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

Cittas and cetasikas (was, Re: effort.)

Expand Messages
  • Robert Epstein
    Hi Jon. ... This is a good piece of information, thanks. ... I suppose. But if you want to know how things work, you need to have a view of the mechanism, do
    Message 1 of 670 , May 2, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jon.

      --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" <jonabbott@...> wrote:

      > Guide to #1:
      > "That arise and cease together (with consciousness)":
      > The first verse defines the mental factors by way of four characteristics that are common to them all:
      >
      > 1) arising together with consciousness (ekuppaada)
      > 2) ceasing together with consciousness (ekanirodha)
      > 3) having the same object as consciousness (ekaalambana)
      > 4) having he same base as consciousness (ekavatthuka)
      > >>>

      This is a good piece of information, thanks.

      >
      > > ----------------------
      > > > I have no idea as to the mechanics of the matter, as this is not explained in any of the texts I've read.
      > >
      > > Well, that is interesting, in so detailed a teaching. That is too bad.
      > >
      > > That is like saying that we know which pipes are connected in the plumbing but we have no idea how they get put together.
      > > ----------------------
      >
      > Whether that's a bad thing or not depends on the objective.

      I suppose. But if you want to know how things work, you need to have a view of the mechanism, do you not? This pariyatti business is beginning to seem rather thready to me. I mean, to have a decent intellectual understanding of something you have to have a vision of how the whole thing works, don't you? I hope I'm not going to wind up with the impression that the "glue" that holds the whole works together is just a lot of faith with a spotty amount of actual understanding....

      > > ----------------------
      > > > Investigation would have to begin, I think, by finding out what the texts have to say on the subject. There is simply no way that a matter as detailed as this (cetasikas arising together with the citta and thus simultaneously) could be investigated by direct experience.
      > >
      > > Then how was it determined in the first place? I assume an arahant could directly experience this taking place and thus was able to write it down?
      > > ----------------------
      >
      > It is capable of verification by direct experience, but it requires panna of a sufficiently high level. Thus, not capable of investigation by the likes of you and me ;-)) is what I meant.

      Hmn...Well I appreciate your including me in the same group as yourself. I mean, I may be too ignorant to know a cetasika when I see one, but at least I'm not completely oblivous. Or am I.....

      Best,
      Robert E.

      = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    • sarah abbott
      Hi Alberto, #99196 ... .... A: As far as I know Dhs & Cy don t refers to pa~n~natti/nirutti/ adhivacana in terms of sacca, neither as sammuti nor, of course,
      Message 670 of 670 , Aug 2, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Alberto,

        #99196

        --- On Tue, 14/7/09, sprlrt <sprlrt@...> wrote:
        >> S: Alberto, what do you think of the following from U Silananda's Abhidhammattha Sangaha hand-outs:
        >
        > "Two kinds of truth recognized in Buddhism:
        > a) Conventional Truth, and
        > b) Ultimate Truth
        >
        > a) Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sacca):
        >
        > 1. Conventional Truth is that which conforms to the convention or usage of the world, e.g., a car.
        > 2. It is called Sammuti Sacca in Paa.li.
        > 3. It is also called Pa~n~natti = concept
        > 4. Two kinds of Pa~n~natti:
        > a) Naama-pa~n~natti = name-concept, which makes things known, i.e., names given to objects.
        > b) Attha-pa~n~natti = thing-concept, which is made known, i.e., the objects conveyed by the names or concepts.
        > 5. Pa~n~natti is timeless.
        ....

        A:> As far as I know Dhs & Cy don't refers to pa~n~natti/nirutti/ adhivacana in terms of sacca, neither as sammuti nor, of course, as paramattha.
        ....
        S: I would say that all sammuti sacca are pa~n~natti, such as "a car" as in the example given. However, we can't say that all pa~n~natti are sammuti sacca. If a baby calls the car a tree, for example, it's not sammuti sacca.
        ...
        S: Thanks for all the other quotes.

        How about enjoying your summer vacation on list with us whenever you can chip in:-)

        Metta

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