Re:Dhamma is best psychology
- Hi Alex,
> A:In what way exactly is there difference of understanding? Is it amount of theory, ex: where stream-enterer knows a little, once-returner knows quantitetively more, etc?pt: Yes, so direct knowledge would be with arising of wisdom of some depth/sharpness, whereas intellectual/theoretical knowledge can be both with or without wisdom of some depth arising at the time.
> Can a worldling known theoretically much more theory than Arhat? Of course. So it is not merely amount or quality of theoretic knowledge that counts.
> A: It means that we *already* experience tilakkhana with every dhamma that arises because it is characteristic of arisen dhamma. We don't need to know about anicca in order for the arisen state to be anicca. Ignorance is not a protection.pt: You are now saying pretty much what Sarah is saying I think in that tilakkhana is always there for dhammas. I like to stress that akusala arises whenever there's no awareness of tilakkhana. If there was awareness about tilakkhana at an instance, there would be no room for akusala to arise. E.g. I might know in theory that the desire to drinking alcohol is probably akusala, but that won't stop it. On the other hand, when the desire to drink arises, and there's awareness that lobha is anatta, or anicca, etc, that might be enough for abstention.
> A: I meant tevijja, triple "knowledge" - not 4NT.pt: Ah, sorry, got it now.
> A: 1st was recollection of his former lives. Conceptual.pt: But aren't the first two knowledges unrelated to bodhi? If memory serves, even puthujanas can develop the first two knowledges, both inside and outside a sasana.
> 2nd was seeing working of kamma on other beings and their rebirth in accordance with it.
> 3rd was seeing D.O. being born, aging, sickness, death, etc, all these are "conventional" things.pt: D.O. is complex to me. It's further open to interpretation what was meant by the conventional terms. As I said, I'd leave this for now as I don't really know much.
- Hi Alex (and pt)
--- In email@example.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
> Hello Pt, all,
> >Pt:But, knowing that the feeling, >or perception, or anger, that is >experienced in this moment is >anatta or anicca - that is something >that is really important for >ending dukkha.
> Here is what I wonder: Ok, so we know this. Why hasn't dukkha stopped?
J: Dukkha is a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. As long as there is life in samsara, there is dukkha (even for the arahant).
Dukkha is ended only when parinibbana is attained.