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

The second question

Expand Messages
  • philip
    Dear group I heard something great, from Maeve. If the first question is what is citta? What is the second question? Ajahn answered immediately. Phil
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear group

      I heard something great, from Maeve.

      "If the first question is 'what is citta?' What is the second question?"

      Ajahn answered immediately.

      Phil
    • philip
      Dear group ... The second question (and the question that Ajahn always brings us back to) is is there citta ( or some other reality) now? Phil
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear group

        > I heard something great, from Maeve.
        >
        > "If the first question is 'what is citta?' What is the second question?"
        >
        > Ajahn answered immediately.


        The second question (and the question that Ajahn always brings us back to) is "is there citta ( or some other reality) now?"

        Phil
      • azita
        Hallo PHil, Then the 3rd question could be is there any understanding of the reality which appears now? patience, courage and good cheer azita
        Message 3 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hallo PHil,

          Then the 3rd question could be " is there any understanding of the reality which appears now?"

          patience, courage and good cheer
          azita


          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "philip" <philco777@...> wrote:
          > Dear group
          >
          > > I heard something great, from Maeve.
          > >
          > > "If the first question is 'what is citta?' What is the second question?"
          > >
          > > Ajahn answered immediately.
          >
          >
          > The second question (and the question that Ajahn always brings us back to) is "is there citta ( or some other reality) now?"
          >
          > Phil
          >
        • philip
          Hi Azita ... Interesting. Cuz sometimes dhammas are arising (yes to the second question) but don t appear to our awareness? (No to the 3rd question.) or maybe
          Message 4 of 11 , Jul 10, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Azita
            >
            > Then the 3rd question could be " is there any understanding of the reality which appears now?"
            >
            Interesting. Cuz sometimes dhammas are arising (yes to the second question) but don't appear to our awareness? (No to the 3rd question.) or maybe the 3rd question could be Is the reality appearing and the 4th could be is there understanding of it?

            What is seeing?
            Is there seeing now?
            Does seeing appear?
            Is there understanding of seeing that appears now?


            Does that make sense or are the second and third questions redundant?

            Phil






            Phil
          • azita
            Hallo Phil, I d like to answer these questions from what I understand. What is seeing? Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only. Is there
            Message 5 of 11 , Jul 12, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Hallo Phil,

              I'd like to answer these questions from what I understand.

              "What is seeing?' Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only.

              "Is there seeing now" yes, because visible object appears.

              "Does seeing appear?" the citta which sees? I have to answer no, because there is certainly no precise knowing of that particular citta.

              "is there understanding of seeing that appears now?" theoretical understanding maybe, but no precise understanding of the reality of seeing now.

              Honestly, who knows the difference between seeing and visible object? That knowledge is called nama-rupa- pariccheda-naana, the first stage of insight, that clearly distinguishes the difference between the characteristic of naama and the characteristic of rupa as they appear one at a time.

              "Before enlightenment can be attained, mahaa- kusala citta which is accompanied by panna has to consider and investigate the characteristics of all kinds of naama and rupa over and over again, life after life. In this way, understanding of realities can grow." - from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Ch 30 - The stages of Vipassana.

              Patience, courage and good cheer
              azita



              > Hi Azita
              > >
              > > Then the 3rd question could be " is there any understanding of the reality which appears now?"
              > >
              > Interesting. Cuz sometimes dhammas are arising (yes to the second question) but don't appear to our awareness? (No to the 3rd question.) or maybe the 3rd question could be Is the reality appearing and the 4th could be is there understanding of it?
              >
              > What is seeing?
              > Is there seeing now?
              > Does seeing appear?
              > Is there understanding of seeing that appears now?
              >
              >
              > Does that make sense or are the second and third questions redundant?
              >
              > Phil
            • philip
              Hi Azita (with ? For * Nina half way through) ... Ph: I think your answer sound correct. I just wonder about precise understanding. Does there have to be
              Message 6 of 11 , Jul 13, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Azita (with ? For * Nina half way through)

                > I'd like to answer these questions from what I understand.
                >
                > "What is seeing?' Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only.
                >
                > "Is there seeing now" yes, because visible object appears.
                >
                > "Does seeing appear?" the citta which sees? I have to answer no, because there is certainly no precise knowing of that particular citta.
                >
                > "is there understanding of seeing that appears now?" theoretical understanding maybe, but no precise understanding of the reality of seeing now.

                Ph: I think your answer sound correct. I just wonder about "precise understanding." Does there have to be precise understanding for us to say that a dhamma appears?

                You may remember that I got and I guess still am attached to a portion of a discussion in which Ajahn said that rupa appears more often than n a m a. Sarah disputed that sportily and Ajahn said well can we say n a m a is more subtle? And Sarah feistily fought that as well! And some years later when it was brought up at JK when I was there Ajahn agrees with Sarah. No rules. But I still feel that rupa appears more often and is less subtle. No rules about trying to see rupa more, butcI just have a bunch that it is a nature of rupa to appear more than mama. Which brings us back to what "appears" means. Becomes an object if awareness? Is that awareness precise?

                * Nina, can we ask you?



                > Honestly, who knows the difference between seeing and visible object? That knowledge is called nama-rupa- pariccheda-naana, the first stage of insight, that clearly distinguishes the difference between the characteristic of naama and the characteristic of rupa as they appear one at a time.

                Ph: Until this first stage of insight we can only speculate on what n a m a is arising based on the situation. (In my opinion.)
                >
                > "Before enlightenment can be attained, mahaa- kusala citta which is accompanied by panna has to consider and investigate the characteristics of all kinds of naama and rupa over and over again, life after life. In this way, understanding of realities can grow." - from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Ch 30 - The stages of Vipassana.
                >

                SPD is the greatest book in the history of the universe except for Bill James' Baseball Abstract.


                Phil
              • azita
                Hallo Phil ... Az: appears to what? to citta and to which citta? can we know which dhamma appears to which citta without precise/well developed
                Message 7 of 11 , Jul 15, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hallo Phil


                  > > I'd like to answer these questions from what I understand.
                  > >
                  > > "What is seeing?' Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only.
                  > >
                  > > "Is there seeing now" yes, because visible object appears.
                  > >
                  > > "Does seeing appear?" the citta which sees? I have to answer no, because there is certainly no precise knowing of that particular citta.
                  > >
                  > > "is there understanding of seeing that appears now?" theoretical understanding maybe, but no precise understanding of the reality of seeing now.
                  >
                  > Ph: I think your answer sound correct. I just wonder about "precise understanding." Does there have to be precise understanding for us to say that a dhamma appears?


                  Az: appears to what? to citta and to which citta? can we know which dhamma appears to which citta without precise/well developed wisdom/understanding?
                  e.g. I'm staring out the window and there is visible object/color, there's no doubt about that, but its very mixed up with thinking about what is seen. To know a moment of just seeing - well, thats very precise wouldn't you agree?


                  > You may remember that I got and I guess still am attached to a portion of a discussion in which Ajahn said that rupa appears more often than n a m a. Sarah disputed that sportily and Ajahn said well can we say n a m a is more subtle? And Sarah feistily fought that as well! And some years later when it was brought up at JK when I was there Ajahn agrees with Sarah. No rules. But I still feel that rupa appears more often and is less subtle. No rules about trying to see rupa more, butcI just have a bunch that it is a nature of rupa to appear more than mama. Which brings us back to what "appears" means. Becomes an object if awareness? Is that awareness precise?


                  az: I agree, no rules, and I would suggest that thinking 'covers up' a lot of realities that appear at the sense doors.
                  >
                  > * Nina, can we ask you?


                  "Before enlightenment can be attained, mahaa- kusala citta which is accompanied by panna has to consider and investigate the characteristics of all kinds of naama and rupa over and over again, life after life. In this way, understanding of realities can grow." - from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, Ch 30 - The stages of Vipassana.
                  > >
                  >
                  > SPD is the greatest book in the history of the universe except for Bill James' Baseball Abstract.

                  >
                  az: yay, this made me laugh, and the worse one is Teach Yourself Visually MacBook Air, I haven't learnt a thing, maybe even more confused.

                  patience, courage and good cheer
                  azita
                • philip
                  Hi Azita ... Ph: No. But can t a Dhamma appear without knowing which Dhamma appears to which citta etc. just to know that there is citta with the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jul 16, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Azita
                    >
                    > > > I'd like to answer these questions from what I understand.
                    > > >
                    > > > "What is seeing?' Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only.
                    > > >
                    > > > "Is there seeing now" yes, because visible object appears.
                    > > >
                    > > > "Does seeing appear?" the citta which sees? I have to answer no, because there is certainly no precise knowing of that particular citta.
                    > > >
                    > > > "is there understanding of seeing that appears now?" theoretical understanding maybe, but no precise understanding of the reality of seeing now.
                    > >
                    > > Ph: I think your answer sound correct. I just wonder about "precise understanding." Does there have to be precise understanding for us to say that a dhamma appears?
                    >
                    >
                    > Az: appears to what? to citta and to which citta? can we know which dhamma appears to which citta without precise/well developed wisdom/understanding?

                    Ph: No. But can't a Dhamma appear without knowing which Dhamma appears to which citta etc. just to know that there is citta with the characteristic of knowing something and rupa which knows nothing? Is that a vipassana~nana that only comes after precise understanding of dhammas is developed? Beyond me.

                    > e.g. I'm staring out the window and there is visible object/color, there's no doubt about that, but its very mixed up with thinking about what is seen. To know a moment of just seeing - well, thats very precise wouldn't you agree?

                    Ph: yes ok, I see what you mean. In any case, always thinking about what is seen, eh?

                    > > You may remember that I got and I guess still am attached to a portion of a discussion in which Ajahn said that rupa appears more often than n a m a. Sarah disputed that sportily and Ajahn said well can we say n a m a is more subtle? And Sarah feistily fought that as well! And some years later when it was brought up at JK when I was there Ajahn agrees with Sarah. No rules. But I still feel that rupa appears more often and is less subtle. No rules about trying to see rupa more, butcI just have a bunch that it is a nature of rupa to appear more than mama. Which brings us back to what "appears" means. Becomes an object if awareness? Is that awareness precise?
                    >
                    >
                    > az: I agree, no rules, and I would suggest that thinking 'covers up' a lot of realities that appear at the sense doors.

                    Ph: That makes sense.

                    However, I remember being confused about this cuz I think Ajahn said something like seeing covers things up rather than thinking covers things up. It was a confusing point that Sarah or someone asked on my behalf years ago. But it was something counter-intuitive about the "covering up"

                    I have a feeling Sarah will remember what I am referring to.

                    Phil
                  • philip
                    Hi again Azita ... I just came across a sentence in SPD which kind of wowed me: Tgere cannot be a citta that does not know anything. Even bhavangas cittas
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jul 17, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi again Azita
                      > >
                      > > > > I'd like to answer these questions from what I understand.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > "What is seeing?' Seeing is a citta which experiences visible object only.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > "Is there seeing now" yes, because visible object appears.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > "Does seeing appear?" the citta which sees? I have to answer no, because there is certainly no precise knowing of that particular citta.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > "is there understanding of seeing that appears now?" theoretical understanding maybe, but no precise understanding of the reality of seeing now.
                      > > >
                      > > > Ph: I think your answer sound correct. I just wonder about "precise understanding." Does there have to be precise understanding for us to say that a dhamma appears?
                      > >

                      I just came across a sentence in SPD which kind of wowed me: "Tgere cannot be a citta that does not know anything." Even bhavangas cittas *know* an object though obviously that knowing/cognizing is different than our conventional understanding of knowing. The Dhamma is so subtle and deep, our puddling panna can only scratch the surface, but as you say patience, good cheer and Christ, what the hell was the third one?

                      Phil
                    • sarah
                      Hi Phil, ... ... S: We would have been talking about how it seems that seeing lasts and that the world is light all the time. In other words, the sense doors
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jul 23, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Phil,

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

                        > > az: I agree, no rules, and I would suggest that thinking 'covers up' a lot of realities that appear at the sense doors.
                        >
                        > Ph: That makes sense.
                        >
                        > However, I remember being confused about this cuz I think Ajahn said something like seeing covers things up rather than thinking covers things up. It was a confusing point that Sarah or someone asked on my behalf years ago. But it was something counter-intuitive about the "covering up"
                        >
                        > I have a feeling Sarah will remember what I am referring to.
                        ...
                        S: We would have been talking about how it seems that seeing lasts and that the world is light all the time. In other words, the sense doors cover up the mind door. In fact seeing sees visible object just for an instant and only at that instant does light appear.

                        When the mind-door is clear, when realities are directly understood, this becomes known and then the mind-door covers up the sense doors. One brief moment of seeing, followed by a few sense-door cittas and then many mind-door processes, lots of thinking, no light appearing at all.

                        Metta

                        Sarah
                        ====
                      • philip
                        Dear Sarah Thank you for this and the other responses. I have a file for them. Phil
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jul 23, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Sarah


                          Thank you for this and the other responses. I have a file for them.


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