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

Re: [dsg] Dhamma-anupassana

Expand Messages
  • sarah
    Dear Tep, Good topic! ... .... S: kayanupassana refers to awareness and understanding of rupas, the rupas we take for the body that we re so very attached to.
    Message 1 of 157 , Apr 5, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Tep,

      Good topic!

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" <indriyabala@...> wrote:

      > For example, anapanasati (only the first tetrad) and kayagatasati are under kaya-anupassana; yet, rupakkhandha is under dhamma-anupassana.
      ....
      S: kayanupassana refers to awareness and understanding of rupas, the rupas we take for the body that we're so very attached to. Each rupa is rupa khandha.
      ....
      >Vedana-anupassana is separated from the anupassana of vedana-khandha that is under dhamma-anupassana.
      ....
      S: Again each vedana is vedana khandha. We find feelings so very, very important throughout the day, so vedananupassana is emphasised.

      Many realities, such as rupas and vedana are repeated in different contexts. As you suggest, when the 5 khandhas are mentioned later under dhammanupassana, these include all conditioned realities, all objects of satipatthana.

      So now, what appears? Hardness, softness, visible object, pleasant or unpleasant feeling?
      There can be awareness and understanding now. Just ordinary dhammas, khandhas, realities in daily life.

      Metta

      Sarah
      ======
    • Robert E
      Hi Sarah. ... This makes sense of how such things are differentiated. ... Do you think the Buddha s point in the simile of the chariot is that there is no
      Message 157 of 157 , May 13, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Sarah.

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "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?

        Best,
        Rob E.

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