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

[dsg] Re: "Dhammas" and Impermanence (The Abhidhammikas perspective?)

Expand Messages
  • jonoabb
    Hi TG (and Scott) To get to the nitty gritty... ... ... what do you see as being the significance of this difference in terms of the development of insight?
    Message 1 of 179 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi TG (and Scott)

      To get to the nitty gritty...

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
      >
      > Hi Scott
      ...
      > Scott: Secondly, yeah, disengaging from a label ("paramattha
      > dhammas"), the view expressed above acknowledges the existence of
      > these things listed. I read the view quoted above as accepting these
      > things and as acknowledging their characteristics. Of course these
      > things can be seen according to these characteristics because they
      > have these characteristics.
      > ................................................
      >
      > NEW TG: "They" don't have these characteristics. The qualities arise as
      > they do due to "other" conditions. These "other" conditions also do not have
      > "their own" qualities because "they" are conditioned...etc., etc., etc.
      >
      > But, if we want to be less accurate and simplify, then I would accept that
      > elements have certain qualities. But these qualities are certainly not "their
      > own" nor are they "ultimate realities".
      >
      > The difference being that one view is highly inclusive of conditionality
      > principles and highlights them as insight fodder. The other view sees things as
      > separate entities...even if unwittingly.


      ... what do you see as being the significance of this difference in terms of the
      development of insight?

      Jon
    • jonoabb
      Hi TG ... of ... deconstructions are ... things ... Just analysis into parts, I think, to illustrate the lack of an essential chariot-ness or cow-ness .
      Message 179 of 179 , Jul 26, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi TG

        --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:
        >
        > Hi Jon
        >
        > In a message dated 7/25/2007 5:07:08 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
        > jonabbott@... writes:
        >
        > I wonder if the Buddha was really talking about the deconstruction
        of
        > conventional objects into elements and aggregates. That seems to me
        > to be an exercise in mental gymnastics (to use a term employed by
        > Phil recently).
        > .................................
        >
        > NEW TG: Seems to me the Buddha's "chariot" and "cow"
        deconstructions are
        > apt examples of deconstructing what we might consider "conventional
        things"
        > into elements.

        Just analysis into parts, I think, to illustrate the lack of an
        essential "chariot-ness" or "cow-ness".

        > If you're enlightened, or ever mindful without interruption, it
        WOULD be
        > unnecessary mental gymnastics. If not, then its to the "mental
        gym" for the
        > rest of us. Unavoidable.

        That is but one possible interpretation of the texts: the mental
        "breaking down" of what is currently being observed (i.e., thought
        of).

        The problem with that approach, as I see it, is that concepts (what
        is being observed, thought of) do not break down inot elements; they
        break down into other concepts.

        > ........................................
        > Likewise the further reducing of elements into altering,
        afflicting,
        > selfless, conditioned "happenings"selfless, conditioned
        "happenings"<W
        > "thinking about" rather than directly experiencing.
        > ............................................
        >
        > NEW TG: Sure it is. Without organizing thoughts, mindfulness is
        as
        > ignorant as a new born baby. Mindfulness/insight requires the mind
        to know
        > something about the nature of what is occurring...not just base
        awareness of
        > occurrence. The knowledge of conditioned, impermanent,
        afflicting, nonself; does not
        > arise without doing preliminary work of thinking.

        But I think the object of this thinking is concepts, not elements.

        > Surely I explained all this in my last post and about how such
        preliminary
        > work can set the stage for direct insight to occur...if the effort
        is made.
        > ...............................................

        Yes, you explained it very clearly. But this explanation is an
        inference to be drawn from the suttas rather than something directly
        stated. So there is room for me (and the commentaries) to disagree
        ;-))

        > To my understanding, what the Buddha spoke of was not
        "conventional
        > objects as elements" but "elements as elements".
        >
        > Furthermore, it is elements themselves that exhibit the various
        > characteristics of which you speak, and it is by a deeper
        > understanding of elements that these characteristics become
        apparent.
        > ................................................
        >
        > NEW TG: Elements are not entities. "They" have nothing "of their
        own."

        I know you are fond of running this line, but it is a distraction to
        the present discussion ;-))

        > The Buddha has said that in the case of -- feeling, perception,
        mental
        > formations, and consciousness...that these things are not
        separatable...but are only
        > separated in his teaching as a MEANS OF ANALYSIS. The only insight
        issue
        > that detaches the mind are conditionality with conditionality
        nature of --
        > impermanence, affliction, and nonself. Whether or not a mind
        becomes detached by
        > seeing this in corpses, or elements, is irrelevant.
        > ..............................................

        If corpses then why not, say, computers? The list would be endless.
        I think the key must be elements, to be the object of panna.

        > To my understanding, it is only when elements are seen as they
        truly
        > are -- as anicca, dukkha and anatta -- that there can be
        dispassion
        > towards (turning away from) them.
        > ..........................................
        >
        > NEW TG: I like that. Stick to that and I wouldn't see a
        problem.
        >
        > I have seen Sarah, on the other hand, say that seeing things as
        they really
        > are means to -- see elements as ultimate realities. That is
        another thing
        > altogether!

        Elements to be seen as elements; that's all.

        > NEW TG: I'll be gone about 2 weeks. Take care.

        Thanks for letting us all know. Looking forward to seeing you back
        then.

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