Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The...
- 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?
> 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 :-)
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Jonothan Abbott
> It is explicit in the suttas that there are 2 kinds of bhavana, samathacapable
> and vipassana. It is also explicit in the texts that samatha bhavana
> refers to the wholesome absorption in certain specified objects,
> of leading to jhana citta, whereas vipassana refers to the developmentUnderstood--
> of insight capable of leading to enlightenment.
> It's not so much a matter of incompatibility, as describing differenttranquility of
> 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
> samatha is present.OK Jon, thanks.