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

Re: [dsg] Re: Not taking a footing and not exerting

Expand Messages
  • upasaka@aol.com
    Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/1/06 11:12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Howard: The harm is that it makes a citta into a little self , a thing that acts,
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 1, 2006
      Hi, Ken -

      In a message dated 8/1/06 11:12:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      ken_aitch@... writes:

      > Hi Howard,
      >
      > ------
      > <. . .>
      > Howard:
      > Yes, sutta formulation is quite conventional. When involved
      > with an Abhidhammic level of analysis, the speech should be less
      > conventional, with great care taken (in that context) to avoid even a
      > hint of agency.
      > ------
      >
      > Normally, I would have thought agency meant acting on someone else's
      > behalf. But you seem to understand it as any kind of acting (as
      > distinct from an "act of acting"). I certainly don't believe citta
      > experiences an object on behalf of a third party. However, if the term
      > "citta experiences" implies the kind of agency you are referring to,
      > then where's the harm in that?

      --------------------------------------------
      Howard:
      The harm is that it makes a citta into a "little self", a thing that
      acts, when in fact all it is is consciousness. Note: The dictionary entry for
      'agent' is as follows:
      ------------------
      Main Entry: agent
      Function: noun
      Pronunciation: 'A-j&nt
      Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin,
      present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to
      travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead
      1 : one that acts or exerts power
      (Secondary meanings omitted)
      ------------------

      Just as there is no real being who is conscious, there is no entity by
      any other name (like 'citta') that is conscious. There is just the
      consciousness of an object occurring.
      --------------------------------------------------------

      >
      > --------------
      > <. . .>
      > KH: >>panna directly "knows" a paramattha dhamma.
      >
      >
      > Howard: > I agree.
      > ---------------
      >
      > I should leave well alone, but let's be clear on this. Are you
      > agreeing it is perfectly in order to say, "Panna knows?" Hasn't your
      > point always been that panna did not know, and that panna was, more
      > correctly, "the act of knowing?"

      --------------------------------------------------
      Howard:
      I was letting that language-usage slide on this one, not wanting to
      keep up this much more. But, if you insist, yes, pa~n~na is not a thing that
      exhibits insight; it is the insight.
      ---------------------------------------------------

      >
      > -----------
      > <. . .>
      > KH: >>As I understand it, Mahayana's "non-duality" means that every
      > dhamma is at one with the universe (loka), meaning that no dhamma can
      > have its own characteristics. This is very different from Theravada.
      > >>
      >
      > Howard: >
      > If that were Mahayana non-duality, it would be different from
      > "my" non-duality as well! It sounds much more like a monism to me than
      > any sort of non-duality. I do believe you are conflating Mahayana with
      > Vedanta here.
      > ------------
      >
      > I may have accidentally combined a little of both there, I'm not sure.
      > I was summarising part of an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi (the article I
      > mentioned earlier). Here is a snippet that could be called its bottom
      > line on the matter:
      >
      > "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not
      > endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add,
      > can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the
      > Buddha's discourses."
      >
      > http://www.vipassana.com/resources/bodhi/dhamma_and_nonduality.php
      >
      > ----------------
      > KH: >> If I understand you correctly, you are trying to meet the
      > two doctrines half way. <. . .>
      > >>
      >
      > Howard: >
      > No, I'm not trying to do anything of the sort. My sense of
      > non-duality is based entirely on suttas. In any case, why are you
      > introducing a matter irrelevant to this issue? The duality/non-duality
      > issue has no bearing on my post that you are replying to. l that I
      > asked was the following: "What do "the original texts" say there is to
      > a citta besides it being an act of knowing? ...
      > Is citta not just the knowing of an object? Is it not just vi~n~nana?
      > If there is more to it, I'd like to know what."
      > ----------------
      >
      > I wasn't aware of introducing anything. I would have thought
      > non-duality and plurality were already an intricate part of DSG's
      > long-running conversations about agency (especially the Karunadasa
      > article I was discussing with Scott).

      ------------------------------------------------
      Howard:
      It isn't relevant in reply to what I had written and to which you are
      replying.
      ------------------------------------------------

      >
      > Ken H
      >
      >
      =========================
      With metta,
      Howard

      /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble
      in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a
      phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Nina van Gorkom
      Dear Scott, citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61:
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
        Dear Scott,
        citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same.
        We read in the �Kindred Sayings� (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII,
        61:<Ya.m ca kho eta.m bhikkhave vuccati citta.m iti pi mano iti pi
        vi~n~na.m iti pi...
        Yet this, monks, what we call indeed thought (citta), mind,
        consciousness (by this the untaught manyfolk are not able to feel
        repelled)...>
        However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms.
        The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it
        includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word
        cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used.
        Vijaanaati means to cognize, understand. Citta clearly knows an
        object, but it is different from pa~n~na.
        Nina.

        Op 1-aug-2006, om 3:56 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven:

        > My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a
        > term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional
        > term. The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge,
        > to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to
        > vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please!



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Scott Duncan
        Dear Nina, Thank you for the help. N: citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same. We read in the �Kindred Sayings� (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61:
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 2, 2006
          Dear Nina,

          Thank you for the help.

          N: "citta and vi~n~naa.na are the same.
          We read in the �Kindred Sayings� (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII,
          61:<Ya.m ca kho eta.m bhikkhave vuccati citta.m iti pi mano iti pi
          vi~n~na.m iti pi...
          Yet this, monks, what we call indeed thought (citta), mind,
          consciousness (by this the untaught manyfolk are not able to feel
          repelled)...>
          However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms.
          The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it
          includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word
          cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used.
          Vijaanaati means to cognize, understand. Citta clearly knows an
          object, but it is different from pa~n~na."

          This is a very good clarification. How does the way citta "knows"
          differ from the way pa~n~na "knows?" My guess is that citta knows in
          a clear but global way, pa~n~na by specifically penetrating an objects
          impermanence, non-self, and unsatisfactoriness.

          With loving kindness,

          Scott.
        • sarah abbott
          Hi Scott, (Matheesha & all), ... .... S: When there is thinking, cittas arise and experience objects (concepts), but we need to remember that cittas also arise
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 3, 2006
            Hi Scott, (Matheesha & all),

            --- Scott Duncan <scduncan@...> wrote:
            > "Cinteti," related to citta, is "to think, to reflect." Again, a bit
            > more evidence which suggests to me that it is okay to say "thinking"
            > in relation to citta.
            ....
            S: When there is thinking, cittas arise and experience objects (concepts),
            but we need to remember that cittas also arise and experience objects when
            there is seeing, hearing and other sense door experiencing, also at
            moments of bhavanga cittas, jhana cittas, lokuttara cittas and so on!
            ....
            > My understanding of "vi~n~nana is that it is, as the fifth khandha, a
            > term for general consciousness; that citta is a specific functional
            > term. The paali "vijaanati" means "to have discriminating knowledge,
            > to recognise, to apprehend, to ascertain." This verb is related to
            > vi~n~nana, as I understand it. Corrections please!
            ....
            S: They are probably related, but isn't vijaanaati (vi+~naa+naa; ~na is
            changed to jaa), to know/understand more closely related to vijaanana
            (knowledge)?

            Vi~n~naa.na (consciousness, citta) as in Vi~n~naa.na khandha is a synonym
            for citta (as Nina mentioned). At each moment, even moments with
            ignorance, citta or Vi~n~naa.na khandha is arising and performing its
            function of experiencing its object.

            See lots more in U.P. under 'Citta -definitions' etc
            *****
            Also for Math, TG & others, you may care to take a look in U.P. under:

            - Vitakka Santhana Sutta
            - Yuganadha Sutta
            - Sabhava
            - Phena Sutta
            - Kaccanagotta Sutta
            - Samadhi Sutta
            - Samadhi

            Further comments and disagreements welcome on anything you find!

            Metta,

            Sarah
            ======
          • Nina van Gorkom
            Dear Scott, As Sarah also explained, this knowing or cognizing of citta has a very general meaning: seeing, cognizing that is kusala, akusala, or
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 3, 2006
              Dear Scott,
              As Sarah also explained, this knowing or cognizing of citta has a
              very general meaning: seeing, cognizing that is kusala, akusala, or
              bhavangacitta. Citta arises at each and every moment and always
              cognizes an object.
              Pa~n~naa is a sobhana cetasika, it arises with sobhana cittas
              (sobhana including also vipaakacitta and kiriyacitta). It is said
              that pa~n~naa illuminates the object, but, as discussed, there are
              many degrees of it.
              It begins with intellectual understanding. The penetration of the
              three characteristics is the end of a long process of development.
              Nina.
              Op 2-aug-2006, om 13:41 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven:

              > This is a very good clarification. How does the way citta "knows"
              > differ from the way pa~n~na "knows?" My guess is that citta knows in
              > a clear but global way, pa~n~na by specifically penetrating an objects
              > impermanence, non-self, and unsatisfactoriness.
              >



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ken O
              Hi All Just like to share this.. of arisen evil, arisen is eightfold, I just write the two interesting ones
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 4, 2006
                Hi All

                Just like to share this..

                of arisen evil, arisen is eightfold, I just write the two interesting
                ones

                <<1451 (6)After the eyes have been opened once, when an object has
                been grasped as a sign, it cannot be said that defilements will not
                rise at any moment [the object is] remembered. Why Because the
                object has been taken up. Like what? Just as it cannot be said that
                milk will not issue from a place in a milk tree which has been
                repeatedly struck a hatchet. This is called "arisen because an
                object has been taken up"

                1452 (7) But when the defilements are not suppressed by an
                attainment, it is not to be said that they will not arise in that
                situation. Why? Because of non-suppression. Like What? Like it
                cannot be said that milk if one will to strike a milk tree with a
                hatchet milk tree would not issue from the very spot. This is called
                "arien through non-suppression".


                Cheers
                Ken O



                __________________________________
                Yahoo! Movies - Search movie info and celeb profiles and photos.
                http://sg.movies.yahoo.com/
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.