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

Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 63, space and suttas

Expand Messages
  • nina van gorkom
    Hi Larry, ... N: Though it is not concrete matter and an asabhava rupa, it is bound up with concrete matter since it delimits them. It delimits the groups
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 9, 2004
      Hi Larry,
      op 09-03-2004 03:03 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...:
      > I was wondering in what sense space is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not
      > self. Is it so because space is actually 'edge', a characteristic of
      > matter?
      N: Though it is not concrete matter and an asabhava rupa, it is bound up
      with concrete matter since it delimits them. It delimits the groups
      originated by kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature and therefore reckoned
      as originated by these four factors. It arises and falls away with them. It
      is also called an element, dhatu, space-element in the Expositor (II, 425).
      And the Co to the Abh. Sangaha states:<an element in the sense that it is
      lifeless>, meaning, it is not a living being. The Vis. gives the
      characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause, as it does in
      the case of all 28 rupas. It is rupa, thus, it has the three
      characteristics. And see below, the suttas.
      L: There is a slight discrepancy between the PTS (?) translation from MN
      140 Nina gave and B. ~Nanamoli's:

      PTS: "And what, monk, is the internal element of space? Whatever is
      space, spacious, is internal, referable to an individual and derived
      therefrom, such as the auditory and nasal orifices, the door of the
      mouth..."

      ~N: "What is the internal space element? Whatever internally, belonging
      to oneself, is space, spatial, and clung-to, that is, the holes of the
      ears, the nostrils, the door of the mouth..."

      L: The first one has "derived therefrom" and the second one has
      "clung-to".
      N: It is said: <Derived from an individual>, or, clung to (upadi.n.na):
      namely, produced by kamma, but in a wider sense referring to all rupas of
      the body. These two, derived from an individual, or, clung to, amount to the
      same. They are called internal and individual.
      N: B.B. has: <What is internally, belonging to oneself, is space, spatial,
      and clung to, that is, the holes of the ears, the nostrils...> At the end of
      this definition we read: <And that should be seen as it actually is with
      proper wisdom thus: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself.'>
      Would this be said of a concept? It is rupa, an element, not a concept.
      Going to the Pali of Mahaaraahulovaadasutta: ajjhattika: internal,
      paccatta.m, belonging to oneself, but used figuratively of course. See the
      end: they should be realized as non-self. Thus, as rupa, having the three
      characteristics.
      "And what, Rahula, is the space element? The space element may be
      internal or external. And what, Rahula, is the internal space
      element? That, internally, and individually, is space, void, and
      clung to, namely: the cavity of the ear, the orifice of the nose, the
      opening of the mouth, and whereby (one) swallows what is tasted,
      chewed, drunk and eaten, and where (food) being tasted, chewed, drunk
      and eaten remains, and whereby (food) being tasted, chewed, drunk and
      eaten passes out of the body lower down, or whatever else internally,
      and individually is space, void, sky, empty, an opening, hollow,
      untouched by flesh and blood, and clung to. This, Rahula, is
      called the internal space element. But that very internal space
      element and that external space element are simply space element.
      Thus "this is not mine, this I am not, this is not myself" is to be
      seen with right wisdom just as it is. Having seen this with right
      wisdom just as it is, the mind becomes dispassionate towards (and)
      detaches (itself) from the space element."
      Nina.
    • nina van gorkom
      Hi Howard and Michael (at end, something meaty), op 09-03-2004 04:15 schreef upasaka@aol.com op upasaka@aol.com: ... N: Howard, I think that I understand what
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 9, 2004
        Hi Howard and Michael (at end, something meaty),
        op 09-03-2004 04:15 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...:>
        > In a message dated 3/8/04 9:21:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        > icarofranca@... writes:
        >
        >> Space - akasa - is classified as a "non-real" Paramattha Dhamma
        >> ==========================
        > And what, pray tell, is that? (Besides being a contradiction in terms!
        > ;-)
        N: Howard, I think that I understand what Icaro says. He means: it is not
        concrete matter. But nevertheless Paramattha Dhamma.
        See my mails to Larry where I quoted suttas.
        You may still find it difficult to see space as paramattha dhamma, I
        understand.
        We spoke about this in Bgk. It can be known by insight, but not everyone
        will know all rupas.
        When we consider the seven rupas that appear all the time in daily life
        through the senses, we can have some beginning understanding of what rupa
        is: that which is a reality that does not experience anything. Apart from
        thinking of object and subject, can hardness be experienced without having
        to call it anything? That is a beginning. When we can develop direct
        understanding of rupa, it will also be clearer what subtle rupas are. I do
        not know whether this is of any help.
        There is also space as a meditation subject of samatha, a nimitta. This is
        another type of object.
        Now the meaty part.
        There are different types of objects: objects that are 1. paritta, trifling
        or insignificant, objects that are not those of jhana or of lokuttara citta.
        2. objects of jhana (mahaggata).3. object that is appanaa, attainment,
        nibbana for lokuttara citta.
        Then there is one class that is not among these three: called: <not so
        classifiable> or <undefinible> (navattabbarammana). Among these is the
        nimitta experienced by the citta developing samatha.
        And also when a citta with panna but not lokuttara citta experiences
        nibbana, this object is also a not so classifiable object in that case. This
        happens shortly before lokuttara cittas arise. Or afterwards, in reviewing
        nibbana. Then nibbana is not an attainment object.
        We discussed in Bgk subtle points and this taught me to be very careful with
        the word concept. There is much more to it. We also discussed past objects,
        which are not concepts but dhammas. The dhamma of the past can also be a not
        so classifiable object.
        Rebirth-consciousness can have past, present or not so classifiable object.
        We also have to remember that concept can be a term denoting a paramattha
        dhamma. Thus, when saying: there are just paramattha dhammas or concepts we
        have to be careful. We have to differentiate more.
        We went over texts of Dhammasangani, Vis. and Expositor. The English transl
        Dhsgn. omits these parts. It omits too many things. Rhys Davids may not have
        understood certain texts.
        Michael, please, do not go, we shall miss you.
        Nina.
      • LBIDD@webtv.net
        Hi Nina, Is there any commentary for space, or should we go on to the lightness triad? Larry
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 9, 2004
          Hi Nina,

          Is there any commentary for space, or should we go on to the lightness
          triad?

          Larry
        • Sarah
          Hi Larry, We also discussed this before. See: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m20569.html ... Guide to #4 (B.Bodhi): “they do not arise
          Message 4 of 14 , Mar 9, 2004
            Hi Larry,

            We also discussed this before. See:
            http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m20569.html

            I wrote:

            >...........to quote from CMA p241.
            Guide to #4 (B.Bodhi):

            “they do not arise directly from the four main causes of matter but
            existas modalities or attributes of concretely produced matter.”

            B.Bodhi continues to add that they are not paramattha dhammas, but I
            checked and can’t find this in the commentary (to Abhidhammattha Sangaha).
            I think it would be more accurate to say they are not paramattha dhammas
            *with sabhaava*, but they are listed among the asabhaava rupas, hence
            paramattha. Much as been written before about space, bodily and vocal
            intimation and the continuity, decay and impermanence of rupas as examples
            of these.<

            Space is therefore a reality indirectly originating from kamma and other
            causes with the kalapas of rupas it separates. It also has characteristics
            (lakkhana), even though it's asabhaava.

            Of course, cavity or space is also used as a concept (eg cavity in the ear
            etc) in the texts, but it is pointing to a reality.

            Whenever ‘space’ comes up, I have more questions than answers. I’m glad
            therefore to read your other qus and Nina’s responses. I think many
            inaccurate comments are written on this very subtle rupa.

            Metta,

            Sarah
            ======


            _______________________________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
          • nina van gorkom
            Hi Larry, ... N: Yes, more to come. And before going on to lightness: I want to post what I have in my Rupas on this triad, as a kind of intro. .
            Message 5 of 14 , Mar 10, 2004
              Hi Larry,
              op 10-03-2004 01:35 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...:

              > Hi Nina,
              >
              > Is there any commentary for space, or should we go on to the lightness
              > triad?
              N: Yes, more to come. And before going on to lightness: I want to post what
              I have in my Rupas on this triad, as a kind of intro. .
            • LBIDD@webtv.net
              Hi Sarah, I think the comments in the Guide in CMA are U Rewata Dhamma s. I seem to recall a correspondence from B. Bodhi re. a question we had about CMA and I
              Message 6 of 14 , Mar 10, 2004
                Hi Sarah,

                I think the comments in the Guide in CMA are U Rewata Dhamma's. I seem
                to recall a correspondence from B. Bodhi re. a question we had about CMA
                and I believe he said he was just the editor.

                Larry
              • nina van gorkom
                Hi Howard, I find it worth while to consider more the points you bring up here. A reminder not to be parrot-like when I state something. That is why I would
                Message 7 of 14 , Mar 11, 2004
                  Hi Howard,
                  I find it worth while to consider more the points you bring up here. A
                  reminder not to be parrot-like when I state something. That is why I would
                  like to add a few thoughts.
                  op 09-03-2004 14:51 schreef upasaka@... op upasaka@...:

                  > Howard:
                  > Certainly "things" like impermanence, production, and decay are
                  > pa~n~natti! They are conceptually imputed on sequences of directly apprehended
                  > phenomena, and some, like decay, require identification of distinct phenomena
                  > over time.
                  N: It is true, so long as we merely think of impermanence or even the three
                  characteristics, they are objects which are concepts. It is different when
                  there is the direct realization of nama and rupa through insight.
                  H: To be impermanent, for example, is merely to not remain. A phenomenon
                  > appears, and later that phenomenon is not present - and we *say* that the
                  > phenomenon had the feature of impermanence. But the actuality is merely that
                  > it was,
                  > but currently it is not.
                  N: Merely not to remain: I would say: there is more to it. Past works on the
                  present and when we understand better what conditions are the meaning of
                  past or gone will be clearer. The fact that a dhamma has fallen away means
                  that it is past. But what is past was present before, it arose because of
                  different conditions. When those conditions fell away also the conditioned
                  dhamma had to go.
                  I went to Ven. Nyanaponika's Abh studies, which you also like. He (in Ch
                  III) analyses very well the first type of wholesome consciousness in the
                  Dhammasangani. It is amazing how many cetasikas have to come together for
                  that one moment of citta. And then they all fall away together. But we do
                  not realize this, we believe that they stay for a moment, that we have time
                  to manipulate them!. In the Ch about the present, Ven. N. analyses: having
                  been, and points out that the term uppanna (having arisen) <intends to
                  express the share of past mental states in present ones, particularly that
                  of the active, that is, kammic mental states.>
                  I could add: a moment of dosa passes, but it is accumulated and added on to
                  the latent tendency of aversion. This can condition new dosa at any time,
                  and thus more dosa is evermore accumulated. Only lokuttara citta can
                  eradicate latent tendencies. Also kusala is accumulated and conditions more
                  kusala. How could we otherwise develop it? Also the experiences of sense
                  objects that are marked by sa~n~naa, remembrance or perception, are
                  accumulated so that there can be definitions of the meaning of such objects
                  later on.
                  Seeing more the intricacy of conditions helps us o understand the meaning of
                  impermanence. Now impermanence is difficult to realize, it seems a concept.
                  But there is a way to realize directly its meaning: the development of
                  insight. First the difference between nama and rupa has to be realized, and
                  then: their conditioned nature. This is very important.
                  In the suttas we read time and again that there are three general
                  characteristics that can be realized at the moment of enlightenment. These
                  are not concepts. At the moment of enlightenment one is past that stage.
                  We read in the first sutta op the K.S. IV: <The eye is impermanent. What is
                  impermanent, that is dukkha. What is dukkha, that is void of the self.> All
                  three characteristics are often taken together. The development of insight
                  in stages leads to their direct realization.
                  We need not fall over the term characteristics, because when nama and rupa
                  are directly experienced we do not need such words. Then we shall understand
                  what a characteristic is. Now we just repeat the word.
                  When reflecting I came across some helpful posts of Jon I quote now:
                  Jon:
                  <I think it's important to appreciate that 'not-self', like
                  impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, is a *characteristic* of
                  paramattha dhammas. The significance of saying that something is a
                  characteristic of paramattha dhammas is that as paramattha dhammas
                  gradually become better known to understanding, their characteristics
                  also gradually become more apparent. The more understanding there is
                  of paramattha dhammas, the more one understands about the
                  characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta.
                  ........
                  The Buddha gave at least 2 elaborations of the meaning of 'not-self'.
                  One is to the effect of 'not subject to mastery', the other,
                  'lacking in an abiding soul or essence'. These are presumably
                  different ways of saying the same thing. (Interestingly, it seems
                  that for most listeners to the Buddha's sermons no such elaboration
                  was necessary; the meaning of 'not-self' was readily apparent from
                  the fact that the dhammas were already seen to be impermanent and
                  unsatisfactory. I think those listeners must have had a highly
                  developed understanding of paramattha dhammas already).> end quote.
                  (Next time more about conditions, I will be busy.)
                  Nina.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.