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

[dsg] Re: A lump of foam.

Expand Messages
  • upasaka_howard
    Hi, Nina - Thanks very much for this detailed and instructive post of yours! :-) I m not sure my view differs radically from your understanding. I think our
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Nina -

      Thanks very much for this detailed and instructive post of yours! :-)
      I'm not sure my view differs radically from your understanding. I think our differences lie largely in where we put emphasis and in terminology, and much less so in substance.
      In any case, I applaud your depth of knowledge, your devotion to the Dhamma, and your so very kindly approach to all of us!

      With much metta,
      Howard

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Howard,
      > Op 7 sep 2013, om 15:00 heeft Upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
      > >
      > > > -----------
      > > > > The clinging to self has to be eradicated first. What do we take for self? Seeing, hearing, visible object, any reality that appears. Lobha is real, we cannot say that it is not real. It has to be known as a conditioned dhamma, not self.
      > > > >
      > > > > -----------------------------
      > > > > HCW: And what is that nature we must come to know about these dhammas? I believe it is exactly the tilakkhana, not the alleged "reality" of these dhammas.
      > > > > --------------------------------
      > >
      > N: It is always the tilakkhana "of" conditioned dhammas. So, we have to know what these conditioned dhammas are. When do they appear? How can they be known? These are important questions.
      > --------
      > > > >
      > > > N: Perhaps we have to go more into the meaning of conditioned. There is seeing now. This could not arise if there were no eyesense and colour or visible object. Eyesense and visible object are among the conditions for seeing and they are fleeting elements, but still, not imaginary.
      > > -----------------------------------
      > > HCW: My view: Not imaginary as the fleeting elements of experience they are. They are actually experienced. But they are imaginary when viewed as independent, separate realities.
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > N: Right, exactly. That is why I repeat: conditioned dhammas. As you say, not imaginary. Seeing arises and this is not something imaginary. IT must experience an object, namely visible object. Otherwise it would not be seeing. It is only there for an extremely short moment and then gone, never to return. Understanding can develop so that it becomes keen and sharp, so that it can penetrate the nature of such a fleeting dhamma. Otherwise the Buddha would not have taught the development of the eightfold Path.
      > ----------
      > > >
      > > > We read in the ╲Kindred Sayings╡ (IV, Kindred sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch IV, § 85, Void):
      > > >
      > > > N: Would the Buddha mention time and again visible object, sound, etc. as among the conditions for sense-cognitions if they were mere nothings?
      > > -------------------------------
      > > HCW: They are not mere nothings, because they are elements of experience. But that is all they are, and our viewing them as self-existent "realities" is where we go wrong, IMO. We indeed need to know their true nature as 1) conditions for suffering (when ignorance reifies them and craving for their appearing or disappearing arises), 2) as fleeting, and 3) as lacking in self.
      > > Were direct awareness of this tripartite emptiness be already in effect, there would be no need for their frequent mention. When one truly knows that the "snake" is but a coiled rope, no further attention need be paid.
      > > --------------------------------
      > > N: Now let us look at your quote at the end:
      > >
      > > /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)
      > >
      > ------
      > N: <However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.>
      > They have to be observed, examined by pa~n~naa that is a cetasika, mental factor, not self.
      >
      >
      > The three general characteristics cannot be known immediately, first the reality appearing at this moment (it always has to be this moment) has to be understood as just a conditioned dhamma. There is atta-sa~n~naa, wrong remembrance of self very often. It is deeply rooted and it can only be lessened stage by stage. At the first stage of insight, distinguishing the difference between naama and ruupa, there is anattaa sa~n~naa, but attaa sa~n~naa has not been eradicated. Only at the moment of enlightenment one of the three characteristics is clearly realized. This means, the dhamma that was object of the cittas arising shortly before the lokuttara cittas that experience nibbaana, was either seen as impermanent, or as dukkha or as anattaa. This depends on accumulated inclinations.
      > Thus, this helps us to see that the tilakkhana are not taught in general, not in abstracto. They always pertain to this moment now.
      > Nina.
      >
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Hi Howard, thanks for your kind words. ... N: Acharn Sujin always puts the emphasis on the reality appearing now. This refers to each part of the teachings and
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 14, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Howard,
        thanks for your kind words.
        Op 10 sep 2013, om 16:19 heeft Upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

        I'm not sure my view differs radically from your understanding. I think our differences lie largely in where we put emphasis and in terminology, and much less so in substance. 
        -------
        N: Acharn Sujin always puts the emphasis on the reality appearing now. This refers to each part of the teachings and I have not met this approach somewhere else. But we are still learning and before we realize it, we think of seeing or visible object as if it were already there for some time. We have accumulated so much ignorance. As you always say: <our viewing them as self-existent "realities" is where we go wrong>. This is certainly a reminder. We understand this in theory, but understanding is still very weak. It has to be developed on and on. By listening, discussing, considering. 
        Realities is actually a translation of paramattha dhammas. These are different from concepts such as persons, trees, we can think of. As Kh Sujin said, we are mostly living in the sea of concepts instead of getting to know paramattha dhammas. I appreciate the constant reminders of the present moment and the details of the naama and ruupa to be understood. "Not in the book, not in the book" as she often says. Before we know it we get lost in abstractions. 
        Nina.  
      • upasaka_howard
        Hi, Nina - ... HCW: Yes, that is our ignorance-tainted inclination. ... We have accumulated so much ignorance. As you always say:
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 14, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, Nina -

          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Howard,
          > thanks for your kind words.
          > Op 10 sep 2013, om 16:19 heeft Upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
          >
          > > I'm not sure my view differs radically from your understanding. I think our differences lie largely in where we put emphasis and in terminology, and much less so in substance.
          > -------
          > N: Acharn Sujin always puts the emphasis on the reality appearing now. This refers to each part of the teachings and I have not met this approach somewhere else. But we are still learning and before we realize it, we think of seeing or visible object as if it were already there for some time.
          -------------------------------
          HCW: Yes, that is our ignorance-tainted inclination.
          ------------------------------
          We have accumulated so much ignorance. As you always say: <our viewing them as self-existent "realities" is where we go wrong>. This is certainly a reminder. We understand this in theory, but understanding is still very weak. It has to be developed on and on. By listening, discussing, considering.
          ---------------------------
          HCW: Yes, by that and by really "looking" without concocting.
          ------------------------------
          > Realities is actually a translation of paramattha dhammas. These are different from concepts such as persons, trees, we can think of.
          -------------------------------
          HCW: I agree. They are NOT the same.
          -----------------------------
          As Kh Sujin said, we are mostly living in the sea of concepts instead of getting to know paramattha dhammas. I appreciate the constant reminders of the present moment and the details of the naama and ruupa to be understood. "Not in the book, not in the book" as she often says. Before we know it we get lost in abstractions.
          ------------------------------
          HCW: Yes, I completely agree: What actually occurs is not in the book and is not a matter of thinking. But sometimes even our perception of "realities" is poisoned by subtle, i.e., subliminal, thinking.
          ------------------------------
          > Nina.
          >
          ===============================
          With metta,
          Howard

          Seamless Interdependence

          /A change in anything is a change in everything/

          (Anonymous)
        • Nina van Gorkom
          Hi Howard, ... N: Sa~n~naa remembers realities and concepts. It may be right remembrance or wrong remembrance. In the latter case it is perversity of sa~n~naa,
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Howard,
            Op 15 sep 2013, om 02:49 heeft Upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:

            HCW: Yes, I completely agree: What actually occurs is not in the book and is not a matter of thinking. But sometimes even our perception of "realities" is poisoned by subtle, i.e., subliminal, thinking.
            ------------------------------
            N: Sa~n~naa remembers realities and concepts. It may be right remembrance or wrong remembrance. In the latter case it is perversity of sa~n~naa, sa~n~naa vipallaasa. It remembers phenomena as permamence or as self. Yes, it is like poison, but we do not see it as poison.
            ------
            Nina. 

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