Re: [dsg] Re: 5th anniversary of DSG - Audio discussion between Erik & A.Suji...
- Hi Howard (Matheesha & all),
Firstly, welcome back Matheesha*. Im just getting round to responding to
a post of Howards addressed to us both before you went away!
--- upasaka@... wrote:
> > S: More on nibbana to come in the next audio sections.....
> > I think the point is that all that can ever be known (yes, by
> > are the namas and rupas appearing now. Nibbana is not apparent and so
> > we can do is to speculate about it now. It wonât help us realize it
> > all. Such realization will only come about by highly developed
> > understanding and detachment from the presently conditioned dhammas
> > appearing.
> The foregoing troubles me a bit, Sarah, on several accounts. For
> thing, it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are known by many, if not
> all, of
> our mental operations, including, among others, vi~n~nana (most
> sa~n~na (possibly taking second place), and vedana.
S: Yes, of course there has to be citta (vi~n~naana) experiencing the
object and sa~n~naa and other mental factors performing their functions
too. But as in the passage Larry recently posted made clear, pa~n~naa is
what illuminates the object, like when the money-changer assesses the
value of the coins.
Heres another translation of a similar passage in the commentary to the
Abhidhamattha Sangaha (PTS), Ch2, Mentalities:
Wisdom (pa~n~naa) is what knows the way (pakaarena) [of things]; it
understands them as impermanent, etc. As it is suited to predominance in
understanding the true nature [of things] it is a controlling faculty, the
faculty of wisdom (pa~n~nindriya).
Now what is the difference between the recognition, consciousness and
wisdom? Recognition (S: sa~n~naa) only does the job of recognizing
(something) as blue, etc; it is not able to penetrate its characteristics.
Consciousness (S: vi~n~naana or citta) is capable of penetrating the
characteristics, but having performed this task, it is not able to bring
about attainment of the path. Wisdom, however, can do all three. The
relevant illustration is the way a child, villager, and a goldsmith
[respectively] understand a coin. And here, when recognition is
dissociated from knowledge at the time it arises byway of apprehending the
appearance [of the object], consciousness is nominal; and at other times
it is strong. Associated with knowledge, both [recognition and
consciousness] are assimilated to it.
H:>Also, what exactly
> pa~n~na? It is made to sound like a "God dhamma" that can be all, see
> all, and
> be everywhere. But to me, when our mental faculties function properly,
> unobscured by defilement, with ignorance out of the way if not uprooted,
> we *say* that
> they operate with wisdom.
S: When we are in deep sleep, there are no defilements arising and no
wisdom either. Wisdom or pa~n~naa is not merely what occurs when there is
no ignorance. At moments of seeing or hearing or other vipaka cittas
arising, there is no ignorance, for example too.
Pa~n~naa is a specific mental factor which arises when there are the right
conditions and illuminates the object being experienced. Even when there
are wholesome states arising, such as when we show generosity or kindness,
there usually isnt any pa~n~naa arising which knows or determines
H:>What is right understanding, for example, if
> not an....
> unobscured, rightly operating recognition (sa~n~na)?
S: We can say there is rightly operating recognition or sa~n~naa
whenever the experiencing of an object is pure or wholesome (as opposed to
when there is perversion of sa~n~naa arising). However, this doesnt mean
there is necessarily any right understanding at such moments as I
indicated in the example of showing generosity or kindness.
H:> Also, the terminology, so common in the writings of Khun Sujin
> and her....
> students, long the lines of "It is panna which knows, fully understands
> eventually abandons such dhammas and realizes the 4 Noble Truths" is
> troublesome to me. Even if wisdom is not just the absence of
> obscuration, even if
> it is a distinct mental operation, it is not an agent that does things -
> it is
> the doing! To say that pa~n~na knows and understands is to reify an
S: It is to point out that there is an element, a dhatu, which is pa~n~naa
which performs the particular function of illuminating. Again Wisdom
(pa~n~naa) is what knows the way (pakaarena) [of things]; it understands
them as impermanent, etc. By stressing that its an element, a cetasika
which performs this function, it becomes apparent that there is no self or
person of any kind involved. However, different elements do arise, do
exist momentarily, do perform their functions momentarily and do fall
In AN, Bk of 3s, 35 Three Sectarian Tenets(Bodhi transl), there is an
account of the elements. In the commentary note which Bodhi gives, it
The four mental aggregates are name (or mentality, naama)and the
aggregate of form is form(or matter, ruupa). Thus there are only these
two things: name and form (naamaruupa). Beyond that, there is neither a
substantial being (satta) nor a soul (jiiva). In this way one should
understand in brief the meditation subject of the six elements that leads
up to arahantship.
S: With respect, when we appreciate more and more that everything we find
so important are merely elements, merely naamaruupa, there is no question
of there being any substantial being involved. We may have to agree to
disagree here for now. This doesnt mean that these elements do not exist
right now and do not perform their functions or are not experienced by
I think you may have mentioned before that even element sounds
substantialist to you. But elements are not only found throughout the
Abhidhamma, but also throughout the Sutta Pitaka. There is a whole section
on elements in the Dhatu Samyutta.
In his preface to his translation of the Dhaatu-Kathaa (Discourse on
Elements, PTS), U Narada states that this text was expounded by the
Buddha in order to dispel wrong views of attaa, i.e of substantiality,
ego-entity, self, soul, I, being, person, man, woman, and life. It deals
with the states (dhammas) which are the only things to be found, under the
categories of aggregates, bases and elements which are all anattaa, ie not
attaa. Therefore there is no attaa but only the arising and ceasing of
states that are either aggregates, bases or elements. Being, person, self,
I, etc are mere concepts expressed in conventional terms which the vast
majority believe correspond with reality.
S: Anyway, I know you agree with all this. He also indicates that The 5
sense-consciousness elements and the mind element are conscious of sense
objects which are material elements. Mind-consciousness element, however,
is conscious of objects of thought which are either of the past, present,
or future, material or mental, real or imaginary. All these consciousness
elements occur in mental processes.
S: There is lots more here and under Elements in U.P. The point is that
rather than reifying or making such dhammas substantialist, such
appreciation of elements as namas (which may experience objects) or as
rupas (which can never experience objects) leads to an appreciation of
dhammas as anatta. On the contrary, as I see it, by looking for an
understanding of an event, there will not be the growth of right
understanding which clearly sees the distinction between these various
So finally, to really set the cat among the pigeons here, U Narada writes:
An element is defined as that which bears its own intrinsic nature. It
cannot be split up or transformed into another.
S: You wrote a good post on sabhava, so I know you appreciate there is no
sense of atta here. Whether we refer to sound or hearing as having its
own intrinsic nature or particular characteristics or qualities, the
point is merely that the qualities of sound or hearing can never be
merged, can never be understood as an event, but are distinct and can be
known one at a time.
H:> The terminology is harmful and misleading, I believe. Pa~n~na, in that
> sentence, sounds like "the Lord, God," an omniscient being who knows,....
> and not only that, also *abandons*(!), a non-cognitive acting. Pa~n~na
> presented as a little divine being. Where is anatta here?
S: :-) Without pa~n~naa there is no way out of samsara, there is no path,
there is no Dhamma.
Yes, it is pa~n~naa which realizes the 4 Noble Truths and which abandons
what should be abandoned.
Pahaana pari~n~naa (full understanding as abandoning) is the pa~n~naa
which realizes the 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta,
overcoming or abandoning the ideas of permanence, satisfactoriness and
self for good. This is the particular quality or nature of pa~n~naa.
You might like to look at the suttas on Abandonment in
Sa.laayatansa.myutta, SN, 24 and 25. The second one starts with the Buddha
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the Dhamma for abandoning all through direct
knowledge and full understanding(sabba.m abhi~n~naa pari~n~naa
pahaanaaya). It goes on to indicate how all dhammas are abandoned through
the highly developed pa~n~naa only.
Howard, Ive probably said too much, but will look forward to any further
discussion with you on return from our trip. Ive been enjoying all your
recent threads and if thats the result of your mediation, keep it up:-)).
(I also shared your samvegga post with our N.Y. friend I mentioned, Neil,
who recently lost his wife. Im trying to encourage him to join us here).
* Btw, Matheesha, I recently replied to Tep on some of your discussions
together you may wish to look for them, see subject Tep(3) and
Tep(4), a few days before you returned I think.)Perhaps you can
encourage Tep to continue your good discussions while I'm away:).
- Great to see your post Suan,
I have the translation with commentary and subcommentary by Ven.
Bodhi and it is wonderful. It must be even more profound to read it
in pali as you do.
In firstname.lastname@example.org, "abhidhammika" <suanluzaw@...>
> Dear Nina, Robert K, Mike N, Howard, Matheesha and all
> How are you?
> Recently, I have been reading "Mahaanidaana Suttam" in Pali with
> intentional slowness. Of course, I have read this great Suttam
> previously, but this time round I did so with slow pace and
> Nina, Robert, Mike, you three should also read it again with slow,
> probing interest. I discover many profound aspects of it in this
> great Diighanikaaya Suttam. For example, the Pali
> expression "anÞnÞamanÞnÞapaccayo", one of the causes or conditions
> expounded in Pa.t.thaana. And, to the delight of Abhidhamma
> students, the Buddha explained here the nature of sabhaava or
> lakkhanaa in Suttam style. Amazing, amazing!