RE: [dsg] Re: Every Paramattha dhamma can be clearly observed from experience ?
- Hi Rob and everyone,
The Mulapariyaya Sutta (Mn 1) describes the differences in how the
thoughts of an uninstructed worldling (that's us) progress, as
compared to how the thoughts of a trainee (Sotapanna / Sakadagami /
Anagami) progess, as compared to how the thoughts of an Arahant
progress, as compared to how the thoughts of the Buddha progress.
In this Sutta, the Buddha explains that the uninstructed worldling
gets off track at the perception stage ("percieves" with
sannavipallasa versus "directy knows"), but that the real problems
occur at the conceptualization stage.
WARNING: without a detailed commentary, the Mulapariyaya Sutta seems
to make almost no sense. I have a 75-page book on this Sutta written
by Bhikkhu Bodhi and it is still very tough reading.
The following is part of the translators note (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) to
the Mulapariyaya Sutta as found on ATI.
"The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of
clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus
recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to
views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in their
rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind reads
into experience. This is a point he makes in the following discourse,
which is apparently his response to a particular school of Brahmanical
thought that was developing in his time -- the Samkhya, or
If the above is a correct statement of the Buddha's position and its
context, then mindful silence seems an appropriate Buddhist answer to
the question as posed in the subject.
Studying what X said about what Y said about what Z said about process P
is quite a different program to studying P.
The Nikayas suggest a steady stream of people attaining ever higher
stages of emancipation. I see no such suggestion in the eras of the
commentarial tradition and beyond. I make the obvious connection between
the above and the fact that the nose immersed in a book is not studying
P, it is studying what X said about etc etc.
Rob M :-)
Yahoo! Groups Links
- Dear Tzungkuen
I am just going through the posts in my inbox that came in while we were
away. I hope you don't mind a late contribution on this thread!
--- Mr Tzung-Kuen Wen <s4060239@...> wrote: >
> Dear Dhamma friendsThis is a very pertinent question, one that will have a considerable
> Since many members in this group study Abhidhamma, I have a question
> to ask. Can every paramattha dhamma listed in Abhidhamma texts can be
> observed by everyone?
bearing on one's idea of the 'practice'.
> Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw of Burma is a well-known meditation teacher andI agree that in general we know the various dhammas only intellectually,
> very learned in both Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma. Actually, his
> meditation teaching is completely combined with Abhidhamma.
> According to him, every paramattha dhammas, every citta and cetasika
> including the bhavanga-citta, patisandhi-citta should be ¡¥really¡¦
> observed in meditation. (We only know the terms of Abhidhamma
> intellectually.) He also teaches yogis to observe the namas and rupas in
> the past and future existences in order to really understand the law of
> I would like to know if anyone of you has any thoughts about this
not directly. However, I do not agree that all these dhammas can or
should be known directly, by a person wishing to develop the path.
To think that they should all be known directly would involve an idea of
focussing on them all in turn at some stage or other. To my understanding
of the teachings, it is not possible to come to know any dhamma directly
by choosing to focus on it (I exclude here someone for whom insight has
been developed to a high degree). Dhammas are not perceivable directly
except by awareness or insight (the highest level of panna), and this
means that they cannot be selected to be the object of (intended) insight.
If this is attempted, then what seems like directly observing a chosen
dhamma will not in fact be so. True awareness or insight is a high level
of kusala that arises only by a complex and very occasional set of
There is no suggestion in the teachings that enlightenment comes only when
*all* dhammas have been directly known. According to the teachings,
insight needs to be developed to the point that the fetters are broken
(the fetters are the various kinds of akusala that bind us to continued
existence). The overcoming of the fetters is achieved by seeing dhammas
as they truly are, as anicca/dukkha/anatta, and this is the function of
insight, but to my understanding this level is achieved without the need
for *all* dhammas to be directly expereinced. That sort of knowlwedge is
the province of a Buddha or the great disciples only.
Of course, intellectual knowledge about all dhammas is useful and is a
support for the development of understanding. But the arising of insight
is not a self-directed kind of thinking, and both the time of its arising
and the dhamma that is its object on any occasion are matters beyond our
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk