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

Re: Bhavangacitta & Universal cetasikas. Are they felt?

Expand Messages
  • Ken H
    Hi pt, ... KH: I don t see any need for consciousness *of* consciousness. The experiencing (pleasant or unpleasant) of an object exists; it doesn t
    Message 1 of 60 , Jun 30, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi pt,

      ---
      <. . .>
      KH: > I don't see any need for consciousness *of* consciousness. The experiencing (pleasant or unpleasant) of an object exists; it doesn't have to be in turn experienced, does it?
      >
      > pt: I see. Perhaps you can say a bit more then about what exactly you mean by:
      > a. direct consciousness (of those blissful jhana factors)
      > b. consciousness *of* consciousness
      > c. experience of experiencing
      ---


      After a citta or cetasika has arisen, performed its functions and fallen away, it can become the object of a following citta and its cetasikas. In other words, a citta or cetasika can be experienced by other cittas and cetasikas.

      -----------
      pt: > For example, if we were to make a very rough range of understanding of the present experience, we could put it smth like this:

      1. deep sleep - no awareness of what's going on now

      2. ordinary experiences - there's some understanding of what's happening now, but it's just on an intellectual level. For example, I'm watching a comedy on TV, and I can tell I'm sort of happy, but there's no direct awareness of the cittas and cetasikas like pleasant feeling for example. So, I'm making sense of what's going on now through thinking about it, rather than insight.
      ------------

      Yes, I think that's right. In ultimate reality, visible objects are being experienced at the eye door and audible objects are being experienced at the ear door. Concepts of a TV comedy are being created and experienced at the mind door. (Because of a lack of understanding of visible object and audible object we are oblivious to everything except the concepts.)

      When we think "I am enjoying this comedy" that would indicate that there has been lobha and sukha-vedana. However, I don't know if it indicates that lobha and/or sukha-vedana have actually appeared at the mind door. That's what I was asking in a recent post to Nina.

      Your next question goes beyond the things I have been saying:

      --------------
      pt: > 3. direct insight - there's direct awareness of a certain cetasika, or citta that arose.

      So, in your examples a-c, my guess is that you're trying to say that there's no direct insight happening for brahmas? Or are you going even further to say that an experience of a brahma is like deep sleep - i.e. no insight, nor just intellectually being aware that you're sort of happy?
      ----------------

      No, I wasn't considering the possibility of insight. I was considering Alex's questions. He seemed to think that our experiences had to be experienced before they could mean anything. He asked what would be the use of "unfelt feeling, unperceived perception and unknown cetana etc?"

      I don't know much about Brahmas. Do they inhabit the fine non-material sphere? I had the idea that the fine non-material sphere was inhabited by jhana masters who simply blissed-out on jhana meditation for several aeons before being eventually reborn in the lower realms.

      To answer your question, however, I would say that the inhabitants of the non-material sphere could not practise insight because they could not hear the Dhamma there. Hearing depends on material phenomena.

      I don't believe their existence would be anything like deep sleep. It would be blissful concentration.

      Ken H
    • sarah abbott
      Hi Ken H (& Alex), ... Equanimous attachment - that s a new one!! ... .... S: Yes, I see now where you got it from. I just looked up visama in the
      Message 60 of 60 , Feb 23, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ken H (& Alex),

        --- On Mon, 21/2/11, Ken H <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
        >Regarding sama lobha:

        ---------
        > S: Sama just means 'ordinary', ordinary attachment.
        <. . .> "Equanimous attachment" - that's a new one!!
        ---------

        >KH: It was the best I could come up with. My online search of the Pali Text Society's Pali English Dictionary produced 41 results for sama. They were mostly compound words with sama in them, none of which helped me very much. There was no mention of sama lobha. Sama by itself seemed to mean "calmness, tranquillity, mental quiet" which I decided would be the same as neutral (equanimous) vedana.

        >Apparently not! :-)
        ....
        S: Yes, I see now where you got it from. I just looked up visama in the dict and it gives disharmonious as one meaning. I think sama lobha means ordinary attachment, not disharmonious, in the sense that it doesn't hurt others, for example, when we enjoy the sunset or our surfing:-) Just ordinary attachment. On the other hand, visama lobha is disharmonious in the sense that it affects and harms others. For example, if we lie or steal or follow some gross attachments. This is why the sotapanna still has lots and lots of sama-lobha, but not visama-lobha, as I understand.

        Perhaps Alex can find some Tipitaka references to sama and visama lobha for us.

        ----------
        >>S: I'm planning to buy a bicycle sometime soon as we seem to be managing fine here without a car.
        ----------

        >KH: Great minds think alike! I have been bicycling a lot lately on our mainly-deserted beach.

        >I don't know if I would risk it in traffic, though. Maybe just buy a car. :-)
        ...
        S: Don't worry, I'm planning to stick to the beach path and other off-road tracks....slowly, slowly......only one Path that matters of course, but no need to fear the conditioned, ordinary attachments, eh Alex? Sati anytime!

        Metta

        Sarah
        =========
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.