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

What are 5 sense faculties (pasada-rupa)? + momentariness

Expand Messages
  • truth_aerator
    Dear all, 1)5 sense faculties are classified as rupa. Right? 2) What relation do they have with flesh of the eyes, ear, nose, tongue, skin? 3) What about
    Message 1 of 25 , Jan 25, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear all,

      1)5 sense faculties are classified as rupa. Right?


      2) What relation do they have with flesh of the eyes, ear, nose, tongue, skin?

      3) What about nerves within those physical organs? Are these pasada-rupa?


      4) Since rupa is momentary, how come we don't see eyes/ears/nose/etc appear and disappear?


      With metta,

      Alex
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Alex, ... N: Yes, they do not know anything, but they are the conditions for experiencing sense objects. They are the doorways for the whole sense-
      Message 2 of 25 , Jan 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Alex,
        Op 25-jan-2011, om 22:56 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

        > 1)5 sense faculties are classified as rupa. Right?
        -------
        N: Yes, they do not know anything, but they are the conditions for
        experiencing sense objects. They are the doorways for the whole sense-
        door-process of cittas, and, for the sense-cognitions of seeing etc.
        they are both doorway and physical base, place of origin.
        --------
        >
        > 2) What relation do they have with flesh of the eyes, ear, nose,
        > tongue, skin?
        -------
        N: The Expositor makes a distinction. Eye as compound organ and as
        sentient organ. "Of these , a lump of flesh is situated in the cavity
        of the eye, bound by the bone of the cavity of the eye below..." This
        pertains to the fleshly eye, the compound organ.
        The sentient organ is an extremely tiny ruupa that has the capability
        to receive visible object. This is the pasada ruupa. Visuddhimagga Ch
        XIV, 48: 'The sensitivity with which he sees a visible object is
        small and it is subtle too, no bigger than a louse's head'.
        --------
        >
        > A: 3) What about nerves within those physical organs? Are these
        > pasada-rupa?
        -------
        N: No, but it is said: Tiika Vis.(47, 48) :
        "By the expression, pervading the seven layers of the eye, he teaches
        that the eye is connected with several groups of materiality."
        The eyesense itself arises in a group of ten ruupas: The eyedecad
        consists of ten rupas in one group: the four great elements, the
        eyesense, life-faculty, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence.
        Thus, apart from eyesense there are five other derived ruupas. It is
        produced by kamma.
        -------

        > A: 4) Since rupa is momentary, how come we don't see eyes/ears/nose/
        > etc appear and disappear?
        -------
        N: The arising and falling away realised by insight concerns
        paramattha dhammas, not the conventional eyes, ears, etc. Moreover,
        this is actually not seen by eyesense, but 'seen' by pa~n~naa. We
        should not have a mental picture of dhammas arising and falling away,
        that is misleading.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • truth_aerator
        Dear Nina, ... Would it be correct to say that these conditions (for experiencing sense objects) arise and fall instantaneously (and perhaps billions of times
        Message 3 of 25 , Jan 26, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Nina,

          >A: 1)5 sense faculties are classified as rupa. Right?
          > -------
          >N: Yes, they do not know anything, but they are the conditions for
          >experiencing sense objects. They are the doorways for the whole >sense->door-process of cittas, and, for the sense-cognitions of seeing >etc. they are both doorway and physical base, place of origin.

          Would it be correct to say that these conditions (for experiencing sense objects) arise and fall instantaneously (and perhaps billions of times per second?)

          Thank you for your other replies,


          With metta,

          Alex
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Alex, ... N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as citta, although it is still extremely fast. A sense object can be the object of cittas
          Message 4 of 25 , Jan 27, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Alex,
            Op 26-jan-2011, om 17:13 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

            > N: Yes, they do not know anything, but they are the conditions for
            > >experiencing sense objects. They are the doorways for the whole
            > >sense->door-process of cittas, and, for the sense-cognitions of
            > seeing >etc. they are both doorway and physical base, place of origin.
            >
            > Would it be correct to say that these conditions (for experiencing
            > sense objects) arise and fall instantaneously (and perhaps billions
            > of times per second?)
            -----
            N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as citta, although it
            is still extremely fast. A sense object can be the object of cittas
            arising in a sense-door process, and the ruupa that is doorway can be
            doorway of cittas arising in a sense-door process.
            -----
            Nina.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • upasaka@aol.com
            Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/27/2011 9:44:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@xs4all.nl writes: Dear Alex, ... N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as
            Message 5 of 25 , Jan 27, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, Nina -

              In a message dated 1/27/2011 9:44:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
              vangorko@... writes:

              Dear Alex,
              Op 26-jan-2011, om 17:13 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

              > N: Yes, they do not know anything, but they are the conditions for
              > >experiencing sense objects. They are the doorways for the whole
              > >sense->door-process of cittas, and, for the sense-cognitions of
              > seeing >etc. they are both doorway and physical base, place of origin.
              >
              > Would it be correct to say that these conditions (for experiencing
              > sense objects) arise and fall instantaneously (and perhaps billions
              > of times per second?)
              -----
              N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as citta, although it
              is still extremely fast.
              ------------------------------------------------
              A rupa is extremely fast as compared to what? The duration of
              macroscopic, conceptual objects like cars, trees, and park benches? (If that is
              what you mean, it makes sense to me.)
              ------------------------------------------------

              A sense object can be the object of cittas
              arising in a sense-door process, and the ruupa that is doorway can be
              doorway of cittas arising in a sense-door process.
              -----
              Nina.

              =================================
              With metta,
              Howard


              Seamless Interdependence

              /A change in anything is a change in everything/

              (Anonymous)




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Nina van Gorkom
              Hi Howard, ... N: We are talking about ultimate realities, about naama and ruupa. As to cars etc, it seems that they stay. In reality they are composed of
              Message 6 of 25 , Jan 28, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Howard,
                Op 27-jan-2011, om 16:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

                > N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as citta, although it
                > is still extremely fast.
                > ------------------------------------------------
                > H: A rupa is extremely fast as compared to what? The duration of
                > macroscopic, conceptual objects like cars, trees, and park benches?
                > (If that is
                > what you mean, it makes sense to me.)
                --------
                N: We are talking about ultimate realities, about naama and ruupa. As
                to cars etc, it seems that they stay. In reality they are composed of
                ruupas that arise and fall away very fast. This can only be seen with
                the eye of wisdom.
                This is the beginning: touch a car. What appears? Is there no
                hardness? This is a characteristic of ruupa that can be directly
                experienced, without having to name it hardness or car. When you
                touch it you may think of hardness or car, but through bodysense just
                hardness is experienced. This is the beginning of knowing what ruupa is.
                What do you think?

                Nina.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • upasaka@aol.com
                Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/28/2011 5:52:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@xs4all.nl writes: Hi Howard, ... N: We are talking about ultimate
                Message 7 of 25 , Jan 28, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Nina -

                  In a message dated 1/28/2011 5:52:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                  vangorko@... writes:

                  Hi Howard,
                  Op 27-jan-2011, om 16:55 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

                  > N: Yes. But ruupa does not fall away as rapidly as citta, although it
                  > is still extremely fast.
                  > ------------------------------------------------
                  > H: A rupa is extremely fast as compared to what? The duration of
                  > macroscopic, conceptual objects like cars, trees, and park benches?
                  > (If that is
                  > what you mean, it makes sense to me.)
                  --------
                  N: We are talking about ultimate realities, about naama and ruupa. As
                  to cars etc, it seems that they stay. In reality they are composed of
                  ruupas that arise and fall away very fast. This can only be seen with
                  the eye of wisdom.
                  --------------------------------------------
                  I have no disagreement with this. The question I raise, though, is
                  "Relative to what objects of consciousness are rupas fast?" The only choice
                  is the macroscopic concepts (like trees, rocks, cars, and buildings) that
                  seem to last for a good while.
                  ---------------------------------------


                  This is the beginning: touch a car. What appears? Is there no
                  hardness? This is a characteristic of ruupa that can be directly
                  experienced, without having to name it hardness or car. When you
                  touch it you may think of hardness or car, but through bodysense just
                  hardness is experienced. This is the beginning of knowing what ruupa is.
                  What do you think?
                  --------------------------------------------
                  I have no problem with any of that. It just isn't what I'm talking
                  about at the moment. A rupa is fast, you say. I ask "Fast as compared to
                  what?" :-)
                  --------------------------------------------



                  Nina.

                  ===============================
                  With metta,
                  Howard


                  Seamless Interdependence

                  /A change in anything is a change in everything/

                  (Anonymous)




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Nina van Gorkom
                  ... N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-)) It is fast, but we cannot make comparisons. If we wonder about that it is thinking that does not lead
                  Message 8 of 25 , Jan 29, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Op 28-jan-2011, om 16:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

                    > I have no disagreement with this. The question I raise, though, is
                    > "Relative to what objects of consciousness are rupas fast?" The
                    > only choice
                    > is the macroscopic concepts (like trees, rocks, cars, and
                    > buildings) that
                    > seem to last for a good while.
                    > ---------------------------------------
                    >
                    > N: This is the beginning: touch a car. What appears? Is there no
                    > hardness? ...
                    > --------------------------------------------
                    > H: I have no problem with any of that. It just isn't what I'm talking
                    > about at the moment. A rupa is fast, you say. I ask "Fast as
                    > compared to
                    > what?" :-)
                    > -----------------
                    N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-))
                    It is fast, but we cannot make comparisons. If we wonder about that
                    it is thinking that does not lead anywhere. It distracts from the
                    goal of the teachings: detachment.
                    When we just understand: it appears and disappears immediately, it
                    will help to understand anattaa, beyond control.
                    Trees or cars are concepts that do not have the characteristics of
                    impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Only naama and ruupa have these
                    three general characteristics.
                    -------
                    Nina.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • upasaka@aol.com
                    Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/29/2011 9:52:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@xs4all.nl writes: ... N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-))
                    Message 9 of 25 , Jan 29, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi, Nina -

                      In a message dated 1/29/2011 9:52:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
                      vangorko@... writes:


                      Op 28-jan-2011, om 16:02 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

                      > I have no disagreement with this. The question I raise, though, is
                      > "Relative to what objects of consciousness are rupas fast?" The
                      > only choice
                      > is the macroscopic concepts (like trees, rocks, cars, and
                      > buildings) that
                      > seem to last for a good while.
                      > ---------------------------------------
                      >
                      > N: This is the beginning: touch a car. What appears? Is there no
                      > hardness? ...
                      > --------------------------------------------
                      > H: I have no problem with any of that. It just isn't what I'm talking
                      > about at the moment. A rupa is fast, you say. I ask "Fast as
                      > compared to
                      > what?" :-)
                      > -----------------
                      N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-))
                      It is fast, but we cannot make comparisons. If we wonder about that
                      it is thinking that does not lead anywhere. It distracts from the
                      goal of the teachings: detachment.
                      -----------------------------------------------
                      No, Nina. 'Fast' is always by comparison, else it is meaningless.
                      There is no point in meaningless statements. If it is not possible to say what
                      rupas are faster than, then to say they are fast is to use words without
                      meaning. I'm sorry, but this is so.
                      -----------------------------------------------


                      When we just understand: it appears and disappears immediately, it
                      will help to understand anattaa, beyond control.
                      -----------------------------------------------
                      Are you saying there is no duration? If no, then what makes them fast
                      any more than slow? Speed is ALWAYS by comparison. We can say that rupas
                      are slower than namas. But what are they faster than? If there is nothing
                      they are faster than, why call them fast? Avoiding an issue doesn't eliminate
                      it.
                      ----------------------------------------------


                      Trees or cars are concepts that do not have the characteristics of
                      impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Only naama and ruupa have these
                      three general characteristics.
                      -----------------------------------------------
                      Do some people live longer than others? Do some plants last longer
                      than others. Do mountains last longer than lightning flashes? These are not
                      meaningless matters. Was it meaningless when the Buddha taught "Just as a
                      dewdrop on the tip of a blade of grass quickly vanishes with the rising of the
                      sun and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human
                      beings is like a dewdrop — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs.
                      One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the
                      holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death."?
                      ==============================
                      With metta,
                      Howard


                      Seamless Interdependence

                      /A change in anything is a change in everything/

                      (Anonymous)



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • colette
                      Hi Howard, help me cope with this heavy load George Harrison. Howard, that was one helluva response that merits a little recognition. One should touch this
                      Message 10 of 25 , Jan 29, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Howard,
                        "help me cope with this heavy load" George Harrison.

                        Howard, that was one helluva response that merits a little recognition.

                        "One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the
                        holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death."?"

                        GOOD JOB. That alone, probably puts an end to a lot of contemplation.

                        toodles,
                        colette


                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
                        <....>
                        > > I have no disagreement with this. The question I raise, though, is
                        > > "Relative to what objects of consciousness are rupas fast?" The
                        > > only choice
                        > > is the macroscopic concepts (like trees, rocks, cars, and
                        > > buildings) that
                        > > seem to last for a good while.
                        > > ---------------------------------------
                        > >
                        > > N: This is the beginning: touch a car. What appears? Is there no
                        > > hardness? ...
                        > > --------------------------------------------
                        > > H: I have no problem with any of that. It just isn't what I'm talking
                        > > about at the moment. A rupa is fast, you say. I ask "Fast as
                        > > compared to
                        > > what?" :-)
                        > > -----------------
                        > N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-))
                        > It is fast, but we cannot make comparisons. If we wonder about that
                        > it is thinking that does not lead anywhere. It distracts from the
                        > goal of the teachings: detachment.
                        > -----------------------------------------------
                        > No, Nina. 'Fast' is always by comparison, else it is meaningless.
                        > There is no point in meaningless statements. If it is not possible to say what
                        > rupas are faster than, then to say they are fast is to use words without
                        > meaning. I'm sorry, but this is so.
                        > -----------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > When we just understand: it appears and disappears immediately, it
                        > will help to understand anattaa, beyond control.
                        > -----------------------------------------------
                        > Are you saying there is no duration? If no, then what makes them fast
                        > any more than slow? Speed is ALWAYS by comparison. We can say that rupas
                        > are slower than namas. But what are they faster than? If there is nothing
                        > they are faster than, why call them fast? Avoiding an issue doesn't eliminate
                        > it.
                        > ----------------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > Trees or cars are concepts that do not have the characteristics of
                        > impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Only naama and ruupa have these
                        > three general characteristics.
                        > -----------------------------------------------
                        > Do some people live longer than others? Do some plants last longer
                        > than others. Do mountains last longer than lightning flashes? These are not
                        > meaningless matters. Was it meaningless when the Buddha taught "Just as a
                        > dewdrop on the tip of a blade of grass quickly vanishes with the rising of the
                        > sun and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human
                        > beings is like a dewdrop â€" limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs.
                        > One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the
                        > holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death."?
                        > ==============================
                        > With metta,
                        > Howard
                        <....>
                      • Nina van Gorkom
                        Hi Howard ... Let us first speak about the fastness of citta. There is a sutta where the Buddha said: nothing is as quick to change as citta. Thus, it is
                        Message 11 of 25 , Jan 30, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Howard
                          Op 29-jan-2011, om 16:20 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
                          >
                          > -----------------------------------------------
                          > Are you saying there is no duration? If no, then what makes them fast
                          > any more than slow? Speed is ALWAYS by comparison. We can say that
                          > rupas
                          > are slower than namas. But what are they faster than? If there is
                          > nothing
                          > they are faster than, why call them fast? Avoiding an issue doesn't
                          > eliminate
                          > it.
                          > ----------------------------------------------
                          > N: In the context of logical reasoning, you certainly have a point.
                          Let us first speak about the fastness of citta. There is a sutta
                          where the Buddha said: nothing is as quick to change as citta. Thus,
                          it is beyond imagination. It cannot be compared with anything.
                          'Nothing is as quick'.
                          I tried to find this sutta with the Yahoo search function, but I
                          could not. In an old post you said that you were familiar with this
                          sutta.
                          The Buddha used similes to express this fastness, such as the simile
                          of the monkey who grasps one branch and lets go of another.
                          As to ruupa, seventeen ruupas have the same duration as one citta.
                          Thus still very fast!
                          We cannot express this by way of mathematical terms. But pa~n~naa
                          when developed can shoot from far, very fast and accurately. Only
                          pa~n~naa can know how fast naama and ruupa arise and fall away.
                          Pa~n~naa has to be extremely fast.

                          > -----------------------------------------------
                          > H: Do some people live longer than others? Do some plants last longer
                          > than others. Do mountains last longer than lightning flashes?
                          -------
                          N: Here you use similes, speaking in figurative language. This is not
                          wrong, but here we are in the world of conventional terms, not in the
                          world of paramattha dhammas.
                          -------
                          Nina.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Robert E
                          Hi Nina. ... This brings up my continued interest in what I consider to be the conventional teaching of the Buddha. Sure, ultimately there is no whole car
                          Message 12 of 25 , Jan 30, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Nina.

                            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:

                            > N: Here we have the famous apples and oranges :-))
                            > It is fast, but we cannot make comparisons. If we wonder about that
                            > it is thinking that does not lead anywhere. It distracts from the
                            > goal of the teachings: detachment.
                            > When we just understand: it appears and disappears immediately, it
                            > will help to understand anattaa, beyond control.
                            > Trees or cars are concepts that do not have the characteristics of
                            > impermanence, dukkha and anattaa. Only naama and ruupa have these
                            > three general characteristics.

                            This brings up my continued interest in what I consider to be the conventional teaching of the Buddha. Sure, ultimately there is no "whole car" as there is no "whole chariot," but according to the Buddha the chariot breaks down into smaller and smaller units which can never be finally defined, rather than it being a concept replaced by a totally different view of reality. As I see it, the car over time displays a "cumulative" view of what is happening on the microscopic level of dhammas. We see the car as a whole by putting together a lot of rupas and namas in our mental image and thought. But there is a reason why over time we see the car that was shiny and new age and finally break down. There is something actually happening on the level of the rupas that we do not observe directly that causes this result, so in the cumulative conventional view we are able to observe the results of anicca and anatta - change and dissolution, lack of control - even though we cannot directly observe the momentary process of anicca and anatta as an arahant can. By deriving the understanding of anicca and anatta from what we see of ordinary object-self relations, we can gradually get a more refined view and approach the actual dhammas that make up our conventional lives.

                            Even though I *think* I already know the car will get old and break down, I live with my nice new car as if this will not happen and cling to its newness and niceness. Then when it gets the first big scratch I am terribly upset, because somehow I did not expect this to happen. To study conventionally and know that all things are impermanent on the level of cherished objects and images, is a good place to start even as one approaches the reality of momentariness and fleeting arising and dissolution of dhammas.

                            Best,
                            Robert E.

                            = = = = = = =
                          • truth_aerator
                            Hello Robert E, Nina, all, ... Right. But the car as an assemblage of parts (or whole is sum of its parts) still exists if parts exist. An assemblage called
                            Message 13 of 25 , Jan 30, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello Robert E, Nina, all,

                              >R:This brings up my continued interest in what I consider to be the >conventional teaching of the Buddha. Sure, ultimately there is no >"whole car" as there is no "whole chariot," but according to the >Buddha the chariot breaks down into smaller and smaller units which >can never be finally defined, rather than it being a concept >replaced by a totally different view of reality.

                              Right. But the car as an assemblage of parts (or whole is sum of its parts) still exists if parts exist.

                              An assemblage called "car" has a different function than assemblage of parts for some other technological machine. Different functions require different causes.

                              If parts exists, then the assemblage of parts (a whole) does exist as well - and can be distinguished from a different whole .



                              I am not sure how beneficial for worldlings is the teaching of cars parts appearing, wearing down and passing away billions of times per second. But the gross impermanence plus hard work to maintain the car, that can be the source of contemplation and dispassion.

                              A car, especially luxurious one, gives a lot of hassle and things to worry about. One has to work hard to earn the money, one has to be cautions not to scratch it, and it also can be an object that thieves might want to take. Ultimately this possession can posses the "owner".

                              Craving for brand new car, just leads to more stress and more complications.


                              IMHO.


                              With metta,

                              Alex
                            • Nina van Gorkom
                              Dear Rob E, I was sorry to hear about Mel s car accident. It must have been a shock. ... N: A sotaapanna, and even before, when stages of insight are being
                              Message 14 of 25 , Jan 31, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Rob E,
                                I was sorry to hear about Mel's car accident. It must have been a shock.
                                Op 31-jan-2011, om 0:42 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven:

                                > There is something actually happening on the level of the rupas
                                > that we do not observe directly that causes this result, so in the
                                > cumulative conventional view we are able to observe the results of
                                > anicca and anatta - change and dissolution, lack of control - even
                                > though we cannot directly observe the momentary process of anicca
                                > and anatta as an arahant can.
                                --------
                                N: A sotaapanna, and even before, when stages of insight are being
                                realised.
                                ------
                                > R: By deriving the understanding of anicca and anatta from what we
                                > see of ordinary object-self relations, we can gradually get a more
                                > refined view and approach the actual dhammas that make up our
                                > conventional lives.
                                -------
                                N: The question is: how. You gave the example of a car and its parts.
                                I like to change this into a body and its parts.
                                I heard this morning on a recording the following from Kh Sujin. We
                                cling so much to our whole body which seems to exist. There are
                                ruupas all over the body and they seem to be there all the time. Only
                                one ruupa appears at a time, such as hardness. All the other ruupas
                                that we do not notice arise and fall away very fast and it is
                                sa~n~naa that remembers them as our body. Thus, they are not there,
                                only in our memory they seem to exist.
                                First we understand this on the level of thinking, but in being
                                mindful of just one ruupa that appears, there will be a clearer
                                understanding and also more detachment.
                                -------
                                Nina.



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Robert E
                                Hi Alex. ... I think there are a couple of different things to distinguish here. I think it is right to say that the car exists in the sense that the physical
                                Message 15 of 25 , Jan 31, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Alex.

                                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hello Robert E, Nina, all,
                                  >
                                  > >R:This brings up my continued interest in what I consider to be the >conventional teaching of the Buddha. Sure, ultimately there is no >"whole car" as there is no "whole chariot," but according to the >Buddha the chariot breaks down into smaller and smaller units which >can never be finally defined, rather than it being a concept >replaced by a totally different view of reality.
                                  >
                                  > Right. But the car as an assemblage of parts (or whole is sum of its parts) still exists if parts exist.
                                  >
                                  > An assemblage called "car" has a different function than assemblage of parts for some other technological machine. Different functions require different causes.
                                  >
                                  > If parts exists, then the assemblage of parts (a whole) does exist as well - and can be distinguished from a different whole .

                                  I think there are a couple of different things to distinguish here. I think it is right to say that the car exists in the sense that the physical parts do coordinate to perform a certain function and they do perform that function in coordination. In that sense there is certainly a car. We experience and use it all the time. In the same sense, there is a body. We get up, we walk around, we eat, we talk. There is no doubt that we can experience these things taking place.

                                  However, I think there is a distinction within this reality that is worth making and is what most people would mean by calling the car or the body "a concept" rather than "a reality." It is not that these parts do not come together or that this function does not take place, but that there is no existent entity that is inherently a car or body. That is just a way of defining all the phenomena that takes place. Why don't we define our physical units in terms of two bodies instead of one and call each body a half? In some ways we do this, we say that we are a "married couple" and when we talk in that way we define the unit as a "marriage" and there are "two people/bodies in it." You can't have a marriage without two people, it's just a definition. Yet there are certain functions the married couple performs that a "single person" can't do, like have a "couples date." These things really do come into account for certain occasions. Likewise if I am a tire specialist I may see tires all day and not think in terms of whole cars but in terms of different types of wheels and axles. So my unit is not a "car," but a wheel-axle arrangement and how it works. That is another definition of an entity that is suited to my intention and task. In that sense there is no final unit-boundary at "car" or "wheel" or "body" or "kidney" for a kidney specialist who looks at a body and sees a pair of kidneys first and foremost. They are all "realities" that we experience, but they are conventionally arranged and defined realities that shift in consciousness depending on the frame of reference. If I break my leg, I am all about my leg for a while.

                                  So in that sense these real conventional entities and realities that we use and experience are definitional or conceptual units within a broader or smaller frame of reference that is suited to the involvement of the moment.

                                  On another level, we can put all our tasks and definitions aside and say, what does the car ultimately come down to? And we can break it down into parts, then the parts into smaller parts and find, as the Buddha said, that like a banana tree, there is no core or substance to car or any of its parts. At the core of the car and all its parts is emptiness and non-entity, and the structure or conventional reality is built up around this emptiness through construction in the physical world, and concept in the mental world. It is worth looking at this level so we understand that our meanings are man-made and however useful our machines and bodies may be, they ultimately come down to nothing and are not worth holding onto. That ultimate level is not for driving the car or brushing the teeth, it is only for seeing what things are really made of and letting go of attachment. Again a different purpose and a different set of definitions. But for Buddhism, that is the final type of contemplation, to let go of wholes, parts and all our definitions of what they mean.

                                  However, I totally agree with what you say below, which I would consider the conventional teaching, and I will make a comment about it below.

                                  > I am not sure how beneficial for worldlings is the teaching of cars parts appearing, wearing down and passing away billions of times per second. But the gross impermanence plus hard work to maintain the car, that can be the source of contemplation and dispassion.
                                  >
                                  > A car, especially luxurious one, gives a lot of hassle and things to worry about. One has to work hard to earn the money, one has to be cautions not to scratch it, and it also can be an object that thieves might want to take. Ultimately this possession can posses the "owner".
                                  >
                                  > Craving for brand new car, just leads to more stress and more complications.

                                  This is the part of the conventional teaching that I think is very useful and I think it is part of what Buddha was teaching with the simile of the chariot. On a practical level, detachment and letting go have to do with what we hold onto and cherish in our ordinary world. Seeing the worry, suffering and inconvenience which comes along with wanting and even getting luxurious delicate items is a good example of why it is just causing more dependence and suffering to have your world based on possessions and maintaining them. If one contemplates this I think it can lead to letting go and less suffering.

                                  On an even more immediate "conventional" level one can contemplate the troubles with one's own body and not identify with it so strongly. Getting sick, wanting to do desired activities and resisting aging and slowing down create more forms of suffering. To realize that one can't control sickness and aging and *actively adjust* one's thoughts and lifestyle to accommodate the truth of the body, I think is a very helpful aspect of Buddhism, and I think it fits together very nicely with other aspects. For instance, if one accepts one's own body getting older and less active in some ways, one then can combine this with mudita and metta to be happy not only about one's own circumstance through acceptance, but also enjoy seeing the young people run around and go through their more active and enjoyable period with the body. One can be happy when someone else is successful even if one has not done everything they wanted in their life and through acceptance and detachment enjoy one's own activities within their current constraints. There is a lot to do with this prior to the realization of ultimate reality that is very helpful and I believe is a big part of the path.

                                  There is a book I just heard about written by a person who got very ill and used Buddhist teachings to reconstruct a happy life based on limited mobility, acceptance and mudita. This woman was full of suffering and unhappiness when she first got sick and lost her mobility, but by working with metta, mudita and other Buddhist teachings she changed her mental orientation and eliminated the "second arrow" in her illness. It is called:

                                  "How to Be Sick: A Buddhist-Inspired Guide for the Chronically Ill and Their Caregivers," by Toni Berhard.

                                  I know that a number of us are dealing with chronic illnesses and spouses who are ill, and I think this might be a good exploration of the conventional teaching of the Buddha, so useful for all of us while we are working on pariyatti for the long haul.

                                  Here is the link for US Amazon:
                                  http://www.amazon.com/How-Sick-Buddhist-Inspired-Chronically-Caregivers/dp/0861716264/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296487590&sr=1-1

                                  I'm sure you can find it on UK Amazon and others as well.

                                  Best,
                                  Robert E.

                                  = = = = = = = = =
                                • truth_aerator
                                  Hello RobertE, All, ... First, thank you for your post #113296 If I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest that ultimate are what ultimately analysis
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Jan 31, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello RobertE, All,

                                    >Robert E:

                                    First, thank you for your post #113296

                                    If I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest that ultimate are what ultimately analysis reduces to one phenomena. I agree.
                                    I'd also add that, ultimates do not require mental theorizing. Theory, proofs, etc, require at least two things - so they cannot be totally irreducible.

                                    Here we have an interesting question: What about conditionality (such as 24 conditions)? Is conditionality ultimate or is it conceptual?

                                    There is no single material or mental piece called "condition XYZ"

                                    In fact, conditioning seems to require at least two phenomena,
                                    "cause and effect", and generally much more. Wouldn't this make condition be a conceptual reality? It also seems that certain amount of thinking is required to be able to have a concept of "conditionality" or "cause and effect.". I've heard that animals do not have knowledge of "causes and effect" sufficiently developed.

                                    Being conceptual reality, does it make it any less relevant?


                                    With metta,

                                    Alex
                                  • Robert E
                                    Hi Nina. ... Thank you, Nina. Yes, a shock, but strangely harmless - except for the car. The car was destroyed, but Melanie didn t even feel a shake from the
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Jan 31, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Nina.

                                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Dear Rob E,
                                      > I was sorry to hear about Mel's car accident. It must have been a shock.

                                      Thank you, Nina. Yes, a shock, but strangely harmless - except for the car. The car was destroyed, but Melanie didn't even feel a shake from the impact. It was strange. We were on our way to have dinner to celebrate my parents' birthdays. We went to the accident and packed up the things from Melanie's car and then were able to drive away with her. So everyone was in the other car - Melanie, myself, my daughter and my mom and Dad. So we drove back to our neighborhood and went to dinner! Despite the shock, and of course we are upset, we decided to make the best of it and had a nice evening.

                                      > Op 31-jan-2011, om 0:42 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven:
                                      >
                                      > > There is something actually happening on the level of the rupas
                                      > > that we do not observe directly that causes this result, so in the
                                      > > cumulative conventional view we are able to observe the results of
                                      > > anicca and anatta - change and dissolution, lack of control - even
                                      > > though we cannot directly observe the momentary process of anicca
                                      > > and anatta as an arahant can.
                                      > --------
                                      > N: A sotaapanna, and even before, when stages of insight are being
                                      > realised.

                                      Something to look forward to...eventually...

                                      > ------
                                      > > R: By deriving the understanding of anicca and anatta from what we
                                      > > see of ordinary object-self relations, we can gradually get a more
                                      > > refined view and approach the actual dhammas that make up our
                                      > > conventional lives.
                                      > -------
                                      > N: The question is: how. You gave the example of a car and its parts.
                                      > I like to change this into a body and its parts.
                                      > I heard this morning on a recording the following from Kh Sujin. We
                                      > cling so much to our whole body which seems to exist. There are
                                      > ruupas all over the body and they seem to be there all the time. Only
                                      > one ruupa appears at a time, such as hardness. All the other ruupas
                                      > that we do not notice arise and fall away very fast and it is
                                      > sa~n~naa that remembers them as our body. Thus, they are not there,
                                      > only in our memory they seem to exist.
                                      > First we understand this on the level of thinking, but in being
                                      > mindful of just one ruupa that appears, there will be a clearer
                                      > understanding and also more detachment.

                                      Thanks for the description. I do pay attention in line with my current abilities [or lack of abilities] to see what is being experienced in the moment. Even a little bit of this let's you understand that you are not experiencing a "whole" at any given time, but only aspects of experience. It is good to know.

                                      Even with the car accident and the physical shock that stays with you for a while, I thought to myself - 'that's how it goes; everything is gone in a moment, and it's over.' I now recall what KS said to Sarah when she was sick, and got better, about how it was "all gone now" and not worth reflecting over. Everything happens in an instant.

                                      Best,
                                      Robert E.

                                      = = = = = = = =
                                    • Robert E
                                      Hi Alex. ... Well, I d say one phenomenon at a time, if that s what you mean. This is dhamma theory, though I am not totally convinced. My common sense
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Jan 31, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Alex.

                                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Hello RobertE, All,
                                        >
                                        > >Robert E:
                                        >
                                        > First, thank you for your post #113296
                                        >
                                        > If I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest that ultimate are what ultimately analysis reduces to one phenomena. I agree.

                                        Well, I'd say one phenomenon at a time, if that's what you mean. This is dhamma theory, though I am not totally convinced. My common sense understanding which could be wrong is that we take in many different phenomena at the same time but can only focus on one at a time, so it may come down to the same thing. I don't see cittas as being individual separate acts that cannot happen at the same time, but I will leave that be for now. I think it is convenient to look at them that way. I do think that when we look at things mindfully they start to break down into more and more distinctive moments, so maybe the ultimate is totally one thing at a time.

                                        > I'd also add that, ultimates do not require mental theorizing. Theory, proofs, etc, require at least two things - so they cannot be totally irreducible.

                                        I don't quite understand the one thing/two thing distinction. Maybe you can explain that a little bit more.

                                        > Here we have an interesting question: What about conditionality (such as 24 conditions)? Is conditionality ultimate or is it conceptual?
                                        >
                                        > There is no single material or mental piece called "condition XYZ"

                                        If you subscribe to dhamma theory, then you see only one condition occurring at a time, I think. Or they arise in very specific coordinations. I'm not aware enough to know if the 24 conditions are theory or fact, but I do think they provide a useful explanation for certain processes.

                                        > In fact, conditioning seems to require at least two phenomena,
                                        > "cause and effect", and generally much more. Wouldn't this make condition be a conceptual reality? It also seems that certain amount of thinking is required to be able to have a concept of "conditionality" or "cause and effect.". I've heard that animals do not have knowledge of "causes and effect" sufficiently developed.
                                        >
                                        > Being conceptual reality, does it make it any less relevant?

                                        Well, there is a difference between the conceptual reality of "thinking about conditions," and the reality of the conditions themselves. If the 24 conditions actually exist, their existence is not dependent on whether or not we understand them or are able to think about them. Whether they are concepts that have been created to explain phenomena, or the recorded perceptions of arahants who were able to actually see them in action, is something I don't have any access to. What I can see is that conceptually the explanation makes sense and so it is a workable explanation. Whether it is useful to creating detachment by seeing an objective process of arising phenomena we will see. I am too much of a beginner in Abhidhamma to have a good judgment on this.

                                        But I think you are right that you can see conditions in life or from moment to moment without labeling them and have some understanding of how conditions cause phenomena to arise. But I also feel that as I hear more about the five kandhas, conditions and perception and how the different factors of experience arise together, it does give me a certain amount of detachment to contemplate those processes.

                                        Best,
                                        Robert E.

                                        = = = = = = = =
                                      • truth_aerator
                                        Hello RobertE, Nina, all, ... What I ve meant to say was that it appears to me that ultimate are non reducible phenomenon that can be cognized without
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Feb 1, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hello RobertE, Nina, all,


                                          >RE: I don't quite understand the one thing/two thing distinction. >Maybe you can explain that a little bit more.

                                          What I've meant to say was that it appears to me that ultimate are non reducible phenomenon that can be cognized without imagination.

                                          Mirage exists as visible object + mental interpretation, but its contents are not real. But seeing and thinking does exist.

                                          Another example:
                                          Seeing car can be analyzed as seeing color + conceptualizing (making shapes out of colors + idea of "the XYZ car").

                                          As I understand it, seeing color cannot be further reduced to smaller "seeing color", and it doesn't require conceptualizing to see colors. Even without any thinking, it can be possible to see colors (provided
                                          that all appropriate organs and objects do interact and function properly).

                                          What is known through multiple senses can be reduced to individual senses + the mind that glues sense data into one whole to make sense out of experiences. Furthermore, animals "see colors" even though they may not have enough intelligence or imagination. But animals cannot comprehend complex things, and here what it seems to be a key point between ultimate and conceptual reality. Ultimate reality doesn't need mental interpretation, while conceptual reality is mental interpretation.


                                          The problem with the above is that conditionality seems to require a lot of conceptualization from appearing phenomenon. It requires induction, deduction, reasoning, proofs, making sure to avoid wrong kinds of induction based on correlation (just because B follows A, it doesn't mean that A causes B), just because there can be correlation between A and B, it doesn't mean that one causes the other.

                                          Maybe this is why I've heard that animals have very limited understanding of cause-effect, so cause-effect is not given in experience. They don't have enough highly developed faculties to understand the order and structure of phenomena.


                                          IMHO,

                                          With metta,

                                          Alex
                                        • Nina van Gorkom
                                          Dear Alex, ... N: What you say about seeing and conceptualizing is correct. There is seeing and the thinking of what is seen brings a lot of dukkha. The
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Alex,
                                            Op 1-feb-2011, om 19:58 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

                                            > The problem with the above is that conditionality seems to require
                                            > a lot of conceptualization from appearing phenomenon. It requires
                                            > induction, deduction, reasoning, proofs, making sure to avoid wrong
                                            > kinds of induction based on correlation (just because B follows A,
                                            > it doesn't mean that A causes B), just because there can be
                                            > correlation between A and B, it doesn't mean that one causes the
                                            > other.
                                            -------
                                            N: What you say about seeing and conceptualizing is correct. There is
                                            seeing and the thinking of what is seen brings a lot of dukkha.
                                            The question is now: can conditionality be directly known, without
                                            thinking? This is a question that may arise when one hears about the
                                            second stage of tender insight.
                                            The answer is yes, but first the first stage of tender insight has to
                                            be realised: knowing naama as naama and ruupa as ruupa. For example,
                                            seeing arises and we know through intellectual understanding that
                                            there cannot be seeing without visible object and eyesense. Through
                                            insight it can be directly known that seeing is a conditioned naama.
                                            No need to think, because sati is aware and pa~n~naa knows. But this
                                            could not be known without being familiar with different
                                            characteristics of naama and ruupa.
                                            Another example. We learn about the indriyas, the faculties of the
                                            five senses which condition the five sense-cognitions by way of
                                            faculty-condition, indriya paccaya. An indriya is a leader, but in
                                            its own field. The indriya of eyesense is a leader in the field of
                                            seeing. The indriya of eyesense can remind us to be aware when
                                            seeing. We may be forgetful when seeing, but if there is not
                                            awareness the state of sotaapanna cannot be reached, Kh Sujin said,
                                            as I heard on a recording this morning. She also said: if there is no
                                            sati now we cannot understand the function of indriya. She showed how
                                            the development of satipa.t.thaana is necessary in order to
                                            understand conditions. If we only read about these we shall not
                                            really understand them. It is necessary that there is satipa.t.thaana
                                            in order to understand the anattaness of conditioned realities. If
                                            there are no indriyas, ruupas do not appear. At this moment sound may
                                            appear. It could not appear without the indriya of earsense.
                                            Thus, to return to your question: without awareness and right
                                            understanding of the reality appearing now, there cannot be direct
                                            understanding of the way realities are conditioned.
                                            ------
                                            Nina.



                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Nina van Gorkom
                                            Dear Rob E, ... N: Very good way of applying the Dhamma. It also shows a point you like to stress: how the sutta in conventional way can remind us of realities
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear Rob E,
                                              Op 31-jan-2011, om 23:18 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven:

                                              > Even with the car accident and the physical shock that stays with
                                              > you for a while, I thought to myself - 'that's how it goes;
                                              > everything is gone in a moment, and it's over.' I now recall what
                                              > KS said to Sarah when she was sick, and got better, about how it
                                              > was "all gone now" and not worth reflecting over. Everything
                                              > happens in an instant.
                                              --------
                                              N: Very good way of applying the Dhamma. It also shows a point you
                                              like to stress: how the sutta in conventional way can remind us of
                                              realities and can lead to awareness of the reality now.
                                              We heard about some very bad wheather coming up to the States. Ice
                                              rain, etc. I hope you stock your fridge and stay home.
                                              Nina.



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Robert E
                                              Hi Alex. ... I think there are two different points here. Either conditionality exists, or not. What we conceive in order to explain conditionality is a
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi Alex.

                                                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
                                                >

                                                > The problem with the above is that conditionality seems to require a lot of conceptualization from appearing phenomenon. It requires induction, deduction, reasoning, proofs, making sure to avoid wrong kinds of induction based on correlation (just because B follows A, it doesn't mean that A causes B), just because there can be correlation between A and B, it doesn't mean that one causes the other.

                                                > Maybe this is why I've heard that animals have very limited understanding of cause-effect, so cause-effect is not given in experience. They don't have enough highly developed faculties to understand the order and structure of phenomena.

                                                I think there are two different points here. Either conditionality exists, or not. What we conceive in order to explain conditionality is a separate issue.

                                                So we have:
                                                1. Conditionality - exists or not.
                                                2. Our version of conditionality - correct or incorrect concept.

                                                Conditionality is observable. We see action-reaction all the time, so I think we can start with an affirmation of *some* form of conditionality being part of our universe, world and life. Starting from this affirmation of general conditionality, we can see that animals, though they cannot conceptualize and thus are free of any "wrong views" of reality as a whole, react to causes and conditions all the time, and do so even more directly than we may appear to. One dog barks - the other dog barks back. The dog smells the dog food - it smells bad ---> unpleasant vedana ----> the dog goes away and doesn't eat the food. No proliferations, just pure cause-effect reactions, ie, conditionality.

                                                Our reactions are more complicated. Sometimes we do things we don't want to do because we think about it and decide it's in our long-term interest. So we have reactions and then mitigating factors. We smell the food and it smells bad ---> negative vedana ----> proliferation about hurting the hostess's feelings ----> eat the food. Different from the dog, but still based on conditions, causes, tendencies and accumulations.

                                                When all the conditions for phenomena are listed with specific names - adverting this, determining that, we may think it's just a lot of explanatory concepts, and maybe those factors do or do not occur in reality, but something like them does occur. As K. Sujin has been reported as saying a number of times, it doesn't matter if you make sense of all the names and explanations, but whether you have a correct view of the process and can see it taking place. For me, this means watching conventional causes, effects, tendencies, accumulations and outcomes as I can understand them. I know that if I speak a certain way and with a certain tone of voice, I'm likely to start an argument, and if I approach someone with a different tone of voice and point of view, I may have a very pleasant conversation. That in itself is conditionality in action. And I personally believe that this is the first line of understanding in the Buddha's teaching on conditionality - whatever you spend your time on, whatever you develop in your mind, whatever you do, whoever you hang out with, whatever you take for common sense and reality as you know it, is going to come back to create the environment and series of events in which you will then have to live. So he spoke about "right speech" and "right action" and "right livelihood" not for an abstract moral purpose, but to create a wholesome environment for the development of the path. Whatever conditions get established, they lead to different types of outcomes. That's where I personally see the importance of conditions, tendencies, etc., in my life. I may not have all the concepts right, but I can see conditionality in action without them. Even a dog knows that if it gets hit with a newspaper it should do something different. I wonder if we get the message when we keep getting negative, akusala results from our tendencies and actions?

                                                Best,
                                                Robert E.

                                                = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                                              • Ravi Doultani
                                                [Rob E] namastey i am agreeing with ur concept of budhism in mind opening words that u have said. but i want to diffrentiate between belief in truth and
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  [Rob E]

                                                  namastey
                                                  i am agreeing
                                                  with ur concept
                                                  of budhism in mind opening words that u have
                                                  said. but i want to diffrentiate between "belief in truth" and
                                                  "truth in belief" which is gaming in our true virtual world always.
                                                  we have noticed about stages of life but being alive we surpaas by surpass
                                                  diffrent matter of time in our life we can not judge in matter of time at
                                                  perticular stage of being. i want to say that param purush bhagwan is the
                                                  "sat-shri-akal" purakh who is true and shri { believing of good} and
                                                  akaal [with out time] and always with us when we do believe or not
                                                  believe it is true that is my belief and it is my belief that is true so bole
                                                  sonihaal ----- satshriakaal
                                                  waaheguru ji ka khalsa waaheguru ji ki fateh


                                                  From: Robert E <epsteinrob@...>
                                                  <.....>
                                                  >I think there are two different points here. Either conditionality exists, or not. What we conceive in order to explain conditionality is a separate issue.

                                                  So we have:
                                                  1. Conditionality - exists or not.
                                                  2. Our version of conditionality - correct or incorrect concept.

                                                  Conditionality is observable. We see action-reaction all the time, so I think we can start with an affirmation of *some* form of conditionality being part of our universe, world and life. Starting from this affirmation of general conditionality, we can see that animals, though they cannot conceptualize and thus are free of any "wrong views" of reality as a whole, react to causes and conditions all the time, and do so even more directly than we may appear to. One dog barks - the other dog barks back. The dog smells the dog food - it smells bad ---> unpleasant vedana ----> the dog goes away and doesn't eat the food. No proliferations, just pure cause-effect reactions, ie, conditionality.

                                                  Our reactions are more complicated. Sometimes we do things we don't want to do because we think about it and decide it's in our long-term interest. So we have reactions and then mitigating factors. We smell the food and it smells bad ---> negative vedana ----> proliferation about hurting the hostess's feelings ----> eat the food. Different from the dog, but still based on conditions, causes, tendencies and accumulations.

                                                  <....>
                                                • truth_aerator
                                                  Hello RobertE, Nina, all, ... As I understand it, what is observable without conceptualizing is: citta, cetasika and rupa if using paramattha classification.
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hello RobertE, Nina, all,

                                                    >RE: Conditionality is observable. We see action-reaction all the >time, so I think we can start with an affirmation of *some* form of >conditionality being part of our universe, world and life.

                                                    As I understand it, what is observable without conceptualizing is: citta, cetasika and rupa if using paramattha classification. Other than the mind (cittas and cetasikas) the minimum of matter that is known is bare octad, and other material qualities do not seem to include conditionality within them.


                                                    We see a string of events occurring one after another, and not only we make an extra-temporal whole out of its parts, we also make a whole out of pattern of events over time.

                                                    Pattern of events (more than one event!), is defined as cause-effect or more briefly as "cause" or "effect" (any one of this words require the other). Earlier events are labeled causes for later sequence of events. However, there is no inherent marker in the event itself that tells us that it is cause or effect of something. Correlation doesn't have to imply causality, and neither does order of events (b can follow A, without being caused by A). While we may take for granted that "such and such an effect requires such and such cause", it does require a lot of induction, deduction or other logical tests to make sure that correlation between sequences of events is real and not simply seen so.

                                                    So, does this make causality (and if not all causality, then which types) conceptual?

                                                    If something requires analysis, does it make it conceptual?


                                                    IMHO.

                                                    With metta,

                                                    Alex
                                                  • Robert E
                                                    Hi Nina. ... Thank you, Nina, for pointing that out. Yes, I can see that the conventional reality and how it happened all of a sudden reminded me of the
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Feb 2, 2011
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Hi Nina.

                                                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Dear Rob E,
                                                      > Op 31-jan-2011, om 23:18 heeft Robert E het volgende geschreven:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Even with the car accident and the physical shock that stays with
                                                      > > you for a while, I thought to myself - 'that's how it goes;
                                                      > > everything is gone in a moment, and it's over.' I now recall what
                                                      > > KS said to Sarah when she was sick, and got better, about how it
                                                      > > was "all gone now" and not worth reflecting over. Everything
                                                      > > happens in an instant.
                                                      > --------
                                                      > N: Very good way of applying the Dhamma. It also shows a point you
                                                      > like to stress: how the sutta in conventional way can remind us of
                                                      > realities and can lead to awareness of the reality now.

                                                      Thank you, Nina, for pointing that out. Yes, I can see that the conventional reality and how it happened all of a sudden reminded me of the momentariness of phenomena. There is a sense of sunya when that happens to, as if all the solid things in your life are really happening in empty space. It seems everything is connected very solidly, but at times like that they seem to be hanging by a thread.

                                                      > We heard about some very bad wheather coming up to the States. Ice
                                                      > rain, etc. I hope you stock your fridge and stay home.

                                                      Thanks very much. I did have to cancel some evening activities several times in the last few weeks, because there has been freezing rain and ice at night, but we are doing fairly well. In the Midwest and Southern U.S. they are really having the worst weather right now - terrible snow that is a real challenge. Thanks for your thoughts!

                                                      Best,
                                                      Robert E.

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