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

TA intro to Dhamma

Expand Messages
  • sprlrt
    (in HH, 11th, am-A, 8.30m, talking to Thomas - 1) TA: Is there seeing right now? Is it self? Seeing arises and falls away, or a moment of hearing, there cannot
    Message 1 of 29 , Jun 1, 2013
      (in HH, 11th, am-A, 8.30m, talking to Thomas - 1)

      TA: Is there seeing right now? Is it self?
      Seeing arises and falls away, or a moment of hearing, there cannot be seeing and hearing together, at this very moment of seeing; it cannot just arise by itself, but even just a moment of seeing is conditioned.
      For example without the eye-base and without the visible object, without that which can experience it or see it, visible object or whatever appears now cannot appear at all, right?
      And I think that that's the meaning of no self, who can't do anything for seeing to arise; because without the element which can experience, the world would not appear at all, but since there is another element which is different from that which cannot experience anything at all, so that element arises when is conditioned to experience a reality, which can be object of its experience.
      For example now, what is seeing, the absolute reality, what is seeing now, at this moment?
      Can hardness be seen? Can softness be seen?
      No, only that which can impinge on the eye-base can condition a moment of seeing to arise, to see it, and then they are gone, instantly, so very rapidly, what is left is only the succession of the arising and falling away, so very rapidly that it condition some idea about sign or marks of that which appears now as eye brow or table and things, otherwise there would be no such idea, without any absolute realities at all.
      So I think that, the absolute reality, we don't have to name it or call it anything, but it's there, for anyone who considers it, to understand it as it is, as seeing, as just a moment in which visible object appears; and hearing is another moment in which sound can appear, without hearing there's no sound appearing at all; and these are no self, they are just conditioned realities different from time to time; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all; and that's what is meant by reality or dhamma, we can say that there are two categories, one is that which arises but it cannot experience anything at all, and the other one whenever it arises it has to experience, because its characteristic is experiencing, whenever it arises.
      That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment?
    • jagkrit2012
      Dear Alberto ... Thank you and anumodhana Jagkrit
      Message 2 of 29 , Jun 1, 2013
        Dear Alberto


        > TA: ; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all;

        > That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment?

        Thank you and anumodhana

        Jagkrit
      • azita
        Hallo Alberto, thank you for this, I look forward to reading these talks that you have been posting. Really very beneficial for the development of
        Message 3 of 29 , Jun 1, 2013
          Hallo Alberto,

          thank you for this, I look forward to reading these talks that you have been posting.
          Really very beneficial for the development of understanding.

          Anumodana, azita

          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote:
          >
          > (in HH, 11th, am-A, 8.30m, talking to Thomas - 1)
          >
          > TA: Is there seeing right now? Is it self?
          > Seeing arises and falls away, or a moment of hearing, there cannot be seeing and hearing together, at this very moment of seeing; it cannot just arise by itself, but even just a moment of seeing is conditioned.
          > For example without the eye-base and without the visible object, without that which can experience it or see it, visible object or whatever appears now cannot appear at all, right?
          > And I think that that's the meaning of no self, who can't do anything for seeing to arise; because without the element which can experience, the world would not appear at all, but since there is another element which is different from that which cannot experience anything at all, so that element arises when is conditioned to experience a reality, which can be object of its experience.
          > For example now, what is seeing, the absolute reality, what is seeing now, at this moment?
          > Can hardness be seen? Can softness be seen?
          > No, only that which can impinge on the eye-base can condition a moment of seeing to arise, to see it, and then they are gone, instantly, so very rapidly, what is left is only the succession of the arising and falling away, so very rapidly that it condition some idea about sign or marks of that which appears now as eye brow or table and things, otherwise there would be no such idea, without any absolute realities at all.
          > So I think that, the absolute reality, we don't have to name it or call it anything, but it's there, for anyone who considers it, to understand it as it is, as seeing, as just a moment in which visible object appears; and hearing is another moment in which sound can appear, without hearing there's no sound appearing at all; and these are no self, they are just conditioned realities different from time to time; so life consists of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking; only these six doorways, so whatever arises is conditioned, that's why it cannot be controlled, and no one is there to control it, to make it up at all; and that's what is meant by reality or dhamma, we can say that there are two categories, one is that which arises but it cannot experience anything at all, and the other one whenever it arises it has to experience, because its characteristic is experiencing, whenever it arises.
          > That's why there's seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching; they are all conditioned realities arising and falling away, so how can there be any self or anyone in it at any moment?
          >
        • thomaslaw03
          Dear Dhamma friends, I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa (SN 12.20: PTS
          Message 4 of 29 , Jun 1, 2013
            Dear Dhamma friends,

            I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). The English world reality also means in philosophy "that which exists independently of all other things; an ultimate thing which produces derivatives" (cf. Macquarie Dictionary). This is a metaphysical idea of entity.

            It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa".

            Any arguments?

            Thomas
          • sprlrt
            Hi Azita (Ann, Jagkrit), Don t thank me... (but it s nice to know that my transcriptions are appreciated, thank you :) Alberto ************************* 2. (in
            Message 5 of 29 , Jun 3, 2013
              Hi Azita (Ann, Jagkrit),
              Don't thank me... (but it's nice to know that my transcriptions are appreciated, thank you :)
              Alberto
              *************************

              2. (in HH, 11th, am-A, 13m.30)

              TA: Is thinking real? thinking thinks, if thinking doesn't think about self, can there be such idea about self? if there is no experiencing of visible object and so on, can there be thinking about this or that as I, or things, or self? so, there is not just seeing, there is thinking after seeing; and there is not just hearing, because there is thinking after hearing too; so thinking follows any experience through any doorway, and it can think differently, some might think that there is no self, and some might think that there is a self; some might think that seeing is permanent, but some know, from everything which happens in a day, that nothing is permanent at all; seeing just arises and sees, that's all, it cannot think, but after seeing, the memory of what is seen conditions the idea of something or someone, all the time, as permanent; but if it comes to understand each reality as it is, which one can be taken for self? because thinking also arises and falls away.
              While one is fast asleep, does one know who one is? what name, how many friends, where one is? no idea at all, because this is the function of realities from the first moment of life, which keeps on by conditions; in a day there is seeing, and then there is hearing and everything; but while one is fast asleep, where are all those things gone? never come back at all, so where is the self, the permanent one?
              Because everything is so short, it's conditioned and it falls away unknowingly, even right now while we're talking about it, seeing sees and is gone, because there is hearing and thinking; so this will condition some understanding about: life is not permanent; and what is life? usually is seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and thinking; so they are not permanent, the whole life; and nobody can control, or nobody can make anything up, that's why it's dhamma, everything is dhamma; it doesn't belong to anyone, and it's no one at all; that can be proved, and developed, with more and more understanding about whatever appears right now; because we think that we see people and things, but in reality it's only that which can see, only; and we call it visible object, even if we don't call it anything at all, it is seen, right? that which is seen now, is it near or far? no idea, because it's only that which is seen; but if there's a question about whether is far or near, it's thinking, not seeing; so in a day there is always thinking and thinking and thinking.
              Is thinking light or dark? thinking itself; sound, is it light or dark? everything is in darkness, only visible object is not dark; at moment of hearing, that which experiences, in darkness, and sound appears, also in darkness; but it seems like there is light all day, but actually it's not; so if one just understands just one characteristic of a reality at a time, one will begin to see what life is, and what we take for life; without all these realities there's no life at all.
            • sarah
              Dear Thomas, ... ... S: The point of using realities is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible
              Message 6 of 29 , Jun 7, 2013
                Dear Thomas,

                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                > I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). <...>

                > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa".
                >
                > Any arguments?
                ...
                S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts.

                We can just use dhammas, as long as it's clear what is being referred to.

                What are the realities/phenomena referred to in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" would you say?

                metta

                Sarah
                =====
              • thomaslaw03
                Sarah, ... T: Seeing, visible object, ignorance, person, computer, and concepts are all phenomena (dhammas). They are arisen by casual condition
                Message 7 of 29 , Jun 7, 2013
                  Sarah,

                  -----
                  ...
                  > T: I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). ...
                  > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". ...

                  > S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts.
                  >

                  T: Seeing, visible object, ignorance, person, computer, and concepts are all phenomena (dhammas). They are arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa".

                  > S: We can just use dhammas, as long as it's clear what is being referred to.

                  T: No, it is better not just use the term dhammas. The term dhammas used in the suttas may include many other phenomena, according to the teachings of paticcasamuppada, the four noble truths, and janati passati.

                  > S: What are the realities/phenomena referred to in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" would you say?

                  T: It is better to use phenomena, but not realities, for dhammas. They are phenomena shown in "paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". Regarding the content, see the sutta SN 12.20: PTS ii, pp. 25-27.

                  ------

                  Thomas
                • sarah
                  Hi Thomas, ... ... S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition,
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jun 12, 2013
                    Hi Thomas,

                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                    > > T: I consider that the term dhammas should not be translated as realities within the content of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27). ...
                    > > It is better to translate or understand the term being used in the sutta as "phenomena", i.e., phenomena (dhammas) arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa". ...
                    >
                    > > S: The point of using "realities" is to clear distinguish such dhammas from concepts. For example, seeing is a dhamma (reality), visible object is a dhamma, ignorance is a dhamma, but person or computer are concepts.
                    > >
                    >
                    > T: Seeing, visible object, ignorance, person, computer, and concepts are all phenomena (dhammas). They are arisen by casual condition "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa".
                    ...
                    S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition, pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.

                    The dhammas that are conditioned are the khandhas, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas only.

                    They are the "all" that exist, apart from the unconditioned nibbana.

                    Metta

                    Sarah
                    =====
                  • thomaslaw03
                    Hi Sarah ... T: According to the teachings of pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa or pa.tccasamuppaada , they (khandhas, or cittas, cetasikas and rupas, or
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jun 12, 2013
                      Hi Sarah

                      ---
                      > ...
                      > S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition, pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.
                      >
                      > The dhammas that are conditioned are the khandhas, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas only.
                      >
                      > They are the "all" that exist, apart from the unconditioned nibbana.

                      T: According to the teachings of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" or "pa.tccasamuppaada", they (khandhas, or cittas, cetasikas and rupas, or Computer, concepts) are phenomena (dhammaa).

                      They all are arisen by causal condition. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha (suffering) or of asavana (influxes)

                      ------

                      Thomas
                    • sarah
                      Hi Thomas, ... ... S: I gave you a quote yesterday from the Mulapariyaya Sutta with commentary notes which make it clear that computer , flowers and
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jun 18, 2013
                        Hi Thomas,

                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                        > > S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition, pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.
                        > >
                        > > The dhammas that are conditioned are the khandhas, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas only.
                        > >
                        > > They are the "all" that exist, apart from the unconditioned nibbana.
                        >
                        > T: According to the teachings of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" or "pa.tccasamuppaada", they (khandhas, or cittas, cetasikas and rupas, or Computer, concepts) are phenomena (dhammaa).
                        ...
                        S: I gave you a quote yesterday from the Mulapariyaya Sutta with commentary notes which make it clear that "computer", "flowers" and "people" are imagined concepts, conventionally used ideas thought about. They are not the realities/phenomena (dhammaa) included in paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.

                        If you wish to give a quote suggesting otherwise, please go ahead and we can discuss it further.
                        ...
                        >
                        > They all are arisen by causal condition. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha (suffering) or of asavana (influxes)
                        >
                        > ------
                        ...
                        S: Each of the khandhas arises by conditions. Nibbana is the unconditioned element.
                        Computers are not elements or khandhas, therefore they are not conditioned. They don't exist in reality.

                        Metta

                        Sarah
                        =====
                      • thomaslaw03
                        Hi Sarah, ... pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa. ... pa.tccasamuppaada , they (khandhas, or cittas, cetasikas and rupas, or Computer, concepts) are phenomena
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jun 18, 2013
                          Hi Sarah,

                          -------
                          > > S: We have a different understanding here. Computer ad concepts are not dhammas (realities or phenomena), arisen by causal condition,
                          pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.
                          > >
                          > > The dhammas that are conditioned are the khandhas, i.e. cittas, cetasikas and rupas only.
                          > >
                          > > They are the "all" that exist, apart from the unconditioned nibbana.
                          > >
                          > >T: According to the teachings of "pa.ticca-samuppannaa dhammaa" or
                          "pa.tccasamuppaada", they (khandhas, or cittas, cetasikas and rupas, or
                          Computer, concepts) are phenomena (dhammaa).

                          -------

                          > S: I gave you a quote yesterday from the Mulapariyaya Sutta with commentary notes which make it clear that "computer", "flowers" and "people" are imagined concepts, conventionally used ideas thought about. They are not the realities/phenomena (dhammaa) included in paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa.

                          T:: According to the teaching of "arising by causal condition" (pa.ticcasamuppaada) and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition" (paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa) (such as in SN 12.20),

                          any imagined concepts, conventionally used ideas are dhammas/phenomena.

                          For example, the terms, mano-vinnanam "mind-consciousness" (in the factor vinnanam), mana-ayatanam "sense sphere of mind" (in salayatanam), and dhamma-tanha "craving for mental objects" (ideas), are the factors in the teaching of "arising by causal condition" and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition".

                          --------

                          > T: They all are arisen by causal condition. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha (suffering) or of asavana (influxes)

                          > S: … Nibbana is the unconditioned element.

                          T: Because Nibbana means the cessation of dukkha in the following principle of "arising and ceasing by causal condition":

                          This existing, that comes to exist (imasmim sati idam hoti); from the arising of this, that arises (imassuppada idam uppajjati); this not existing, that does not come to exist (imasmim asati idam na hoti); from the ceasing of this, that ceases (imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati).

                          Nibbana is included in the teaching of pa.ticcasamuppaada.

                          -------

                          > S: Computers are not elements or khandhas, therefore they are not conditioned. They don't exist in reality.

                          T: Why Computers are not elements or khandhas, and are not conditioned?
                          What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana?

                          --------

                          Thomas
                        • sarah
                          Hi Thomas, ... ... S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada. ... .... S:
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jun 20, 2013
                            Hi Thomas,

                            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                            > T:: According to the teaching of "arising by causal condition" (pa.ticcasamuppaada) and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition" (paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa) (such as in SN 12.20),
                            >
                            > any imagined concepts, conventionally used ideas are dhammas/phenomena.
                            ...
                            S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada.
                            ...
                            >
                            > For example, the terms, mano-vinnanam "mind-consciousness" (in the factor vinnanam), mana-ayatanam "sense sphere of mind" (in salayatanam), and dhamma-tanha "craving for mental objects" (ideas), are the factors in the teaching of "arising by causal condition" and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition".
                            ....
                            S: "Mano-vinnanam" - are you referring to mind-consciousness element, mano-vi~n~nana-dhatu? If so, this refers to 76 kinds of cittas arising in both sense door and mind door processes. Or are you referring to vi~n~nana, the third link in pa.ticcasamuppaada? If so, this refers rebirth consciousness and subsequent vipaka (result) cittas. So we have to be very precise.

                            The same applies to "mana-ayatanam". This refers to all kinds of cittas.

                            So far, no "imagined concepts".

                            "dhamma-tanha" - any kind of tanha is lobha cetasika, a mental factor. Again, no "imagined concepts". It doesn't matter what tanha is attached to, it's always a reality. (If you give the quote where "dhamma-tanha" is referred to, we can discuss the meaning of 'dhamma' in that context, but that's a side-issue.)

                            So, all the examples you give so far are all realities, no computers, no imagined concepts, so far.
                            ...

                            > > S: Computers are not elements or khandhas, therefore they are not conditioned. They don't exist in reality.
                            >
                            > T: Why Computers are not elements or khandhas, and are not conditioned?
                            ...
                            S: Khandhas are rupas, vedana, sanna, the other 50 cetasikas and vinnana (cittas). These are paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) that are conditioned to arise and fall away.

                            Computers are not elements. They cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched. They do not experience anything. They are just ideas thought about.

                            It's important to distinguish between the realities which think and the concepts thought about.

                            The Buddha's Teachings, the development of satipatthana, concerns the direct understanding of dhammas (realities), not concepts.
                            ...
                            > What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana?
                            ...
                            S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana.

                            If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail. I'm a bit short of time right now, otherwise might quote here.

                            Metta

                            Sarah
                            =====
                          • thomaslaw03
                            Hi Sarah, ... I think you need to read the whole collection of Nidana Samyutta, including English translations of the texts and Pali-English Dictionary (PTS)
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jun 20, 2013
                              Hi Sarah,

                              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > ...
                              > > T:: According to the teaching of "arising by causal condition" (pa.ticcasamuppaada) and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition" (paticca-samuppannaa dhammaa) (such as in SN 12.20),
                              > >
                              > > any imagined concepts, conventionally used ideas are dhammas/phenomena.
                              > ...
                              > S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada.
                              > ...
                              > >
                              > > For example, the terms, mano-vinnanam "mind-consciousness" (in the factor vinnanam), mana-ayatanam "sense sphere of mind" (in salayatanam), and dhamma-tanha "craving for mental objects" (ideas), are the factors in the teaching of "arising by causal condition" and "dhammas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition".
                              > ....
                              > S: "Mano-vinnanam" - are you referring to mind-consciousness element, mano-vi~n~nana-dhatu? If so, this refers to 76 kinds of cittas arising in both sense door and mind door processes. Or are you referring to vi~n~nana, the third link in pa.ticcasamuppaada? If so, this refers rebirth consciousness and subsequent vipaka (result) cittas. So we have to be very precise.
                              >
                              > The same applies to "mana-ayatanam". This refers to all kinds of cittas.
                              >
                              > So far, no "imagined concepts".
                              >
                              > "dhamma-tanha" - any kind of tanha is lobha cetasika, a mental factor. Again, no "imagined concepts". It doesn't matter what tanha is attached to, it's always a reality. (If you give the quote where "dhamma-tanha" is referred to, we can discuss the meaning of 'dhamma' in that context, but that's a side-issue.)
                              >
                              > So, all the examples you give so far are all realities, no computers, no imagined concepts, so far.
                              > ...
                              >
                              > > > S: Computers are not elements or khandhas, therefore they are not conditioned. They don't exist in reality.
                              > >
                              > > T: Why Computers are not elements or khandhas, and are not conditioned?
                              > ...
                              > S: Khandhas are rupas, vedana, sanna, the other 50 cetasikas and vinnana (cittas). These are paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities) that are conditioned to arise and fall away.
                              >
                              > Computers are not elements. They cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted or touched. They do not experience anything. They are just ideas thought about.
                              >
                              > It's important to distinguish between the realities which think and the concepts thought about.
                              >
                              > The Buddha's Teachings, the development of satipatthana, concerns the direct understanding of dhammas (realities), not concepts.
                              > ...
                              > > What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana?
                              > ...
                              > S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana.
                              >
                              > If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail. I'm a bit short of time right now, otherwise might quote here.
                              >
                              > Metta
                              >
                              > Sarah
                              > =====
                              >
                              ----------

                              > S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada. ...

                              I think you need to read the whole collection of Nidana Samyutta, including English translations of the texts and Pali-English Dictionary (PTS) for the term dhamma. You will find it easily for the term dhamma used in those suttas.

                              Your explanations on 'realities' for the term 'dhammas' are deficient in clarity to me.

                              Thomas
                            • thomaslaw03
                              Dear Sarah, and All ... ...... Also, About a quotation from the suttas of Nidana Samyutta on the term dhammas meaning phenomena, the following translations of
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jun 22, 2013
                                Dear Sarah, and All

                                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi Sarah,
                                >
                                > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@> wrote:
                                > > ......
                                > > S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada.
                                > > ......

                                ......

                                Also,

                                About a quotation from the suttas of Nidana Samyutta on the term dhammas meaning phenomena, the following translations of one sutta may be useful:

                                SN 12.20:

                                - Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Bhikkhus, I will teach you dependent origination and dependently arisen phenomena. … " (The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 550)

                                - Choong Mun-keat: "I will teach you, bhiksus, arising by causal condition (pa.ticcasamuppaada) and dharmas (phenomena) arisen by causal condition (pa.ticcasamuppanne ca dhamme)" ( The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 150).

                                Both Buddhist scholars translate dhammas as `phenomena' (not realities).

                                Regards,

                                Thomas
                              • thomaslaw03
                                Dear All, ... Furthermore, In SN 12.2 the analysis (vibhaga) on tanha `craving , one of the 12 factors (of Dependent Origination), it lists six classes of
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jun 23, 2013
                                  Dear All,

                                  > > -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@> wrote:
                                  > > ......
                                  > > S: Please give me a quote which leads you to believe these are dhammas in the context under discussion- pa.ticcasamuppaada.
                                  > > ......
                                  >

                                  Furthermore,

                                  In SN 12.2 the analysis (vibhaga) on tanha `craving', one of the 12 factors (of Dependent Origination), it lists six classes of craving (cha tanhakaya):

                                  Bhikkhu Bodhi: "craving for froms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental phenomena." (Nidana Samyutta, The Connected Discourses of The Buddha, p. 535)

                                  Choong Mun-keat: "craving for visible things (rupa-tanha), craving for sounds (sadda-tanha), craving for odours (gandha-tanha), craving for tastes (rasa-tanha), craving for tangible things (photthabba-tanha), craving for mental objects (ideas) (dhamma-tanha)" (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 165).

                                  Thus, both Buddhist scholars (Bhikkhu Bodhi and Choong Mun-keat) in the item dhamma-tanha translate dhamma as "mental phenomena" and "mental objects (ideas)" respectively.

                                  Thomas
                                • sarah
                                  Dear Thomas, ... ... S: As I ve said, it s not so much an issue of translations that is important but of understanding what is meant. So, for example, in this
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
                                    Dear Thomas,

                                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                                    > Furthermore,
                                    >
                                    > In SN 12.2 the analysis (vibhaga) on tanha `craving', one of the 12 factors (of Dependent Origination), it lists six classes of craving (cha tanhakaya):
                                    >
                                    > Bhikkhu Bodhi: "craving for froms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental phenomena." (Nidana Samyutta, The Connected Discourses of The Buddha, p. 535)
                                    >
                                    > Choong Mun-keat: "craving for visible things (rupa-tanha), craving for sounds (sadda-tanha), craving for odours (gandha-tanha), craving for tastes (rasa-tanha), craving for tangible things (photthabba-tanha), craving for mental objects (ideas) (dhamma-tanha)" (The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, p. 165).
                                    >
                                    > Thus, both Buddhist scholars (Bhikkhu Bodhi and Choong Mun-keat) in the item dhamma-tanha translate dhamma as "mental phenomena" and "mental objects (ideas)" respectively.
                                    ...
                                    S: As I've said, it's not so much an issue of translations that is important but of understanding what is meant.

                                    So, for example, in this context above, dhamma-tanha refers to craving for any objects (except lokuttara dhammas) experienced through the mind-door. These are dhamma-arammana and may be concepts or realities.

                                    In other contexts you've given, such as when referring to dependently-arisen dhammas, dhammas only refer to realities. It's essential to understand the difference and the distinction between concepts and realities.

                                    If you'd like me to explain more, I'm happy to do so. As I just mentioned in another post, I think you'd find the first couple of chapters in CMA very helpful in this regard.

                                    Metta

                                    Sarah
                                    =====
                                  • sarah
                                    Dear Thomas, ... ... S: Yes, here dhammas (phenomena) refer to the conditioned realities dependently arisen , not to all objects experienced through the
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
                                      Dear Thomas,

                                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                                      > About a quotation from the suttas of Nidana Samyutta on the term dhammas meaning phenomena, the following translations of one sutta may be useful:
                                      >
                                      > SN 12.20:
                                      >
                                      > - Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Bhikkhus, I will teach you dependent origination and dependently arisen phenomena. " (The Connected Discourses of the Buddha, p. 550)
                                      ...
                                      S: Yes, here dhammas (phenomena) refer to the conditioned realities "dependently arisen", not to all objects experienced through the mind-door which may be clung to (as in the last sutta).

                                      The conditioned realities are avijja (ignorance), sankhara, i.e. cetana cetasika (formations), vinnana, i.e vipaka cittas (consciousness) and so on.

                                      Without some understanding of the Abhidhamma, it's impossible to begin to understand Nidanasamyutta.

                                      So now, what has arisen are dhammas such as seeing consciousness and visible object. What is clung to now may be these same dhammas or may be concepts about them, ideas about computers or waves or roses.

                                      Metta

                                      Sarah
                                      ====
                                    • thomaslaw03
                                      Dear Sarah, ... T: The Pali term for `reality you used here is paramattha, which is translated as `ultimate reality in the book CMA (p. 25). Such a term
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
                                        Dear Sarah,

                                        ...

                                        > T: What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana?
                                        ...
                                        > S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana.

                                        > If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail. I'm a bit short of time right now, otherwise might quote here.

                                        T: The Pali term for `reality' you used here is paramattha, which is translated as `ultimate reality' in the book CMA (p. 25). Such a term (paramattha) and its contents (cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) are in fact not found in Nidana Samyutta (and indeed the whole suttas of Samyutta Nikaya).

                                        As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha.

                                        Regards,

                                        Thomas
                                      • sarah
                                        Dear Thomas, ... ... S: As it says in the Guide to this section: Ultimate realities, in contrast (to conventional realities), are things that exist by reason
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
                                          Dear Thomas,

                                          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                                          > > T: What is "reality" you refer to here? Do you refer to the notion of not-self, Nibbana?
                                          > ...
                                          > > S: By "reality", the Teachings refer to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana.
                                          >
                                          > > If you look at the introduction to CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi's edited copy of the Abhidhamattha Sangaha, you'll see more detail.
                                          ...
                                          > T: The Pali term for `reality' you used here is paramattha, which is translated as `ultimate reality' in the book CMA (p. 25). Such a term (paramattha) and its contents (cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) are in fact not found in Nidana Samyutta (and indeed the whole suttas of Samyutta Nikaya).
                                          ...
                                          S: As it says in the Guide to this section:

                                          "Ultimate realities, in contrast (to conventional realities), are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). These are the dhammas: the final , irreducible components of existence, te ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience."

                                          Whatever terms are used, ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements).
                                          ...
                                          >
                                          > As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha.
                                          ..
                                          S: Yes, but you seemed to have the (erroneous) idea that conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas. In fact they are just the same cittas, cetasikas and rupas referred to above. They are not the same as the dhammarammana (mental objects) referred to in your other post (also translated as 'phenomena') that are thought about, because in this later case, realities or concepts can be the objects of mind door processes.

                                          Metta

                                          Sarah
                                          ====
                                        • thomaslaw03
                                          Dear Sarah, ... T: The term paramattha `ultimate reality is not found in all suttas, including SN, which record the teachings of the Buddha. ... T: According
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jun 25, 2013
                                            Dear Sarah,

                                            -------
                                            > ...
                                            > S: ... ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements).

                                            T: The term paramattha `ultimate reality' is not found in all suttas, including SN, which record the teachings of the Buddha.

                                            --------

                                            > T: As I quoted before from the Nidana suttas, all factors mentioned in the principal teachings of `paticcasamuppada' are phenomena (dhammas), which are arisen and ceased by causal condition. They are not being called as paramattha in those suttas. Nibbana refers to the cessation of dukkha.
                                            >
                                            > S: Yes, but you seemed to have the (erroneous) idea that conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas. In fact they are just the same cittas, cetasikas and rupas referred to above. They are not the same as the dhammarammana (mental objects) referred to in your other post (also translated as 'phenomena') that are thought about, because in this later case, realities or concepts can be the objects of mind door processes.
                                            >

                                            T: According to the Nidana suttas, conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas, cittas and rupas, which are phenomena (dhammas).The term dhammarammana is not found in the Nidana suttas.

                                            Regards,

                                            Thomas
                                          • sarah
                                            Dear Thomas, ... ... S: Is ignorance found in the suttas? Ignorance is a paramattha dhamma. Is attachment discussed? Is seeing discussed? Visible object?
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jun 25, 2013
                                              Dear Thomas,

                                              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "thomaslaw03" <thomaslaw03@...> wrote:

                                              > > S: ... ultimate realities - cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana are all that exist as taught by the Buddha. The suttas, including SN, are about nothing else but such dhammas. These are the "all" as taught in the Sabba Sutta and in every other sutta. The 'all" to be known - the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus (elements).
                                              >
                                              > T: The term paramattha `ultimate reality' is not found in all suttas, including SN, which record the teachings of the Buddha.
                                              ...
                                              S: Is ignorance 'found' in the suttas? Ignorance is a paramattha dhamma. Is attachment discussed? Is seeing discussed? Visible object? Contact? These are the same dhammas, the same paramattha dhammas that we find throughout the Tipitaka, the Teachings of the Buddha.
                                              ...

                                              > T: According to the Nidana suttas, conditioned dhammas include concepts and ideas, cittas and rupas, which are phenomena (dhammas).The term dhammarammana is not found in the Nidana suttas.
                                              ...
                                              S: Please give me an example of a conditioned dhamma that refers to a concept or idea that is mentioned in any sutta and we can discuss it further. So far you have only referred to objects of thinking experienced through the mind door. Such concepts are not said to be conditioned anywhere.

                                              Take the idea of 'computer'.... What is seen now is visible object. Seeing is real, it is conditioned. Visible object is real, it is also conditioned. What is touched now is hardness. The touching is real, the hardness is real, they are also conditioned. However, 'computer' is only thought about. Thinking is real and conditioned, computer is not.

                                              Metta

                                              Sarah
                                              =====
                                            • sprlrt
                                              (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 18m) - 3 - Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that particular doctrine of emptiness and
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jul 1, 2013
                                                (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 18m)

                                                - 3 -

                                                Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality, <...>; this could give a sense of liberation, 'I understand more now'; but I still feel the same, and nothing changes, so there's an expectation of alleviation of suffering, the more one understands reality, and that doesn't happen, for me anyway, <...>

                                                TA: Is understanding you or yours? Actually it's just a moment from hearing, considering, or reading about realities, right now; no matter you read Tibetan Buddhism or anything; if there's no understanding of whatever appears now it's useless: just thinking about that which does not appear, or thinking that one knows a lot about that which does not appear, but what about now?
                                                For example seeing, without the eye-base, that which visible object can contact or impinge on, no way to know that there's visible object at all - without conditions nothing can arise, we come closer to (understand that) what appears now needs conditions for its arising; so no one can do anything at will to have this and that, because now seeing sees, it cannot hear, it cannot think; so the other moment after this is different; that's why life changes from moment to moment, very rapidly, without understanding any of them.
                                                I think that when one learns the teachings about reality it's better to learn just one word at a time in order to really understand the subtlety of it; for example anatta, no self, is it real? because there is always the idea of 'I see', 'I hear', 'I think'; but actually what is seeing? It's not I, it's only a moment which is conditioned by its appropriate conditions; and hearing, just arises and falls away instantly, so no I at all, in a day, in one's life; learning to understand that it's only very temporary, life; and how short or how long one doesn't know at all; but without understanding whatever appears in one's life, one lives with ignorance, from birth to death, and one speaks or talks about that which one doesn't know at all, no matter what word we use, we don't know it; like world, what is the world? we just talk about the world, but in reality, what is it? if nothing arises at all, is there a world? no, impossible; but when a reality arises, just one, like sound, that is the world, because when there are all these realities we take them all for 'world', but actually it's just one reality arising and falling away, all the time.
                                                So one can understand what is meant by what we used to speak or talk about better, like life, or world, or different realities, kusala or akusala - it can be understood, little by little, theoretical knowledge can condition the direct understanding of whatever appears now; otherwise, without the intellectual understanding, how can there be the understanding of what is seen in reality; because people say 'I see a bottle of water' or something like that, but actually that cannot be seen, but that can be the object of thinking, by memory, only that.

                                                T: It just occurred to me that if we can understand the meaning intellectually...

                                                TA: - directly too

                                                T: ... if I had a deep intellectual understanding of anatta, <...>

                                                TA: For example, the word anatta, what is it? is this moment anatta? and what is there in this moment? otherwise we just talk of anatta with the idea that nothing cannot be taken for self or for permanent being and so on, but there must be whatever appears, no matter we call it anatta or not it's there, for example seeing, we don't have to say 'seeing', but it sees, sound, we don't have to call it 'sound' but it's there, it's heard, and it passes away, falls away instantly; from nothing to be something, and then nothing again, all the time.
                                              • Nina van Gorkom
                                                Dear Alberto, ... N: I find this a good reminder that we do not have to call something anatta. We do not have to say seeing ... Especially in Cambodia Acharn
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jul 1, 2013
                                                  Dear Alberto,
                                                  Op 1-jul-2013, om 9:07 heeft sprlrt@... het volgende geschreven:

                                                  > TA: For example, the word anatta, what is it? is this moment
                                                  > anatta? and what is there in this moment? otherwise we just talk of
                                                  > anatta with the idea that nothing cannot be taken for self or for
                                                  > permanent being and so on, but there must be whatever appears, no
                                                  > matter we call it anatta or not it's there, for example seeing, we
                                                  > don't have to say 'seeing', but it sees, sound, we don't have to
                                                  > call it 'sound' but it's there, it's heard, and it passes away,
                                                  > falls away instantly; from nothing to be something, and then
                                                  > nothing again, all the time.
                                                  >
                                                  ------
                                                  N: I find this a good reminder that we do not have to call something
                                                  anatta. We do not have to say "seeing"...
                                                  Especially in Cambodia Acharn explained: from nothing something: a
                                                  reality is not there, but then when there are conditions it arises,
                                                  and then it falls away immediately: nothing. She also explained:
                                                  before we can think of an object it has fallen away already.
                                                  ------
                                                  Nina.



                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • sarah
                                                  Dear Alberto & Tony, An excellent transcription, thanks Alberto #131533 ... ... ... S: Just wondering what you made of the whole passage, Tony? Also, my
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                                                    Dear Alberto & Tony,

                                                    An excellent transcription, thanks Alberto #131533

                                                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sprlrt@... wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 18m)

                                                    > Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality, <...>; this could give a sense of liberation, 'I understand more now'; but I still feel the same, and nothing changes, so there's an expectation of alleviation of suffering, the more one understands reality, and that doesn't happen, for me anyway, <...>
                                                    >
                                                    > TA: Is understanding you or yours?
                                                    <...>
                                                    > TA: For example, the word anatta, what is it? is this moment anatta? and what is there in this moment? otherwise we just talk of anatta with the idea that nothing cannot be taken for self or for permanent being and so on, but there must be whatever appears, no matter we call it anatta or not it's there, for example seeing, we don't have to say 'seeing', but it sees, sound, we don't have to call it 'sound' but it's there, it's heard, and it passes away, falls away instantly; from nothing to be something, and then nothing again, all the time.
                                                    ...

                                                    S: Just wondering what you made of the whole passage, Tony?

                                                    Also, my last comments to you - was there anything further to discuss?

                                                    Metta

                                                    Sarah
                                                    =====
                                                  • Rajendra Jadhao
                                                    I am sorry for being stupid, but what does TA mean? ... From: sarah Sent: 07/07/13 04:01 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: TA intro to
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                                                      I am sorry for being stupid, but what does TA mean?
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: sarah
                                                      Sent: 07/07/13 04:01 PM
                                                      To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                                      Subject: [dsg] Re: TA intro to Dhamma

                                                      Dear Alberto & Tony,

                                                      An excellent transcription, thanks Alberto #131533

                                                      --- In dhammastudygroup%40yahoogroups.com , sprlrt@... wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > (Than Acharn, in Hua Hin, 11th, am-A, 18m)

                                                      > Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality, <...>; this could give a sense of liberation, 'I understand more now'; but I still feel the same, and nothing changes, so there's an expectation of alleviation of suffering, the more one understands reality, and that doesn't happen, for me anyway, <...>
                                                      >
                                                      > TA: Is understanding you or yours?

                                                      <...>
                                                    • Nina van Gorkom
                                                      Dear Rajendra, ... N: It is short for Than Acharn, actually this is Thai. Than denotes respect, and Acharn you know, teacher. Nina. [Non-text portions of this
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                                                        Dear Rajendra,
                                                        Op 7-jul-2013, om 15:03 heeft Rajendra Jadhao het volgende geschreven:

                                                        > I am sorry for being stupid, but what does TA mean?
                                                        -----
                                                        N: It is short for Than Acharn, actually this is Thai. Than denotes
                                                        respect, and Acharn you know, teacher.
                                                        Nina.



                                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                      • sprlrt
                                                        Hi Rajendra, ... TA is the acronym for Than Acharn, also AS (Ajahn Sujin), and KS (Khun Sujin) are used here in DSG (dhamma study group), in the list s home
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                                                          Hi Rajendra,

                                                          > what does TA mean?

                                                          TA is the acronym for Than Acharn, also AS (Ajahn Sujin), and KS (Khun Sujin) are used here in DSG (dhamma study group), in the list's home page you can find notes about her, and more material at http://www.dhammastudygroup.org (pdf books and audio recordings of her Dhamma talks).

                                                          Alberto
                                                        • sprlrt
                                                          Hi Tony (Sarah), ... particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality, Correction, in my transcript I ve misspelled illusory . Anyway I
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Jul 8, 2013
                                                            Hi Tony (Sarah),

                                                            > Tony: Long time ago I came across Tibetan Buddhism and I understood that
                                                            particular doctrine of emptiness and the illusionary nature of reality,


                                                            Correction, in my transcript I've misspelled 'illusory'. Anyway I think that it's a word more fitting to describe concepts than reality. If its nature is illusory how can it be a reality? it can only be a concept, I think.

                                                            Alberto
                                                          • mastram101
                                                            Thank you very much, respected friend Nina. Rajendra Jadhao Sent from my android device. ... From: Nina van Gorkom To:
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Jul 8, 2013
                                                              Thank you very much, respected friend Nina.

                                                              Rajendra Jadhao

                                                              Sent from my android device.

                                                              -----Original Message-----
                                                              From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...>
                                                              To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
                                                              Sent: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:46
                                                              Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TA intro to Dhamma

                                                              Dear Rajendra,
                                                              Op 7-jul-2013, om 15:03 heeft Rajendra Jadhao het volgende geschreven:

                                                              > I am sorry for being stupid, but what does TA mean?
                                                              -----
                                                              N: It is short for Than Acharn, actually this is Thai. Than denotes
                                                              respect, and Acharn you know, teacher.
                                                              Nina.



                                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.