Re: Question on Abhidhamma vs Suttanta
- Dear Phil,
> Thanks for your encouragement. But I really am enjoying my time away from the internet. Of course happiness is not the purpose of the Buddha's teaching but I invariably feel happier, fresher, more energetic, brighter, more generous on days after *not* using the internet. And it is my experience that on such days there is easier settling into meditation, more patient reflection on the teaching. I don't know why that is, maybe some kind of neurological thing, but the internet is bad for me.L: This is very normal thing that you feel like that after not using internet or not discussing. That's patimokkha samvara or maybe even viriya and khanti samvara ;>
This is the silla anisamsa. The benefit of siila.
But on the other side look at Sarah! She's talking a lot and stil no matter what happens, whatever she says, she's calm or she understands. I like to observe Sarah, she reminds me that all dhammas, kusala or not can be an object/condition for understanding. She's really the master of ~nana samvara and sati samvara :D
>Phil: Also, I like to plough ahead with my Buddhist practice without depending on others - sometimes. But we all know how much emphasis the Buddha put on Dhamma friendship and Dhamma discussion so I will be back someday.L: Yes, just friendship. The people like you and Han are always a big example to me. You are very serious in kusala development. I want to be like you.
My best wishes
- Hi Alberto,
--- On Sun, 4/10/09, sprlrt <sprlrt@...> wrote:
>There is a typo as well: instead than for akusala -> kusala ones.)
>I can rephrase is as: the hypothetical present (paccuppanna) kusala ñàna-sampayutta citta arising because of conditions (paccayas) which here would include previously arisen akusala dhammas (past akusala vicikiccha-sampayut ta cittas) as pakatùpanissaya paccaya as well as previously arisen kusala dhammas (past kusala ñàna-sampayutta cittas) as hetu paccaya.
S: I'm not sure that we can refer to past cittas as hetu paccaya....:-/
>pakatùpanissaya paccaya: the paccaya is akusala, while the paccuppanna is kusala.
hetu paccaya: here both paccaya and paccuppanna must be kusala (alobha, adosa and, for ñàna-sampayutta cittas, amoha).
This present series of cittas, javana, would have a past paramattha dhamma as its present object (i.e. a nimitta).
This present object, a past (i.e. no longer in existence) sankhara dhamma (i.e. anicca), would be in its turn, along with the presently arisen kusala citta & cetasikas paramattha dhammas, be conditions for the arising of kusala cittas in future:
pakatùpanissaya paccaya: the paccaya would be kusala, the paccuppanna would be kusala too.
S: I thought you were referring to the paccaya as the present object. We cannot refer to the object as kusala, surely? The paccuppanna, yes.
I'm probably getting confused again.
>hetu paccaya: here both paccaya and paccuppanna must be kusala.
as well as for the arising of akusala cittas in future, as long as these roots (moha,lobha, dosa) aren't eradicated by lokuttara-magga cittas:
pakatùpanissaya paccaya: the paccaya would be kusala, while the paccuppanna would be akusala.
hetu paccaya: here both paccaya and paccuppanna must be akusala.
p.s I'm close to signing off until settled in Bangkok. We have a busy schedule starting tomorrow:-)