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

Re: [dsg] cause of impermanence: To Htoo, Nina, Rob K

Expand Messages
  • abhidhammika
    Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all Htoo asked: May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 1, 2004
      Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all

      Htoo asked:

      "May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it
      a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma?"

      The object of the 4th Jhaana can be one of the kasi.nas such as
      pathaviikasi.na (see Dhammasanganii, Section 165).

      Details of all types of the Jhaana objects can be studied in
      Chapters 3 through to 10 in Visuddhimaggo.

      A Jhaana object at the levels of memory-made nimitta is a paññatti
      dhamma.

      Please see the following passage regarding an advanced Jhaana
      nimitta (pa.tibhaaga nimitta) such as the one for the 4th Jhaana in
      Section 57, Visuddhimaggo.

      "Tañca kho neva va.n.navantam, na sa.n.thaanavantam. Yadi hi
      tam iidisam bhaveyya, cakkhuviññeyyam siyaa o.laarikam
      sammasanupagam tilakkha.nabbhaahatam, na panetam taadisam.
      Kevalañhi samaadhilaabhino upa.t.thaanaakaaramattam saññajametanti."

      The following is my off-the-cuff translation of the above Pali
      passage.

      "As a matter of fact, that Jhaana nimitta has neither color nor
      shape. If it were to have such things, it would have been possible
      for it to be seen by the crude eyes, to be reachable for
      observation, and to be inflicted by three characteristics or within
      the reach of three characteristics (arising, poising and
      diappearing). This Jhaana nimitta, however, is not something like
      that. It is purely a memory-made mere appearance to the attainer of
      Jhaana concentration."

      The above Pali passage also carries an unintendended warning to
      those Sanskritists who want to translate the term "nimittam"
      as "perceptual image" indiscriminately. Jhaana nimitta has neither
      color nor shape or look.

      With regards,

      Suan


      http://www.bodhiology.org



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

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika"
      <suanluzaw@b...> wrote:

      Dear Larry, Howard, Nina, Robert K and all

      How are you?

      Howard has answered the main part of Larry's issue by way of Yoniso
      Manasikaara (exercising relevant mental orientation), which is the
      prerequisite for the Right View.

      I will add only a few things here.

      Larry quoted and wrote:

      "However, Nyanatiloka translates vitakka as thought-
      conception...snip..snip..
      As such, we also need to observe and discover the three
      characteristics of thinking and rethinking as well.

      The three characteristics are what distinguish realities from non-
      realities. By applying Theravada observation methods such as
      Satipa.t.thaana to realities, we discover their three
      characterisitcs.

      By contrast, we cannot discover the three characteristics if the
      objects we take were unreal things (paññatti dhammaa) because the
      unreal things do not have the three characterisctics.

      With regards,

      Suan Lu Zaw
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      -
      Dear Suan,

      May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it
      a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma?

      Thanks in advance.

      With Metta,

      Htoo Naing
    • htootintnaing
      Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all Htoo asked: May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it a paramattha dhamma or panatti
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
        Dear Htoo, Nina, Robert K, Larry and all
        Htoo asked:

        "May I ask you a question? What is the object of the 4th jhana? Is it
        a paramattha dhamma or panatti dhamma?"..snip..snip..It is purely a
        memory-made mere appearance to the attainer of Jhaana concentration."

        The above Pali passage also carries an unintendended warning to
        those Sanskritists who want to translate the term "nimittam"
        as "perceptual image" indiscriminately. Jhaana nimitta has neither
        color nor shape or look.

        With regards,

        Suan
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dear Suan,

        Thank you very much for your clear answer. I think it should come
        first before any explanation.

        That is 'the object of 4th rupa jhana' is panatti.

        You are right.

        Panatti does not arise, does not fall away and when it is the object,
        there is no way to see anicca, dukkha, and anatta.

        So the 4th jhana itself is just a lokiya samma-samadhi. It is not one
        of the Noble Eightfold Path.

        The reason that I raise the question is to highlight that loki jhanas
        are not samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path.

        And the other reason is that to help people judge on the statement
        that 'jhanas are necessary for development of vipassana panna and
        attainment of arahatta magga nana.'

        May you all be free from suffering.

        With Unlimited Metta,

        Htoo Naing
      • Egbert
        Hi Htoo, Can I ask you to explain something? ... For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you mean? Kind Regards Herman
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
          Hi Htoo,

          Can I ask you to explain something?

          >
          > Panatti does not arise, does not fall away

          For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you
          mean?

          Kind Regards


          Herman
        • htootintnaing
          Hi Htoo, Can I ask you to explain something? Panatti does not arise, does not fall away For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
            Hi Htoo,

            Can I ask you to explain something?

            Panatti does not arise, does not fall away

            For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you
            mean?

            Kind Regards

            Herman
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------
            Dear Herman,

            I explained the reason that I raised the question to Suan. But your
            question now is a bit different.

            May I confirm first 'Are you asking why I said ''Panatti does not
            arise, does not fall away''?

            With Metta,

            Htoo Naing
          • Egbert
            Hi Htoo, ... your ... ======= I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
              Hi Htoo,

              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing"
              <htootintnaing@y...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi Htoo,
              >
              > Can I ask you to explain something?
              >
              > Panatti does not arise, does not fall away
              >
              > For what reason do you say this? Can you give examples of what you
              > mean?
              >
              > Kind Regards
              >
              > Herman
              > -------------------------------------------------------------------
              ---
              > Dear Herman,
              >
              > I explained the reason that I raised the question to Suan. But
              your
              > question now is a bit different.
              >
              > May I confirm first 'Are you asking why I said ''Panatti does not
              > arise, does not fall away''?


              =======

              I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that
              statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true.


              Hope that is clearer

              Kind Regards


              Herman


              >
              > With Metta,
              >
              > Htoo Naing
            • htootintnaing
              I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true. Hope that is clearer
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
                I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that
                statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is true.

                Hope that is clearer

                Kind Regards

                Herman
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Dear Herman,

                Thanks for your clarification.

                Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that exist.

                'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not arise,
                it does not need to fall away.

                I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he
                said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old messages.
                Howard's tree is its extension.

                With Unlimited Metta,

                Htoo Naing
              • Egbert
                Hi Htoo, Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than before. See below. ... true. ... exist. ... arise, ... messages. ... ======= The
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
                  Hi Htoo,

                  Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than
                  before. See below.
                  ====
                  > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making that
                  > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is
                  true.
                  >
                  > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that
                  exist.
                  >
                  > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not
                  arise,

                  > it does not need to fall away.
                  > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he
                  > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old
                  messages.
                  > Howard's tree is its extension.
                  >

                  =======
                  The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away

                  So the tree does not arise, does not fall away?

                  There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject.

                  There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which
                  give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or
                  falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised
                  that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the
                  time.

                  There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that
                  the tree as thought arises and falls away.

                  So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not
                  fall away?

                  Sorry if I am too persistent :-)

                  Kind Regards


                  Herman
                • christine_forsyth
                  Hello Herman, (Htoo), all, To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of Concepts
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
                    Hello Herman, (Htoo), all,

                    To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having a
                    quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts
                    (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities
                    (paramattha dhammas)"

                    Shortened Useful Post Link
                    http://tinyurl.com/2c0k

                    metta and peace,
                    Christine
                    ---The trouble is that you think you have time---

                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" <hhofman@t...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Htoo,
                    >
                    > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now than
                    > before. See below.
                    > ====
                    > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making
                    that
                    > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this is
                    > true.
                    > >
                    > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                    --
                    > >
                    > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that
                    > exist.
                    > >
                    > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not
                    > arise,
                    >
                    > > it does not need to fall away.
                    > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he
                    > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old
                    > messages.
                    > > Howard's tree is its extension.
                    > >
                    >
                    > =======
                    > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall
                    away
                    >
                    > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away?
                    >
                    > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject.
                    >
                    > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which
                    > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or
                    > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised
                    > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the
                    > time.
                    >
                    > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that
                    > the tree as thought arises and falls away.
                    >
                    > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not
                    > fall away?
                    >
                    > Sorry if I am too persistent :-)
                    >
                    > Kind Regards
                    >
                    >
                    > Herman
                  • Egbert
                    Hi Christine, If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways. ... a quick look under Useful Posts in the
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
                      Hi Christine,

                      If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of
                      Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways.

                      >
                      > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth having
                      a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings of "Concepts
                      > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities
                      > (paramattha dhammas)"

                      =======

                      I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great teaching
                      and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not
                      find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very
                      stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that
                      section would be a waste of my time and energy.

                      It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive
                      section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the
                      discussions have moved elsewhere.

                      I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or
                      respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of benefit,
                      while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as
                      from the threads initiated by others.

                      Kind Regards


                      Herman


                      >
                      > Shortened Useful Post Link
                      > http://tinyurl.com/2c0k
                      >
                      > metta and peace,
                      > Christine
                      > ---The trouble is that you think you have time---
                      >
                      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" <hhofman@t...>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Htoo,
                      > >
                      > > Thank you for your reply. But I am understanding you less now
                      than
                      > > before. See below.
                      > > ====
                      > > > I am not asking for your personal reasons why you are making
                      > that
                      > > > statement here and now, I am asking you why you believe this
                      is
                      > > true.
                      > > >
                      > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      --
                      > --
                      > > >
                      > > > Arise and fall. This is the character of things around us that
                      > > exist.
                      > > >
                      > > > 'Thing that does not exist' does not arise and as it does not
                      > > arise,
                      > >
                      > > > it does not need to fall away.
                      > > > I think this is logical. Howward would say something. Once he
                      > > > said 'panatti arises and falls away'. Please see in the old
                      > > messages.
                      > > > Howard's tree is its extension.
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > > =======
                      > > The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall
                      > away
                      > >
                      > > So the tree does not arise, does not fall away?
                      > >
                      > > There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject.
                      > >
                      > > There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which
                      > > give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or
                      > > falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised
                      > > that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the
                      > > time.
                      > >
                      > > There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear
                      that
                      > > the tree as thought arises and falls away.
                      > >
                      > > So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does
                      not
                      > > fall away?
                      > >
                      > > Sorry if I am too persistent :-)
                      > >
                      > > Kind Regards
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Herman
                    • christine_forsyth
                      Hello Herman, Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn t be reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research and
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 2, 2004
                        Hello Herman,

                        Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be
                        reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary research
                        and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points which
                        were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different
                        methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting my
                        methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't
                        meant that way.
                        Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and
                        prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very
                        tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'.

                        metta and peace,
                        Christine
                        ---The trouble is that you think you have time---

                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" <hhofman@t...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Christine,
                        >
                        > If I understand correctly, you are happier with the progress of
                        > Rusty. Which makes me happy. Anyways.
                        >
                        > >
                        > > To save time, energy, and archive space, would it be worth
                        having
                        > a quick look under Useful Posts in the topic headings
                        of "Concepts
                        > > (pa~n~natti)" and "Concepts (pa~n~natti) Vs Ultimate Realities
                        > > (paramattha dhammas)"
                        >
                        > =======
                        >
                        > I like DSG precisely because I can discuss. There is great
                        teaching
                        > and learning value in the discussion process. I personally do not
                        > find the non-interactivity of the useful posts section very
                        > stimulating of any learning process. So me spending time in that
                        > section would be a waste of my time and energy.
                        >
                        > It would not bother me if none of posts made it to the archive
                        > section. I would even volunteer to remove them all, after the
                        > discussions have moved elsewhere.
                        >
                        > I am sure that everyone understands there is no need to read or
                        > respond to my posts. Those that do may find some things of
                        benefit,
                        > while I certainly benefit from any feedback I receive, as well as
                        > from the threads initiated by others.
                        >
                        > Kind Regards
                        >
                        >
                        > Herman
                      • Egbert
                        Hi Christine, Thanks for clarifying. You are quite right, there s no harm in a bit of research before launching into another probing exercise. Just between
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 3, 2004
                          Hi Christine,

                          Thanks for clarifying. You are quite right, there's no harm in a bit
                          of research before launching into another probing exercise.

                          Just between you, me and the gate post, I doubt I'll ever get this
                          panatti business.

                          My thoughts are with you and with Rusty, I am imagining your
                          tiredness, but I'm sure it will be worse :-). Huge thunderstorm in
                          progress here.

                          Thanks for your kindness, Christine, now and in the past


                          Herman



                          --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth"
                          <cforsyth1@b...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Hello Herman,
                          >
                          > Clearly I find things of benefit in your posts or I wouldn't be
                          > reading them. My suggestion was meant to be a preliminary
                          research
                          > and clarifying process, and, then, if there were still points
                          which
                          > were unclear, to tackle them in discussion. Clearly different
                          > methods appeal to different accumulations. Probably projecting
                          my
                          > methods onto you ... Apologies if I sounded 'short' - it wasn't
                          > meant that way.
                          > Rusty is O.K. I suppose - hard to tell with phenobarbitone and
                          > prednisolone twice a day - tends to dampen the personality. Very
                          > tired owner, having to be on 'seizure watch'.
                          >
                          > metta and peace,
                          > Christine
                          > ---The trouble is that you think you have time---
                          >
                        • nina van gorkom
                          Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry s post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 3, 2004
                            Dear Htoo,
                            Very clear, thank you.
                            But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's post
                            about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the arupajhaanas.
                            When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not only
                            right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right concentration
                            of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about the context.
                            Nina.
                            op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@...:

                            > So the 4th jhana itself is just a lokiya samma-samadhi. It is not one
                            > of the Noble Eightfold Path.
                            >
                            > The reason that I raise the question is to highlight that loki jhanas
                            > are not samma-samadhi of Noble Eightfold Path.
                            >
                            > And the other reason is that to help people judge on the statement
                            > that 'jhanas are necessary for development of vipassana panna and
                            > attainment of arahatta magga nana.'
                          • htootintnaing
                            Herman: The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away So the tree does not arise, does not fall away? ... Htoo: There is no tree at
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 3, 2004
                              Herman:

                              The original statement was Panatti does not arise, does not fall away
                              So the tree does not arise, does not fall away?
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Htoo:

                              There is no tree at all. So it does not arise and it does not fall
                              away.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Herman:

                              There are two trees. Tree as object, tree as subject.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Htoo: Hmm. I am listening to you.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Herman:

                              There is the tree, as the name for the bunch of conditions which
                              give rise to seeing it. In my view, nothing about the arising or
                              falling away of the tree as object can be said if it is realised
                              that the vision which sees it is rising and falling away all the
                              time.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Htoo:

                              If you see vision or sight, it is OK for you. Sight arises and falls
                              away. But there is no tree at all and tree does not arise and does
                              not fall away.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Herman:

                              There is the tree as mental subject. In my view, it is clear that
                              the tree as thought arises and falls away.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Htoo:

                              As there is no tree at all, tree does not arise and does not fall
                              away at all. Dhammayatana do not comprise panatti. There are three
                              dhamma which serve as dhammaayatana. They are cetasikas, sukhama
                              rupas and nibbana.

                              Thought that arise and fall away are cittas and cetasikas. Cittas and
                              cetasikas are nama dhamma and they are conditioned dhamma. They do
                              arise and fall away.
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Herman:

                              So what do you mean when you say panatti does not arise, does not
                              fall away?

                              Sorry if I am too persistent :-)

                              Kind Regards

                              Herman
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Htoo:

                              You are welcome. I have repeated explained above. There is no tree at
                              all. As there is no tree, tree does not arise and tree does not fall
                              away. Tree 'the word' is panatta and the idea in it is also panatta.
                              There is no tree at all.

                              Are these logical?

                              'Nothing' arises and 'nothing' falls away. 'Nothing' exists. We can
                              all see 'nothing'. We can all hear 'nothing'. We can all
                              smell 'nothing'. We can all taste 'nothing'. We can all
                              touch 'nothing'.

                              As it is not real, there is nothing to do with 'nothing' here.

                              You can now replace 'nothing' with 'panatta' or its example 'tree'.

                              May you be free from suffering.

                              With Unlimited Metta,

                              Htoo Naing
                            • htootintnaing
                              Dear Htoo, Very clear, thank you. But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry s post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 3, 2004
                                Dear Htoo,

                                Very clear, thank you.
                                But ruupajhana can take different objects, we have to study Larry's
                                post about the subjects. I was actually wondering about the
                                arupajhaanas.

                                When we read in the Suttas: right concentration, this includes not
                                only right concentration of Noble Eightfold Path, but also right
                                concentration of samatha. Therefore, we have to be very careful about
                                the context.
                                Nina.
                                op 03-10-2004 00:38 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...:
                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Dear Nina,

                                Suttas says 'when the monks stay away from hindrances and arrive at
                                the state with vitakka, v..p..s..e.. and stay in 1st jhana, without
                                vitakka and vicara stay in 2nd jhana, without piti stay in 3rd jhana,
                                and without dukkha, sukha stay in 4th jhana, this is samma-samadhi.'

                                However, anyone who is exactly at magga is not in rupa jhana or arupa
                                jhana. But they are looking at nibbana with lokuttara appana samadhi.
                                This is lokuttara jhana.

                                There were people who attained rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas before
                                arising of The Buddha. Examples are Devimala hermit who foresaw
                                Siddhattha the Prince would become a Sammasambuddha while he would be
                                reborn at arupa brahma bhumi. He had not had lokuttara jhana. His
                                samadhi might be samma-samadhi. But not of Noble Eightfold Path.

                                By the same token, Alara and Udaka were jhana teachers of the Prince
                                Siddhattha. They did not have lokuttara jhana. Their samadhi might
                                well be samma-samadhi. But it would not be samma-samadhi of Noble
                                Eightfold Path.

                                I agree that we have to be very careful about the context.

                                With Metta,

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