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

Re: [dsg] Becoming Arahat On The Same Day After Reminder

Expand Messages
  • htoonaing@ymail.com
    Nina: Dear Htoo, Thank you for your interesting post. Can you elaborate a bit on the pali sentences? As I understand: in the seeing there will be only what is
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 31 6:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Nina:

      Dear Htoo,

      Thank you for your interesting post.

      Can you elaborate a bit on the pali sentences?

      As I understand:

      in the seeing there will be only what is seen.

      As I see it, nothing else, no person in the seeing.

      Seeing is not mixed with thinking stories about this or that.

      But my Pali became a bit rusty.

      Nina.
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      > What Baahiya heard was "Di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m bhavissati. Sute suttamatta.m bhavissati. Mute mutamatta.m bhavissati. Vi~n~naate vi~n~naa.namatta.m bhavissati....". [quote from the post BAOTSDAR]
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Htoo:

      Dear Nina,thanks for your post. What you wrote to me are all right. Every word is right.

      Paa.li here is simple, I think.

      Ditthe = if see
      dittha = seen
      matta = just happen (just see, just hear, just smell, just taste, just touch, just know)

      matta.m is for 'objective case in grammar'.
      Bhavissati = will be (will do, will have, will see, will hear etc)

      As you and all DSGs here know there is no atta, no satta, no jiiva, no life, no being,no person, no self.

      This is true for 'very first viithi_series of cittas'. In real sense in real world outside if we set aside what we learnt in dhamma there will be seeing of 'something'. This 'something' arise almost immediately we see something (va.n.na or light & colour in shape and form, where shape and form is not real).

      There are tadaanuvattika viithi or "following series of cittas' in quick successions.

      1. reality
      2. thinking on shape & form along with colour
      3. pannatti as a base for 'something we seen' (attha pannatti)
      4. name for that particular pannati
      5. further series for all other worldly characteristics
      6. name for different languages if required

      When the Buddha can know million of million cittas, we as a beginner can see 100 or so in a second.

      In the first series there is almost no akusala. But in following series there arise lobha or dosa along with moha.

      If "ditthe dittha.m" we will already know a name for what we seen. But if "ditthe ditthamatta.m" this is very hard for us. This is quite hard even in advanced people who can attain jhaana.

      Simple jhaanalaabhii will have lobha not dosa. As soon as dosa arises jhaana is destroyed. Lobha can arise before entering into jhaana-state. But while in jhaana (true jhaana) there is no lobha at all. Again after arising from jhaana there can be lobha if jhaanalaabhii is not insight meditator.

      If insight meditator when he arises from jhaana realities will be interacted with citta-with-panna and finally when conditions are there then panna of the highest will arise along with citta (magga javana citta, phala javana cittas followed by paccavekkha.na javana cittas).

      As you and DSGs know reality cannot be created, cannot be controled, cannot be destroyed. But here what the instruction means is "to cut off further thinking as far as possible and with enough time (of accumulations) seeing will be seen as seeing. That is reality will be reality nothing but reality and no person, no atta, no satta, no being. This is anatta.

      With respect,

      Htoo Naing
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Htoo, Thank you for your post. I would like to add something. ... N: People may try not to think, but that is impossible. Thinking arises because of
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Htoo,
        Thank you for your post. I would like to add something.
        Op 31 jul 2013, om 15:57 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven:

        > As you and DSGs know reality cannot be created, cannot be controled, cannot be destroyed. But here what the instruction means is "to cut off further thinking as far as possible and with enough time (of accumulations) seeing will be seen as seeing. That is reality will be reality nothing but reality and no person, no atta, no satta, no being. This is anatta.
        ------
        N: People may try not to think, but that is impossible. Thinking arises because of conditions and even thinking can be realized as anattaa. As pa~n~naa develops there will eventually be less involvement in stories we think of, but this depends on conditions.
        Nina.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • htoonaing@ymail.com
        Dear Nina, A few points. ... Nina: Dear Htoo, Thank you for your post. I would like to add something. ... N: People may try not to think, but that is
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Nina,

          A few points.
          ---------------------------
          Nina:

          Dear Htoo,

          Thank you for your post. I would like to add something.

          Op 31 jul 2013, om 15:57 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven:

          > As you and DSGs know reality cannot be created, cannot be controled, cannot be destroyed. But here what the instruction means is "to cut off further thinking as far as possible and with enough time (of accumulations) seeing will be seen as seeing. That is reality will be reality nothing but reality and no person, no atta, no satta, no being. This is anatta.
          ------
          N: People may try not to think, but that is impossible. Thinking arises because of conditions and even thinking can be realized as anattaa. As pa~n~naa develops there will eventually be less involvement in stories we think of, but this depends on conditions.
          Nina.
          ----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Htoo:

          Thinking totally stops in case of cessation practiced by arahats.
          [Nirodha-samaapatti]. Otherwise there will be thinking. Again thinking is a broad term and covers many meanings.

          Manovinnana may be referred as thinking. Vitakka may be referred to as thinking. Vicaara may also be referred to as thinking. What I discussed was ...

          In a dim light someone sees something (a short rope in serpentine position).

          1. the 1st thought unit will contain (seeing, light, colour)
          2. the 2nd thought unit will contain (shape of what has been seen)
          3. the 3rd thought unit will contain (form of what has been seen)
          4. the 4th thought unit might be (the essence of what is seen)
          5. the 5th thought unit might be (the name of what is seen)
          6. the 6th thought unit might be (the proper name for that)
          7. the 7th thought unit might be (the nature of that)
          8. the 8th thought unit might be (the past similar experiences)
          9. the 9th thought unit might be (defilements in shaking manner)
          10. ... ... ... ...

          One single thought unit may contain more than 100 viithi or so. Anyway if initially we reach 20th thought units this can be trained to cut down to 19th or 18th. With practice to 12th or 11th. I think it may be visible(not va.n.na here) to you what I would like to send.

          When minds run calmly seeing things as they are there seems no thought. Conscious mind in deeply calm state will look like thoughtless.

          With respect,

          Htoo Naing
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Dear Htoo, ... N: When people read this they think of a self who can train to do this. It all depends on conditions, anattaa. Nina. [Non-text portions of this
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 1, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Htoo,
            Op 1 aug 2013, om 12:36 heeft htoonaing@... het volgende geschreven:

            > One single thought unit may contain more than 100 viithi or so. Anyway if initially we reach 20th thought units this can be trained to cut down to 19th or 18th. With practice to 12th or 11th. I think it may be visible(not va.n.na here) to you what I would like to send.
            ------
            N: When people read this they think of a self who can train to do this. It all depends on conditions, anattaa.
            Nina.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • truth_aerator
            Dear Nina, all, ... The Buddha never ever denied the self. He didn t even deny certain kinds of atta, read attakari sutta .
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 1, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Nina, all,

              >N: When people read this they think of a self who can train to do this. >It all depends on conditions, anattaa.
              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

              The Buddha never ever denied the self. He didn't even deny certain kinds of atta, read attakari sutta .
              http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html

              The standard teaching on anatta (not, not, self) wouldn't even work with (wrong) Christian idea of a soul, much less against empiric self. Christian soul has date of origin, so it arises. It can experience dukkha so it is not just-sukha, and it doesn't have full, cartoonish sort of control like omniscient God.


              With best wishes,
              Alex
            • Nina van Gorkom
              Dear Alex, ... N:
              Message 6 of 11 , Aug 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Alex,
                Op 1 aug 2013, om 21:50 heeft truth_aerator het volgende geschreven:

                > The Buddha never ever denied the self. He didn't even deny certain kinds of atta, read attakari sutta .
                ------
                N: <So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a doctrine, such a view as yours.>
                --------
                N: We have to consider the context. The element of endeavoring, etc. There are just elements. In conventional sense we can think of self or other, but, le us not forget that these are only elements that do not stay for a moment.
                We also have to remember many other suttas where the Buddha expressively said that there is no attaa. He spoke about anattaa sa~n~naa.
                Nina.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • upasaka_howard
                Hi, Alex (and Nina) - ... ============================== I ve noted that sutta before. My opinion: One who believes in no-self in the technical, ultimate sense
                Message 7 of 11 , Aug 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi, Alex (and Nina) -

                  --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Nina, all,
                  >
                  > >N: When people read this they think of a self who can train to do this. >It all depends on conditions, anattaa.
                  > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                  >
                  > The Buddha never ever denied the self. He didn't even deny certain kinds of atta, read attakari sutta .
                  > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html
                  >
                  > The standard teaching on anatta (not, not, self) wouldn't even work with (wrong) Christian idea of a soul, much less against empiric self. Christian soul has date of origin, so it arises. It can experience dukkha so it is not just-sukha, and it doesn't have full, cartoonish sort of control like omniscient God.
                  >
                  >
                  > With best wishes,
                  > Alex
                  >
                  ==============================
                  I've noted that sutta before. My opinion: One who believes in no-self in the technical, ultimate sense has right view, and one who does not has wrong view.
                  However, one who (thinks s/he) believes in no-self in conventional terms is either kidding him/herself OR is a nihilist and thereby has wrong view in the worldly sense. In this sutta, I believe that the Buddha is cautioning one against misapplying the anatta notion to conventional (i.e., mundane) speech and thought. There are other suttas of this sort as well, an example of which is given at the end of this post.

                  With metta,
                  Howard


                  Mundane Wrong View

                  /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./

                  (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta)
                • htoonaing@ymail.com
                  ... Htoo: Dear Howard, Good job! With respect, Htoo Naing
                  Message 8 of 11 , Aug 2, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi, Alex (and Nina) -
                    >
                    > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "truth_aerator" <truth_aerator@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Dear Nina, all,
                    > >
                    > > >N: When people read this they think of a self who can train to do this. >It all depends on conditions, anattaa.
                    > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                    > >
                    > > The Buddha never ever denied the self. He didn't even deny certain kinds of atta, read attakari sutta .
                    > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html
                    > >
                    > > The standard teaching on anatta (not, not, self) wouldn't even work with (wrong) Christian idea of a soul, much less against empiric self. Christian soul has date of origin, so it arises. It can experience dukkha so it is not just-sukha, and it doesn't have full, cartoonish sort of control like omniscient God.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > With best wishes,
                    > > Alex
                    > >
                    > ==============================
                    > I've noted that sutta before. My opinion: One who believes in no-self in the technical, ultimate sense has right view, and one who does not has wrong view.
                    > However, one who (thinks s/he) believes in no-self in conventional terms is either kidding him/herself OR is a nihilist and thereby has wrong view in the worldly sense. In this sutta, I believe that the Buddha is cautioning one against misapplying the anatta notion to conventional (i.e., mundane) speech and thought. There are other suttas of this sort as well, an example of which is given at the end of this post.
                    >
                    > With metta,
                    > Howard
                    >
                    >
                    > Mundane Wrong View
                    >
                    > /And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view./
                    >
                    > (From the Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta)
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Htoo:

                    Dear Howard,

                    Good job!

                    With respect,

                    Htoo Naing
                  • truth_aerator
                    Dear Nina, Howard, all, ... Exactly. Buddha was refuting a Hindu version of Atta, which might have nothing to do with what modern westerners believe in. We
                    Message 9 of 11 , Aug 2, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Nina, Howard, all,

                      >N: We have to consider the context.
                      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                      Exactly. Buddha was refuting a Hindu version of Atta, which might have nothing to do with what modern westerners believe in.
                      We need to be clear about what the Buddha is refuting.

                      For example: self that is impermanent, not always happy and without
                      God-like-omniscient-powers was NEVER denied by the Buddha. The Buddha denied some mystical, frozen, always happy first principle that doesn't even fit modern Christian idea of a soul, much less an empiric person like John, Jack or Jane.



                      >The element of endeavoring, etc. There are just elements.
                      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                      Yes, and it is a person who has it. Or even more precise, that version of atta that Buddha didn't refute does it. attakari.

                      Even though a person is made of elements and elements are required for person to be - a person is higher order thing that can also control (to a degree) lower order things like elements.

                      Example with which I disagree. For example when it is said that eye does not control rupa that flies into it. While that is true, the person as a whole can choose to look left or right and thus change the object that hits the eye. So just reducing into elements does nothing to refute higher order processes or control. It might not even help to understand if there are non-reducible properties.

                      No offence, but I think that many "Buddhist" arguments are either totally false or too weak. It could be refuted by any decent student of philosophy so much so that it would be a minus for Buddhism.

                      This is why I value practice above study. Even if it is
                      "non-involvement with whatever occurs in daily life" sort of thing.


                      With best wishes,

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