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

Re: Dhamma-anupassana

Expand Messages
  • Tep Sastri
    Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)- ... T: I m sorry to pronounce that you re wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called wisdom faculty in the CMI (see p.
    Message 1 of 157 , May 1, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jon (Sarah, Rob E., Sukin)-

      >J: To my understanding, panna can be mundane or supramundane. Supramundane panna is the panna that accompanies magga citta, and so occurs only at actual supramundane path moments. The rest of the time (i.e., including for the enlightened being), panna is mundane.
      > So to my understanding, panna can arise in the ordinary person.

      T: I'm sorry to pronounce that you're wrong in two accounts. :-) First, panna is called "wisdom faculty" in the CMI (see p. 90). It is the mental factor #52 (see p. 79). Second, by definition panna is "knowing things as they really are", and as such, it is not found in ordinary men/women. :-)

      >J: "Insight" as a translation of the Pali term "vipassana" refers to the mental factor of panna.
      T: Excuse me? are you saying now that panna is a "citta" and vipassana is a cetasika? Or you are sayimg that both panna and vipassana are cetasika? Again, checking with the CMI Table 2.1 on P. 79, there is no 'vipassana' listed as a cetasika! The author must have lumped vipassana and panna together as wisdom/knowledge.
      [I think you know that I did not mean to find fault with you, just poking fun a little. Can't do the same to Sukin or KenH, though. :-)]
      ............

      >J: As far as I know, there is no reference in the texts to a person's practice (as in, your/his/my practice), only to the practice of the teachings, and this carries quite a different meaning.

      T: Right, but it is simply because the ignorant assumption of "my practice" is due to self-views and craving that are relinquished in meditation [e.g. observe the following phase in the Satipatthana Sutta: "And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world."]. However, the Suttas do not make a big deal about the Self Demon (like here at DSG). Even Arahants and the Buddha used "I" and "mine" freely without fear that other monks or householders might criticize them!

      SN 1.25 Araha.m Sutta: The Arahant
      translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe

      [Deva:]
      He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
      Free from taints, in final body clad,
      That monk still might use such words as "I."
      Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
      ...
      Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

      [The Blessed One:]
      Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
      All delusion's chains are cast aside:
      Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.[1]
      That monk still might use such words as "I,"
      Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
      Well aware of common worldly speech,
      He would speak conforming to such use.[2]

      Notes

      1. Ya.m mata.m: "whatever is thought." Mrs Rhys Davids's emendation of yamata.m in the text (paraphrased as "conceits and deemings of the errant mind," following the Commentarial maññana.m "imagining").
      2. Cf. DN 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them."
      .........

      >J: Whenever awareness/insight occurs there is the practice of -- and progress in :-)) -- the teachings.

      T: I'd rather put is as follows: Whenever the practice according to the Dhamma makes a progress, there are awareness and insight during that time.

      Truly,
      Tep
      ===

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Tep
      >
    • 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
      View Source
      • 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.