Re: [dsg] Re: Not Who, but What?
- Dear Vince,
'I think you right. I'm reading these days a book from Bhikkhu Analayo in
where it seems there are different interpretations even philosophical
understand sati and then also the practice.'
D: I am wondéring whether Ven. Buddhadasa always taught 'cutting it off at
the moment of sense contact '. I have read some of his lectures but it
didn't attract my attention until you mentioned it. Nevertheless I think he
has done a lot to support the understanding of the practical side of the
Law of D.O.
You are totally right , we are facing plenty of different interpretations .
Finally we are on our own to judge as we are in the practise of the 8fold
Concerning sati , I like it simple : sati= to know what is going on ..
In respect to the 7th step or Maha Satipatthana Sutta there are obviously
different interpretations . I.M.H.O. the development of sati in a skillful
way requires to train the contemplation of the 4 frameworks as described in
V: At least I understand Buddhadasa talks of detachment of "me" at the
moment of contact. As I wrote to Nina in the other message, I believe this
is not very
different of the "seeing" instead "I see" taught by Sujin.
D: agreed , it is the I relation /involvement which brings the trouble.
However contact without sensation is neutral , only the quality of feeling
provides the possibility to be indifferent
towards its aspects of pleasant -unplesant. The difficulty to realize it
can be easily seen by the (10) fetters to be overcome on the way to
V: Qhat can be the "seeing" but the same co-arising?.
D: not sure whether I got the question right.. as long as I have to take
care that this I isn't involved ( the phenomena being impersonal/anatta )it
is still not the pure awareness
of seeing, hearing etc. , but seemingly a need for practise..
with Metta Dieter
- Dear Alex,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
> Dear Sarah, all,
> >S: The point of my question was to indicate that dhammas, any dhammas >inc. jhana cittas, arise and fall away by conditions. They cannot be >"used" or made to be objects of insight.
> Sure that things happen due to conditions. One of the condition is presently arisen intention.
S: If visible object is the object of insight, it is because visible object was just experienced through the eye-door as a result of past kamma and there were then conditions, primarily natural decisive support condition, for insight (panna) to arise and experience that visible object. Here the natural decisive-support condition refers to the previously accumulated panna and accompanying factors. Cetana arises with every dhamma, so it supports the panna which arises. It doesn't decide or intend to understand visible object at that moment!
Exactly the same applies if a jhana citta or a jhana factor is the object of insight. After that citta has fallen away, by natural decisive support condition, panna may arise and directly understand that reality.
> For example you can look to the right or to the left. Each of these actions requires certain conditions (such as functional body and being alive). These are conditions, sure. But the trigger is present intention that you have. I believe that intention in present moment is extremely important. We do not live due to past conditions. The past conditioning sure can play a part (it deals the cards) but how you play with the cards dealt now is dependent on present intentional actions.
S: It's difficult when we talk about a situation, such as playing cards because there are so many different dhammas involved, all with their own conditions for their arising. Many dhammas, including cetana, all anatta, all arising by conditions.
> As you know, Kamma that one does is not vipaka. Thus one can freely choose to do this or that kamma. One is not a killer, a thief, seducer, liar, or whatever due to past kamma.
S: No one who does anything. Kamma now by conditions, such as the understanding and wise reflection now on what is wise and unwise. Present conditions are important, but still no one to "freely choose" or do anything else. Suffering is, but no Sufferer. Present kamma, but no one who does kamma!
> There is no choice about the occurrence of kammavipaka that will occur. I don't believe that it is correct or prudent to say that
> "I couldn't resist... It was meant to happened due to conditions that I did this akusala kamma".
S: All Self-view and excuses if one speaks like that, not Right View.