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

[dsg] Re: Seeing = Visible object

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Jon - ... HCW: No, not an article of faith but a pragmatic presumption that I m prepared to (somehow) have shown to be false. (Pragmatic in that all we can
    Message 1 of 299 , Jan 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Jon -

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote:
      >
      > Hi Howard
      >
      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi, Jon -
      > >
      > > I understand your perspective. Mine is different. I think my perspective is in line with the Dhamma, and you do not. I could be wrong! I'm not looking to debate it - if I'm wrong, then i'm wrong. That's fine with me. :-)
      > >
      > > ===============
      >
      > J: It's fine with me too :-)). And I'm not looking to debate anything.
      >
      > But since this is a discussion group, don't be surprised if someone asks you to explain what you've said :-))
      >
      > > ===============
      > > HCW:
      > > I take hearing and heard to be mutually dependent, but I take neither to be "the cause" of the other. I view prior kamma as the primary cause.
      > > ===============
      >
      > J: Again, this goes to the experiencing of the sound but not to the question of an independent and prior arising of the sound.
      >
      > While your pov is clear, the basis for the unlikelihood/impossibility of the latter, as you see it, has never been explained. An article of faith for you, perhaps?
      ---------------------------------
      HCW:
      No, not an article of faith but a pragmatic presumption that I'm prepared to (somehow) have shown to be false. (Pragmatic in that all we can ever experience is content of consciousness. There may well be unexperienced phenomena, but they are, indeed, unexperienced.)
      ================================
      With metta,
      Howard

      /"Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer.

      "When hearing...

      "When sensing...

      "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer./

      (From the Kalaka Sutta)


      >
      > Jon
      >
    • 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, 2013
      • 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.
        ...
        Metta

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