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

Antw.: [dsg] Q. Rupas, Ch 1, no 2

Expand Messages
  • Nina van Gorkom
    Hi TG, thank you for your useful remarks. ... TG: We can learn that in the ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There is just the
    Message 1 of 18 , Mar 1 2:35 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi TG,
      thank you for your useful remarks.
      -------
      TG: We can learn that in the
      ultimate sense there is not a hard thing, and there is no body. There
      is just the contact of element on element.

      TG: I like and agree with this for the most part. However, I think it
      puts
      too much emphasis on NO to body and hard thing ... and YES to elements.
      There is a way of looking at things that would have the mind think
      "there is a
      body." There is another way of looking at it that would have the mind
      think
      "there is no body."
      -------
      N: You are right. We have to find a balance. It may look like
      annihilation. I like to keep in mind what I read in the Visuddhimagga
      about past life and this life: neither the same nor another.
      There is some continuity. When we think of the four factors that keep
      on producing rupas throughout this lifespan, we can also see some
      continuity in a life. The rupa that is eyesense falls away
      completely, there is nothing left. But already kamma produces a new
      eyesense. It is kamma not of someone else, but of this particualr
      person.
      ---------
      <We see people walking and moving their hands, and it is because of
      <sa~n~na that we perceive this. In reality at each splitsecond all
      <rupas fall away, nothing is left.

      TG: Here's where you are relying on pure theory IMO. In a sense, since
      there is continuous change, we might want to say that things arise
      and fall away
      moment by moment as each moment they become something a little
      different.
      But the above tone is far too dogmatic IMO. In my view, the Buddha
      did not
      teach impermanence in this way at all. Impermanence is always
      presented in the
      Suttas as a gradual changing process.
      --------
      N: I find the sutta on the lute rather strong:
      < We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred
      Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, chapter V, §205, The Lute) that the
      Buddha said to the monks:

      ...Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a
      råjah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says:
      ``Good men, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so
      intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?''
      Then they say to him: ``That, lord, is the sound of what is called a
      lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so
      ravishing, of such power to bind.''
      Then he says: ``Go, my men. Fetch me that lute.''
      So they fetch him that lute and say to him: ``This, lord, is that
      lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.''
      Then he says: ``Enough of this lute, my men. Fetch me that sound.''
      They say to him: ``This lute so called, lord, consists of divers
      parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of
      divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the
      handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort
      of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers
      parts, of a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded
      of divers parts.''
      Then that råjah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces.
      Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so,
      he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the
      heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the
      swift stream of a river.
      Then he says: ``A poor thing is what you call a lute, my men,
      whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and
      led astray.''
      Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope
      for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities
      (saòkhårakkhandha), investigating consciousness, so far as there is
      scope for consciousness--in all of these investigations, whatever
      there be of ``I'' or ``I am'' or ``Mine'', there is none of that for
      him.>

      There is nothing left of that lute.
      Seeing falls away, and I do not see a gradual change of seeing.
      Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. There is no time for a
      gradual change.
      --------

      TG: I personally think the above account of impermanence -- rupas
      being replaced
      by new rupas, etc. -- is just flat wrong and not useful in applying
      insight.
      Also, it lacks a conditional component which I think is
      counterproductive
      to insight.
      ------
      N: Eyesense falls away and is replaced, otherwise you would not be
      seeing now. So long as kamma produces eyesense in your life there are
      conditions for seeing. You do not create your own seeing, you do not
      own it.
      Concitions are being taught all the time, both for namas and for
      rupas. Also, when we realize that a reality that falls away falls
      away completely, helps us to have less conceit, clinging to my
      important personality. Even when we understand this in theory, it
      helps us to think in the correct way. This can condition direct
      understanding. We have to begin somewhere and the right beginning,
      correct intellectual understanding is what supports the development
      of insight later on. Gradually so! Don't you think so?
      Nina.




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • TGrand458@aol.com
      Hi Nina In a message dated 3/1/2007 3:36:34 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@xs4all.nl writes: There is nothing left of that lute. Seeing falls away, and
      Message 2 of 18 , Mar 1 9:04 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Nina

        In a message dated 3/1/2007 3:36:34 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
        vangorko@... writes:

        There is nothing left of that lute.
        Seeing falls away, and I do not see a gradual change of seeing.
        Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. There is no time for a
        gradual change.
        --------

        TG: I fail to see how the Sutta on the lute backs this up one iota. There
        are various suttas where the Buddha speaks about gradual change... A ship
        being slow withered away due to weathering. A mountain slowing declining in
        height generating after generation, the Adze handle gradually wearing away over
        the course of time, a mountain crag being worn away by a kasi cloth over
        periods of time measured in terms of aeons (different than the first mountain
        analogy.)

        I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and immediately
        ceasing" outlook. So far, your two Sutta examples don't in any way, yet you
        comment (indirectly) as if they do ... which is interesting.




        TG: I personally think the above account of impermanence -- rupas
        being replaced
        by new rupas, etc. -- is just flat wrong and not useful in applying
        insight.
        Also, it lacks a conditional component which I think is
        counterproductive
        to insight.
        ------
        N: Eyesense falls away and is replaced, otherwise you would not be
        seeing now. So long as kamma produces eyesense in your life there are
        conditions for seeing. You do not create your own seeing, you do not
        own it.

        TG: Kamma is not a "something" that produces eye sense either. It is
        conditions that generate what arises and it is conditions that disintegrate the
        same. Kamma is one of many conditions necessary for eye sense. Eye sense
        varies IN ACCORDANCE to conditions. I do not consider it to be "popping on and
        off."

        The three sentences in your statement above are unrelated so its hard to
        figure out what you're getting at. At any rate, the last sentence is hardly
        something that someone would need to be trying to convince me of.



        Concitions are being taught all the time, both for namas and for
        rupas. Also, when we realize that a reality that falls away falls
        away completely, helps us to have less conceit, clinging to my
        important personality.

        TG: I think it would be better to get rid of thinking of phenomena as
        "realities" or "dhammas" and instead directly realize that all conditions,
        experienced and otherwise, are empty of self or anything of "their" own. They are
        resultants and echoes of "other" empty resultants/echoes. They are hollow of
        essence, they are insubstantial, they are like phantoms, they are like death,
        they are affliction.


        Even when we understand this in theory, it
        helps us to think in the correct way. This can condition direct
        understanding. We have to begin somewhere and the right beginning,
        correct intellectual understanding is what supports the development
        of insight later on. Gradually so! Don't you think so?
        TG: Gradually? Why would "understanding" be gradual from your point of
        view? Would it not arise and then immediately cease???

        At any rate, yes, correct intellectual understanding is crucial. Now as to
        what that "correct understanding" is ... that is the matter we disagree on to
        some significant extent. :-) But, that's what makes it interesting to
        discuss with you and others.




        Nina.


        TG
        <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
        email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
        http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • sarah abbott
        Hi TG, ... ..... S: Do any of the following help? 1. AN i.10 : “I consider, bhikkhus, that there is no phenomenon that comes and goes so quickly as mind. It
        Message 3 of 18 , Mar 4 10:30 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi TG,

          --- TGrand458@... wrote:
          > I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and immediately
          > ceasing" outlook.
          .....
          S: Do any of the following help?

          1. AN i.10 :
          “I consider, bhikkhus, that there is no phenomenon that comes and goes so
          quickly as mind. It is not easy to find a simile to show how quickly mind
          comes and goes.”
          ....
          2. SN ii.95
          “Just as a monkey faring through the dense forest catches one bough, and,
          letting it go, catches another, and then another, even so bhikkhus, with
          what is called thought, or mind , or consciousness, by day as by night,
          one arises when another perishes.”

          “Therein, bhikkhu, the instructed noble disciple attends closely and
          carefully to dependent origination itself thus: ‘When this exists, that
          comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not
          exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.
          That is, with ignorance as condition, volitional formations [come to be];
          with volitional formations as condition, consciousness....Such is the
          origin of this whole mass of suffering......”
          ......
          3.Visuddhimagga, XX94 under ‘Knowledge or Rise and Fall’, quoting
          Patisambhidamagga i.54:

          “..Here in the text: ‘How is it that understanding of contemplating
          present states’ change is knowledge of contemplation of rise and fall?
          Present materiality is born [materiality]; the characteristic of its
          generation is rise, the characteristic of its change is fall, the
          contemplation is knowledge. Present feeling ... perception ....
          formations......consciousness....eye....(etc)....Present becoming is born
          [becoming]; the characteristic of its generation is rise, the
          characteristic of its change is fall, the contemplation is
          knowledge.(Ps.i54)”
          ....
          4. Visuddhimagga, V11139, quoting Maha Niddesa 1.42

          ' "Life, person, pleasure, pain - just these alone
          join in one conscious moment that flicks by.
          Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive
          Are all alike, gone never to return...'"Vism, V111 39
          .....
          5. Phena Sutta, SN 22:95
          "Form is like a lump of foam;
          Feeling like a water bubble;
          Perception is like a mirage;
          Volitions like a plantain trunk.
          And consciousness like an illusion..."
          ....
          [note 190: "Spk: a bubble (bubbu.la) is feeble and cannot be
          grasped, for it breaks up as soon as it is seized; so too feeling is
          feeble and cannot be grasped as permanent and stable. As a bubble
          arises and ceases in a drop of water and does not last long, so too
          with feeling: 100,000 `ko.tis' of feelings arise and cease in the
          time of a fingersnap (one ko.ti = 10 million).]
          ....
          5. SN 20.6
          Dhanuggaha Sutta
          The Archer
          Translated from the Pali by
          Thanissaro Bhikkhu

          Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, suppose there were four strong archers —
          well-trained, practiced, & drilled — standing in the four directions, and
          a man were to come along saying, 'I will catch & bring down the arrows let
          fly by these four strong archers — well-trained, practiced, & drilled —
          before they have fallen to the ground.' What do you think? Would that be
          enough to call him a swift man, endowed with the foremost speed?"

          "Even if he were to catch & bring down the arrows let fly by one archer —
          well-trained, practiced, & drilled — before they fell to the ground, lord,
          that would be enough to call him a swift man, endowed with the foremost
          speed, to say nothing of four such archers."

          "Faster than the speed of that man, monks, is the speed of the sun & moon.
          Faster than the speed of that man, faster than the speed of the sun &
          moon, is the speed of the devas who rush ahead of the sun & moon. Faster
          than the speed of that man, faster than the speed of the sun & moon,
          faster than the speed of the devas who rush ahead of the sun & moon, the
          force of one's life span comes to an end. Thus you should train
          yourselves: 'We will live heedfully.' That's how you should train
          yourselves."
          *****

          Metta,

          Sarah
          ========
        • TGrand458@aol.com
          In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:30:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, ... ..... S: Do any of the following help? Hi Sarah Not really. Nothing you posted suggests
          Message 4 of 18 , Mar 4 10:51 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:30:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
            sarahprocterabbott@... writes:

            > I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and immediately
            > ceasing" outlook.
            .....
            S: Do any of the following help?




            Hi Sarah

            Not really. Nothing you posted suggests anything (regarding impermanence)
            other than "continuous change." Of course formations are different from one
            moment to the next if things are changing continuously. That doesn't mean the
            formations or phenomena "pop on and off." What it means is that phenomena
            are constantly moving in relation to and in dependence on other phenomena.

            Generally the suttas will describe it as -- arising, changing while
            persisting, then ceasing. Its that "changing while persisting" part that indicates
            "continuous change." Not to mention other references I've posted recently
            that actually describe formations as "slowly/continuously altering."

            Move your arm up and down if you want to notice continuous change. You
            won't notice it popping on and off during that process. What is the change in
            moving the arm? There are a variety of changes occurring. But perhaps the
            most obvious is the change in the formation/configuration of the body and its
            relationship to exterior formations.

            TG
            <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
            email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
            http://www.aol.com


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • rjkjp1
            Dear TG If I read you correctly you think citta and mentality are actually types of matter. And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or mentality. How
            Message 5 of 18 , Mar 4 10:57 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear TG
              If I read you correctly you think citta and mentality are actually
              types of matter. And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
              mentality.
              How does your theory explain that one mght die as a human and then be
              reborn instantly - without any time interval-as a God in a distant
              world. Isn't that more than a slowly continuous change?
              And how could matter move so fast ?
              Robert
              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:30:40 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
              > sarahprocterabbott@... writes:
              >
              > > I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and
              immediately
              > > ceasing" outlook.
              > .....
              > S: Do any of the following help?
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Hi Sarah
              >
              > Not really. Nothing you posted suggests anything (regarding
              impermanence)
              > other than "continuous change." Of course formations are
              different from one
              > moment to the next if things are changing continuously. That
              doesn't mean the
              > formations or phenomena "pop on and off." What it means is that
              phenomena
              > are constantly moving in relation to and in dependence on other
              phenomena.
              >
              > Generally the suttas will describe it as -- arising, changing
              while
              > persisting, then ceasing. Its that "changing while persisting"
              part that indicates
              > "continuous change." Not to mention other references I've posted
              recently
              > that actually describe formations as "slowly/continuously
              altering."
              >
              > Move your arm up and down if you want to notice continuous
              change. You
              > won't notice it popping on and off during that process. What is
              the change in
              > moving the arm? There are a variety of changes occurring. But
              perhaps the
              > most obvious is the change in the formation/configuration of the
              body and its
              > relationship to exterior formations.
              >
              > TG
              > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now
              offers free
              > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
              > http://www.aol.com
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • TGrand458@aol.com
              Hi Robert In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:58:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rjkjp1@yahoo.com writes: Dear TG If I read you correctly you think citta and
              Message 6 of 18 , Mar 4 11:28 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Robert


                In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:58:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                rjkjp1@... writes:

                Dear TG
                If I read you correctly you think citta and mentality are actually
                types of matter.

                TG: No Robert, I think they are types of energy.


                And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
                mentality.

                TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do not claim
                there is or is not matter however.)



                How does your theory explain that one mght die as a human and then be
                reborn instantly - without any time interval-as a God in a distant
                world.

                TG: I don't have a hard and fast theory regarding "rebirth mechanics." I
                generally think kamma is accumulated and stored sort of like a charge in a
                battery or a charge built up in the atmosphere. At the time of death, perhaps
                that charge is released into a new life system. I don't know how it works but
                I tacitly believe it does work...i.e., that there is rebirth.


                Isn't that more than a slowly continuous change?

                TG: Hey changes can be extremely fast to. But I still see them as being
                continuous analog type change; as opposed to a digital on and off change.



                And how could matter move so fast ?

                455 Hemi engine? ;-)



                Robert


                TG
                <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
                email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
                http://www.aol.com


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Nina van Gorkom
                Hi TG, When moving your arm you may be thinking of changes. But the infinitely tiny rupas of what we call arm are arising and falling away within splitseconds
                Message 7 of 18 , Mar 5 2:02 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi TG,
                  When moving your arm you may be thinking of changes. But the
                  infinitely tiny rupas of what we call arm are arising and falling
                  away within splitseconds without you noticing it. There must be a
                  change each splitsecond, otherwise there could not be a noticeable
                  change after a long time.
                  Nina.
                  Op 5-mrt-2007, om 7:51 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven:

                  > Move your arm up and down if you want to notice continuous change. You
                  > won't notice it popping on and off during that process. What is the
                  > change in
                  > moving the arm? There are a variety of changes occurring.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • rjkjp1
                  ... Dear TG, I m no expert on science views but isn t energy a type of matter? ... not claim ... ______ I thought you disagreed when the texts say that
                  Message 8 of 18 , Mar 5 4:54 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Robert
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:58:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                    > rjkjp1@... writes:
                    >
                    > Dear TG
                    > If I read you correctly you think citta and mentality are actually
                    > types of matter.
                    >
                    > TG: No Robert, I think they are types of energy.
                    ------------

                    Dear TG,
                    I'm no expert on science views but isn't energy a type of matter?
                    __________
                    >
                    > And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
                    > mentality.
                    >
                    > TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
                    not claim
                    > there is or is not matter however.)

                    ______

                    I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise and
                    pass away?

                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > How does your theory explain that one mght die as a human and then
                    be
                    > reborn instantly - without any time interval-as a God in a distant
                    > world.
                    >
                    > TG: I don't have a hard and fast theory regarding "rebirth
                    mechanics." I
                    > generally think kamma is accumulated and stored sort of like a
                    charge in a
                    > battery or a charge built up in the atmosphere. At the time of
                    death, perhaps
                    > that charge is released into a new life system. I don't know how
                    it works but
                    > I tacitly believe it does work...i.e., that there is rebirth.
                    >
                    >
                    > Isn't that more than a slowly continuous change?
                    >
                    > TG: Hey changes can be extremely fast to. But I still see them
                    as being
                    > continuous analog type change; as opposed to a digital on and off
                    change.

                    __________
                    Above you said phenomena does arise and pass away?

                    ____________
                    >
                    >
                    > And how could matter move so fast ?
                    >
                    > 455 Hemi engine? ;-)
                    >
                    ________

                    I drive a 4 litre V8 here in Japan- never fast enough are they.
                    Robert

                    >
                    >
                    > TG
                    > <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now
                    offers free
                    > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
                    > http://www.aol.com
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • TGrand458@aol.com
                    In a message dated 3/5/2007 3:07:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, vangorko@xs4all.nl writes: Hi TG, When moving your arm you may be thinking of changes. But
                    Message 9 of 18 , Mar 5 8:55 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 3/5/2007 3:07:51 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                      vangorko@... writes:

                      Hi TG,
                      When moving your arm you may be thinking of changes. But the
                      infinitely tiny rupas of what we call arm are arising and falling
                      away within splitseconds without you noticing it. There must be a
                      change each splitsecond, otherwise there could not be a noticeable
                      change after a long time.
                      Nina.




                      Hi Nina

                      I Just don't know what "tiny rupas" are...or any other rupas for that
                      matter. I have no problem with "change every split second."

                      TG
                      <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
                      email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
                      http://www.aol.com


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • TGrand458@aol.com
                      Hi Robert In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, rjkjp1@yahoo.com writes: Dear TG, I m no expert on science views but isn t energy a
                      Message 10 of 18 , Mar 5 9:20 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Robert


                        In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                        rjkjp1@... writes:

                        Dear TG,
                        I'm no expert on science views but isn't energy a type of matter?
                        __________

                        TG: What does "matter" mean to you Robert? As I said, I don't claim there
                        is "matter" in the traditional sense. I think its all energy (movement) and
                        just "appears to us" as matter. I call it "firmness" ... the earth element.
                        I believe its a temporary balance of coalescence (water element) and
                        dispersion (air element).

                        Einstein, as I have understood the quote, said that mass (not using the term
                        matter) and energy were the same stuff. Based on my "independent" analysis
                        of the Four Great Elements, I came to the same conclusion without knowing
                        much science.


                        “There is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass
                        and mass represents energy. Instead of two conservation laws, we have only
                        one, that of mass-energy.”
                        (Albert Einstein . . . Einstein and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, pg. 102)
                        “It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are
                        both but different manifestations of the same thing – a somewhat unfamiliar
                        conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E is equal to m
                        c-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of
                        the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted
                        into very large amounts of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were
                        in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before. This was
                        demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.”
                        (Albert Einstein . . . from the soundtrack of the film, Atomic Physics.
                        Copyright J. Arthur Rank Organization, Ltd., 1948. Image Brown Brothers,
                        Sterling, PA.)




                        >
                        > And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
                        > mentality.
                        >
                        > TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
                        not claim
                        > there is or is not matter however.)

                        ______

                        I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise and
                        pass away?



                        TG: Nope. Not at all. I think phenomena are constantly moving. It is
                        this constant change which forces formations to rise, persist while changing,
                        and fall. "Rise and fall" is just a short hand way of saying this IMO. It is
                        just language trying to express a rather simple observation. To take it so
                        literally as to generate a theory of immediate rising and then immediate
                        passing away of "somethings" called rupas to me means the common sense
                        descriptions have been blown out of proportion.

                        I disagree with "rupas" theory. The so called "realities" are not things
                        that have their own essence.

                        Thanks for letting me clarify myself. If indeed I have? ;-)

                        TG
                        <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
                        email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
                        http://www.aol.com


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Herman Hofman
                        Hi Sarah, ... I thought that all your examples demonstrated the speed of change of consciousness/mental acts. There is nothing that can be known about the
                        Message 11 of 18 , Mar 5 1:33 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Sarah,

                          On 05/03/07, sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
                          > Hi TG,
                          >
                          > --- TGrand458@... wrote:
                          > > I can't think of one sutta that backs up the "arising and immediately
                          > > ceasing" outlook.
                          > .....
                          > S: Do any of the following help?
                          >

                          I thought that all your examples demonstrated the speed of change of
                          consciousness/mental acts. There is nothing that can be known about
                          the speed of change of the *objects* of consciousness/mental acts if
                          their rate of change is slower. Unless you introduce a third party
                          nama that knows that the fist nama is falling away while that third
                          party remains to see it falling away, this is all speculation of an
                          order that doesn't require observation or logic. Anything goes.

                          If anything I say is not clear, please ask and I will happily clarify.


                          KInd Regards



                          Herman
                        • Herman Hofman
                          Hi RobK, ... How do you arrive at the suggestion that one can be reborn instantly, as a God in a distant world? And why would that method be better than the
                          Message 12 of 18 , Mar 5 1:38 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi RobK,

                            On 05/03/07, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:

                            > How does your theory explain that one mght die as a human and then be
                            > reborn instantly - without any time interval-as a God in a distant
                            > world. Isn't that more than a slowly continuous change?
                            > And how could matter move so fast ?

                            How do you arrive at the suggestion that one can be reborn instantly,
                            as a God in a distant world?

                            And why would that "method" be better than the method a Tibetan might
                            use to arrive at the suggestion that there is in fact an intermediate
                            state taking up to 7 weeks?

                            Kind Regards


                            Herman
                          • rjkjp1
                            ... then be ... instantly, ... might ... intermediate ... ____________ Dear Herman Dhammas arise and fall away instantaneously, while the idea of an
                            Message 13 of 18 , Mar 5 6:10 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman"
                              <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Hi RobK,
                              >
                              > On 05/03/07, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > How does your theory explain that one mght die as a human and
                              then be
                              > > reborn instantly - without any time interval-as a God in a distant
                              > > world. Isn't that more than a slowly continuous change?
                              > > And how could matter move so fast ?
                              >
                              > How do you arrive at the suggestion that one can be reborn
                              instantly,
                              > as a God in a distant world?
                              >
                              > And why would that "method" be better than the method a Tibetan
                              might
                              > use to arrive at the suggestion that there is in fact an
                              intermediate
                              > state taking up to 7 weeks?
                              ____________
                              Dear Herman
                              Dhammas arise and fall away instantaneously, while the idea of an
                              intermediate being is rooted in an idea of a lasting being, it is
                              wrong view.
                              This thread may help
                              http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=148
                              Also as this is a Theravada forum presumably all members understand
                              that the ideas expressed should be Theravada, not Tibetan or any
                              other philosophy.

                              Robert
                            • rjkjp1
                              ... claim there ... (movement) and ... Dear TG, I had always thought terms like energy and mass included all types of matter but perhaps that idea is not
                              Message 14 of 18 , Mar 5 6:49 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
                                >
                                > Hi Robert
                                >
                                >
                                > In a message dated 3/5/2007 5:57:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                > rjkjp1@... writes:
                                >
                                > Dear TG,
                                > I'm no expert on science views but isn't energy a type of matter?
                                > __________
                                >
                                > TG: What does "matter" mean to you Robert? As I said, I don't
                                claim there
                                > is "matter" in the traditional sense. I think its all energy
                                (movement) and
                                > just "appears to us" as matter.

                                Dear TG,
                                I had always thought terms like energy and mass included all types
                                of matter but perhaps that idea is not accepted anymore? I merely use
                                matter as an English term for rupa.
                                Western science is so limited compared to Dhamma- so many models with
                                complex abstrations like quarks and photons, but they never get to
                                actual elements like tejo and vayo. And saying that I do think
                                physics is an incredible considering it developed without benefit of
                                Dhamma knowledge- it shows how clever lobha is.



                                > >
                                > > And that there is no arisng and falling of matter or
                                > > mentality.
                                > >
                                > > TG: No again. There is arising and falling of phenomena. (I do
                                > not claim
                                > > there is or is not matter however.)
                                >
                                > ______
                                >
                                > I thought you disagreed when the texts say that phenomena arise
                                and
                                > pass away?
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > TG: Nope. Not at all. I think phenomena are constantly moving.
                                It is
                                > this constant change which forces formations to rise, persist
                                while changing,
                                > and fall. "Rise and fall" is just a short hand way of saying this
                                IMO. It is
                                > just language trying to express a rather simple observation. To
                                take it so
                                > literally as to generate a theory of immediate rising and then
                                immediate
                                > passing away of "somethings" called rupas to me means the common
                                sense
                                > descriptions have been blown out of proportion.

                                ________
                                I see, but surely it must be that way. Even physics suggests that in
                                a tiny piece of matter - say a tip of a finger - there are billions
                                of incredibly tiny "atoms" which are in constant extremely rapid
                                flux. With huge spaces in between.
                                Why does it seem wrong that the Theravada suggests that
                                these "atoms" are actually not as they seem at all. That the reality
                                is much more in flux than science thinks: That it is simply elements,
                                kalapas - groups of rupas- arising and passing away.

                                BTW I was surpised by comment suggeting that the Theravada
                                explanation of rupas is too simple to account for variety. One
                                western science model of atoms posits electrons nuetrons and protons
                                and still manages to account for the elements in the periodic table.



                                Robert
                              • TGrand458@aol.com
                                In a message dated 3/5/2007 7:50:38 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, rjkjp1@yahoo.com writes: BTW I was surpised by comment suggeting that the Theravada
                                Message 15 of 18 , Mar 5 7:24 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 3/5/2007 7:50:38 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                  rjkjp1@... writes:

                                  BTW I was surpised by comment suggeting that the Theravada
                                  explanation of rupas is too simple to account for variety. One
                                  western science model of atoms posits electrons nuetrons and protons
                                  and still manages to account for the elements in the periodic table.

                                  Robert




                                  Hi Robert

                                  This wasn't my suggestion so I don't know who said it.

                                  TG
                                  <BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
                                  email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
                                  http://www.aol.com


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Herman Hofman
                                  Hi RobK, Thank you for your comments. ... Why do you say dhammas rise and fall away instantaneously ? It would help to have something other than straight out
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Mar 5 10:04 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi RobK,

                                    Thank you for your comments.

                                    On 06/03/07, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
                                    > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman"
                                    > <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > Dear Herman
                                    > Dhammas arise and fall away instantaneously, while the idea of an
                                    > intermediate being is rooted in an idea of a lasting being, it is
                                    > wrong view.

                                    Why do you say "dhammas rise and fall away instantaneously"? It would
                                    help to have something other than straight out assertion to work with
                                    . Am I mistaken in my understanding of the tradition you espouse that
                                    dhammas are composite events, comprised of namas and rupas. And that
                                    rupas last longer than namas? If rupas last longer than namas, what
                                    idea is being conveyed by asserting that dhammas arise and fall away
                                    instantaneously?



                                    > This thread may help
                                    > http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=148
                                    > Also as this is a Theravada forum presumably all members understand
                                    > that the ideas expressed should be Theravada, not Tibetan or any
                                    > other philosophy.
                                    >

                                    Yes, this is a common appeal used to distinguish self from not-self,
                                    in an effort to keep not-self at bay. As in: "I am a Theravadin, not a
                                    Tibetan. Oh, and BTW, there are only cittas". But more about that
                                    later.

                                    If the dsg site intro did not say "The discussions include matters of
                                    both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise
                                    understanding of dhammas ****(the 'realities' of the present
                                    moment)****, I wouldn't be here. I am here to discuss the realities of
                                    the present moment, not the doctrines about the realities of the
                                    present moment. There are no Theravadin/Tibetan etc dhammas, but
                                    there's plenty of Theravadin/Tibetan etc papanca.

                                    Kind Regards


                                    Herman
                                    PS I think this site needs a photo of a V8. I'll put up a photo in Sig
                                    Others of the Monaro before we got rid of it. 351, dual carby, roll
                                    cage, ideal wedding vehicle :-)
                                  • Herman Hofman
                                    Hi RobK (not KenH :-), ... You are exactly right here. Science works with models, and abstractions. Scientists do not believe that there are actual electrons,
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Mar 6 3:15 PM
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi RobK (not KenH :-),

                                      On 06/03/07, rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@...> wrote:
                                      > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Western science is so limited compared to Dhamma- so many models with
                                      > complex abstrations like quarks and photons,

                                      You are exactly right here. Science works with models, and
                                      abstractions. Scientists do not believe that there are actual
                                      electrons, protons, neutrons to be found, these are explanatory
                                      devices to account for the behaviour of matter that we are all
                                      familiar with.


                                      but they never get to
                                      > actual elements like tejo and vayo.


                                      This is where things go terribly wrong. Because you believe that the
                                      Abhidhamma is not just a model of reality, which I believe it to be,
                                      you believe it is how it actually is !? You believe in actual,
                                      literal, essential paramattha dhammas.

                                      I, being of a scientific bent, seek to explain this, and I have come
                                      up with the following. You have approached the Abhidhamma in the light
                                      of what Buddhaghosa has had to say about it. And what Buddhaghosa has
                                      had to say about it is in stark contrast to the commentarial
                                      guidelines that actually come with the Abhidhamma, the Katthavatthu.
                                      In preferring Buddhaghosa, who wrote some 700 / 800 years after
                                      Mogalliputta-tissa directions about how not to read the Abhidhamma,
                                      you show a preference for a substantialist/essentialist, reductionist,
                                      absolutist kind of world. This approach is distinctly at odds with the
                                      way the KatthaVatthu directs the student to approach the Abhidhamma.

                                      If you interested in pursuing the matter, I point you to the following
                                      publication.

                                      A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities, by
                                      David J. Kalupahana; University of Hawaii Press, 1992

                                      Kind Regards


                                      Herman
                                    • rjkjp1
                                      ... has ... reductionist, ... the ... following ... by ... Dear Herman I read professor Kalupahana any years ago - found his books confusing and misleading
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Mar 6 6:39 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman"
                                        <hhofmeister@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >. You have approached the Abhidhamma in the light
                                        > of what Buddhaghosa has had to say about it. And what Buddhaghosa
                                        has
                                        > had to say about it is in stark contrast to the commentarial
                                        > guidelines that actually come with the Abhidhamma, the Katthavatthu.
                                        > In preferring Buddhaghosa, who wrote some 700 / 800 years after
                                        > Mogalliputta-tissa directions about how not to read the Abhidhamma,
                                        > you show a preference for a substantialist/essentialist,
                                        reductionist,
                                        > absolutist kind of world. This approach is distinctly at odds with
                                        the
                                        > way the KatthaVatthu directs the student to approach the Abhidhamma.
                                        >
                                        > If you interested in pursuing the matter, I point you to the
                                        following
                                        > publication.
                                        >
                                        > A History of Buddhist Philosophy: Continuities and Discontinuities,
                                        by
                                        > David J. Kalupahana; University of Hawaii Press, 1992
                                        >_________
                                        Dear Herman
                                        I read professor Kalupahana any years ago - found his books confusing
                                        and misleading about what Dhamma is. I can't remember specific
                                        details but he seemed to try to mix Mahayana in with his ideas about
                                        what Theravada shoudl be. But I don't have a copy of his book so if
                                        you want to discuss more, please quote the relevant passages.
                                        Robert
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.