Re: Not Hard to Accept (Re: [dsg] Re: Mindfulness of Walking)
- Hi Howard,
Op 31-jul-2007, om 21:26 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven:
> I find myself smiling at this (out of empathy), but, of course, I'm-------
> sorry for Lodewijk's upset.
N: The upset does not last and it is accumulation. We do not give
much importance to it. Thanks for your empathy.
As to: 'we cannot do anything' you may still have misgivings. I
understand. We have to place this into context. As you agree, many
times craving and craving with an idea of self pops up. Especially
with regard to the practice. People want to practise, they want some
result, they want more awareness. Now, it is not so that the right
conditions cannot be cultivated. But we do need reminders like:
nobody can do anything. See it as a reminder so badly needed. It is
good to have a feeling of: let it all come because of conditioned.
Unawareness is dhamma, awareness is dhamma. No control, but we can
take this in the right sense.
As to the right conditions to be cultivated, here we differ, I know.
You are conditioned to sit and meditate. Accumulated inclinations and
it is useful to know them as such.
H: It's really important to be aware of sense of self. Sometimes it can
be missed. And sometimes, rarely, it isn't present. But it is always
during moments of craving and of aversion.
N: Also when seeing or hearing. But what do we know? So very little.
Visible object is rupa, and through satipatthana it can be directly
understood as a dhamma that is known through the eyesense. Without
thinking. How? Only when the first stage of insight has been reached.
Only then different namas such as aversion or seeing can be directly
It seems easy to understand that nama is different from rupa, but it
is a different matter to be aware of only one characteristic at a time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Dear Nina and Scott
Thank you for your kind replies.
> N: "...First the Buddha asks Raahula what a mirror is for. Forbut
> reflection. The Dhamma is like a mirror. It is not just thinking,
> reflection with awareness..."Paccavekkhanattho
> Scott: In the Paa.li sutta, this is phrased:
> "...Ta.m kimma~n~nasi raahula kimatthiyo aadaasoti.
> bhanteti..."time. I
> Scott: Paccavekkhana is not just thinking, as you note. I see where
> it refers to a 'reviewing' or a going over something a second
> see how 'reflection' is given as one of the functions of pa~n~naAndrew: I am a little confused, too. Are thinking and reflection two
> I'm assuming that this too has to arise and cannot be directed. In
> Atthasaalinii it is said:
> "'Reflection,' or, in whom it arises it makes him think of
> impermanence - this is 'reflection.'"
different dhammas or the same dhamma but associated with different
sets of cetasikas?
The last quote above seems to suggest that reflection is citta with
vicara + vitakka and with anicca as object? So it couldn't be
satipatthana (as anicca isn't a dhamma).