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

[dsg] Re: present moment and multi moments.

Expand Messages
  • philip
    Hi Alberto, Rob E, Nina ... Ph: I wonder if we can appreciate that the purpose the Buddha explained about realities is for the liberation of the listener, not
    Message 1 of 199 , Jun 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Alberto, Rob E, Nina
      >
      > > > I think that if you say that only the single dhamma has any
      > > importance that is really wrong. I don't think the path makes any
      > > sense, logically or otherwise, so that we can understand what the
      > > heck is going on, if we don't get some understanding of those multi-
      > > moment operations. Maybe that is intellectual, but can we have
      > > pariyatti ever if we don't know what's happening?
      > ------
      > > N: I know what you mean. When I said: let us forget about
      > conventional understanding, it may be misunderstood. I meant it as a
      > reminder to pay attention to what is really there.
      > ...
      > > N: Names and concepts are not really there. Do we want to understand
      > what is not really there?
      > ...
      >
      > I think that conventional understanding is usually associated with avijja, ignorance (a linguistic paradox/ambiguity); ignorance can know and understand anything but realities, which, by definition, don't make sense to avijja, only pa~n~na can understand conditioned realities, little by little, step by step, as their individual characteristics appears to pa~n~na, one at a time, by conditions only, by hearing or reading the truth explained by words, the means/object condition for more understanding of realities as conditioned to arise and considering (conceptually but not conventionally) them accordingly, again and again, understanding what is real in the absolute sense just a little bit better than last week, ...,


      Ph: I wonder if we can appreciate that the purpose the Buddha explained about realities is for the liberation of the listener, not to explain the way things work like a scientist does? The context is always about anatta and developing detachment not just for the sake of understanding how things work, so to speak. So seeming contradiction between a scientific explanation and the Dhamma don't concern me. Although understanding science should also help to develop detachment. So Ibthinkbsometimes people get caught up, for example, in scientific explanations if perception or cognition that can be thought about logically based on what we have learned about them in school or elsewhere and it can muddle our understanding of Dhamma and dhammas. Maybe it is wrong if me to say that, just proposing it. I think Robert K has sritten that there is difference in the ways science and Dhamma explain things but what I've written above is my gut feeling that I have trouble explaining. I think there is a world soteriological that means pertaining to liberation/salvation, so Dhamma is soteriological and scientific explanations and reasoning are not, something like that...

      Phil






      last aeon, what can only appear now just for an instant before disappearing for good, understanding which can only develop naturally, only by conditions rather than by a conventional self *trying* to understand, by ignorance (itself a condition as hetu and other paccayas, the first link of paticca-samuppada/samsara/1st and 2nd NT); and I think that as consequence of any level of understanding realities for what they are by conditions, there is also more understanding of concepts like the self as well, for what they are(n't).
      > Like now there is seeing/cakkhu-vinnana, it arises by conditions like the eye base (vatthu), like visible object/form (rupa-arammana) and by other conditions as well (kamma is another).
      > Is a self required for seeing to see visible object? or conditions are enough, all that is
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Thomas, ... N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words.
      Message 199 of 199 , Aug 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Thomas,
        Op 3 aug 2013, om 03:49 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:

        > Th: Thanks for your reply. It brought my attention to it. Yes, according to the SN suttas, one should first fully know the phenomena of the five aggregates (nama-rupa) themselves, and then fully see them as anicca, dukkha, or anatta.
        ------
        N: That is right. Sati and pa~n~naa have to attend to their characteristics when they appear and this is, as Acharn Sujin says, beyond words. It is not thinking about them. But for all of us it takes quite some time before we really understand this. We are bound to take thinking for awareness. Above all, there is no person who is trying to know, sati and pa~n~naa perform their functions. They arise because of conditions and these are listening to the Dhamma and considering it.

        -----
        Nina.



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