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

[dsg] Re: With the passing of time

Expand Messages
  • rjkjp1
    ... Dear Herman It does agree with the Buddhist texts though right? In the Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta,
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 9, 2012
      --- 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 2 of 30 , Dec 11, 2012
        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 3 of 30 , Dec 19, 2012
          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 4 of 30 , Dec 19, 2012
            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 5 of 30 , Dec 21, 2012
              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.