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

Re: The non-issue of control

Expand Messages
  • ptaus1
    Hi Herman, ... My take - look into the invested meaning in the terms, then extract the likely interpretation, then verify whether the interpretation is what
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Herman,

      > How could a person, despite all their best efforts, understand a statement
      > such as "This discussion is an illusion"?


      My take - look into the invested meaning in the terms, then extract the likely interpretation, then verify whether the interpretation is what the other guy was trying to say, and then finally see if the interpreted statement makes sense in real life or not. If yes, discuss further, if not, thank the guy and move on.

      E.g. if someone's using the term "illusion", it likely has to do with its opposite - "reality". What's the invested meaning? On dsg, illusion probably stands for concepts, whereas reality stands for dhammas. Likely interpretation then is that anything apart from dhammas is an illusion. E.g. cars, trees, people, countries, discussions, etc. Then we'd need to ask the person in question whether that's what they mean, and if it is, then I'd end up wondering if it makes sense in real life terms or no.

      For me personally, though I like conventional expressions, ultimate expressions (talking exclusively in terms of dhammas) have merits, though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life. That of course doesn't mean they're not true, but I probably won't spend my time arguing whether they are true or not. So it seems my approach is - understand the interpretation, and if it ever ends up making sense in real life, great, if not, well, at least I haven't wasted my time arguing whether the interpretation is true or not. Bit lazy, but works for me.

      Best wishes
      pt
    • Ken H
      Hi Pt (and Herman), ... KH: I suppose you could add to that, if the statement answers a question you are asking. All Dhamma students are asking the question,
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Pt (and Herman),

        -------
        >> H: How could a person, despite all their best efforts, understand a statement such as "This discussion is an illusion"?
        >>

        > Pt: My take - look into the invested meaning in the terms, then extract the likely interpretation, then verify whether the interpretation is what the other guy was trying to say, and then finally see if the interpreted statement makes sense in real life or not. If yes, discuss further, if not, thank the guy and move on.
        -------

        KH: I suppose you could add to that, "if the statement answers a question you are asking."

        All Dhamma students are asking the question, "What is the world?" or in other words, "What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta)

        If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time.

        ------------------
        > Pt: <. . .> ultimate expressions
        (talking exclusively in terms of dhammas) have merits,
        ------------------

        KH: Sorry for nit-picking, but when we are asking the "loka" question *all* relevant answers are ultimate expressions (exclusively in terms of dhammas). Even if some of those answers are given in conventional language they are all meant to be understood in terms of dhammas.

        Otherwise they would not be answering the question.

        If someone in a Dhamma discussion were to say, "This discussion is an illusion," that person must mean, "All realities are devoid of permanent things." Discussions conceptually persist for a period of time. All realities are devoid of such persisting things.

        -------
        > Pt: though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life.
        -------

        KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? . . . Are these the only things that exist in the world?

        We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? Any highly technical Dhamma discussion would be just adding details.

        Ken H
      • ptaus1
        Hi KenH, ... pt: That s an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked. If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi KenH,

          > KH: All Dhamma students are asking the question, "What is the world?" or in other words, "What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta)
          >
          > If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time.


          pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked. If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to become messy.

          E.g. I guess the "process" would then be something like this: 1) there's the statement - answer about the world. 2) then there's interpreting of the terms used in the answer. 3) interpreting the overall meaning. 4) understanding intellectually what it's all about, or not. 5) (and hopefully) understanding "the world" with panna now, whether of pariyati sort or other. And all that is not even taking into account the motivation behind the answer, which often might be just about venting, wanting to be better than someone else, etc.

          It's a miracle anything useful ever comes across in discussions. But I guess it must.


          > KH: Sorry for nit-picking, but when we are asking the "loka" question *all* relevant answers are ultimate expressions (exclusively in terms of dhammas). Even if some of those answers are given in conventional language they are all meant to be understood in terms of dhammas.

          pt: And if they aren't understood that way, then I guess we got bogged down somewhere in the "process" described above.


          > KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? ... Are these the only things that exist in the world?

          pt: This brings me back to the beginning - if i ask myself these things, I still feel it's just intellectualising the reality, not panna. So, I still don't quite see how self-reminders about reality now can be kusala (unless maybe when powers come along)? So, despite all the messiness of the "process" of getting answers/reminders/descriptions from others, it seems it's one thing at least that can actually help beginners.


          > KH: We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we?

          pt: Well, I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about "seeing now" terribly confusing. Since even such basic insight (panna) is missing, the whole premise that dhammas are true (or not) is a non-issue. I can't confirm nor deny. Hence, I conclude I must be here to learn about an interpretation/description, i.e. "What do you say is the world?" and not about "What is the world?"... Well this sucks. I didn't expect that would be the conclusion.

          Best wishes
          pt
        • Ken H
          Hi Pt, ... If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time. ... KH: I would say it is always the right question, even outside a Buddha s sasana.
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 8, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Pt,

            ---------
            >> KH: <. . .>"What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta)
            If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time.


            > pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked.
            -----------

            KH: I would say it is always the right question, even outside a Buddha's sasana. Asking what is real, now, means not wanting to be fooled or mollified.

            When the Dhamma is not available a jhana master would be the best person to ask. But the most you could learn from him would be temporary suppression of akusala. So he would be the best of a bad bunch, I suppose. :-)

            ------------------
            > PT: If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm
            just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual
            understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm
            basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an
            interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to
            become messy.
            -------------------

            KH: But in a Dhamma discussion we are considering the *Buddha's* answers, aren't we? We are helping each other to consider what we have heard indirectly *from the Buddha*.

            -----------------------
            > Pt: E.g. I guess the "process" would then be something like this: 1) there's the
            statement - answer about the world. 2) then there's interpreting of the terms
            used in the answer. 3) interpreting the overall meaning. 4) understanding
            intellectually what it's all about, or not. 5) (and hopefully) understanding
            "the world" with panna now, whether of pariyati sort or other. And all that is not even taking into account the motivation behind the answer, which often might
            be just about venting, wanting to be better than someone else, etc.

            It's a miracle anything useful ever comes across in discussions. But I guess it must.
            ------------------------

            KH: It doesn't really matter if we are talking to a troll who is using DSG to vent his spleen. The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the present moment.

            -------------
            >> KH: Is there really an object that is seen? ... Are these the only things that exist in the world?

            > pt: This brings me back to the beginning - if i ask myself these things, I still feel it's just intellectualising the reality, not panna.
            --------------

            KH: Whether it's intellectualising or panna, it's really just dhammas arising by conditions – beyond anyone's control.

            -----------------------
            > Pt: So, I still don't quite
            see how self-reminders about reality now can be kusala (unless maybe when powers
            come along)? So, despite all the messiness of the "process" of getting
            answers/reminders/descriptions from others, it seems it's one thing at least
            that can actually help beginners.
            -----------------------

            KH: I think the help came in the past, when there were moments of panna. Now (the present moment) is the time when that help can be put to use. And it doesn't matter if we are considering by ourselves or with others.

            ---------
            >> KH: We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we?

            > pt: Well, I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact
            thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about
            "seeing now" terribly confusing.
            ----------

            KH: Go back to the beginning and ask, "The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?" (Loka Sutta). I think you will agree with the Buddha's answer: there are seven worlds in one of which absolute realities are rising and falling away now.

            And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it?

            Ken H
          • aungsoeminuk
            ... Htoo: Lujjatti plujatti iti loko . It can disappear, it can totally disappear, it can completely disappear. So it is called loka. Ican vanish, it can
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 8, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:
              > Hi Pt,
              --------->> KH: <. . .>"What are the realities of the present moment?" (Loka Sutta)
              > If we are not asking that question we are wasting our time.
              >
              >
              > > pt: That's an interesting observation. I think it depends on who is being asked.
              > -----------
              > PT: If I ask myself what is the reality in the present moment, then it seems I'm
              > just intellectualising the present moment. As in, nothing to do with the actual
              > understanding of the present moment. If I'm asking someone else, then I'm
              > basically asking "What (do you say) is the world?", so I'm soliciting an
              > interpretation/description of the world. And then the whole thing seems to
              > become messy.
              ------------------
              Htoo:
              'Lujjatti plujatti'iti loko". It can disappear, it can totally disappear, it can completely disappear. So it is called loka. Ican vanish, it can totally vanish, it can completely vanish. So it is called loka.

              Evidence:

              You see something. It just vanishes. This is loka or world. When the event is analysed then the analysed object and analysed citta are not there as present moment.

              There the object (sight or thing to be seen), the eye which is not the viseral eye of the body but just kammogeic ruupa cakkhupasaada, and seeing-consciousness or cakkhuvi~n~naa.na. All these three arise at the very same time. So also do cetasikas of phassa or contact, vedanaa or feeling, cetanaa or volition manasikaara or attention and so on. All these things just arise and immediately vanish. This is loka. There is no permanent things in the world. Beyond the world (outside the boundry of the world) is lokuttara which is not loka.

              With Unlimited Metta,

              Htoo Naing
            • sarah
              Hi Ken H (& Pt) ... ... S: I think you ve expressed this well. Back to the basics that can be confirmed now. Anything else is just icing on the cake. Metta
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Ken H (& Pt)

                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:

                > > Pt: though most of what they're talking about I can't really confirm in real life.
                > -------
                >
                > KH: Whatever the Dhamma discussion is about, I always take it back to the beginning: what are the realities of the present moment? Is there really seeing now? Is there really an object that is seen? . . . Are these the only things that exist in the world?
                >
                > We can clearly confirm that the answer is yes, can't we? Any highly technical Dhamma discussion would be just adding details.
                ...
                S: I think you've expressed this well. Back to the basics that can be confirmed now. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

                Metta

                Sarah
                =====
              • sarah
                Hi Herman, ... ... S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire. Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 15, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Herman,

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

                  > > > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can
                  > > > light a fire.....
                  > > ....
                  > > S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and
                  > > no fire, just conditioned realities or elements.
                  ...
                  >H: This is another self-refuting statement. .....

                  > What is an illusion, Sarah? And how do you tell illusion and non-illusion
                  > apart?
                  ...
                  S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire.

                  Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts.

                  The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality.

                  Metta

                  Sarah
                  =====
                • sarah
                  Hi Pt, [I sent a reply to this post which hasn t shown up, so you may get two versions! This one will be briefer] ... ... S: When it sucks , it is just
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 15, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Pt,

                    [I sent a reply to this post which hasn't shown up, so you may get two versions! This one will be briefer]

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

                    > pt: I can't. I never really know whether "seeing" right now is in fact thinking about seeing, thinking about being conscious of seeing, a nama that has to do with seeing, a rupa, or whatever. So, I find those expressions about "seeing now" terribly confusing. Since even such basic insight (panna) is missing, the whole premise that dhammas are true (or not) is a non-issue. I can't confirm nor deny. Hence, I conclude I must be here to learn about an interpretation/description, i.e. "What do you say is the world?" and not about "What is the world?"... Well this sucks. I didn't expect that would be the conclusion.
                    ...
                    S: When it "sucks", it is just thinking, aversion, doubt and other realities - can't these be known?

                    However we refer to seeing of the visible and that which is seen, can't it be known that they are not the same? The first experiences the object like now and the second is that which is seen. It may just be thinking about such realities - those that experience and those that don't, no self involved, but this is right basic understanding.

                    We're so used to thinking about people and things and taking them for real that we need to hear a lot of reminders to really get used to understanding that there are only different realities. There can be the confirmation now that this is "the world" - just moments of experiencing the visible, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects, thinking about them.

                    Never mind the words or the details, but isn't it correct now that there are just moments of experiencing objects and those objects experienced? Not the same at all. Seeing can never be visible object - 2 distinct realities.

                    Let's discuss this further as it's such an important topic.

                    Metta

                    Sarah
                    p.s I also suggested in my other note that you take some of the recent recordings with you on your trip to listen to on flights and so on.
                    =====
                  • Nina van Gorkom
                    Dear pt, ... N: Yes, especially Poland with many explanations about seeing right now, and, it is not in the book. ... Nina. [Non-text portions of this message
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 16, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear pt,
                      Op 16-dec-2012, om 8:46 heeft sarah het volgende geschreven:

                      > p.s I also suggested in my other note that you take some of the
                      > recent recordings with you on your trip to listen to on flights and
                      > so on.
                      -----
                      N: Yes, especially Poland with many explanations about seeing right
                      now, and, it is not in the book.
                      -----
                      Nina.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Herman
                      Sent from my iPad On 16/12/2012, at 6:36 PM, sarah wrote: Hi Sarah, ... You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 17, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sent from my iPad

                        On 16/12/2012, at 6:36 PM, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

                        Hi Sarah,

                        > Hi Herman,
                        >
                        > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > > > If there is understanding of the relevant conditions, then a being can
                        > > > > light a fire.....
                        > > > ....
                        > > > S: It's an illusion, Herman. Actually, there is no being, no lighting and
                        > > > no fire, just conditioned realities or elements.
                        > ...
                        > >H: This is another self-refuting statement. .....
                        >
                        > > What is an illusion, Sarah? And how do you tell illusion and non-illusion
                        > > apart?
                        > ...
                        > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire.
                        >
                        > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts.
                        >

                        You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is called solipsism.


                        >
                        > The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality.
                        >

                        I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such an illusion about reality
                        >
                        > Metta
                        >
                        > Sarah
                        > =====
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • sarah
                        Hi Herman, ... ... S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 20, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Herman,

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

                          > > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being who can light a fire.
                          > >
                          > > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be an illusion when referring to such concepts.
                          ...
                          >H: You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is called solipsism.
                          ...
                          S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is real but the concept is not.

                          The Buddha taught about the six worlds that are experienced, about what leads to the end of samsara.
                          ...

                          > >S: The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about reality.

                          >
                          >H: I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such an illusion about reality
                          ...
                          S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment, what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self or thing.

                          Of course, if there were not various arising and falling away experiences of different rupas, there would not be such an idea or any illusion of a being lighting a fire.

                          SN 35:85 "Empty is the World":

                          "Then the Venerable Aananda approached the Blessed One...and said to him: 'Venerable Sir, it is said, 'Empty is the world, empty is the world.' In what way, venerable sire, is it said, 'Empty is the world'?'

                          " 'It is, Aananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Aananda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self...Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant- that too is empty of self and of what belongs to self.

                          " 'It is, Aananda because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' "

                          ***
                          Metta

                          Sarah
                          ====
                        • Herman
                          Hi Sarah, ... There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts that refer to realities of the world. While fire is a concept, it is a
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 21, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Sarah,

                            On 21 December 2012 17:21, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

                            > **
                            >
                            >
                            > Hi Herman,
                            >
                            > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > > S: An illusion is when there is an idea that there really is a being
                            > who can light a fire.
                            > > >
                            > > > Yes, we can talk about beings and fires, but unless there is any
                            > understanding that in fact there are only realities such as seeing, visible
                            > object and thinking, no being in actuality at all, then it is bound to be
                            > an illusion when referring to such concepts.
                            > ...
                            > >H: You seem to not allow for concepts that are based on stimuli external
                            > to the mind. Such a view, that there is no reality external to mind, is
                            > called solipsism.
                            > ...
                            > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept
                            > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is
                            > real but the concept is not.
                            >
                            >

                            There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts
                            that refer to realities of the world.

                            While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real heat,
                            very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept
                            makes known.





                            > The Buddha taught about the six worlds that are experienced, about what
                            > leads to the end of samsara.
                            > ...
                            >
                            > > >S: The ariyans had/have no such illusion about realities. For the
                            > non-arahats, ignorance and attachment, but not ditthi or illusion about
                            > reality.
                            >
                            > >
                            > >H: I am unable to cite references at the moment, but it is easily
                            > demonstrated from some very simple sutta texts that solipsism is just such
                            > an illusion about reality
                            > ...
                            > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment,
                            > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a
                            > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing
                            > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self
                            > or thing.
                            >


                            A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a
                            concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they?



                            >
                            > Of course, if there were not various arising and falling away experiences
                            > of different rupas, there would not be such an idea or any illusion of a
                            > being lighting a fire.
                            >
                            > SN 35:85 "Empty is the World":
                            >
                            > "Then the Venerable Aananda approached the Blessed One...and said to him:
                            > 'Venerable Sir, it is said, 'Empty is the world, empty is the world.' In
                            > what way, venerable sire, is it said, 'Empty is the world'?'
                            >
                            > " 'It is, Aananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self
                            > that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' And what is empty of self and of
                            > what belongs to self? The eye, Aananda, is empty of self and of what
                            > belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to self.
                            > Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self. Eye-contact
                            > is empty of self and of what belongs to self...Whatever feeling arises with
                            > mind-contact as condition - whether pleasant or painful or
                            > neither-painful-nor-pleasant- that too is empty of self and of what belongs
                            > to self.
                            >
                            > " 'It is, Aananda because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self
                            > that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' "
                            >
                            > ***
                            > Metta
                            >
                            > Sarah
                            > ====
                            >



                            --
                            Cheers

                            Herman


                            I do not know what I do not know


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • sarah
                            Hi Herman, ... ... S: Yes. Either way, they are concepts. ... ... S: Yes, sammuti sacca, conventional truth. ... .. ... ... S: They make known or describe
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 23, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Herman,

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

                              > > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the concept
                              > > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking is
                              > > real but the concept is not.
                              ...
                              >H: There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts
                              > that refer to realities of the world.
                              ...
                              S: Yes. Either way, they are concepts.
                              ...
                              >
                              >H: While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real heat,
                              > very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept
                              > makes known.
                              ...
                              S: Yes, sammuti sacca, conventional truth.
                              ...

                              > > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment,
                              > > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a
                              > > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing
                              > > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of self
                              > > or thing.
                              ..
                              >H: A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a
                              > concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they?
                              ...
                              S: They "make known" or describe conventional truths "the being who can light a fire". It depends on the understanding when reading such statements as to whether there is any understanding of realities or not.

                              Metta

                              Sarah
                              =====
                            • ptaus1
                              Hi KenH, ... pt: Objectively it seems we re discussing interpretations of what we read the Buddha allegedly said. ... Pt: That is the best case scenario, which
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 23, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi KenH,

                                > KH: But in a Dhamma discussion we are considering the *Buddha's* answers, aren't we? We are helping each other to consider what we have heard indirectly *from the Buddha*.

                                pt: Objectively it seems we're discussing interpretations of what we read the Buddha allegedly said.


                                > KH: It doesn't really matter if we are talking to a troll who is using DSG to vent his spleen. The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the present moment.

                                Pt: That is the best case scenario, which happens almost never, mostly just more intellectualising in my case.


                                > KH: Go back to the beginning and ask, "The world, the world' it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?" (Loka Sutta). I think you will agree with the Buddha's answer: there are seven worlds in one of which absolute realities are rising and falling away now.
                                >
                                > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it?

                                I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time. And what about divine eye and all that. So, how much of what I think is seeing is in fact just concepts and thinking, I don't know. I don't think I was ever aware of "eye consciousness". But I don't mind taking your conclusion as a working hypothesis. Perhaps one day the eye consciousness bit will present itself to whatever other bits it needs to present itself to make sense.

                                Best wishes
                                pt
                              • Ken H
                                Hi Pt, ... ... present moment. ... KH: Yes, it is the best case scenario. Kusala cittas are very rare, and cittas with panna are rarer still. ...
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 26, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Pt,

                                  ---
                                  <. . .>
                                  > > KH: The important thing is that we are applying the Dhamma to the
                                  present moment.

                                  > Pt: That is the best case scenario, which happens almost never, mostly just more intellectualising in my case.
                                  ---

                                  KH: Yes, it is the best case scenario. Kusala cittas are very rare, and cittas with panna are rarer still.

                                  -------
                                  <. . .>
                                  >> KH: > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it?

                                  > Pt: I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time.
                                  --------

                                  KH: I once would have said there were seeing cittas in amongst lucid-thinking cittas. But now I am not sure if I've got that right.

                                  We are not blind and the sphere into which we were born does contain light. Therefore the eye rupa can arise and contact a visible rupa that comes within its range. If we are in a darkened room with our eyes closed there won't be many visible rupas within range - just blackness. But (if I understand correctly) seeing a black visible object is still seeing.

                                  That could be wrong though. I once suggested smelling consciousness was always occurring in daily life too - even if we weren't aware of any particular odour. But I think I was told otherwise. Therefore, I might also be wrong to suggest there is seeing (of blackness) when there is no awareness of blackness.

                                  This is very difficult, Pt, we need to listen more!

                                  Ken H
                                • sarah
                                  Hi Ken H (& Pt), ... ... S: Whilst dreaming, no sense experiences, just mind-door activity, thinking about what has been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 27, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi Ken H (& Pt),

                                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ken H" <kenhowardau@...> wrote:

                                    > >> KH: > And one of those worlds is the eye world - eye, eye consciousness, eye object and so on. We are not blind, so it must be, mustn't it?
                                    >
                                    > > Pt: I don't know. Lucid dreaming seems just as real as the waking world, yet there's no seeing at all at the time.
                                    > --------
                                    >
                                    > KH: I once would have said there were seeing cittas in amongst lucid-thinking cittas. But now I am not sure if I've got that right.
                                    ...
                                    S: Whilst dreaming, no sense experiences, just mind-door activity, thinking about what has been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched before.... however "lucid" it may seem.
                                    ...
                                    >
                                    > We are not blind and the sphere into which we were born does contain light. Therefore the eye rupa can arise and contact a visible rupa that comes within its range. If we are in a darkened room with our eyes closed there won't be many visible rupas within range - just blackness. But (if I understand correctly) seeing a black visible object is still seeing.
                                    ...
                                    S: Yes, there can still be seeing at such times - different from dreaming.
                                    ...

                                    > That could be wrong though. I once suggested smelling consciousness was always occurring in daily life too - even if we weren't aware of any particular odour. But I think I was told otherwise. Therefore, I might also be wrong to suggest there is seeing (of blackness) when there is no awareness of blackness.
                                    ...
                                    S: Even though smelling of odour is so very common, we can't say it's always occurring. At moments of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching or thinking, there is no smelling of odour, for example.

                                    Seeing is usually mentioned first because it's the most common sense experience - so much seeing in a day and so very little awareness.

                                    Metta

                                    Sarah
                                    =====
                                  • Herman
                                    Hi Sarah, ... HH: You can become dismissive of concepts only when you have an alternative..... ... HH: This is just talk, Sarah, talk, talk, talk, talk.......
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 28, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Sarah,

                                      On 23 December 2012 20:52, sarah <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:

                                      > **
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Hi Herman,
                                      >
                                      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Herman <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > > S: At this moment of thinking of a concept, regardless of what the
                                      > concept
                                      > > > is based on, it is still a concept that is thought about. The thinking
                                      > is
                                      > > > real but the concept is not.
                                      > ...
                                      > >H: There are concepts that refer to other concepts, and there are concepts
                                      >
                                      > > that refer to realities of the world.
                                      > ...
                                      > S: Yes. Either way, they are concepts.
                                      > ...
                                      >

                                      HH: You can become dismissive of concepts only when you have an
                                      alternative.....



                                      > >
                                      > >H: While fire is a concept, it is a concept that makes known very real
                                      > heat,
                                      >
                                      > > very real pain. It is not the concept that burns, but what the concept
                                      > > makes known.
                                      > ...
                                      > S: Yes, sammuti sacca, conventional truth.
                                      >
                                      > ...
                                      >
                                      > > > S: Let's get back to "the being who can light a fire" . At this moment,
                                      > > > what is the reality? Seeing....thinking. Thinking thinks about such a
                                      > > > concept of "a being who can light a fire". Only the presently appearing
                                      > > > realities can be known and these are to be known as anatta, empty of
                                      > self
                                      > > > or thing.
                                      > ..
                                      > >H: A being is a concept, a fire is a concept, a being lighting a fire is a
                                      >
                                      > > concept. Yet the concepts make known a reality, don't they?
                                      > ...
                                      > S: They "make known" or describe conventional truths "the being who can
                                      > light a fire". It depends on the understanding when reading such statements
                                      > as to whether there is any understanding of realities or not.
                                      >


                                      HH: This is just talk, Sarah, talk, talk, talk, talk.......

                                      Talk is a funny word, really, isn't it :-)




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


                                      --
                                      Cheers

                                      Herman


                                      I do not know what I do not know


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Herman
                                      Hi KenH, ... Listen to what? ... Cheers Herman I do not know what I do not know [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 28, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi KenH,

                                        On 27 December 2012 12:43, Ken H <kenhowardau@...> wrote:

                                        > **
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Hi Pt,
                                        > This is very difficult, Pt, we need to listen more!
                                        >
                                        >

                                        Listen to what?




                                        > Ken H
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > --
                                        Cheers

                                        Herman


                                        I do not know what I do not know


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • ptaus1
                                        Hi KenH, Sarah, Alberto, Thanks for your replies. Happy New Year to all :) Best wishes pt
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Dec 31, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Hi KenH, Sarah, Alberto,

                                          Thanks for your replies.

                                          Happy New Year to all :)

                                          Best wishes
                                          pt
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.