherwise one takes
everything and have excuses that it's acumulated. But right understanding can
see the purity or dirtyness of cita, it's there. >

Best wishes
Lukas

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Lukas,
that is a good reminder, thank you for the extract.
Nina.
Op 31-dec-2012, om 20:21 heeft Lukas het volgende geschreven:
> Here is a short extract from Acharn Sujin talk in Poland, 16
> September at breakfast.
>
> <L: Acharn, you said once, that it's gone now, like seeing, hearing
> it is now it's gone?
>
> Acharn: No. You see that we dont have to call it.

Hi Alex,

On 1 January 2013 01:18, truth_aerator <truth_aerator@...> 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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Herman, all,

>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

Hi Lukas

       Thank you, a breath of fresh air amidst all the pseudo Dhamma and scientic
speculation.

       Have a great time in Thailand, sorry I won't meet you. Hopefully next
year, depending on conditions.

      Thank you also Nina, and moderators. My last post to Jon was cranky and
rude (but otherwise excellent IMHO, the natural tendency to think that thinking
about our experience is the right way to understanding Dhamma, the curse of
those who latch on to one paragraph of the Kalama sutta and  suckle on it with
lobha and ditthi  should be resisted whenever possible)  so I'll take this
opportunity to wish you a Happy New Year. I won't be here much if at all this
year for personal reasons but I'll be listening to audio recordings I made of AS
transcriptions ( seemember files) such as this excellent one that Lukas posted.

     Have a great trip to Thailand, all

      Phil

Hi connie,

On 1 January 2013 04:51, connie <nichicon@...> 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
>
> <Except for communication and the characteristic [phases], it lasts for
> seventeen consciousnesses.> Sacc 60
>
>
--
Cheers

Herman


I do not know what I do not know


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi RobE,

On 1 January 2013 06:08, Robert E <epsteinrob@...> 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" <epsteinrob@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Herman.
> >
> > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@> 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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sn 2.4
PTS: Sn 258-269<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/Sn_utf8.html#v.258>
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


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Alex,

Sorry for the late response.

====
> 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

Dear Phil,
Op 1-jan-2013, om 3:38 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:

>  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.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Friends,

I've been without any internet access for a few days, but delighted to now have
it back and be able to wish everyone a Happy, Healthy and most importantly, Wise
New Year!

I always appreciate the following reminders:

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> 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 n�ma and r�pa which
> are conditioned, we can learn from any kind of situation. We can
> learn that there are n�ma and r�pa 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. N�ma and r�pa 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
=====

Dear Htoo,

Thank you for reintroducing yourself to everyone and adding some more detail.
Some new members may not know the "famous Htoo":-)

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing <htoonaing@...> 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
===

Dear Lukas,

Great to see you back in good Dhamma form with many helpful reflections!

I started adding some comments below and have seen Htoo has made the same ones,
but perhaps will post anyway.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lukas <szmicio@...> wrote:

> Here comes an extract from Milindapa~nha on five ayatanas.
>
> <The King said: "Revered Nagasena, are these five (sensory) fields produced
from different kammas or from one kamma?"
>
> "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
====

Dear Lukas,

A couple more brief comments. I expect Htoo will add more.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lukas" <szmicio@...> 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
=====

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?

> ===============
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

Hi Rob E,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> 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
====

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.


Best wishes
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.

Hi Herman

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> 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

Hi Rob E and Herman (and Howard)

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> 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

Hi Rob E & all,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> 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
=====

Hi Herman (and Howard)

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> 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