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

[dsg] Re: Q. The Cycle of Birth and Death, No 37.

Expand Messages
  • philip
    Hi again Oversold fixation is nice but it was actually an auto spellcheck correction for oversimplification. Phil
    Message 1 of 15 , Jul 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi again

      " Oversold fixation" is nice but it was actually an auto spellcheck correction for oversimplification.

      Phil
    • philip
      ... Hi again Sarah, group ... I guess it wasn t some incorrect BB thing, I see in Conditions that the 4 nama khandas arise together by mutuality/conascence
      Message 2 of 15 , Jul 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >

        Hi again Sarah, group
        >
        > > Each conditioned reality is a khandha, so not sure why you ask your last question.
        > >
        > Ok. I had been operating under an assumption (probably a wrong teaching picked up from listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi talks a few years ago) that khandas referred to all five together but I can see that only one at a time could be object of awareness so what you say above makes sense.
        >

        I guess it wasn't some incorrect BB thing, I see in Conditions that the 4 nama khandas arise together by mutuality/conascence condition. And citta can't arise without rupa as its base, right? So the khandas always arise together. I guess the question I asked whether atta view is akin to the khandas came from wondering whether since the khandas arise together the view of self comes from this conascence. But no, because the Buddha doesn't say this ( as far as I can recall) he says seeing is self, eye is self, visible object is self etc. I think I will have a read through SN 22 to clarify this.

        Phil
      • philip
        Hi again Sarah ... In a notebook I found the BB reference that impressed me. Sakkaya ditthi = khandas as an integral unit Wrong? Thanks, Sarah only,
        Message 3 of 15 , Jul 11, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi again Sarah


          > >
          >
          > I guess it wasn't some incorrect BB thing, I see in Conditions that the 4 nama khandas arise together by mutuality/conascence condition. And citta can't arise without rupa as its base, right? So the khandas always arise together. I guess the question I asked whether atta view is akin to the khandas came from wondering whether since the khandas arise together the view of self comes from this conascence. But no, because the Buddha doesn't say this ( as far as I can recall) he says seeing is self, eye is self, visible object is self etc. I think I will have a read through SN 22 to clarify this.


          In a notebook I found the BB reference that impressed me. " Sakkaya ditthi = khandas as an integral unit"

          Wrong?

          Thanks, Sarah only, please. No hurry.

          Phil
        • htoonaing@ymail.com
          ... Phil: Hi again Sarah ... Phil: In a notebook I found the BB reference that impressed me. Sakkaya ditthi = khandas as an integral unit Wrong? Thanks,
          Message 4 of 15 , Jul 12, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
            --------------------------
            Phil:

            Hi again Sarah

            > I guess it wasn't some incorrect BB thing, I see in Conditions that the 4 nama khandas arise together by mutuality/conascence condition. And citta can't arise without rupa as its base, right? So the khandas always arise together. I guess the question I asked whether atta view is akin to the khandas came from wondering whether since the khandas arise together the view of self comes from this conascence. But no, because the Buddha doesn't say this ( as far as I can recall) he says seeing is self, eye is self, visible object is self etc. I think I will have a read through SN 22 to clarify this.


            Phil: In a notebook I found the BB reference that impressed me. " Sakkaya ditthi = khandas as an integral unit"

            Wrong?

            Thanks, Sarah only, please. No hurry.

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

            Sakkaayo --> saha + kaayo = sakkaayo

            Vedanaa are sakaaya.
            Sa~n~naa are sakkaaya.
            Sa`nkhaaraa are sakkaaya.
            Vi~n~naa.naa are sakkaaya.
            Ruupa.m are sakkaaya.

            Pancakkhandhaa are sakkaaya.

            Di.t.thi is wrong view. It is a ceasika. It is akusala cetasika in lobha group of cetasikas namely ta.nhaa, maana, di.t.thi.

            SD (sakkaaya ditthi) is wrong view on realities. There are 20 sakkaaya ditthi.

            4 ways of wrong view on 5 khandhaa so there are 4 . 5 = 20 sakkaaya ditthi.

            1. ruupa = atta
            2. atta owns ruupa
            3. ruupa is in atta
            4. atta is in ruupa

            With Metta,

            Htoo Naing
          • sarah
            Hi Phil, ... .... S: Yes... so dhammas have to be understood as just dhammas, not atta, from the start. However, atta-view is so deeply rooted that all wrong
            Message 5 of 15 , Jul 12, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Phil,

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

              > >S: If there is no understanding of dhammas as anatta, as elements only - those that experience and those that cannot experience anything - then it's impossible to understand these khandhas as anicca or dukkha.
              >
              >P: Ok. In SN there seems to be a kind of progression of anicca>dukkha>anatta but I am sure that is an oversold fixation and I have no interest in trying to find. The specific characteristics of realities are what interest me and the fact that there is no one in charge, just dhammas performing functions.
              ....
              S: Yes... so dhammas have to be understood as just dhammas, not atta, from the start. However, atta-view is so deeply rooted that all wrong view of atta can only be eradicated at the first stage of insight when conditioned dhammas have been clearly understood as anicca and dukkha.
              ....

              > >S: Each conditioned reality is a khandha, so not sure why you ask your last question.
              ...
              >P: Ok. I had been operating under an assumption (probably a wrong teaching picked up from listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi talks a few years ago) that khandas referred to all five together but I can see that only one at a time could be object of awareness so what you say above makes sense.
              ...
              S: While the nama khandhas arise together, only one object can ever be experienced, can ever be object of sati and panna as you say.

              Metta

              Sarah
              ====
            • sarah
              Hi Phil, ... .... S: Yes, always 4 nama khandhas arising together at each moment, conditioning and supporting each other in these ways. In this kamavacara
              Message 6 of 15 , Jul 17, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Phil,

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

                > > I guess it wasn't some incorrect BB thing, I see in Conditions that the 4 nama khandas arise together by mutuality/conascence condition. And citta can't arise without rupa as its base, right?
                ....
                S: Yes, always 4 nama khandhas arising together at each moment, conditioning and supporting each other in these ways.

                In this kamavacara realm, as you say, citta can't arise without rupa as base. In the arupabrahma realm, it's different.
                ...
                >So the khandas always arise together.
                ...
                S: The co-arising nama khandhas arise and fall away together. The rupa which is base must have already arisen, except at the moment of birth. (Remember, rupa lasts longer than nama).
                ...
                >I guess the question I asked whether atta view is akin to the khandas came from wondering whether since the khandas arise together the view of self comes from this conascence.
                ...
                S: The atta view comes from not understanding realities/khandhas as they are, but instead taking reality, such as seeing or visible object for atta in one of the 4 ways which I think Htoo elaborated on.
                ...
                >But no, because the Buddha doesn't say this ( as far as I can recall) he says seeing is self, eye is self, visible object is self etc. I think I will have a read through SN 22 to clarify this.

                > In a notebook I found the BB reference that impressed me. " Sakkaya ditthi = khandas as an integral unit"
                >
                > Wrong?
                ...
                S: I'm not quite sure what he means. If he means that the khandhas are taken as a being, this is sakkaya ditthi.

                From the commentary to the Vibhanga, transl as"Dispeller of Delusion"
                (PTS):
                ***
                242: "The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in
                mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements
                (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness."

                [S: When there is an idea of "wholes" such as posture, chariot or self,
                there is no understanding of dhatus (elements) or khandhas and no way to understand
                anatta.]

                "<....>When resolving of the compact
                (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the
                characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its true essential
                nature.

                <...>
                "But the same five aggregates are no-self because of the words 'what is
                painful is no-self' (S iv 1). Why? Because there is no exercising power
                over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over
                them is the characteristic of no-self."

                [S: 'no exercising power over them', neither the khandhas or any ideas
                about them, such as postures, are at one's command].
                *****
                Metta

                Sarah
                =====
              • sarah
                Hi again Phil, ... ... S: Because dhammas arise and fall away so rapidly and because there is no clear distinction of those realities which can experience an
                Message 7 of 15 , Jul 17, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi again Phil,

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

                  > I guess the question I asked whether atta view is akin to the khandas came from wondering whether since the khandas arise together the view of self comes from this conascence. But no, because the Buddha doesn't say this ( as far as I can recall) he says seeing is self, eye is self, visible object is self etc. I think I will have a read through SN 22 to clarify this.
                  ...
                  S: Because dhammas arise and fall away so rapidly and because there is no clear distinction of those realities which can experience an object (namas) and those which don't experience anything (rupas), they are taken for a whole, a thing. I don't see the problem as being the co-arising of namas, but the 'curtain of ignorance' which covers up the truth about the reality experienced, the nama or rupa appearing now.

                  You have a lot of good qus to follow up at KK if you're able to come!

                  Metta

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