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

Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The...

Expand Messages
  • Herman Hofman
    Hi Howard and Scott, ... I see it exactly like this, and also based purely on experience. Hey Scott, what Howard wrote. The patience is his though, not mine
    Message 1 of 111 , Jul 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Howard and Scott,

      On 01/07/06, upasaka@... <upasaka@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > >
      > > You then equate "consciousness of consciousness" with awareness or
      > > mindfulness. Do you mean that there is a superimposition of
      > > consciousnesses such that one is aware of the other at the same time?
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      > Howard:
      > That is a good question, Scott. I don't think that there is
      > oconsciousness of current consciousness (as an object) at that time. On any occasion,
      > there is but a single object of consciousness. However, I do believe there is a
      > nondual awareness of being conscious all the time, for otherwise we would be
      > unable to know that we had just been aware of something (after the fact). After
      > an odd sound, when someone asks "Did you hear that?" you are able to truly
      > answer in the affirmative. I conclude from this that there had been some form of
      > awareness of being aware, and yet, at the moment of hearing, the only
      > *object* of consciousness was the sound. Thus, I believe there is more than one way
      > of knowing: knowing as an object, and "participative knowing".

      I see it exactly like this, and also based purely on experience.

      Hey Scott, what Howard wrote. The patience is his though, not mine :-)


      KInd Regards



      Herman
    • mike
      ... capable ... Understood-- ... tranquility of ... OK Jon, thanks. mike
      Message 111 of 111 , Aug 13, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott
        <jonabbott@...> wrote:

        > It is explicit in the suttas that there are 2 kinds of bhavana, samatha
        > and vipassana. It is also explicit in the texts that samatha bhavana
        > refers to the wholesome absorption in certain specified objects,
        capable
        > of leading to jhana citta, whereas vipassana refers to the development
        > of insight capable of leading to enlightenment.

        Understood--

        > It's not so much a matter of incompatibility, as describing different
        > kinds of kusala, just as dana and sila do. While a moment of samatha
        > cannot be a moment of insight, at a moment of insight the
        tranquility of
        > samatha is present.

        OK Jon, thanks.

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