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

Re: Q. [dsg] Re: the khandhas are realities.

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Dear Thomas, ... N: I agree with all you write here. As Htoo quoted:
    Message 1 of 26 , Aug 28, 2013
      Dear Thomas,
      Op 28 aug 2013, om 03:43 heeft thomaslaw03 het volgende geschreven:

      > This existing, that comes to exist (imasmi.m sati ida.m hoti); from the arising of this, that arises (imassuppaadaa idam uppajjati); this not existing, that does not come to exist (imasmim asati ida.m no hoti); from the ceasing of this, that ceases (imassa nirodhaa ida.m nirujjhati). (Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 156-7)
      >
      > So, bodily and mental phenomena arisen by causal condition and ceased by causal condition (not by own being). They are compounded, impermanent, empty of 'any' permanent entity (existence and non-existence).
      -------
      N: I agree with all you write here.
      As Htoo quoted: <8). "Ime pa~ncakkhandhaa vibhava-dhammaa."

      These 5 khandhaas are non-existence-natured.">
      They do not exist, because they fall away immediately.
      -----
      Nina.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • philip
      Dear Nina (and Htoo) ... I am confused by this. Paramattha dhammas (realities) arise, and have existence in a moment, don t they? We are only aware of the
      Message 2 of 26 , Aug 28, 2013
        Dear Nina (and Htoo)
        > -------
        > N: I agree with all you write here.
        > As Htoo quoted: <8). "Ime pa~ncakkhandhaa vibhava-dhammaa."
        >
        > These 5 khandhaas are non-existence-natured.">
        > They do not exist, because they fall away immediately.
        > -----

        I am confused by this. Paramattha dhammas (realities) arise, and have existence in a moment, don't they? We are only aware of the nimitta, but that is not to say that khandas don't exist (momentarily) is it? Arent there like three sub-moments (?) - arising, presence and fallng away of each dhamma. Isn't the "presence" sub-moment (?) in fact momentary existence?

        Phil

        p.s I know this sort of thing has been discussed for ages at DSG, but I simply take your word, Nina, for what is to be intellectually understood as correct.
      • gazita2002
        Hallo Phil, I understand your statement re realities to be correct, and suggest that "they do not exist, because they fall away immediately"
        Message 3 of 26 , Aug 31, 2013
          Hallo Phil, I understand your statement re realities to be correct, and suggest that "they do not exist, because they fall away immediately"  simply means they don't exist for any longer than that very short moment when they arise, before falling away.  Maybe its because of translations like this that a lot of people believe that realities are non-realities that they don't exist even for that very short time. patience,courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, <philco777@...> wrote: Dear Nina (and Htoo)
          > -------
          > N: I agree with all you write here.
          > As Htoo quoted: <8). "Ime pa~ncakkhandhaa vibhava-dhammaa."
          >
          > These 5 khandhaas are non-existence-natured.">
          > They do not exist, because they fall away immediately.
          > -----

          I am confused by this. Paramattha dhammas (realities) arise, and have existence in a moment, don't they? We are only aware of the nimitta, but that is not to say that khandas don't exist (momentarily) is it? Arent there like three sub-moments (?) - arising, presence and fallng away of each dhamma. Isn't the "presence" sub-moment (?) in fact momentary existence?

          Phil

          p.s I know this sort of thing has been discussed for ages at DSG, but I simply take your word, Nina, for what is to be intellectually understood as correct.
        • philip Coristine
          Dear Azita Thank you for your response. Unless I hear otherwise from a trusted Dhamma friend (which is to say cittas accompanied by panna) I will continue to
          Message 4 of 26 , Aug 31, 2013
            Dear Azita

            Thank you for your response. Unless I hear otherwise from a trusted Dhamma friend (which is to say cittas accompanied by panna) I will continue to believe that paramattha dhammas do exist/have existence, albeit momentary.

            Phil

            P.s posting from my mailbox, the mobile version of the new format is unuseable.

            To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
            From: gazita2002@...
            Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:32:59 -0700
            Subject: [dsg] RE: the khandhas are realities.


























            Hallo Phil, I understand your statement re realities to be correct, and suggest that "they do not exist, because they fall away immediately" simply means they don't exist for any longer than that very short moment when they arise, before falling away. Maybe its because of translations like this that a lot of people believe that realities are non-realities that they don't exist even for that very short time. patience,courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, <philco777@...> wrote: Dear Nina (and Htoo)

            > -------

            > N: I agree with all you write here.

            > As Htoo quoted: <8). "Ime pa~ncakkhandhaa vibhava-dhammaa."

            >

            > These 5 khandhaas are non-existence-natured.">

            > They do not exist, because they fall away immediately.

            > -----



            I am confused by this. Paramattha dhammas (realities) arise, and have existence in a moment, don't they? We are only aware of the nimitta, but that is not to say that khandas don't exist (momentarily) is it? Arent there like three sub-moments (?) - arising, presence and fallng away of each dhamma. Isn't the "presence" sub-moment (?) in fact momentary existence?



            Phil



            p.s I know this sort of thing has been discussed for ages at DSG, but I simply take your word, Nina, for what is to be intellectually understood as correct.
























            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • sarahprocterabbott
            Hi Howard (& Thomas), T: Another meaning for the term su~n~nattaa is: just void (rittaka; just without reality), just vain (tucchaka; just
            Message 5 of 26 , Sep 22, 2013

              Hi Howard (& Thomas), 


              >T: > > Another meaning for the term su~n~nattaa is:> > "just void (rittaka; just without reality), just vain (tucchaka; just insubstantial), just empty (su~n~naka)." That is, seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality),
              > ....
              > S: Are you suggesting that in some suttas in SN, the Buddha meant su~n~nattaa to refer to khandhas as "empty of self", whilst in others, he meant it to mean "just empty", without reality?> For the second meaning, would it mean that khandhas are without reality and are therefore just ideas? Would that mean that seeing just sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality non-experiences a non-reality idea?
              ....
              >H: Sarah, there is the following:

              /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, <....>/(From the Potaliya Sutta

              >And also the following:
              /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is
              not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they
              imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. <...>/(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta)

              >/Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./(From the Phena Sutta)
              .....
              .....
              S: Yes, dhammas - empty of self, void of self. Dhammas, realities, quite different from the conventional truths we've always imagined to be real.

              Metta

              Sarah
              =====
            • thomaslaw03
              ... Hi Howard (& Thomas), ... /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful
              Message 6 of 26 , Sep 23, 2013

                 



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

                Hi Howard (& Thomas), 


                >T: > > Another meaning for the term su~n~nattaa is:> > "just void (rittaka; just without reality), just vain (tucchaka; just insubstantial), just empty (su~n~naka)." That is, seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality),
                > ....
                > S: Are you suggesting that in some suttas in SN, the Buddha meant su~n~nattaa to refer to khandhas as "empty of self", whilst in others, he meant it to mean "just empty", without reality?> For the second meaning, would it mean that khandhas are without reality and are therefore just ideas? Would that mean that seeing just sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality non-experiences a non-reality idea?
                ....
                >H: Sarah, there is the following:

                /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, <....>/(From the Potaliya Sutta

                >And also the following:
                /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is
                not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they
                imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. <...>/(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta)

                >/Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./(From the Phena Sutta)
                .....
                .....
                S: Yes, dhammas - empty of self, void of self. Dhammas, realities, quite different from the conventional truths we've always imagined to be real.

                Metta

                Sarah
                =====
                 
                Hi Sarah,
                 
                ... Seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality)...
                 
                It also means much the same as seeing them as 'anicca' (impermanent), vain phenomena, and empty of any permanent entity. There is no need to name it as 'realities', but to see them directly as they really are as anicca ...
                 
                Thomas
                 
                 
              • thomaslaw03
                Resending: Hi Sarah, ... Thomas: It also means much the same as seeing them as anicca (impermanent), vain phenomena, and empty of any permanent entity. Also,
                Message 7 of 26 , Sep 23, 2013

                  Resending:

                   

                  Hi Sarah,
                   
                  >... Seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality)...
                   
                  Thomas: It also means much the same as seeing them as 'anicca' (impermanent), vain phenomena, and empty of any permanent entity. Also, according to the suttas (particularly SN), there is no need to name it as 'realities', but to see them (dhammas 'phenomena') directly as they really are as anicca ...
                   
                  Thomas
                   

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

                  Hi Howard (& Thomas), 


                  >T: > > Another meaning for the term su~n~nattaa is:> > "just void (rittaka; just without reality), just vain (tucchaka; just insubstantial), just empty (su~n~naka)." That is, seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality),
                  > ....
                  > S: Are you suggesting that in some suttas in SN, the Buddha meant su~n~nattaa to refer to khandhas as "empty of self", whilst in others, he meant it to mean "just empty", without reality?> For the second meaning, would it mean that khandhas are without reality and are therefore just ideas? Would that mean that seeing just sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality non-experiences a non-reality idea?
                  ....
                  >H: Sarah, there is the following:

                  /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, <....>/(From the Potaliya Sutta

                  >And also the following:
                  /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is
                  not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they
                  imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. <...>/(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta)

                  >/Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./(From the Phena Sutta)
                  .....
                  .....
                  S: Yes, dhammas - empty of self, void of self. Dhammas, realities, quite different from the conventional truths we've always imagined to be real.

                  Metta

                  Sarah
                  =====
                • thomaslaw03
                  Hi Sarah, My previous reply to your response seems not showing in this format of discussion (?). Regarding seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (=
                  Message 8 of 26 , Sep 24, 2013

                    Hi Sarah,
                     
                    My previous reply to your response seems not showing in this format of discussion (?). 

                     
                    Regarding seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas 'phenomena') as just  void without reality (rittaka), it  also means much the same as seeing them as 'anicca' (impermanent), vain phenomena, and empty of any permanent entity. Also, according to the suttas (particularly SN), there is no need to name it as 'realities', but to see them (dhammas 'phenomena') directly as they really are as anicca ...

                     
                    Regards,
                     
                    Thomas

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

                    Hi Howard (& Thomas), 


                    >T: > > Another meaning for the term su~n~nattaa is:> > "just void (rittaka; just without reality), just vain (tucchaka; just insubstantial), just empty (su~n~naka)." That is, seeing the five aggregates/the sense spheres (= dhammas `phenomena') as "just void (without reality),
                    > ....
                    > S: Are you suggesting that in some suttas in SN, the Buddha meant su~n~nattaa to refer to khandhas as "empty of self", whilst in others, he meant it to mean "just empty", without reality?> For the second meaning, would it mean that khandhas are without reality and are therefore just ideas? Would that mean that seeing just sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality sees a non-reality idea? Or that a non-reality non-experiences a non-reality idea?
                    ....
                    >H: Sarah, there is the following:

                    /Now suppose a man, when dreaming, were to see delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful stretches of land, & delightful lakes, and on awakening were to see nothing. In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a dream, <....>/(From the Potaliya Sutta

                    >And also the following:
                    /See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is
                    not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they
                    imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. <...>/(From the Dvayatanupassana Sutta)

                    >/Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately./(From the Phena Sutta)
                    .....
                    .....
                    S: Yes, dhammas - empty of self, void of self. Dhammas, realities, quite different from the conventional truths we've always imagined to be real.

                    Metta

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