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

Re: [dsg] Re: Question about Mahayana.

Expand Messages
  • Sukinder
    Hi Rob E, ... Do you agree that for example, feeling has a characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause different from say, perception? Sukin
    Message 1 of 158 , Mar 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Rob E,


      > I think that's an excellent question, but the answer might not be
      > quite so pat as one would hope. I really think it would be worthwhile
      > to discuss what "real" means. What I have in mind is that dhammas are
      > "real" in the sense that they really do arise and fall away, but
      > whether there is a "dhamma per se" that exists as a frozen entity in a
      > moment of time, I would say 'no,' and I think the Abhidhamma -- as far
      > as I have seen -- bears this out. The dhamma is an activity in a
      > sense, not an object. It is never an x or a y per se, because it is
      > always in a process of change. When it is arising, it is forming up,
      > when it is functioning, it is doing what it was conditioned to do, and
      > when it is falling away, it is dissolving until it no longer exists.
      > Therefore there is never a moment that it is definable as an absolute
      > this or that, it is changing continuously. It is this understanding of
      > anicca on the most microscopic level that would lead one to say that
      > there is never a moment when you can put your finger on a dhamma and
      > say "it is exactly that." Therefore I would say it is not "real as a
      > definable object," it is real "as an active formation and dissolution
      > in process" that never stops to be defined. We can talk about the
      > cetasikas that are involved and the processes involved - contact, or
      > vitakkha, et al, but not at any moment say that the dhamma is frozen
      > as "this." So I think we mistakenly think of dhammas as static objects
      > like a table or chair that we can stop and look at, and it is not
      > that. In that sense, "own-being" does not make sense to me, because
      > the dhamma is not just one thing, but a changing process. Of what
      > could its "being" consist of, other than constant transformation?
      >

      Do you agree that for example, feeling has a characteristic, function,
      manifestation and proximate cause different from say, perception?

      Sukin


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert E
      Hi Sarah. ... I continue to think this is a very zen approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it zen you d probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it
      Message 158 of 158 , Apr 27, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sarah.

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

        > S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation.
        >
        > This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it!

        I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now.

        A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again."

        Best,
        Rob E.

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