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

Re: TA intro to Dhamma

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.