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

Re: [dsg] Re: With the passing of time

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Sarah, ... Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not exhaust what is real. Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:
    Message 1 of 30 , Nov 23, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Sarah,

      On 21 November 2012 18:53, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Hi Herman,
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
      >
      > > > > > S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff".
      > > > > > ....
      >
      > > > >H: I don't agree here, with great confidence :-)
      > > > .....
      > > > S: Is seeing now "daily life stuff"? Is visible object, hearing, sound
      > > > "daily life stuff"?
      > > >
      > > > Can it not be proved now that all that is seen is visible object? All
      > that
      > > > is heard is sound? That seeing now is not self?
      > > > ....
      > >H: Yes, no doubt. But more so, can it not be proved that that none of this
      >
      > > applies to us now, who are forever in search of new futures?
      > ....
      > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is
      > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can there
      > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life?
      >
      >
      Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not
      exhaust what is real.

      Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:

      Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa,
      little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of
      nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except
      hardness, only that is reality.

      Jon: And a lot of thinking!

      Acharn: Yes.
      ========

      My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality


      What we like so much or are so distressed about is just visible object or
      > sound - elements that arise and fall away instantly, experienced by vipaka
      > cittas accompanied by neutral feeling. None of them 'me' or 'a thing'.
      >
      > Just because there's lots of avijja now doesn't mean that it's not the
      > truth.
      > ...
      >


      As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would be in
      the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking.
      Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of daily
      life cease.


      > >
      > >H: If we were really interested in "now", there's a heck of a lot of
      > stuff we
      >
      > > would have to ditch, and we would seriously and utterly refuse to do
      > that.
      > >
      > > Some are genuinely interested in the "now", but that certainly doesn't
      > > apply to folks who intend to take up new rebirths ad infinitum.
      > ....
      > S: When we think about what "we would have to ditch" or other folks, it's
      > all just thinking about various stories about 'me' and 'them', it's not
      > understanding seeing now, visible object now.
      >


      Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are
      doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents
      "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making
      futures).



      > What is seen now?
      >
      > Metta
      >
      > Sarah
      > ====_,___
      >



      --
      Cheers

      Herman


      I do not know what I do not know


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • colette_aube
      Hi Sarah and Herman, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was meditating and because of the depth
      Message 2 of 30 , Nov 24, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sarah and Herman,

        THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.

        I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was meditating and because of the depth of the meditation (I guess), I forgot,

        UNTIL NOW

        Until I read this disparity:
        > > > > S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff".
        > > > > > > ....
        > >
        > > > > >H: I don't agree here, with great confidence :-)
        > > > > .....
        > > > > S: Is seeing now "daily life stuff"? Is visible object, hearing, sound
        > > > > "daily life stuff"?
        > > > >
        > > > > Can it not be proved now that all that is seen is visible object? All
        > > that
        > > > > is heard is sound? That seeing now is not self?
        > > > > ....
        > > >H: Yes, no doubt. But more so, can it not be proved that that none of this
        > >
        > > > applies to us now, who are forever in search of new futures?
        > > ....
        > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is
        > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can there
        > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life?
        > >
        > >
        > Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not
        > exhaust what is real.
        >
        > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:
        >
        > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa,
        > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of
        > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except
        > hardness, only that is reality.
        >
        > Jon: And a lot of thinking!
        >
        > Acharn: Yes.
        > ========
        >
        > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality
        >
        >
        colette: I got down to here and had to STOP.

        Last night,as I began to become lost in meditation, I know that I was at the point of having to define: WHAT ART IS in the context of artistic expression used as a vehicle of COMMUNICATION. The first objective is to establish what ART is which has always been a way to communicate one thought to another person, BUT WHERE DID THE WAY OF EXPRESSING THE THOUGHT COME FROM i.e. the most ancient pictures of the caves in France depicting animals and nature or maybe even the art of depicting enclosures such as the solar calender in Germany, Stonehenge/Woodhenge, etc,. How did they establish themselves as being existent?

        EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES using the ALAYA VIJNAYA AS THE FOUNDATION (the storehouse consciousness). Where such a pauper like myself is commonly standing there befuddled and amused by the contradiction of REALITY:

        How is it that "consciousness" exists? What does, what performs, the COGNITIVE ACT?

        Admittedly, the WAVE or VIBRATION existed and exists whether your MIND is there to cognize it or not i.e. I do not have to be there to know that the tree made a sound when it fell. HOW CAN I BE SO SURE? Does the WAVE make a sound or does the vibration make the sound? Does the sound or vibration create my mind so that my mind can cognize it? Is it possible that I am the lower intelligence created by, manifestation, a RUPA and that my person, that my body, that I am nothing more than a robot to what I have always considered as being RUPA? What is NAMA? Isn't more probable that NAMA actually is RUPA? If so, then how can there be a difference between THOUGHT (Mind Only) and EXPERIENCE (the external world)? How is there a real difference between EXTERNAL and INTERNAL between NAMA and RUPA?

        My, this is a most spectacular THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY for me! Thank you all for your gifts!

        What a game! Roll those dice and lets play some more.
        <...>

        I would never have known such sarcasm if not for the generosity of Sarah and Herman. Thank you both. good to hear from you.

        carry on.

        toodles,
        colette
      • Herman
        Hi colette, ... I am sorry, but I just don t follow your train of thinking, but in the meantime, it sure is good to see you around :-) Feel free to clarify
        Message 3 of 30 , Nov 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi colette,

          On 25 November 2012 05:52, colette_aube <colette_aube@...> wrote:

          > **
          >
          >
          > Hi Sarah and Herman,
          >
          > THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
          >
          > I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was
          > meditating and because of the depth of the meditation (I guess), I forgot,
          >
          > UNTIL NOW
          >
          > Until I read this disparity:
          >

          I am sorry, but I just don't follow your train of thinking, but in the
          meantime, it sure is good to "see you around" :-)

          Feel free to clarify if you wish.



          > > > > > S: What can be known now is present "daily life stuff".
          > > > > > > > ....
          > > >
          > > > > > >H: I don't agree here, with great confidence :-)
          > > > > > .....
          > > > > > S: Is seeing now "daily life stuff"? Is visible object, hearing,
          > sound
          > > > > > "daily life stuff"?
          > > > > >
          > > > > > Can it not be proved now that all that is seen is visible object?
          > All
          > > > that
          > > > > > is heard is sound? That seeing now is not self?
          > > > > > ....
          > > > >H: Yes, no doubt. But more so, can it not be proved that that none of
          > this
          > > >
          > > > > applies to us now, who are forever in search of new futures?
          > > > ....
          > > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is
          > > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can
          > there
          > > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life?
          > > >
          > > >
          > > Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not
          > > exhaust what is real.
          > >
          > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:
          > >
          > > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa,
          > > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of
          > > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except
          > > hardness, only that is reality.
          > >
          > > Jon: And a lot of thinking!
          > >
          > > Acharn: Yes.
          > > ========
          > >
          > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also
          > reality
          > >
          > >
          > colette: I got down to here and had to STOP.
          >
          > Last night,as I began to become lost in meditation, I know that I was at
          > the point of having to define: WHAT ART IS in the context of artistic
          > expression used as a vehicle of COMMUNICATION. The first objective is to
          > establish what ART is which has always been a way to communicate one
          > thought to another person, BUT WHERE DID THE WAY OF EXPRESSING THE THOUGHT
          > COME FROM i.e. the most ancient pictures of the caves in France depicting
          > animals and nature or maybe even the art of depicting enclosures such as
          > the solar calender in Germany, Stonehenge/Woodhenge, etc,. How did they
          > establish themselves as being existent?
          >
          > EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES using the ALAYA VIJNAYA AS THE FOUNDATION (the
          > storehouse consciousness). Where such a pauper like myself is commonly
          > standing there befuddled and amused by the contradiction of REALITY:
          >
          > How is it that "consciousness" exists? What does, what performs, the
          > COGNITIVE ACT?
          >
          > Admittedly, the WAVE or VIBRATION existed and exists whether your MIND is
          > there to cognize it or not i.e. I do not have to be there to know that the
          > tree made a sound when it fell. HOW CAN I BE SO SURE? Does the WAVE make a
          > sound or does the vibration make the sound? Does the sound or vibration
          > create my mind so that my mind can cognize it? Is it possible that I am the
          > lower intelligence created by, manifestation, a RUPA and that my person,
          > that my body, that I am nothing more than a robot to what I have always
          > considered as being RUPA? What is NAMA? Isn't more probable that NAMA
          > actually is RUPA? If so, then how can there be a difference between THOUGHT
          > (Mind Only) and EXPERIENCE (the external world)? How is there a real
          > difference between EXTERNAL and INTERNAL between NAMA and RUPA?
          >
          > My, this is a most spectacular THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY for me! Thank you all
          > for your gifts!
          >
          > What a game! Roll those dice and lets play some more.
          > <...>
          >
          > I would never have known such sarcasm if not for the generosity of Sarah
          > and Herman. Thank you both. good to hear from you.
          >
          > carry on.
          >
          > toodles,
          > colette
          >
          >

          --
          Cheers

          Herman


          I do not know what I do not know


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • colette_aube
          Hi Herman, ... colette: what don t you follow? Is it hard to follow the Buddhist concept of VEHICLE (means to an end) or the concept of the french word Rue
          Message 4 of 30 , Nov 27, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Herman,
            > > Hi Sarah and Herman,
            > >
            > > THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
            > >
            > > I had a thought of an AVENUE, a rue, of exploration last night as I was
            > > meditating and because of the depth of the meditation (I guess), I forgot,
            > >
            > > UNTIL NOW
            > >
            > > Until I read this disparity:
            > >
            >
            > I am sorry, but I just don't follow your train of thinking, but in the
            > meantime, it sure is good to "see you around" :-)
            >
            > Feel free to clarify if you wish.

            colette: what don't you follow? Is it hard to follow the Buddhist concept of VEHICLE (means to an end) or the concept of the french word Rue which, in english is an avenue and therefore like a VEHICLE nothing more than a MEANS TO AN END?

            What is so hard to follow and/or understand?

            Glad to hear from you since I had begun to consider the DSG as nothing more than a corpse that was/is UNRESPONSIVE to stimuli. Well, you know how it is in BEjing these days, I mean, they just moved a heart and brain from one body to another body and that will last ten years. Luckily, though, it's the same heart and the same brain so we can expect NO CHANGES.

            toodles,
            colette
            >
            >
            >
          • sarah
            Hi Herman, ... .... S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 5, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Herman,

              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

              > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is
              > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can there
              > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life?
              > >
              > >
              >H: Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do not
              > exhaust what is real.
              ....
              S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about what has been seen, heard and so on.
              ...
              >
              > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:
              >
              > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa,
              > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of
              > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except
              > hardness, only that is reality.
              >
              > Jon: And a lot of thinking!
              >
              > Acharn: Yes.
              > ========
              S: Exactly, just my point! There is no thinking without the experiencing of sense objects.
              ...
              >
              > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also reality
              ...
              S: No one has suggested otherwise.
              ...

              >H: As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would be in
              > the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking.
              > Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of daily
              > life cease.
              ....
              S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is thinking about concepts. When is there no more thinking? Does a Buddha think?
              ...

              >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are
              > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents
              > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making
              > futures).
              ...
              S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above? And who is this "you" who knows anything?


              Metta

              Sarah
              =====
            • Herman
              Hi Sarah, ... OK. And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable. Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Sarah,

                On 6 December 2012 18:40, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

                > **
                >
                >
                > Hi Herman,
                >
                > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                >
                > > > S: It applies now because this is what daily life is now whether it is
                > > > known or not. Without seeing of visible object, hearing of sound, can
                > there
                > > > be "searching of new futures", any conflicts or problems in life?
                > > >
                > > >
                > >H: Of course there can be. Because visible object or hearing of sound do
                > not
                > > exhaust what is real.
                > ....
                > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object,
                > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of
                > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in
                > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about
                > what has been seen, heard and so on.
                > ...
                >
                >
                OK.

                And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.

                Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking
                another, does not accord with reality.




                > >
                > > Allow me to quote a snippet of wisdom from Jon:
                > >
                > > Acharn: So one can see the value of the development of pa~n~naa,
                > > little by little, otherwise there will not be great pa~n~naa. Think of
                > > nothing at all, no thing, except sound. And nothing at all, except
                > > hardness, only that is reality.
                > >
                > > Jon: And a lot of thinking!
                > >
                > > Acharn: Yes.
                > > ========
                > S: Exactly, just my point! There is no thinking without the experiencing
                > of sense objects.
                > ...
                >
                > >
                > > My point is, as Jon points out and Acharn agrees, thinking is also
                > reality
                > ...
                > S: No one has suggested otherwise.
                > ...
                >
                > >H: As you and I both know, stating a view about how things really would
                > be in
                >
                > > the absence of thinking, does nothing to end thinking.
                > > Only ceasing thinking ends thinking, and that is also when notions of
                > daily
                > > life cease.
                > ....
                > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is
                > thinking about concepts.
                >


                Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis?



                > When is there no more thinking?
                >


                We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana there
                is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing.



                > Does a Buddha think?
                >


                Not when in jhana.



                > ...
                >
                > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are
                >
                > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents
                > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making
                > > futures).
                > ...
                > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above?
                >


                Seeing now in the above context is understanding now.

                Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path,
                unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without
                awareness.



                > And who is this "you" who knows anything?
                >
                >
                To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers
                are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning /
                intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-)
                Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than we
                will not easily trip over words.

                Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born in
                Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah
                Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes to
                travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly.

                My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it
                doesn't suit us.




                > Metta
                >
                > Sarah
                > =====
                >


                --
                Cheers

                Herman


                I do not know what I do not know


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • rjkjp1
                ... Dear Herman It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right? In the Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta,
                Message 7 of 30 , Dec 9, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                  >

                  >
                  > And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.
                  >
                  > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking
                  > another, does not accord with reality.
                  >
                  >

                  >
                  Dear Herman
                  It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right?
                  In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga):




                  "It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness."


                  Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati



                  The sutta continues:




                  "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ...
                  "
                  robert
                • Herman
                  Hi RobK, ... Perhaps we are using the word thinking in different ways? Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not
                  Message 8 of 30 , Dec 11, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi RobK,

                    On 9 December 2012 20:59, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    > > And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.
                    > >
                    > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and
                    > thinking
                    > > another, does not accord with reality.
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    > >
                    > Dear Herman
                    > It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right?
                    > In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving'
                    > (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga):
                    >
                    > "It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness
                    > is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that
                    > name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is
                    > known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and
                    > sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises
                    > because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if
                    > consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting-
                    > consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is
                    > known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and
                    > mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness."
                    >
                    > Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena
                    > teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati
                    > vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca
                    > sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati.
                    > Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m,
                    > ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca
                    > uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati.
                    > Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m,
                    > kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca
                    > uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati
                    >
                    > The sutta continues:
                    >
                    > "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by
                    > that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a
                    > stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a
                    > chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a
                    > grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a
                    > cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to
                    > it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ...
                    > "
                    > robert
                    >
                    >

                    Perhaps we are using the word thinking in different ways?


                    "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined.
                    It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate
                    the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one
                    perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not
                    disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another,
                    to delineate the difference among them."


                    MN43



                    --
                    Cheers

                    Herman


                    I do not know what I do not know


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • sarah
                    Hi Herman, ... .... S: It may not accord with how they seem when experienced with ignorance, but in fact there is only one citta arising at a time. When there
                    Message 9 of 30 , Dec 19, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Herman,

                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

                      > > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object,
                      > > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of
                      > > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects. Even in
                      > > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still about
                      > > what has been seen, heard and so on.
                      > > ...
                      > >
                      > >
                      >H: OK.
                      >
                      >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.
                      >
                      > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and thinking
                      > another, does not accord with reality.
                      ....
                      S: It may not accord with how they seem when experienced with ignorance, but in fact there is only one citta arising at a time. When there is seeing, there is no thinking and vice versa.
                      ...

                      > > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is
                      > > thinking about concepts.
                      ...
                      >H: Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis?
                      ...
                      S: No. In deep sleep there are bhavanga cittas arising, no sense door or mind door experiences at all.
                      ....

                      > >S: When is there no more thinking?
                      ...
                      >H: We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana there
                      > is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing.
                      ...
                      S: There is no seeing, but there are mind door cittas experiencing a concept (usually) or nimitta of a concept at such times.

                      What I meant when I asked when there was no more thinking was when is there never any thinking again? Answer, only at the death of an arahat, parinibbana.

                      Even the Buddha thought about concepts and realities, but with no illusion or attachment, of course.
                      ...

                      > >S: Does a Buddha think?
                      ...
                      >H: Not when in jhana.
                      ...
                      S: Was the Buddha in jhana all the time?
                      ...

                      > > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you are
                      > > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents
                      > > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational" (making
                      > > > futures).
                      > > ...
                      > > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above?
                      ...
                      >H: Seeing now in the above context is understanding now.
                      ....
                      S: So you'd say "Until you know how to get to "understanding now", until you know what you are doing that prevents "understanding now"....."

                      It all seems to be about Self getting to "understanding" or doing what leads to "understanding". In other words, no understanding now.
                      ...
                      >
                      >H: Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path,
                      > unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without
                      > awareness.
                      ...
                      S: Unskilful babies see all day long without awareness. Unless there are kusala cittas following seeing, there is no awareness at all.

                      If there is no understanding, no awareness of seeing as distinct from what is seen, there will be no understanding of dhammas as not self, no path at all.
                      ...

                      > >S: And who is this "you" who knows anything?
                      > >
                      > >
                      > To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers
                      > are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning /
                      > intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-)
                      > Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than we
                      > will not easily trip over words.
                      ...
                      S: The reason for asking is to find out what is meant by the words.
                      ...
                      >
                      > Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born in
                      > Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah
                      > Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes to
                      > travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly.
                      >
                      > My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it
                      > doesn't suit us.
                      ...
                      S: Exactly my point. When the stories and ideas about people are taken for being realities or "absolutes", it shows there is no understanding of dhammas or realities at all.

                      Metta

                      Sarah

                      p.s seems like the glitch has been fixed by yahoo. will take another look at your ipad sent messages to see if they show up now.
                      =====
                    • sarah
                      Hi Herman, ... ... S: What the sutta is saying is that whenever citta (consciousness) arises, it is always accompanied by feeling, perception (and the other
                      Message 10 of 30 , Dec 19, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Herman,

                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:

                        > > >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.

                        >H: Perhaps we are using the word thinking in different ways?
                        >
                        >
                        > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined.
                        > It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate
                        > the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one
                        > perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not
                        > disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another,
                        > to delineate the difference among them."
                        >
                        >
                        > MN43
                        ...
                        S: What the sutta is saying is that whenever citta (consciousness) arises, it is always accompanied by feeling, perception (and the other universal cetasikas). This is true of seeing consciousness, mind door consciousness or any other citta.

                        Metta

                        Sarah
                        =====
                      • Herman
                        Hi Sarah, ... HH: I do not see any option but to leave the discussion here. How things are in fact is not something I would entrust Buddhagosa.to recite to me.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Dec 21, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Sarah,

                          On 20 December 2012 18:26, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > Hi Herman,
                          >
                          > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > > S: The point was/is that if there were no seeing of visible object,
                          > > > hearing of sound, smelling of odour, tasting of flavour or touching of
                          > > > tangible object, there'd be no thinking about any of these objects.
                          > Even in
                          > > > a dream when there are no sense experiences, the thinking is still
                          > about
                          > > > what has been seen, heard and so on.
                          > > > ...
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >H: OK.
                          > >
                          > >H: And my point is that seeing and thinking are not strictly separable.
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Or, to put it another way, to say that seeing is one reality, and
                          > thinking
                          > > another, does not accord with reality.
                          > ....
                          > S: It may not accord with how they seem when experienced with ignorance,
                          > but in fact there is only one citta arising at a time. When there is
                          > seeing, there is no thinking and vice versa.
                          > ...
                          >
                          >

                          HH: I do not see any option but to leave the discussion here. How things
                          are in fact is not something I would entrust Buddhagosa.to recite to me.




                          > > > S: At moments when there is no experiencing of sense objects, there is
                          > > > thinking about concepts.
                          > ...
                          > >H: Would you say this is the case in deep sleep? On what basis?
                          > ...
                          > S: No. In deep sleep there are bhavanga cittas arising, no sense door or
                          > mind door experiences at all.
                          > ....
                          >
                          >
                          More of the same. All very nice psychological hypothesis - totally
                          untestable. Happy to leave it.





                          > > >S: When is there no more thinking?
                          > ...
                          > >H: We are probably using thinking in different ways here, but in jhana
                          > there
                          >
                          > > is no thinking. In jhana there is also no seeing.
                          > ...
                          > S: There is no seeing, but there are mind door cittas experiencing a
                          > concept (usually) or nimitta of a concept at such times.
                          >
                          > What I meant when I asked when there was no more thinking was when is
                          > there never any thinking again? Answer, only at the death of an arahat,
                          > parinibbana.
                          >


                          You are totally caught up in these stories aren't you, Sarah? No more
                          comments. Thanks for the discussion.



                          >
                          > Even the Buddha thought about concepts and realities, but with no illusion
                          > or attachment, of course.
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > >S: Does a Buddha think?
                          > ...
                          > >H: Not when in jhana.
                          > ...
                          > S: Was the Buddha in jhana all the time?
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > > >H: Until you know how to get to "seeing now", until you know what you
                          > are
                          > > > > doing that prevents "seeing now", until you cease doing what prevents
                          > > > > "seeing now", talking about "seeing now" is purely "aspirational"
                          > (making
                          > > > > futures).
                          > > > ...
                          > > > S: What is meant by "seeing now" in the above?
                          > ...
                          > >H: Seeing now in the above context is understanding now.
                          > ....
                          > S: So you'd say "Until you know how to get to "understanding now", until
                          > you know what you are doing that prevents "understanding now"....."
                          >
                          > It all seems to be about Self getting to "understanding" or doing what
                          > leads to "understanding". In other words, no understanding now.
                          > ...
                          > >
                          > >H: Seeing now in the sense of eye-door / brains is irrelevant to the Path,
                          >
                          > > unskilful babies (and grown-ups) see all day long, with or without
                          > > awareness.
                          > ...
                          > S: Unskilful babies see all day long without awareness. Unless there are
                          > kusala cittas following seeing, there is no awareness at all.
                          >
                          > If there is no understanding, no awareness of seeing as distinct from what
                          > is seen, there will be no understanding of dhammas as not self, no path at
                          > all.
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > >S: And who is this "you" who knows anything?
                          >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > To communicate we have to use language. Language and what language refers
                          > > are not in any direct or proper relationship - the same meaning /
                          > > intention can be conveyed in a myriad of ways. Care for a poem ? :-)
                          > > Anyways, if we are a little charitable in our reading and writing, than
                          > we
                          > > will not easily trip over words.
                          > ...
                          > S: The reason for asking is to find out what is meant by the words.
                          > ...
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Having said that, the "you" you are asking about is Herman Hofman, born
                          > in
                          > > Rotterdam in 1958, of Dutch Reformed heritage. He is writing to Sarah
                          > > Abbott, of English heritage, who shares her life with Jon, and who likes
                          > to
                          > > travel, and shuffles between Hong Kong and Manly.
                          > >
                          > > My past and your past are absolute, Sarah. We remember, even when it
                          > > doesn't suit us.
                          > ...
                          > S: Exactly my point. When the stories and ideas about people are taken for
                          > being realities or "absolutes", it shows there is no understanding of
                          > dhammas or realities at all.
                          >
                          > Metta
                          >
                          > Sarah
                          >
                          > p.s seems like the glitch has been fixed by yahoo. will take another look
                          > at your ipad sent messages to see if they show up now.
                          > =====
                          >
                          >


                          --
                          Cheers

                          Herman


                          I do not know what I do not know


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