Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

126354Re: [dsg] conditions for understanding to arise

Expand Messages
  • philip
    Sep 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jagkrit


      > JJ: I'm sorry to use the word "substanial thinking" without clarification. What I mean is "wholesome thinking". When Vitakka Cetasikka arises with others including Citta, then it performs fuction of thinking in mind door. The object of thinking, however, can be any thing including idea and concept (Pannatti). And the idea or concept, explaining reality eventhough it is Pannatti not reality itself, can bring us more understanding toward reality. That is my understanding of wholesome thinking.

      Ph: That sounds good. Also interesting that the object of thinking can be the nimitta, that fleeting photocopy of the reality that has fallen away so quickly. Or should I say it is *always* of the nimitta rather than the reality itself? It doesn't matter though, that's just the way it works. We can read the texts or hear from a trusted friend that that is the way it works. If we try to capture it for ourselves, more lobha, more wrong view, more delerious thinking.


      > > Phil: That's the way I see it, we should approach Dhamma teachngs, touch them, and let go, touch them, and let go, touch them, and let go. But maybe that's just me, perhaps people do indeed develop understanding of the present reality by wrestling to work things out in discussion/debate.
      > -------------------
      >
      > JJ: "Touch them and let go" seems to be questionable to me. Do you mean " more understanding more detachment"?

      Ph: Understanding with more detachment, yes, I guess that's it. I just feel personally that if there isn't understanding of a teaching naturally, when we hear about it, understanding isn't ready for it, there are not conditions for it, and we should not try and try and discuss and discuss and debate and debate to figure it out, that is a practice that is rooted in a kind of wrong view as other practices are, it is going against conditions by forcing things. Of course we know that hearing the teachings from a Dhamma friend is one of the conditions for panna, but I think we overestimate the value of discussing our way to proper understanding. We hear about a teacher, consider it briefly, and sometimes a light goes on, and mostly it doesn't. And usually in my case the understanding, the light that goes on, doesn't stick. There's no benefit from struggling against that, fighting it. But that is just my long-held hunch. I've been at DSG for years and years but have never stuck to one point to try to figure it out through discussion. That means that Nina and others have had to repeat teachings to me many times, but I think that is best for me and not bad for them since sharing the Dhamma is a deed of merit. Scott, who is missing (hopefully to return) dismissed my thinking above, I rememeber, saying it was kind of a superstitious approach to developing panna, I can't recall, I would talk of my "baby panna" not being ready for something and he would be like, psshaw! (as in, "that's silly!" Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But as you say, more understanding *with detachment* If we are struggling to understand something, how can there be detachment? Maybe we can use the meditators favourite attempt at justification, "kusala chanda." But as with all forms of kusala, kusala chanda is much much rarer than we might like to think.

      Phil

      >
      > Thank you and Anumothana
      >
      > Jagkrit
      >
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic