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

Re: [dsg] Re: TA on not understanding

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Dear Phil, ... N: Hard to pinpoint it in this way. T.A. would say: do not name. Nina. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
      Dear Phil,
      Op 21-jun-2013, om 12:09 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:

      > I remember hearing or reading that when we see a tree or rock or
      > whatever mundane object we *like* to recognize it as a tree etc
      > without particularly liking it in some special way. Is that kind of
      > liking an example of asava?
      ------
      N: Hard to pinpoint it in this way. T.A. would say: do not name.
      Nina.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • sprlrt
      Hi Phil (Nina), ... that there can be clinging during a Dhamma discussion too, wanting to understand. And there seemed to be talk of two kinds of clinging, a
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
        Hi Phil (Nina),

        > > Ph: Another question. When they were talking about clinging Sarah pointed out
        that there can be clinging during a Dhamma discussion too, wanting to
        understand. And there seemed to be talk of two kinds of clinging, a gross
        degree but before that something subtle that I think Ajahn called "asavas." I
        have heard about them before but could you or someone explain again? Thanks.

        > -----
        > N: Asavas or intoxicants are more subtle than, for example, the
        > hindrances. Asavas keep on leaking all day, time and again. Kaama,
        > clinging to sense objects, clinging to wrong view, to existence
        > (bhaava) and ignorance.



        ************************************

        (Than Acharn, on the different objects of lobha, in Hua Hin, 7th, at b/f, 18m)

        TA: So we don't try to make something different, it's natural, it arises as sudden as seeing and hearing, so awareness and understanding can arise anytime, anywhere, and that's the right way, or the right path; if there is the intention of trying to be calm or 'I would like to be aware', it's not the understanding, that's why is so very difficult, because it's natural, and only by conditions there can be the object of understanding as anatta.
        Lobha changes its object, from pleasant object or sensuous object, to wanting to gain or to get understanding, and trying so hard, maybe the whole life, or half a day; and then the result is nothing, where is the lobha, where is the time? but there can be the understanding of lobha at the end, just very little, and at the end it's the best thing, to know that they're all lobha.

        L: ... it is hard to differentiate what is reality and what is concept.

        TA: But it's not understanding: you're *trying*, not understanding; we just talk, and you don't expect results, we just see whether that it's true or not, what we're talking about, like hardness, at that moment there is no seeing; to begin to see just one reality at a time, not as 'I would like to try to know it, or to experience just one object at a time', because it's in one moment of experiencing.
        Its great task is to eliminate avijja, ignorance, that's all.
      • philip
        Dear Nina ... This is a familiar question but, if we say do not name about the reality that is arising, why did the Buddha teach about realities with so many
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
          Dear Nina
          >
          > > I remember hearing or reading that when we see a tree or rock or
          > > whatever mundane object we *like* to recognize it as a tree etc
          > > without particularly liking it in some special way. Is that kind of
          > > liking an example of asava?
          > ------
          > N: Hard to pinpoint it in this way. T.A. would say: do not name.


          This is a familiar question but, if we say "do not name" about the reality that is arising, why did the Buddha teach about realities with so many names? Is "do not name" a reflection of accepting that our understanding is very weak compared to the understanding that elucidated realities in so much specific detail?

          Didn't degrees of panna arising at different moments are "ready" to understand to different degrees of detail?

          Phil
        • philip
          Dear Group Thank you for the transcription, Alberto. . ... Ph: this has to be repeated again and again. If there is trying to understand an arisen Dhamma it
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
            Dear Group

            Thank you for the transcription, Alberto. .

            >
            > > > Ph: Another question. When they were talking about clinging Sarah pointed out
            > that there can be clinging during a Dhamma discussion too, wanting to
            > understand. And there seemed to be talk of two kinds of clinging, a gross
            > degree but before that something subtle that I think Ajahn called "asavas." I
            > have heard about them ..
            >
            > TA: So we don't try to make something different, it's natural, it arises as sudden as seeing and hearing, so awareness and understanding can arise anytime, anywhere, and that's the right way, or the right path; if there is the intention of trying to be calm or 'I would like to be aware', it's not the understanding, that's why is so very difficult, because it's natural, and only by conditions there can be the object of understanding as anatta.

            Ph: this has to be repeated again and again. If there is trying to understand an arisen Dhamma it cannot be understanding. But surely there can be trying to understand a knotty point of theory, for examples the 17 moments of namas and the order in which they arise with one rupa. (Something like that.) so there can be trying to understand in the book but not outside the book?

            Phil


            >
          • philip
            Hi again ... Should be Different degrees of panna... Phil
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
              Hi again

              Correction:

              > Didn't degrees of panna arising at different moments are "ready" to understand to different degrees of detail?
              >
              Should be "Different degrees of panna..."

              Phil
            • Nina van Gorkom
              Dear Phil, ... N: What types of citta are naming realities naama and ruupa? This reminds me of the amazing conversation I had with Ann while I was in the
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
                Dear Phil,
                Op 22-jun-2013, om 0:43 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:

                > This is a familiar question but, if we say "do not name" about the
                > reality that is arising, why did the Buddha teach about realities
                > with so many names? Is "do not name" a reflection of accepting that
                > our understanding is very weak compared to the understanding that
                > elucidated realities in so much specific detail?
                ------
                N: What types of citta are naming realities naama and ruupa? This
                reminds me of the amazing conversation I had with Ann while I was in
                the revalidation center. Always the self comes in that wants to name,
                to pinpoint realities. Lost, lost again.
                Nina.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Nina van Gorkom
                Dear Alberto, It is so useful what you are doing. We listen and then reading the text again really helps. So slow to sink in! Lobha, lobha, the whole day.
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 21, 2013
                  Dear Alberto,
                  It is so useful what you are doing. We listen and then reading the
                  text again really helps. So slow to sink in! Lobha, lobha, the whole
                  day. <Only by conditions there can be the object of understanding as
                  anatta>. When can we accept this? Always wanting to name realities.
                  Trying to interfere with conditions.
                  Nina.
                  Op 21-jun-2013, om 13:17 heeft sprlrt@... het volgende geschreven:

                  > if there is the intention of trying to be calm or 'I would like to
                  > be aware', it's not the understanding, that's why is so very
                  > difficult, because it's natural, and only by conditions there can
                  > be the object of understanding as anatta.
                  > Lobha changes its object, from pleasant object or sensuous object,
                  > to wanting to gain or to get understanding, and trying so hard,
                  > maybe the whole life, or half a day; and then the result is
                  > nothing, where is the lobha, where is the time? but there can be
                  > the understanding of lobha at the end, just very little, and at the
                  > end it's the best thing, to know that they're all lobha.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • sprlrt
                  Hi Phil, ... I think that on this Ajahn says that all the extra details about nama and rupa (like their different duration) given in the Abhidhamma are meant
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 22, 2013
                    Hi Phil,

                    > Ph: If there is trying to understand an arisen Dhamma it cannot be understanding. But surely there can be trying to understand a knotty point of theory, for examples the 17 moments of namas and the order in which they arise with one rupa. (Something like that.)

                    I think that on this Ajahn says that all the extra details about nama and rupa (like their different duration) given in the Abhidhamma are meant just as an extra condition for a little bit more detachment from taking realities for self (i.e. the Dhamma is not a conventional subject of study, and understanding dhammas is not like conventional understanding, even at pariyatti level).

                    Alberto
                  • philip
                    Dear Nina (Alberto) ... Well, what kind of cittas wrote Abhidhamma in Daily Life? It is full of details. And you often say Abhidhamma is not in the book.
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 22, 2013
                      Dear Nina (Alberto)

                      > N: What types of citta are naming realities naama and ruupa? This
                      > reminds me of the amazing conversation I had with Ann while I was in
                      > the revalidation center. Always the self comes in that wants to name,
                      > to pinpoint realities. Lost, lost again.

                      Well, what kind of cittas wrote Abhidhamma in Daily Life? It is full of details. And you often say "Abhidhamma is not in the book." Should we instead say "self trying to pinpoint dhammas is not in the book?"

                      Thank, Alberto. You said that all the details help to condition a little detachment. I think that is possible. I don't think reflecting on Abhidhamma details needs to be done by self. I think it is important to keep the details *in* the book to avoid overreaching with lobha ditthi that wants to make panna with realities as object arise. Of course there must be a weak degree of panna involved in studying Abhidhamma in the book as well,

                      Phil
                    • Nina van Gorkom
                      Dear Phil, ... N: As Acharn says, Abh deals with reality now. When becoming involved in study one may forget this. ... Nina. [Non-text portions of this message
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 22, 2013
                        Dear Phil,
                        Op 22-jun-2013, om 12:09 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:

                        > Well, what kind of cittas wrote Abhidhamma in Daily Life? It is
                        > full of details. And you often say "Abhidhamma is not in the book."
                        > Should we instead say "self trying to pinpoint dhammas is not in
                        > the book?"
                        -----
                        N: As Acharn says, Abh deals with reality now. When becoming involved
                        in study one may forget this.
                        ------
                        Nina.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Nina van Gorkom
                        Dear Alberto and Phil, ... N: Very good, to understand more that naama and ruupa arise because of conditions, no self involved. Even at pariyatti level,
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 22, 2013
                          Dear Alberto and Phil,
                          Op 22-jun-2013, om 9:41 heeft sprlrt@... het volgende geschreven:

                          > I think that on this Ajahn says that all the extra details about
                          > nama and rupa (like their different duration) given in the
                          > Abhidhamma are meant just as an extra condition for a little bit
                          > more detachment from taking realities for self (i.e. the Dhamma is
                          > not a conventional subject of study, and understanding dhammas is
                          > not like conventional understanding, even at pariyatti level).
                          -----
                          N: Very good, to understand more that naama and ruupa arise because
                          of conditions, no self involved. Even at pariyatti level,
                          understanding dhammas is not like conventional understanding, good to
                          keep this im mind. Let us forget about conventional understanding!

                          Nina.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • philip
                          Dear Nina (and Rob E) ... Let us appreciate when there are moments in which understanding of realities supercedes thinking about the conventional
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 22, 2013
                            Dear Nina (and Rob E)



                            > Let us forget about conventional understanding!
                            >

                            Let us appreciate when there are moments in which understanding of realities supercedes thinking about the conventional understanding. And let us remember that those moments are rare and very valuable openings in the done of lobha, rare and valuable chick-beak-eggshell piercing moments. They come, by conditions. But if we count on them or try to make a practice out of them by wanting them we will be going as subtly wrong as the "vipasanna" meditators. If we are in a hard situation, like you with your foul-mouthed roommates at the rehabilation center, sure, good to remember just dhammas at work. Or me with my bad behaviour here. Just dhammas at work. We don't get wrapped up in painful stories that don't get us anywhere. Only moments if understanding realities get us closer to liberation.

                            Thanks for your comments in the other post Rob E. There are not conditions for me to read long posts. But I could see from the beginning that you were talking about the need to consider multiple moments to understand tendencies. I think you're right. I have disagreed, for example, when students of Ajahn Sujin have said "every word in the tipitika is about satipatthana (i.e the presently arisen reality.) There are so many suttas that are clearly not. ( I personally think of the obese king and his bucket of grub.) But I think that it is far more valuable to student intellectually and consider (when there are conditions for it) and develop awareness of the presently arisen dhamma. You will say that by considering tendencies (conventional stories about behaviour) that conditions are created for satipatthana. I understood where you are coming from cuz I came from there before. But now I feel we can get straight to studying, considering and becoming familiar with the characteristics of present realities. We'll see if that changes. Who knows, maybe in a few years I'll be railing against "Sujinism" again.

                            Phil

                            P.s tapped out on iPhone sorry for any confusing typos.
                          • sprlrt
                            Dear Nina, ... anatta . When can we accept this? Always wanting to name realities. Trying to interfere with conditions. Yes, I know that too, always making
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 23, 2013
                              Dear Nina,

                              > N: <Only by conditions there can be the object of understanding as
                              anatta>. When can we accept this? Always wanting to name realities.
                              Trying to interfere with conditions.

                              Yes, I know that too, always making very long stories out of very short moments, but even that is by conditions, like vitakka, always running away from the present moment to touch new objects, even if they aren't actually there, like names/concepts.

                              Alberto
                            • philip
                              Dear group I add these words from T.A to this great thread. what is the difference between understanding of a dhamma for one who has heard the Dhamma and one
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 23, 2013
                                Dear group

                                I add these words from T.A to this great thread. what is the difference between understanding of a dhamma for one who has heard the Dhamma and one who hasn't?

                                Acharn: For someone who has not listened to the teachings there is
                                dhamma, reality, but he does not know that it is dhamma. He clings to
                                it as self and does not know the truth. When one has listened to the
                                teachings one can understand that it is a reality that appears, no
                                self. Each word he hears he should carefully consider, he does not
                                have to believe blindly what he hears.
                                What appears now is dhamma, we cannot choose what appears. Who could
                                select the appearance of seeing or hearing? Dhamma does not stay, it
                                falls away very rapidly. It disappears and does not return.



                                Phil


                                ---
                              • sarah
                                Hi Phil, ... ... S: Clinging can cling to anything except the lokuttara dhammas. Metta Sarah ====
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 25, 2013
                                  Hi Phil,

                                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:

                                  > Why do I feel happy to read how weak panna is? I guess there is clinging to thinking about a story about panna developing very gradually. (Can there be clinging to a story or only to dhammas?)
                                  ...
                                  S: Clinging can cling to anything except the lokuttara dhammas.

                                  Metta

                                  Sarah
                                  ====
                                • sarah
                                  Dear Phil, ... .... S: I think your quote from A.Sujin may help make the meaning clearer: Acharn: For someone who has not listened to the teachings there is
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 27, 2013
                                    Dear Phil,

                                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >...when students of Ajahn Sujin have said "every word in the tipitika is about satipatthana (i.e the presently arisen reality.) There are so many suttas that are clearly not. ( I personally think of the obese king and his bucket of grub.)...
                                    ....
                                    S: I think your quote from A.Sujin may help make the meaning clearer:

                                    "Acharn: For someone who has not listened to the teachings there is
                                    dhamma, reality, but he does not know that it is dhamma. He clings to
                                    it as self and does not know the truth. When one has listened to the
                                    teachings one can understand that it is a reality that appears, no
                                    self. "

                                    S: In other words, whatever the Buddha spoke about, it is about realities, no matter the language or topic, because the Truths were thoroughly penetrated.

                                    For the listener, it depends on the understanding as to whether there is any understanding of realities or just the reading of a conventional story. The same applies when reading the newspaper or anything else.

                                    Metta

                                    Sarah
                                    ====
                                  • philip
                                    Hi Sarah ... Ph: I see what you mean. I will refer to that every word in the tipitika is about realities with better understanding, conditions permitting.
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 28, 2013
                                      Hi Sarah
                                      >
                                      > S: In other words, whatever the Buddha spoke about, it is about realities, no matter the language or topic, because the Truths were thoroughly penetrated.
                                      >
                                      > For the listener, it depends on the understanding as to whether there is any understanding of realities or just the reading of a conventional story. The same applies when reading the newspaper or anything else.
                                      >
                                      Ph: I see what you mean. I will refer to that "every word in the tipitika is about realities" with better understanding, conditions permitting.

                                      Phil
                                    • Robert E
                                      Hi Phil. ... I appreciate your thoughts, and I don t think the two are necessarily contradictory, just a matter of emphasis. Understanding in the present
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jun 30, 2013
                                        Hi Phil.

                                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:

                                        > Dear Nina (and Rob E)

                                        > ...I have disagreed, for example, when students of Ajahn Sujin have said "every word in the tipitika is about satipatthana (i.e the presently arisen reality.) There are so many suttas that are clearly not. ( I personally think of the obese king and his bucket of grub.) But I think that it is far more valuable to student intellectually and consider (when there are conditions for it) and develop awareness of the presently arisen dhamma. You will say that by considering tendencies (conventional stories about behaviour) that conditions are created for satipatthana. I understood where you are coming from cuz I came from there before. But now I feel we can get straight to studying, considering and becoming familiar with the characteristics of present realities.

                                        I appreciate your thoughts, and I don't think the two are necessarily contradictory, just a matter of emphasis. Understanding in the present moment is primary. Understanding of multiple-moment phenomena and the nature of conditions and tendencies is secondary, but sheds light on the predisposition of the moment that may be found in direct understanding. But it's good to be aware that this present moment is where the action is.

                                        Best,
                                        Rob E.

                                        - - - - - - - - - - -
                                      • philip
                                        Hi Rob E . ... As usual what you say sounds pretty good to me. I would say so that that because we are so deeply conditioned to think in terms of people and
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jun 30, 2013
                                          Hi Rob E .
                                          >
                                          > I appreciate your thoughts, and I don't think the two are necessarily contradictory, just a matter of emphasis. Understanding in the present moment is primary. Understanding of multiple-moment phenomena and the nature of conditions and tendencies is secondary, but sheds light on the predisposition of the moment that may be found in direct understanding. But it's good to be aware that this present moment is where the action is.
                                          >

                                          As usual what you say sounds pretty good to me. I would say so that that because we are so deeply conditioned to think in terms of people and situations ("multi moment phenomena? concepts? Stories?) that we will get caught up in them too quickly and give too much weight to them. Did you see Sarah's response to my "every word in the tipitika is not about satipatthana comment? Just as when we read a newspaper, it will depend on conditions whether there is consideration of realities (p.dhammas) when we read a sutta with a conventional story. So I think that being reminded again and again and again to consider the realities of the moment rather than the conventionally expressed behaviour is best, reminded again and again, it becomes our habit to reflect in those terms. There could be ditthi sneaking in there (or standing up and shouting @ditthi!" there cuz it suggests a belief that listening to the wise friends leads directly to satipatthana, belief in a method, or a rule.

                                          Anyways, I gotta go to work.

                                          Phil
                                        • sprlrt
                                          (Than Acharn, in Poland, 12th, pm-A, 14m30) - 2 - Ann: She asks: , how to cling less not to give in to the
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Jul 4, 2013
                                            (Than Acharn, in Poland, 12th, pm-A, 14m30)

                                            - 2 -

                                            Ann: She asks: <In one discourse Ajahn Sujin said, <...>, how to cling less <...> not to give in to the attachment, I don't understand.>

                                            TA: Usually people don't want to understand at all, just want to (know) how, are they Buddhist? because they don't want to understand.
                                            Jon: Sometimes they want to understand, but they see understanding as a way of reaching a certain... 'fringe benefit'.

                                            TA: but how?

                                            Jon: by self

                                            TA: (does) the word 'how' indicate understanding, or theory, or what? just wanting to get, that's all;

                                            J: wanting to know a method;

                                            TA: would you like to understand or to know how?

                                            J: understanding's better.;

                                            TA: otherwise we might not be able to answer the question she's just (asked), that way - just to show how.

                                            A: <How to study (Dhamma) in a moment of attachment? to food for example. And you explained again that the answer is 'understanding',<...>, and some of the conditions for understanding are hearing the true Dhamma and considering it, discussing it >

                                            TA: - until it's her own understanding

                                            J: There isn't an answer, to the question 'How can I develop understanding when there is craving for food?'

                                            TA: Who can tell her how? That's why we talk about arammana (object) - food is arammana, at moment of seeing it - craving for food, food is the arammana; not understanding what arammana is, so how can there be no craving when there's no understanding.

                                            A: There can't, but I guess ... when there is no understanding the next logical question ...

                                            TA: Don't you want to know what craving is? and no one can stop its arising; just the self trying not to have it.

                                            A: When people who are just beginning to study the Dhamma, to listen...

                                            TA: That person should understand what Dhamma is; understanding one word at a time is the best thing.

                                            A: I'm thinking about this in the context of people who ask, <...>, when someone asks and shows an interest in the Dhamma.

                                            TA: But there are many people who show interest in Dhamma, like wanting to know or to understand; wanting to know what Dhamma is or don't want to know what Dhamma is, just want to know, whatever they like to know, like craving for food.

                                            A: I don't think they know.

                                            TA: Tell me how to be happy, see, who can tell? tell me that you don't have attachment, who can do?

                                            A: I think she would like to know how to develop understanding.

                                            TA: Of now, or what? not of seeing; whatever appears, does she want to understand (that)? Maybe she'd say "no, I want to understand how to be happy".

                                            A: <... This is quite new to me, to develop understanding by intellectual understanding, since Goenka always told me to do the contrary.>

                                            TA: Not Buddha.

                                            Lukas: <...> you always talk about the Dhamma, the Dhamma, but this is not yet understood at all, and my point is that even if there is thinking like this, in my case like even if it's not dhamma but just a story that thinks of 'this is anatta, dukkha, anicca', and isn't it the way to develop more understanding?

                                            TA: What thinks?

                                            L: Vitakka.

                                            TA: Or, dhamma; no one thinks, anytime that thinking arises there can be the understanding of that moment which thinks, that is not that which sees - all comes to anattaness, realities; because sometimes one thinks "ok, seeing is no me, but thinking is me, I (think)".

                                            L: But it's a long way; it's like one moment of understanding and then many moments of ignorance <...>

                                            TA: Yes, so you understand what is meant by khanti (patience), viriya (effort), sacca (truth), adhitthana (resolution, four of the ten perfections)...

                                            L: Yes, little by little, by I'd like to understand more than khanti.

                                            TA: 'I'? :-); can you understand everything, in a day, or two days, or two years, or twenty years?
                                            It seems like that's not so difficult to understand, but actually the more you know the more you can see the subtlety of reality - it's beyond expectation, nobody can think about the moment when it arises and falls away, just know that whatever appears now arises and falls away, that's all and that's not enough, because it's only thinking about that but not the direct experience of it; when one knows that it is true, shouldn't one follows it until it can be moment of penetration, penetrating the truth, with understanding

                                            L: <...> I appreciate your teaching so much because it's so natural, <...>, just read and listen and the mind finds its own way by different moments, even if it's very slow; but some people have their particular way of developing, <...> and observe what happens in daily life, what do you think about this?

                                            TA: Who is doing this?

                                            L: A self.

                                            TA: Ok, so that is not the way to eradicate the idea of self.

                                            L: But maybe by way of self ...

                                            TA: No, never, the way of self is avijja, not understanding, ignorance; otherwise there is no self, if there is no ignorance.
                                            Where is ignorance now? Whenever there is no right understanding, whenever akusala citta arises, there is a clinging to the idea of I or self, and vijja is the opposite of ignorance.
                                            Can anyone show a way to get rid of ignorance, a shortcut, a method? when it's method it's ignorance.

                                            J: If we choose...

                                            TA: Actually, lobha chooses.

                                            J: But if we choose, for example, visible object, is it in fact visible object? or is it just an idea...

                                            TA: And how can you understand visible object as not self? - uncontrollable, how come to appear to this moment.

                                            J: I suppose the idea is that by choosing to observe visible object, you see that ...

                                            TA: Ok, observe - in what way, to understand it? it's like this, just like this; and what's the way to observe? open you eyes, or what?:-)

                                            L: It's like trying so much.

                                            TA: Is cetana (intention) one of the eightfold (factors of the) path?

                                            L: No. But Ajahn, people usually want some particular way...

                                            TA: People, not me; I can't do anything for those people at all - arammanupanissaya paccaya, pakatupanissaya paccaya, why do we read about all these (conditions) - just to forget about it, and have the idea of choosing; it doesn't help at all if one reads and there is the idea of selecting, choosing: to understand this, not that.
                                            Sotapanna eradicates wrong view completely, from everything: thinking, liking, attachment, aversion - whatever it is it's conditioned.
                                          • sarah
                                            Dear Phil, - ... .... S: I was just listening to A.Sujin talking about asavas and how it s when the akusala is very quick and slight, so much so it s not
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Jul 7, 2013
                                              Dear Phil,

                                              -
                                              > > N: Asavas or intoxicants are more subtle than, for example, the
                                              > > hindrances. Asavas keep on leaking all day, time and again. Kaama,
                                              > > clinging to sense objects, clinging to wrong view, to existence
                                              > > (bhaava) and ignorance.
                                              >
                                              >P: I remember hearing or reading that when we see a tree or rock or whatever mundane object we *like* to recognize it as a tree etc without particularly liking it in some special way. Is that kind of liking an example of asava?
                                              ....
                                              S: I was just listening to A.Sujin talking about asavas and how it's when the akusala is very quick and slight, so much so it's not apparent at all.

                                              For example, in the case of the first asava, kaamasava (clinging to sense objects), it's just the very slight attachment to what's seen or heard now before there's any idea of 'tree' or 'rock'.

                                              I think you asked about bhaavasava (clinging to being/existence). Again it's the very slight attachment to being, to existing to experiencing now. Even the anagami who has no more kaamasava, still has the very slight clinging to being, to experience.

                                              Metta

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