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

Re: Fw: The Storm

Expand Messages
  • sarah
    Hi Pt, Apologies if I misunderstood your point(s). ... .... S: Isn t that the point? We re used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but
    Message 1 of 98 , Nov 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Pt,

      Apologies if I misunderstood your point(s).

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" <ptaus1@...> wrote:

      >PT:.... Either way, we'd need to examine in each case what the other person means by 'control'. You give it ultimate definition (=dukkha, atta). For many though, it doesn't seem to relate to dhammas, but to people and activities, hence conventional.
      ....
      S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas.

      You were speaking 'conventionally', but I was just indicating that in actuality, there never is any control of dhammas - they are all (apart from nibbana) conditioned and always will be.

      I'm sure there's no disagreement here. I think 'newcomers' and many 'oldcomers' will misunderstand whatever is said
      ....

      > pt: Again, you give an ultimate terminology explanation. No problems. Conventionally, to me at least, I'd summarise the above as exercising control. Perhaps, exercising 'mastery' would be less suggestive of atta.
      ...
      S: Anyway, there will be misunderstandings!
      ...

      > > S: Yes, we can use 'mastery', 'contol' or any terms, but the important point to stress is always that these are all just conditioned dhammas, not in anyone's power or control and that they are all just impermanent elements which do not lead to the removal of the bricks of samsara unless there is right understanding of them as anicca, dukkha and anatta.
      >
      > pt: I don't really disagree with that (other than perhaps with mixing up 'anyone' into an ultimate terminology statement). The main issue of the discussion though (that interested me at least) was what would be the daily life indicators that mental factors which stand for powers "have developed to the degree that they can have a leading function", or as I'd say - when there's control, and it is kusala, not akusala. So far, we've all just been arguing about terminology.
      ...
      S: (We could put 'anyone's' in apostrophes, but the point is that it is a very common belief that though dhammas are considered to be conditioned, it's still assumed that they are in 'someone's', 'anyone's' power or control.)

      Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development?

      If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?" If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now?
      ...
      >pt: And on an unrelated matter:
      >
      > > S: In the development of samatha and attainment of jhanas...
      >
      >pt: I was wondering, in the development of samatha, long before jhana arises, samatha could be said to develop with each kusala citta, regardless of whether the citta (and cetasikas) classify as dana, sila or bhavana. I was wondering, if it is bhavana (so not sila nor dana), but not yet jhana (nor vipassana), what would be a daily-life example of that, and is there such an animal in the first place?
      ....
      S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm. Panna can begin to become more familiar with its nature. At such moments, no attachment, no restlessness, but these can follow immediately of course, such as as soon as there's an idea of focussing on, labelling or trying to be aware of the calm or to have more of it.

      Metta

      Sarah
      ====
    • sarah
      Hi Pt, ... ... S: When there is an idea that we have control in life, it is ditthi. It s a way of explaining a kind of atta-view. There are different kinds of
      Message 98 of 98 , Dec 16, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Pt,

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ptaus1" <ptaus1@...> wrote:

        > > S: Isn't that the point? We're used to thinking in terms of people, activities and control, but here we're learning that there are only dhammas.
        >
        > pt: Well, yes, so if we're talking about dhammas, then instead of control we should be saying ditthi, I think. That's a dhamma, whereas control can have any number of invested meanings.
        ...
        S: When there is an idea that we have control in life, it is ditthi. It's a way of explaining a kind of atta-view. There are different kinds of ditthi. The Buddha elaborated and explained these using many different kinds of words. We can read or hear anything with right or wrong view.
        ...
        > pt: As a new internet buddhist, I wasn't familiar with dhammas, but I was intimately familiar with control. Consequently, it seemed like an important realisation that what seems like an apparent control to me is in fact just ditthi. A dhamma. And conditioned at that. On the other hand, the expression that dhammas cannot be controlled always seemed to miss that point. But I guess it speaks differently to different people.
        ...
        S: Dhammas cannot be controlled because they are conditioned and there is no one to exert any control. I think it is the ignorance and wrong view that is the problem, rather than the wording.

        For example, we can read different translations of suttas inc TB's with or without any misunderstanding. We can read newspaper reports or anything with or without wrong understanding too
        ....

        > > S: Are you talking here about balas (powers) in the development of satipatthana or jhana development?
        >
        > pt: Yes.
        ...
        S: !!
        ...

        > > S: If you're talking about the development of insight, the powers of saddha, viriya, sati and samadhi can only become powers when panna is unshakeable and clearly understands seeing, visible object and all kinds of namas and rupas. There is no change in the outer appearance - daily life as usual, but clear comprehension, no question of "what would it be like?"
        >
        > pt: Thanks, hence I feel the validity of the conclusion that without powers, our "conscious attempts" to (have) insight (into) something (right now) is basically just ditthi (right now). (In other words, apparent control at this point is akusala.)
        ...
        S: And with these balas, powers, there would be no "conscious attempts" to have insight or any other realities arise because there is the clear understanding of conditioned dhammas as anatta. Even for the Buddha, whatever arose was by conditions.
        ...
        >
        >
        > > S: If you're talking about jhana attainment, can we imagine what it is like not to wish to see or to hear now?
        >
        > pt: I was more wondering about pre-jhana development of samatha. I mean, I assume powers must be developed before jhana can actually happen. Further I assume that it has to do with more than just wishing not to see, etc. I mean, if there are no powers, then this wish would be akusala, I assume.
        ...
        S: Of course - any wishing for anything to arise is akusala. Even for those with highly developed samatha, non-attachment to seeing does not occur by wishing, but by the development of panna.

        It always comes back to panna - whether we are talking about the development of samatha or satipatthana.
        ...

        > > S: Like now, if there is wise consideration of dhammas such as seeing, visible object and attachment, there is panna and there is calm.
        >
        > pt: Ok, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say it's outside of sasana and there's no knowledge of dhammas, so how would bhavana (pre-jhana, non-sila, non-dana, non-insight) occur?
        ...
        S: Like now, through the wise consideration of objects that can bring calm. For example, even without any understanding of realities, there can be wise or unwise consideration about death, about kindness to others, about colour, about breath, about generosity.

        Of course, occasional moments of wise consideration with calm cannot be considered as bhavana - they are just occasional moments of kusala. In order to be bhavana, it is to be a habit, a development of such wise consideration.

        Would we like to have more such wise consideration, more such calm? Is that our reason for wishing to know? In that case, it's bound to be attachment, not detachment.
        ..
        > Thanks for the discussion.
        ...
        S: Always a pleasure, Pt. You always raise good points and topics which help me and others too, I'm sure.

        metta

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