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

Re: TA intro to Dhamma

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 29 , Jun 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 29 , Jun 25, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 29 , Jun 25, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 29 , Jul 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              (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 6 of 29 , Jul 1, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 29 , Jul 7, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 29 , Jul 8, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 29 , Jul 8, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.