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

Re: Unborn and Undying Awareness, citta, consciousness...

Expand Messages
  • sarah
    Dear Alex, ... ... Or rather, the very developed panna which arises with citta can see/know the arising and passing away of a reality appearing. It is the
    Message 1 of 98 , Oct 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Alex,

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

      > >S: There is death of consciousness (citta) at each moment.
      > >=============================
      >
      > How do we know this? At best only as inference. A citta cannot experience its own arising or passing away. It is impossible.
      >
      > Citta can see arising and passing away of its objects. Sure.
      ...

      Or rather, the very developed panna which arises with citta can see/know the arising and passing away of a reality appearing. It is the nimitta, the sign/characteristic of the reality that has just fallen away. For example hearing consciousness arises and falls away. As you say, this hearing citta cannot experience itself. However, in the subsequent mind-door process, hearing citta can be the object of those mind-door cittas and the panna arising with the havana cittas can directly know that hearing citta.

      The same applies even in the case of arahats. For example, even after the magga and phala cittas experience nibbana, we read about the reviewing consciousness cittas directly knowing those cittas, the object experienced, the defilements eradicated and so on. This is not "at best only as inference".

      Better to just develop understanding so that realities now can be known directly, such as the visible object which appears now. Otherwise, while thinking over and speculating all the time, there is just more doubt.
      ...

      > >S:However, the Buddha taught the development of right understanding.
      > >=================================
      >
      > Here is very very tricky part.
      >
      > I agree about not-clinging, not considering anything as Self, not adding additional dukkha.
      >
      > In various places the suttas say that we should not have any views. This includes even right theories. I am really unhappy when people take profound statement [1] and totally ruin it by saying that [2]
      >
      > 1) "one should not have views"
      > 2) "one should not have [wrong] views"
      ...
      S: You have been referring to suttas in the Sutta Nipata. When it says anything along the lines of "we should not have any views", it is wrong views, di.t.thi which is being referred to. I think I've been through some of the suttas in detail with you, with references to the commentaries on this.
      ...
      >
      > Of course anyone on the street agrees that having wrong views is bad, one should have right views.
      ...
      S: Yes, but is there any understanding of what wrong view as taught by the Buddha is now when it arises? If it's not directly known when it arises, it will never be seen for what it is and will never be eradicated. It has nothing to do with what "the man in the street" thinks is right or wrong.
      ....

      >But it takes a genius to say that one should not have and should not cling to any views... Remember parable of an elephant and blind men? What if any views, including "right" one's are like blind men groping an elephant which they never saw?
      ...
      S: There is a difference between saying there should be no views (right or wrong) and there should not be clinging to any views.

      All the teachings are about the eradication of defilements. This can only occur through the development of sammaa di.t.thi.

      Metta

      Sarah
      =====
    • Maipenrai Dhammasaro
      Good friends all, On this mere excerpt: So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I m obviously not a ... Comments??? yours in Dhamma-vinaya, Chuck
      Message 98 of 98 , Jan 28, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Good friends all,
        On this mere excerpt:> So for me, dhamma is all three pitakas (though I'm obviously not a
        > bhikkhu, so much of the vinaya is not applicable). And I figure if it
        > exists in there, it *could* be useful. The Theras seem to think so.As a former bhikkhu, I strongly suggest lay persons become familiar with the Vinaya-pitaka. Just the areas between the monk and the lay person... It will prevent many misunderstandings...
        Comments???
        yours in Dhamma-vinaya,
        Chuck (formerly phra dhammasaro)
        ............................ Rest deleted as requested ....................................................................................................................

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