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

[dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object

Expand Messages
  • Robert E
    Hi Herman. ... Cool! Rob E. - - - - - - - -
    Message 1 of 299 , Dec 30, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Herman.

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

      > > I understand your view, which is highly phenomenological, and in another
      > > context I might adopt it myself. Here I think it makes sense to see certain
      > > phenomena as potentially causing sound and others causing vision. Sure the
      > > mind plays its part in shaping the object and interpreting it, but if it's
      > > not hallucination, then we have a pretty common sense of what the basic
      > > visual and heard object is in a particular situation. It doesn't vary so
      > > much that we should see it as purely subjective. It's sort of torturing
      > > things in the other direction to assert that there are no potential visual
      > > or heard objects in nature, only in the mind, rather than seeing the
      > > creation of visual or sounded phenomena as a collaboration of objective
      > > forms and mental apprehension. [rupa and nama] It brings to mind Kant's
      > > "in-itself," in which objects were seen to have a kind of self-enclosed
      > > interiority which we could not penetrate, rather than just seeing them as
      > > simply opaque all the way through, since they are insentient. [Sartre, "On
      > > the Transcendence of the Ego"]
      > >
      > >
      > I think you are quite right; I love your allusions to torturing things in
      > this respect :-)


      > There is shared conditionality - nothing subjective about that.


      Rob E.

      - - - - - - - -
    • sarah
      Hi Howard, ... S: It means that whilst the arahat lives, all the khandhas, all the conditioned elements (taken for the arahat) continue to arise and fall away.
      Message 299 of 299 , Mar 4 10:44 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Howard,

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:

        > > S: As Jon wrote in another recent post: "Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant).
        > ------------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > What does it mean for there to be dukkha FOR the arahant?
        > ------------------------------------

        S: It means that whilst the arahat lives, all the khandhas, all the conditioned elements (taken for the arahat) continue to arise and fall away. Each of these elements is dukkha.
        > >S: "Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained."
        > -------------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > If one experiences no dissatisfaction, why should one care whether dhammas are not sources of satisfaction?
        > ---------------------------------------
        S: That's the point. When attachment and ignorance have been eradicated, there is no more caring or searching for satisfaction, no more conditions for rebirth. The job is done.
        > > S: Yes, for the arahat, no more tanha, no more dissatisfaction, no more mental suffering, but still "sabbe sankhara dukkha"
        > ----------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > Who cares? All that means is that conditioned phenomena are among the conditions for dissatisfaction. But without avijja and tanha, they are insufficient conditions.
        > ---------------------------------

        S: It's not a matter of caring, but of understanding the Truths. The first Noble Truth is that all conditioned dhammas are dukkha. The Truth is universal.

        > > S: When arahathood has been attained, the job is done. Do you agree that if all defilements are eradicated, at the end of the arahat's life, at parinibbana, there are no more conditions for dhammas to arise?
        > -----------------------------
        > HCW:
        > I agree that when all defilements have been eradicated, there are, right then and there, no sufficient conditions for dissatisfaction to arise, and it will not ever arise. It is then irrelevant whether conditioned dhammas arise or not.
        > -------------------------------

        S: Even for the anagami there are no more conditions for any dissatisfaction, however slight, to arise again. When attachment is finally eradicated, no more conditions for further birth.
        > > ....
        > > > It is not the mere presence or ending of conditioned dhammas that leads to suffering, but craving, aversion, and clinging, and without these, existence is nibbanic and joyful.
        > > ...
        > > S: Craving, aversion and ignorance have been eradicated because all the perversions of view, memory and consciousness have been eradicated.
        > -----------------------------
        > HCW:
        > So?
        S: You continue to suggest that when there is no craving or aversion, such as during the arahat's life or now at moments when they don't arise, that there is no suffering. I'm pointing out that the deeper meaning of dukkha, sankhara dukkha, as taught by the Buddha and referred to in the 1st Noble Truth, applies to all conditioned dhammas. So even the khandhas of the arahat are dukkha. The arahat has no more illusion, unlike us, that the dhamma arising now is sukkha rather than dukkha. The nature of dukkha of all conditioned phenomena is completely understood.
        > -------------------------------
        >>S: There is no more illusion of any kind that the impermanent is permanent, the non-self is self, the foul is beautiful or what is dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) is sukha (happy).
        > ------------------------------
        > HCW:
        > Yes. So?
        > -----------------------------
        S: So all conditioned dhammas are anicca, anatta, asubha and dukkha.

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