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

RE: [dsg] Re: Perception is Conditioned

Expand Messages
  • kenhowardau
    Hi Jon, Howard, Nina and Ann, ----- Ann: As the characteristic of sound is that it is the object of hearing consciousness (as J. indicates) then
    Message 1 of 24 , Sep 17, 2013

      Hi Jon, Howard, Nina and Ann,


      -----

      <. . .>

      > Ann: As the characteristic of sound is that it is the object of hearing consciousness (as J. indicates) then where and what is the quality that makes "sounds different".


      > I am not going to try to speculate on this (though tempted!) but will await your responses.
      --------

      KH: I can't wait; I am going to speculate. :-)

      I would say that the only thing making one audible object different  from another was its pleasantness or unpleasantness. According to the texts it can be pleasant, mildly pleasant or unpleasant.

      An audible object might be thought about (at the mind door) as being the sound of a bell (for example) but is that because of some intrinsic nature of the audible object? Or is it because of sanna only?

      I think it might be because of sanna only. The texts say that sanna marks the object and recognises the mark it has made. They don't say (as far as I know) the object was already marked before sanna experienced it.

      We might think we hear a bell, and we might think the people around us also hear a bell. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate that the audible rupas we are experiencing are intrinsically marked with some bell-consistent quality. But really there is no bell, and there are no hearers of bells. That is just thinking. Really, there is just audible object, hearing consciousness, volition, feeling and sanna.

      Ken H
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Ann, ... N: Sound is accompanied by the inseparable ruupas, including the four Great Elements. It never arises alone. These ruupas arise in different
      Message 2 of 24 , Sep 18, 2013
        Dear Ann,
        Op 17 sep 2013, om 19:55 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven:

        Nina has said "sounds are different, but they are just that which is heard, through ear sense." As the characteristic of sound is that it is the object of hearing consciousness (as J. indicates) then where and what is the quality that makes "sounds different". 

        I am not going to try to speculate on this (though tempted!) but will await your responses.
        -------
        N: Sound is accompanied by the inseparable ruupas, including the four Great Elements. It never arises alone. These ruupas arise in different combinations and this causes sound to be different, like harsh, soft, high, low. 
        It is the same with visible object. It arises together with the other seven inseparable ruupas and these have different combinations. Visible object is not just grey, it is different each moment. 
        When visible object impinges on the eyesense, seeing can experience it, but this moment is extremely short. It passes away immediately. We know this in theory, but this helps us not to try to hold on to it and to find out what its quality is, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. Pa~n~naa can understand that it is just that which is experienced through eyesense. 
        Ann, like we discussed when I was in the rehab center, thinking slips in all the time. But thinking vannot be prevented, also that is a dhamma. Natural awareness. Nobody can change anything.
        Nina.  

      • glenjohnann
        Dear Nina Thank you for your detailed reply. On reading it, I recall the inseparable rupas and how the various combinations account for the difference in
        Message 3 of 24 , Sep 18, 2013
          Dear Nina

          Thank you for your detailed reply. On reading it, I recall the inseparable rupas and how the various combinations account for the difference in "sound", "visible object". However, is sound composed of the 8 inseparable rupas, or is it one of them?

          All of this information is interesting - but only useful if it assists with the development of understanding. Lots of thinking about it, but then I am reminded, what about the reality now? What about now?

          You have a good recollection of your conversations when you were in the rehab centre! I do recall talking about how it is so natural and conditioned that thinking arises after seeing, hearing etc. So quickly, and without understanding, we go on thinking and thinking without any thought that what we are thinking of may not be real. We have been very fortunate to hear the Dhamma in this life, and to be able to discuss it with good friends.

          Ann




          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Ann,
          > Op 17 sep 2013, om 19:55 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven:
          >
          > > Nina has said "sounds are different, but they are just that which is heard, through ear sense." As the characteristic of sound is that it is the object of hearing consciousness (as J. indicates) then where and what is the quality that makes "sounds different".
          > >
          > > I am not going to try to speculate on this (though tempted!) but will await your responses.
          > -------
          > N: Sound is accompanied by the inseparable ruupas, including the four Great Elements. It never arises alone. These ruupas arise in different combinations and this causes sound to be different, like harsh, soft, high, low.
          > It is the same with visible object. It arises together with the other seven inseparable ruupas and these have different combinations. Visible object is not just grey, it is different each moment.
          > When visible object impinges on the eyesense, seeing can experience it, but this moment is extremely short. It passes away immediately. We know this in theory, but this helps us not to try to hold on to it and to find out what its quality is, whether it is pleasant or unpleasant. Pa~n~naa can understand that it is just that which is experienced through eyesense.
          > Ann, like we discussed when I was in the rehab center, thinking slips in all the time. But thinking vannot be prevented, also that is a dhamma. Natural awareness. Nobody can change anything.
          > Nina.
          >
        • jonoabb
          Hi Howard ******************************************************* J: I agree that after the moment of hearing there is (subliminal) mental processing . But at
          Message 4 of 24 , Sep 19, 2013

            Hi Howard 


            ******************************************************* 
            J: I agree that after the moment of hearing there is "(subliminal) mental processing". But at the moment of actual hearing itself, before any such processing has taken place, there is just the experiencing of 'bare sound', the characteristic of which is that is the object of hearing consciousness.
            ----------------------------------
            HCW: My point is that 'bare sound' is a fiction: Every sound has distinctive internal structure. If this were untrue, then sounds would not differ, one from another.
            -----------------------------------
            ******************************************************* 

            J:  Yes, sounds differ one from another, for example, different words have different meanings, one person's voice is different from another's.

            But at the moment of actual hearing of the audible object, before there is any mental processing, these features are no known.  There is just the bare experiencing of the audible object.

            The characteristic of this audible object at that moment is that it is the dhamma/phenomena that is experienced by hearing consciousness.

            Jon

          • jonoabb
            Hi Nina Thanks for coming in :-)) N: Sounds are different, but they are just that which is heard, through earsense. We usually start thinking about different
            Message 5 of 24 , Sep 19, 2013

              Hi Nina 


              Thanks for coming in :-))

              N:  Sounds are different, but they are just that which is heard, through earsense. We usually start thinking about different sounds and that is thinking, though not in words, not hearing. 

              J:  Yes.  As I understand it, the difference between different sounds is known by thinking, not by hearing consciousness itself.

              Jon

            • jonoabb
              Hi Ann (and Nina and Howard) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Dear Jon, Howard and Nina I am motivated to
              Message 6 of 24 , Sep 19, 2013

                Hi Ann (and Nina and Howard) 


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

                Dear Jon, Howard and Nina

                I am motivated to come in here and hope that I do not interrupt your useful and interesting conversation.

                Nina has said "sounds are different, but they are just that which is heard, through ear sense." As the characteristic of sound is that it is the object of hearing consciousness (as J. indicates) then where and what is the quality that makes "sounds different".

                I am not going to try to speculate on this (though tempted!) but will await your responses.
                ===============================

                J:  As I understand it, the function of hearing consciousness is simply to experience the audible object; it does not know the "shape and form" or details of the audible object experienced.

                Jon
              • jonoabb
                Hi KenH (and Howard, Nina and Ann) KH: I would say that the only thing making one audible object different from another was its pleasantness or unpleasantness.
                Message 7 of 24 , Sep 19, 2013

                   

                  Hi KenH (and Howard, Nina and Ann)

                  KH: I would say that the only thing making one audible object different  from another was its pleasantness or unpleasantness. According to the texts it can be pleasant, mildly pleasant or unpleasant.
                  ======================

                  J:  Different kalapas of rupas are involved in the making of each sound, hence the different kinds of sound.  These differences mean that sounds differ, and not just in the degree of their pleasantness.

                  Jon


                  An audible object might be thought about (at the mind door) as being the sound of a bell (for example) but is that because of some intrinsic nature of the audible object? Or is it because of sanna only?

                  I think it might be because of sanna only. The texts say that sanna marks the object and recognises the mark it has made. They don't say (as far as I know) the object was already marked before sanna experienced it.

                  We might think we hear a bell, and we might think the people around us also hear a bell. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate that the audible rupas we are experiencing are intrinsically marked with some bell-consistent quality. But really there is no bell, and there are no hearers of bells. That is just thinking. Really, there is just audible object, hearing consciousness, volition, feeling and sanna.

                  Ken H
                • Nina van Gorkom
                  Dear Ann, ... N: No, it is not composed of but arises together with the 8 inseparable ruupas. It is not one of them. As to visible object, this is one of the 8
                  Message 8 of 24 , Sep 19, 2013
                    Dear Ann,
                    Op 19 sep 2013, om 04:57 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven:

                    On reading it, I recall the inseparable rupas and how the various combinations account for the difference in "sound", "visible object". However, is sound composed of the 8 inseparable rupas, or is it one of them? 
                    --------
                    N: No, it is not composed of but arises together with the 8 inseparable ruupas. It is not one of them. 
                    As to visible object, this is one of the 8 inseparable ruupas. 
                    -------

                    A: All of this information is interesting - but only useful if it assists with the development of understanding. Lots of thinking about it, but then I am reminded, what about the reality now? What about now? 
                    ------
                    N: Good you ask. If we would not know about different combinations of the 4 Great Elements arising together with sound, visible object, we would believe that there are not different sounds, different visible objects. We may think that we only see grey, and then the development would not be natural. 
                    Knowledge about the elements helps so that we remember: awareness does not change the object, and awareness should be natural. Awareness and understanding of just what appears naturally.

                    Nina.   

                  • kenhowardau
                    Hi Jon, ---- J: Different kalapas of rupas are involved in the making of each sound, hence the different kinds of sound. These differences mean that
                    Message 9 of 24 , Sep 20, 2013

                       Hi Jon,


                      ----

                      <. . .>
                      > J:  Different kalapas of rupas are involved in the making of each sound, hence the different kinds of sound.  These differences mean that sounds differ, and not just in the degree of their pleasantness.
                      ----

                      KH: Thanks Jon. No prizes for guessing my next question! What makes kalapas different? 

                      I was content with my theory that the differences between sounds were due to accumulations in the citta rather than to inherent differences in the sounds.  That seemed plausible. Now I will have to learn the right theory. 

                      Ken H
                    • jonoabb
                      Hi KenH J: Different kalapas of rupas are involved in the making of each sound, hence the different kinds of sound. These differences mean that sounds
                      Message 10 of 24 , Sep 20, 2013

                        Hi KenH 


                        > J:  Different kalapas of rupas are involved in the making of each sound, hence the different kinds of sound.  These differences mean that sounds differ, and not just in the degree of their pleasantness.
                        ----

                        KH: Thanks Jon. No prizes for guessing my next question! What makes kalapas different? 

                        J:  The wording of my original post was a bit lose.  I should have said that the rupas of each kalapa are different.  And rupas are different by conditions :-))

                        Jon
                      • kenhowardau
                        Hi Jon J: The wording of my original post was a bit lose. I should have said that the rupas of each kalapa are different. And rupas are different by
                        Message 11 of 24 , Sep 21, 2013

                          Hi Jon


                          > J:  The wording of my original post was a bit lose.  I should have said that the rupas of each kalapa are different.  And rupas are different by conditions :-))

                          KH: Thanks, that brings us back to where we started. :-) As Ann asked: in which ways are they different by conditions?

                          I am sure your, and Nina's, answers from the texts are right, (volume, I think, was one way) but I want to know why they are right. I want to know how they fit in perfectly with the rest of the Abhidhamma to describe the way things are.

                          Leave it with me until I've got some sensible questions. :-)

                          Ken H




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