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

Re: [dsg] cetasika in daily life - moha

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Dear Dieter, ... N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration, and
    Message 1 of 26 , Dec 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Dieter,
      Op 2-dec-2011, om 17:54 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven:
      >
      > D: that is the trouble with dirt, Nina
      >
      > what I meant is:
      > The quoted sentence : ' There are 10 defilements, thus called
      > because they are themselves defiled ',
      >
      > is , what we call in common German 'doppelt gemoppelt ' , English '
      > tautology' ( pleonasm ?, plain repetition).
      > There is no defilement in defilement.
      >
      > and
      > " they defile the mental factors associated with them."
      >
      > defile what is already 'dirty ' , i.e. the 10 of the 14 akusala
      > mental factors?
      >
      > Assumed correct translation from Pali , three possibilities:
      > - my lack to understand what has been said correctly
      > - fault of expression in Pali,
      > - ( a bit speculative but not at all unikely , that) a subtle hint
      > was given , to indicate that the 10 kilesas are tautological in
      > respect to 10 of the group of cetasikas... i.e. a new unnessary
      > classification of what had been already specified .
      >
      > my vote for the latter ;-)
      >
      -------
      N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas
      accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration,
      and these are in themselves not akusala cetasikas. However, when
      they are accompanied by akusala cetasikas, by the kilesas, they
      become akusala, impure (schmutzig). Thus, this shows that conascent
      dhammas condition one another.
      You were perhaps thinking of the ten kilesas only and wondering how
      they could make each other impure. But we have to consider the
      akusala citta and all other accompanying dhammas, not only the
      dhammas that are in themselves akusala.
      Does this help?
      Nina.
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dieter Moeller
      Dear Nina, you wrote; N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration,
      Message 2 of 26 , Dec 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Nina,


        you wrote;

        N: Perhaps an example may help. There are the universals, cetasikas accompanying each citta, such as contact, sa~n~naa, concentration,
        and these are in themselves not akusala cetasikas.

        D: Let me try again:
        I understand: among the Cetasikas there are 13 variable factors ( 7 Universals , 6 Occasionals) and 25 Beautiful mental factors besides ´
        the 14 akusala Cetasikas. Which may or may not accompany the citta.


        N:However, when they are accompanied by akusa cetasikas, by the kilesas, they become akusala, impure (schmutzig). Thus, this shows that conascent
        dhammas condition one another.

        D: The 14 unwholesome Cetasikas , when accompanying the citta, will pollute it , correct?
        If so, why kilesas?



        N: D:You were perhaps thinking of the ten kilesas only and wondering how they could make each other impure. But we have to consider the akusala citta and all other accompanying dhammas, not only the dhammas that are in themselves akusala.
        Does this help?

        D: not really ;-)
        It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are different in function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which they are identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me as an unnecessary new classification ...(tautological)

        with Metta Dieter





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Nina van Gorkom
        Dear Dieter, ... N: Defilements, kilesas can refer to all 14 akusala cetasikas. Here kilesa is used in a wide sense. Apart from this, kilesas can refer to a
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 7, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Dieter,
          Op 3-dec-2011, om 15:30 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven:
          >
          > D: Let me try again:
          > I understand: among the Cetasikas there are 13 variable factors ( 7
          > Universals , 6 Occasionals) and 25 Beautiful mental factors besides �
          > the 14 akusala Cetasikas. Which may or may not accompany the citta.
          >
          > N:However, when they are accompanied by akusa cetasikas, by the
          > kilesas, they become akusala, impure (schmutzig). Thus, this shows
          > that conascent
          > dhammas condition one another.
          >
          > D: The 14 unwholesome Cetasikas , when accompanying the citta, will
          > pollute it , correct?
          > If so, why kilesas?
          >
          ------
          N: Defilements, kilesas can refer to all 14 akusala cetasikas. Here
          kilesa is used in a wide sense. Apart from this, kilesas can refer to
          a specific group of defilements, ten akusala cetasikas. As you know,
          there are nine groups such as the aasavas, oghas, yoghas, hindrances,
          etc. and also kilesas. Not all akusala dhammas are included in each
          of these groups, because the purpose is emphasizing specific aspects,
          and these aspects are different for each of these groups. Kilesas in
          a 'narrower sense' are classified as a group of ten akusala cetasikas
          with the purpose of showing their power to defile all the
          accompanying dhammas, including the universals, the particulars and
          also those four akusala cetasikas not classified as one of the ten
          kilesas.
          -------
          >
          > D: It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are different
          > in function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which
          > they are identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me
          > as an unnecessary new classification ...(tautological)
          >
          ------
          N: If you consider each of the nine groups of defilements it may not
          be so strange to you?
          They are:
          1. cankers, aasavas
          2.flood, oghas
          3. yokes, yoghas
          4. ties, ganthas
          5. ways of clinging, up ad anas
          6. hindrances, niivaran. as
          7. latent tendencies, anusayas
          8. fetters, sam. yo janas
          9. defilements, kilesas
          Lobha, for example, occurs in all nine groups, di.t.thi in all groups
          except the hindrances. Each group can remind us of the danger of
          akusala.
          > ------
          Nina.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Dieter Moeller
          Dear Nina, you wrote: N: Defilements, kilesas can refer to all 14 akusala cetasikas. Here kilesa is used in a wide sense. Apart from this, kilesas can refer
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 7, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Nina,

            you wrote:

            N: Defilements, kilesas can refer to all 14 akusala cetasikas. Here kilesa
            is used in a wide sense. Apart from this, kilesas can refer to
            a specific group of defilements, ten akusala cetasikas. As you know, there
            are nine groups such as the aasavas, oghas, yoghas, hindrances,
            etc. and also kilesas. Not all akusala dhammas are included in each of
            these groups, because the purpose is emphasizing specific aspects,
            and these aspects are different for each of these groups. Kilesas in a
            'narrower sense' are classified as a group of ten akusala cetasikas
            with the purpose of showing their power to defile all the accompanying
            dhammas, including the universals, the particulars and also those four
            akusala cetasikas not classified as one of the ten kilesas.
            -------

            D: I had a look at Wiki's 'kilesa' presentation and recognize its use in a
            wide sense..
            Do we agree that all kileasa have their roots in lobha, dosa and moha?


            ( D: It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are different > in
            function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which > they are
            identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me > as an
            unnecessary new classification ...(tautological)>
            ------
            N: If you consider each of the nine groups of defilements it may not be so
            strange to you?
            They are:
            1. cankers, aasavas
            2.flood, oghas
            3. yokes, yoghas
            4. ties, ganthas
            5. ways of clinging, up ad anas
            6. hindrances, niivaran. as
            7. latent tendencies, anusayas
            8. fetters, sam. yo janas
            9. defilements, kilesas
            Lobha, for example, occurs in all nine groups, di.t.thi in all groups
            except the hindrances. Each group can remind us of the danger of
            akusala.
            > ------


            D: I see ..(though 9. is tautological ;-) )
            Well, the list shows that we can go much into details when it comes to
            states of unwholesome cetasikas.

            Now, as we are talking about the 4 unwholesome universals , i.e. Moha ,
            Ahirika, Anottappa , Uddhacca,
            how would you suggest to recognize them as such group , distinguished from
            the other three groups of unwholesome cetasikas?

            with Metta Dieter
          • Nina van Gorkom
            Dear Dieter, ... N: But we have to distinguish them severally. For instance, conceit does not have as root dosa, only lobha and moha. ... N: They are not
            Message 5 of 26 , Dec 12, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Dieter,
              Op 7-dec-2011, om 18:06 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven:

              > D: I had a look at Wiki's 'kilesa' presentation and recognize its
              > use in a
              > wide sense..
              > Do we agree that all kileasa have their roots in lobha, dosa and moha?
              --------
              N: But we have to distinguish them severally. For instance, conceit
              does not have as root dosa, only lobha and moha.
              --------
              >
              > ( D: It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are
              > different > in
              > function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which >
              > they are
              > identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me > as an
              > unnecessary new classification ...(tautological)>
              > ------
              N: They are not different in nature, but they are set apart as a
              group. I do not see this as superfluous.
              ------
              >
              > D: Now, as we are talking about the 4 unwholesome universals , i.e.
              > Moha ,
              > Ahirika, Anottappa , Uddhacca,
              > how would you suggest to recognize them as such group ,
              > distinguished from
              > the other three groups of unwholesome cetasikas?
              -----
              N: As universal akusala cetasikas, sadharana akusala cetasikas. They
              are not classified as a specific group, since they are always present.
              ------
              Nina.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Dieter Moeller
              Dear Nina, ... N: But we have to distinguish them severally. For instance, conceit does not have as root dosa, only lobha and moha. ... D: yes , let s settle
              Message 6 of 26 , Dec 13, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Nina,

                you wrote:

                > D: I had a look at Wiki's 'kilesa' presentation and recognize its > use in a > wide sense..
                > Do we agree that all kileasa have their roots in lobha, dosa and moha?
                --------
                N: But we have to distinguish them severally. For instance, conceit does not have as root dosa, only lobha and moha.
                --------

                D: yes , let's settle with 'have their roots in tanha'

                >
                > ( D: It is not clear to me in which way the 10 kilesas are > different > in > function/ nature from the 10 unwholesome cetasikas , of which >
                > they are > identical by name (?) ... so far the kilesas appear to me > as an> unnecessary new classification ...(tautological)>> ------
                N: They are not different in nature, but they are set apart as a group. I do not see this as superfluous.
                ------>
                > D: Now, as we are talking about the 4 unwholesome universals , i.e. > Moha , > Ahirika, Anottappa , Uddhacca,
                > how would you suggest to recognize them as such group , > distinguished from > the other three groups of unwholesome cetasikas?
                -----
                N: As universal akusala cetasikas, sadharana akusala cetasikas. They are not classified as a specific group, since they are always present.
                ------

                D: not clear to me , Nina. Excluding moha /avijja , my memory tells me that there have been lots of moments lacking ahirika, anottapa and uddhacca.In fact this very moment I recognize some restlessness only .
                Indeed these three seem to me better grouped under occasionals, than under universals.

                Does the commentary explain the background the grouping?
                I try to understand the system , in which way the grouping has been made for the 52 cetasikas... assuming not without good reason

                with Metta Dieter





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Nina van Gorkom
                Dear Dieter, ... N:Here you are thinking of D.O., and we can say: are conditioned by ta.nhaa. But I was referring to the twelve akusala cittas that have
                Message 7 of 26 , Dec 14, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Dieter,
                  Op 13-dec-2011, om 18:03 heeft Dieter Moeller het volgende geschreven:

                  > D: yes , let's settle with 'have their roots in tanha'
                  -------
                  N:Here you are thinking of D.O., and we can say: are conditioned by
                  ta.nhaa. But I was referring to the twelve akusala cittas that have
                  different roots, hetus: some are rooted in lobha and moha, some in
                  dosa and moha, and some in moha alone. As you know, there are six
                  hetus: lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha. The citta that is
                  rooted in hetus is condiitoned by them by way of hetu-paccaya, and
                  this is a conascent condition.
                  This brings me to what I just heard on a recording this morning: the
                  characteristic of udhacca is hard to know, it is very weak. All
                  akusala cittas are accompanied by uddhacca, but the second type of
                  moha-muulacitta is called: accompanied by uddhacca, uddhacca
                  sampayutta.m. This is so because in that case its characteristic is
                  more evident. The first moha-muulacitta is accompanied by doubt and
                  when that arises, doubt is more obvious and the characteristic of
                  uddhacca does not appear, although it is present.
                  ------
                  >
                  > ------>
                  > > D: Now, as we are talking about the 4 unwholesome universals ,
                  > i.e. > Moha , > Ahirika, Anottappa , Uddhacca,
                  > > how would you suggest to recognize them as such group , >
                  > distinguished from > the other three groups of unwholesome cetasikas?
                  > -----
                  > N: As universal akusala cetasikas, sadharana akusala cetasikas.
                  > They are not classified as a specific group, since they are always
                  > present.
                  > ------
                  >
                  > D: not clear to me , Nina. Excluding moha /avijja , my memory tells
                  > me that there have been lots of moments lacking ahirika, anottapa
                  > and uddhacca.In fact this very moment I recognize some restlessness
                  > only .
                  > Indeed these three seem to me better grouped under occasionals,
                  > than under universals.
                  -------
                  N: We have to add: akusala universals, different from the universals
                  arising with every citta. When you think that they are absent: their
                  characteristics do not appear, but they are there with every akusala
                  citta, very treacherous. By the way, uddhacca is not the same as what
                  we mean in conventional language by restlessness or agitation. There
                  may be lobha-muulacitta accompanied by indifferent feeliong, for
                  example when you take up a pen, and this does not feel restless. But
                  since uddhacca is present with every akusala citta it is there.
                  --------
                  >
                  > D: Does the commentary explain the background the grouping?
                  > I try to understand the system , in which way the grouping has been
                  > made for the 52 cetasikas... assuming not without good reason
                  ------
                  N: It is not only the commentary, but we find the groups also in the
                  suttas, like the aasavas, oghas, yoghas, latent tendencies, etc. They
                  all remind us of the danger of defilements. The intoxicants (aasavas)
                  are rotten all the time, we are flooded by the oghas, quite
                  overcome, and yoked by the yokes, and the latent tendencies are
                  accumulated in each citta, ready to cause trouble at any time. They
                  are not abstract notions, they are occurring now, in daily life.
                  There is only an escape by the development of right understanding of
                  whatever dhamma appears now, also when it is akusala. We have to be
                  very patient.
                  ------
                  Nina.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.