[dsg] Re: Asubha of all conditioned realities
- Hi Rob E., (Nina) -
I think your question is terminological. Allow me to reply with limited Abhidhamma knowledge as follows. According to the Compendium of Consciousness (I, 12) this type of sobhana cittas is called the "beautiful", because it is accompanied by beautiful mental factors (e.g. faith, mindfulness, tranquillity, non-delusion). Not all of the beautifuls are without attachment. Some sobhana cittas do not arise in the Arahants; although they are wholesome, they are not yet free from attachment.
The Pali word 'subha' is not used to describe cittas; only used in the Suttas to describe mind-objects that can cause sense-desire. It is not an Abhidhammic term. The opposite 'asubha' means "anything repulsive, disgusting or unpleasant" (see PTS Dictionary).
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert E" <epsteinrob@...> wrote:
> Hi Tep, and Nina.
> --- In email@example.com, "Tep Sastri" <indriyabala@> wrote:
> > Hi Robert, (Nina) -
> > By definition 'sobhana' denotes all states of consciousness excepting the unwholesome and those without roots. On the other hand, 'subha' means beautiful or attractive. An attractive object can cause sense-desire to arise. Subha-sanna <perception of unattractice as attractive> is one of the four perversions (vipallaasa).
> Well I guess there are two types of "beauty" being identified - one, the sobhana - "beautiful" for a detached consciousness that is purified? And another that causes attachment...?
> Rob E.
> - - - - - - -
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: It shows that there are just dhammas. Of course there are reasons, conditions why there is thinking now about 'computer' and not 'armchair', for example. Each visible object at each moment is different, each hardness experienced through bodysense is different.
This makes sense of how such things are differentiated.
> Nonetheless, there never is an experience of 'computer' or 'armchair', only of rupas experienced through the senses and thinking about these in different ways.
Do you think the Buddha's point in the simile of the chariot is that there is no chariot at all?
- - - - - - - - - - - -