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

Re: Javanas after seeing? Dunno. Assume akusala.

Expand Messages
  • philip
    Correction: A bit dangerous to suggest that we can know whether kusala or akusala javanas arise after seeing. Of course it is possible, but we have to be
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 3, 2013
      Correction:

      " A bit dangerous to suggest that we can know whether kusala or akusala javanas arise after seeing. "

      Of course it is possible, but we have to be wary of suggestions that even hint at making a practice if trying to sort out kusala and kusala javanas. That is way beyond our level if understanding. Of course we can sort out kusala and akusala stories about conventional behaviour, include momentary thoughts, flashes of emotion that are quickly recalled and speculated on and which might make one believe it is satipatthana.

      Phil
    • philip
      Dear group Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna cariya. If I
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 3, 2013
        Dear group

        Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna cariya. If I understood correctly, the second refers to akusala that arises after seeing etc and the latter refers to kusala. "Cariya" refers to behaviour of the citta, is that what she said? Why would this be worth knowing about? To better appreciate the anattaness of cittas performing functions? Maybe not. Just knowing about cittas performing functions is enough. Maybe no point about knowing what "cariyas" are...but too late, gotta gotta know!

        Phil
      • philip
        Dear group Also related to this after seeing, always thinking. I should know this, but what makes thinking kusala or akusala? The subject of the thinking?
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 4, 2013
          Dear group

          Also related to this after seeing, always thinking. I should know this, but what makes thinking kusala or akusala? The subject of the thinking? Thoughts of ill will, thoughts of harming, thoughts of coveting...is that it, feels familiar from my sutta reading days. (Would like to get back to the suttanta, I've turned off it because of how sutta clips are used here to score points in debate. Yes, an impulse arises to re-read SN 35 tonight..

          Phil
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Phil, ... N: This is a passage in the Patisambhida magga, and it points to processes of cittas. If people think that this is only a subject of
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 4, 2013
            Dear Phil,
            Op 4-jul-2013, om 7:23 heeft philip het volgende geschreven:

            > Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I
            > heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna
            > cariya. If I understood correctly, the second refers to akusala
            > that arises after seeing etc and the latter refers to kusala.
            > "Cariya" refers to behaviour of the citta, is that what she said?
            > Why would this be worth knowing about? To better appreciate the
            > anattaness of cittas performing functions? Maybe not. Just knowing
            > about cittas performing functions is enough.
            ------
            N: This is a passage in the Patisambhida magga, and it points to
            processes of cittas. If people think that this is only a subject of
            commentaries, they can read this passage.
            You are right that javana cittas have to be known as just naama
            before they can be known as kusala or akusala. When we think of
            kusala or akusala it is just naming, or we take it for my kusala or
            akusala.
            -----
            Nina.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • sarah
            Dear Phil & all, ... ... S: Yes, cariya is behaviour, here the behaviour of cittas, whereby vinnana cariya refers to rootless cittas, such as seeing or
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 9, 2013
              Dear Phil & all,

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

              > Related to the topic of what arises after seeing etc., today I heard Lukas ask Ajahn about vinnana cariya, annana cariya and nanna cariya. If I understood correctly, the second refers to akusala that arises after seeing etc and the latter refers to kusala. "Cariya" refers to behaviour of the citta, is that what she said?
              ...
              S: Yes, cariya is behaviour, here the behaviour of cittas, whereby vinnana cariya refers to rootless cittas, such as seeing or hearing, annana cariya to akusala cittas and nana cariya to insight only, not other kinds of kusala.

              So all day, unless there is the development of right understanding, there are just ahetuka (rootless) vipaka cittas, followed by akusala, most of the time - on and on and on.
              ...

              >Why would this be worth knowing about? To better appreciate the anattaness of cittas performing functions? Maybe not. Just knowing about cittas performing functions is enough. Maybe no point about knowing what "cariyas" are...but too late, gotta gotta know!
              ...

              S: Yes, just to understand that this is how cittas arise, perform their functions on and on. Usually, vipaka and other ahetuka cittas followed by lobha, dosa and moha all day long, unless there is the development of right understanding of dhammas.

              Thanks for the reminder.

              Metta

              Sarah
              =====
            • sarah
              Dear Phil, ... ... S: Accumulated tendencies. Remember natural decisive support condition (pakatupanissaya paccaya)? This is the condition by which attachment
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 9, 2013
                Dear Phil,

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

                > Also related to this after seeing, always thinking. I should know this, but what makes thinking kusala or akusala?
                ...
                S: Accumulated tendencies. Remember natural decisive support condition (pakatupanissaya paccaya)? This is the condition by which attachment arising now accumulates and conditions more attachment in future.

                So it depends on past accumulations (and other conditions) as to whether kusala or akusala arises now.
                ...

                >The subject of the thinking?
                ...
                S: No, it's not the object, but the way of thinking. When we think of a person, it's usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance, but for an arahat, no such attachment.

                Metta

                Sarah
                =====
              • philip
                Dear Sarah ... Thank you for this and the other posts. I am fortunate to have a friend like you whose answers I can accept as correct without a second thought.
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
                  Dear Sarah
                  > ...
                  >
                  > >The subject of the thinking?
                  > ...
                  > S: No, it's not the object, but the way of thinking. When we think of a person, it's usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance, but for an arahat, no such attachment.
                  >
                  Thank you for this and the other posts. I am fortunate to have a friend like you whose answers I can accept as correct without a second thought.


                  Phil
                • philip
                  Hi Sarah (or any student of Abhidhamma) ... Is the object of thinking always a concept? Can the object of thinking be a reality? The kind of concept that
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
                    Hi Sarah (or any student of Abhidhamma)


                    > >
                    > > >The subject of the thinking?
                    > > ...
                    > > S: No, it's not the object, but the way of thinking. When we think of a person, it's usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance, but for an arahat, no such attachment.

                    Is the object of thinking always a concept? Can the object of thinking be a reality?
                    The kind of concept that refers to a reality, I guess.


                    Phil
                  • htoonaing@ymail.com
                    ... Is the object of thinking always a concept? Can the object of thinking be a reality? The kind of concept that refers to a reality, I guess. Phil ... Htoo:
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 11, 2013
                      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
                      > Hi Sarah (or any student of Abhidhamma)

                      > > The subject of the thinking?
                      > ...
                      > S: No, it's not the object, but the way of thinking. When we think of a person, it's usually with attachment, aversion or ignorance, but for an arahat, no such attachment.

                      Is the object of thinking always a concept? Can the object of thinking be a reality? The kind of concept that refers to a reality, I guess.

                      Phil
                      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Htoo:

                      The objects of thinking( aaramma.na of manovi~n~naa.na cittas )

                      1. 12 o.laarika ruupas
                      2. 16 sukhuma ruupas
                      3. 89 cittas
                      4. 52 cetasikas
                      5. nibbaana
                      6. pa~n~natti

                      One to five and their contents are concepts for realities.
                    • sarah
                      Dear Phil, (& Htoo) ... .. S: Htoo gives a helpful answer below. Here he is referring to thinking as manovinnana cittas - those cittas whih can experience
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 17, 2013
                        Dear Phil, (& Htoo)


                        >P: Is the object of thinking always a concept? Can the object of thinking be a reality? The kind of concept that refers to a reality, I guess.
                        ..
                        S: Htoo gives a helpful answer below. Here he is referring to thinking as manovinnana cittas - those cittas whih can experience objects through the mind door.
                        > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > Htoo:
                        >
                        > The objects of thinking( aaramma.na of manovi~n~naa.na cittas )
                        >
                        > 1. 12 o.laarika ruupas
                        > 2. 16 sukhuma ruupas
                        > 3. 89 cittas
                        > 4. 52 cetasikas
                        > 5. nibbaana
                        > 6. pa~n~natti
                        >
                        > One to five and their contents are concepts for realities.
                        ....
                        S: Or the realities themselves, depending on the definition of thinking being used. For example.

                        Metta

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