Date   

Re: Deluded clarification assistance

LBIDD@...
 

Sarah,

Thanks for this reply to Mike's question, and thanks for Nina's
explanation. Thanks to these I think I'm beginning to see a way of
untangling my recuring question about what is "self".

Nina wrote, ""This is myself" is a formulation of the personality view,
the belief in an abiding self, subsequently identified with the five
khandhas."

This suggests to me that there is a slight difference between "self" and
conventional reality. "Self" is not the same as "a person" because
"self" is a belief. Is there a difference between a concept and a belief
in abhidamma? Is this reasonable reasoning?

Larry


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

Victor Yu <victoryu@...>
 

Hi Sarah,

Victor, I really hope you can also contribute and join the study group and
I'd be interested particularly to hear any of your comments on the first
page Larry quoted.

I would like to make sure if the what you referred as the first page Larry
quoted is the following passage.

Regards,
Victor

Chapter 1

THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS

There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena (nama) and physical
phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not experience
anything. Seeing is, for example, a type of nama; it experiences visible
object. Visible object itself is rupa; it does not experience anything.
What we take for self are only nama and rupa which arise and fall away.
The 'Visuddhimagga' ('Path of Purity', a commentary) explains (Ch.
XVIII, 25):

For this has been said: .
'As with the assembly of parts
The word "chariot" is countenanced,
So, When the khandhas are present,
'A being' is said in common usage'

(Kindred Sayings I, 135. The five khandhas (aggregates) are nothing else
but nama and rupa. See Ch.2.)

.So in many hundred suttas there is only
mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being,
not a person. Therefore, just as when the component
parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles...
are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the
mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate
sense, when each part is examined, there is no
chariot, ...so too,... there comes to be the mere
conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate
sense, when each component is examined, there is
no being as a basis for the assumption ' I am' or ' I ' ;
in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality.
The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision.


Re: Ayatanas revisited

Sarah <sarahdhhk@...>
 
Edited

Dear Num,

Further to my other comments, let me just add one or two more quotes from
texts related to your questions ;

1. Sammohavinodani 222

"This is what is said: since the eye and so on are also mental data
(dhamma), this being so why is 'the twelve bases" said instead of just
'mental-data base'? Because of defining door-cum-object for the arising
of the consciousness groups. For here, it is precisely because of
defining the six consciousness groups by the state of door and the state
of object that they come to be divided up in this way; thus they are
called the twelve. For only the eye base is the door of arising, and only
the visible-data base is the object of the consciousness group which is
included in a cognitive series (vithi) of eye-consciousness. Like wise
the others in the case of the others. But only the part of the mind base
called the life-continuum (bhavanga) mind is the door of arising, and only
the mental data base which is not common to all is the object of the sixth
consciousness group......"

2. Vibhanga 2. Analysis of the Bases 167

"Therein what is ideational base? The aggregate of feeling, aggregate of
perception, aggregate of mental concomitants and that invisible
non-impingement quality included in the ideational base; the unconditional
element."

later:
"Therein what is invisible non-impingent matter included in ideational
base? the controlling faculty of femininity, controlling faculty of
masculinity; the nutrient factor of food. this is called invisible
non-impingent matter include in ideational base."

3. Visuddhimagga XV

10 "But only one part of the mind base, in other words, the life-continuum
mind, is the door of arising......"

14 "The mental data base is of many kinds when classified according to the
several individual essences of feeling, perception, formations, subtle
matter, and nibbana"


Sarah
========


Re: Deluded clarification assistance

Sarah <sarahdhhk@...>
 

Dear Mike B,

--- mikebrotherto <mike@pgdg.com> wrote: > >

Greetings!

I have been mindfully reflecting on the seemingly subtle differences
between three deluded mental experiences. I currently feel that it
is
skillful to reflect even on one's deluded experiences (in my case,
what else is there to reflect on?!?). With that, could someone help
me
differentiate between:

1. ego/mano/conceit (I think these are the same, yes/no?)
2. sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief
3. atta - self
I expect you�ll receive many comments now after your reminder;-) There
are so many good comments and questions vying for attention at the moment
and some are a little easier than others;-) I see Christine has already
added her usual witty response and helpful dictionary entries, (many
thanks, Chris).

When we were in Bangkok recently we also had a little discussion about
�This is mine, this am I, this is my self� as often quoted. �This is mine�
refers to craving, taking objects as belonging to self. �This am I�
refers to mana, conceit and �This is my self� refers to the personality
belief, sakkaya ditthi, identified with the 5 khandhas.

Nina elaborates on these at:
http://www.abhidhamma.org/ibs2.html

She writes:
�In the "Discourse on the Characteristic of Non-Self" quoted above, we
read that the Buddha said to the monks: "But is it fit to consider that
which is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to change, as 'This is mine,
this am I, this is my self'?" This phrase, often recurring in the
scriptures, is deep in meaning. "This is mine" implies craving which
appropriates things as the property of self. "This am I" implies conceit,
the tendency to compare oneself with others. "This is myself" is a
formulation of the personality view, the belief in an abiding self,
subsequently identified with the five khandhas. We learn from the
Abhidhamma that craving may arise with wrong view or without it. We may,
for example, think of "my arms and legs" with attachment, without there
necessarily being wrong view. We should know that there is not wrong view
all the time when we think of ourselves. Conceit accompanies
lobha-mulacitta, citta rooted in attachment. At the moment of conceit
there cannot be wrong view at the same time. The ariyans who are not
arahats may still have conceit; they have eradicated wrong view but they
still may compare themselves with others.� <end quote>
**********

Recently in her India series (ch 6, no 2), she also wrote a little more on
this theme, with more helpful reminders about conceit, so again, please
let me be a parrot (as Num would say):

Nina:
�Attachment to sense objects can only be eradicated at the attainment of
the
third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner, an�g�m�.
First
wrong view of realities, di��hi, has to be eradicated before other
defilements can be eradicated. We have the latent tendency of wrong view,
di��hanussaya, and this can condition the arising of lobha-m�la-citta
(citta
rooted in attachment) that is accompanied by wrong view. When we have
studied the Dhamma we may have intellectual understanding of the Buddha?s
teaching on n�ma and r�pa, but we may still follow the wrong practice
instead of developing right understanding of what appears now. Wrong
practice is a way of wrong view, di��hi. We may engage in wrong practic
e
without noticing this. We may, for example, believe that we should visit
th
e
holy sites and pay respect to the Buddha?s relics in order to have more s
ati
of satipatth�na. Acharn Supee reminded us that we may try to induce sati
by
acting in a specific way. That is not the right Path. He explained that
the
?teacher<sum> lobha may tell us to follow special techniques in order to
ga
in
more understanding, but that this is not the development of right
understanding of realities that are conditioned and appear now.
Acharn Sujin always stresses that we cannot do anything to have sati, it
arises because of its own conditions. When we listen to the Dhamma
conditions for the arising of sati are accumulated. However, we may still
unknowingly try to be aware. It is pa��� that can detect such moments
.
Conceit, m�na, is another akusala cetasika that can arise with
lobha-m�la-citta. When there is conceit we attach importance to ourselve
s.
Because of conceit we compare ourselves with others: we think ourselves
better, equal or less than someone else. However, also when we do not
compare ourselves with others we may find ourselves important and then
ther
e
is conceit. Acharn Sujin reminded us that even when we laugh, conceit may
arise. When we laugh about the way someone else is dressed, there can be
conceit: we may find that he is dressed in a funny way while we are well
dressed. Also when we are with other people who tell us stories and we
join
in their laughter we may find ourselves important, we may attach
importance
to our way of laughing, our manners. Acharn Supee explained that when
there
is a sense of ?me<sum> and ?he<sum> there may already be conceit. Conceit
m
ay arise
when we think of someone else who takes medicine while we do not have to
take it; when we think of ourselves who perspire in the hot climate of
India, while others do not; when we think of ourselves who have taken the
food from the buffet table already while others have not yet; when we
think
of ourselves who visit the holy sites, while others do not. There are
countless instances of thinking with conceit, but these are very
intricate.
When there is a thought of ?me and the others<sum> and our objective is
not
d�na, s�la or bh�van�, conceit is bound to arise very often. Even w
hen we
think, ?He sits there and I am here<sum>, there can already be conceit,
Ach
arn
Supee said.
When we have mett�, loving kindness, for someone else, we do not think wi
th
conceit, thus this is a way to have less akusala when we are with others.
However, cittas arise and fall away very rapidly, and there may even be
clinging to the idea of trying to have mett� instead of conceit. Mett�
and
conceit can arise very rapidly one after the other. Only pa��� can kn
ow
these different moments.� <end quote>
**********

Mike B, I think your questions and points below are very helpful to
consider and I hope the distinctions are a little clearer now. We can
begin to see how very deep rooted sakkaya ditthi and mana are. If you have
any follow up questions or comments, I�ll be very glad to hear. I�m also
glad to hear the retreat was a condition for so much wise reflection.

Sorry for the delay;-)

Sarah
==============


I was on retreat the past 8 days with Bhante Gunaratana. (Look in
the
dictionary under mindfulness and you see his picture. Even when he
pulled his socks up, I went into complete body mudra bliss.) I asked
him how the word "ego" fit into Buddhist psychology. He told me that
"ego" was the same as conceit - one of the last fetters to go; that
one will have a sense of ego even if one is a "non-returner".

That helped because I have been confusing atta with ego for the past
30 years. Now, I can't seem to fit personality belief -
sakkaya-ditthi
- into the scheme of insanity. Could someone gently help clarify
these experiences? Thank you so much.

With Metta,
Mike B.
Is anyone able to help me out? Primarily, I'm trying to discern the
difference between sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief.... and
mano-conceit. Which would be considered the ego?

Thanks,
Mike B.
...................................................................................................................

_______________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1: Commentaries from Sammohavinodani

Kom Tukovinit
 

Dear Sarah,

I would like to comment on the quote you have from the commentaries, to see
if my understandings of the text matches what the commentaries may expand
further (but left unmentioned here), or if it matches other people's
interpretation... So, any critics are welcome. ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@yahoo.com.hk]

In the Abhidhamma commentary., Sammohavinodani, We read the following
paragraphs which explain how very �difficult to penetrate� anatta is for
us all and a little more about no control or �no power� at the end:
..........
Ch2, 240
�In such passages as : �Materiality, bhikkhus, is impermanent; what is
impermanent is painful; what is painful is not self; what is not self,
that is not mine, that am I not, that is not my self� (Siii 82), he taught
the characteristic of no-self by means of both the impermanent and
suffering.

�Why? Because of the obviousness of impermanence and suffering. for when
a plate or a saucer or whatever it may be falls from the hand and breaks,
they say: �Ah! Impermanence,� thus impermanence is obvious. but as
regards the person (attabhaava), when boils and carbuncles and the like
have sprung up, or when pierced by splinters and thorns, etc, they say:
�Ah! The pain.� thus pain is obvious.
This seems to match that some other belief systems, especially from India,
also incorporates "impermanence" and "suffering" (dukha dukha) into their
teaching. The above passage seems to correspond.

�The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or
without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is
not made known without the arising of the Englisghtened Ones; it is made
known only on the arising of the Englightened ones.........for the making
known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else;
it is the province of the fully Enlightened Ones only. Thus the
characteristic of on-self is unobvious........
It is clear from the above passage that making known the characteristics of
non-self (anatta) is unique to the Buddhas (sammasam-buddha only?). I
wonder if there are any significance between the usage of "Tathagatas" and
"Englightened ones" above. Do the Englightened Ones include all
Sammasam-buddha, paceka-buddha, and savaka-buddha?

�But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of
what and owing to concealment by what that these characteristics do not
appear?...........impermanence...pain.....The characteristic of no-self
does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the
resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to
its being concealed by compactness...............When resolving of the
compact (ghanavinibboga) is effected by resolution into the various
elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its
true essential nature........
When I first read "compactness", I thought this may refer to the speed of
the rising and falling away of the dhamma. However, the second compact is
explained to be ghanavinibboga, which I assume to mean the combination
(aggregation of many into one) of those rapidly rising/falling states. Do
you have more information on this point? At any rate, this basically says
that the characteristic of no-self doesn't appear until there is a
resolution of different dhatu. I think this matches A. Sujin explanation
that the anattaness of dhamma is not truly known until the first vipassana
nana, the distinction (resolution?) of nama and rupa, arises.

�But those same five aggregates are painful because of the words �what is
impermanent is painful� (S iv 1). Why? Because of continual oppression.
the mode of being continually oppressed is the characteristic of pain.
Now I understand better why dukkhas are called suffering, because suffering
cannot be endured, which is like dukkhas (all the 5 kandhas) which cannot be
endured from the the sense that they don't endure.


�But those five aggregates are no-self because of the words �what is
painful is no-self� (S iv 1). Why? Because there is no exercising power
over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having opower exercised over
them is the characteristic of no-self......................� <end quote>
****************
Even after hearing this again and again, we (I) still always seem to have
lingering thoughts that we can exercise powers over these realities. I want
to have kusala states. I want to have sati. I want to have more/sharper
panna, and I can make this happen. I don't think I can ever hear this
enough!


So many useful reflections from everyone at the moment...
Thanks for the quote, Sarah. Hopefully, you will have comments for me as
well!

kom


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: Deluded clarification assistance

christine_forsyth <cforsyth@...>
 

Hello Mike,

You ask about: 1. ego/mano/conceit (I think these are the same,
yes/no?)
2. sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief
3. atta - self

Mana (conceit) was a surprise to me, when my kalyána-mitta (good
friends in dhamma) were trying tactfully to bring mine to my
attention, I couldn't see that I had any. :-) Wasn't I alway
acknowledging the truth of how little I knew about Buddhism, compared
to everyone else? Wasn't this humility, not conceit? Unfortunately,
no. Much of the problem is that in Western culture, the everyday
meaning of conceit is seen as only being a sort of 'a pretentious
false belief in ones own superiority over others'. Self-
disparagement disguised as humility is an art form in Australia -
e.g. if someone tells a woman her dress is lovely and really suits
her - the predictable reply will be "Oh, this old thing, first thing
I grabbed out of the closet, actually it's starting to fray along
this seam", or if a man is told he played exceptionally well at
cricket - the predictable reply will be "Bit of a miracle eh? Should
see my usual game - six ducks last season" (a duck = 'out for no
score') Just a cultural thing..... and this is why I found my
friends alluding to the term 'omana' for inferiority-conceit quite
startling.....what, me? Oh, no, couldn't be! (or 'under
estimator' as a friend kindly put it.)

The dictionary meanings below may help with your query, and I am sure
others will assist. Perhaps a similarity is that anyone infected
with personality or ego belief or the defilement of conceit, is not
able to recognise the anatta-ness of all things.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm

metta,
Christine

ditthi (lit. 'sight'; Ö dis, to see): view, belief, speculative
opinion, insight. If not qualified by sammá, 'right', it mostly
refers to wrong and evil view or opinion, and only in a few instances
to right view, understanding or insight (e.g. ditthi-ppatta, q.v.;
ditthi-visuddhi, purification of insight; ditthi-sampanna, possessed
of insight). Numerous speculative opinions and theories, which at
all times have influenced and still are influencing mankind, are
quoted in the sutta-texts. Amongst them, however, the wrong view
which everywhere, and at all times, has most misled and deluded
mankind is the personality-belief, the ego-illusion. This personality-
belief (sakkáya-ditthi), or ego-illusion (atta-ditthi), is of 2
kinds: eternity-belief and annihilation-belief. Eternity-belief
(sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-
entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical
and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after
death. Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is
the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being
more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and
which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be
annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkáya-
ditthi. Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will
continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be
annihilated at death, but he shows us
that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but
mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the
ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-
consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually
arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s.
anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda.

mána: 'conceit', pride, is one of the 10 fetters binding to existence
(s. samyojana). It vanishes completely only at the entrance to
Arahatship, or Holiness (cf. asmi-mána). It is further one of the
proclivities (s. anusaya) and defilements (s. kilesa). The (equality-
) conceit (mána), the inferiority-conceit (omána) and the superiority-
conceit (atimána): this threefold conceit should be overcome. For,
after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, through the full
penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end suffering" (A. VI,
49)."Those ascetics and brahman priests who, relying on this
impermanent, miserable and transitory nature of corporeality,
feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness,
fancy: 'Better am I', or 'Equal am I', or 'Worse am I', all these
imagine thus through not understanding reality" (S. XXII, 49).In
reality no ego-entity is to be found. Cf. anattá.
sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters
(samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of
Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20
kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types
of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.):
(1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling,
perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be
contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be
the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4.


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "mikebrotherto" <mike@p...> wrote:
--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "mikebrotherto" <mike@p...> wrote:


Greetings!

I have been mindfully reflecting on the seemingly subtle
differences
between three deluded mental experiences. I currently feel that
it
is
skillful to reflect even on one's deluded experiences (in my
case,
what else is there to reflect on?!?). With that, could someone
help
me
differentiate between:

1. ego/mano/conceit (I think these are the same, yes/no?)
2. sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief
3. atta - self

I was on retreat the past 8 days with Bhante Gunaratana. (Look in
the
dictionary under mindfulness and you see his picture. Even when
he
pulled his socks up, I went into complete body mudra bliss.) I
asked
him how the word "ego" fit into Buddhist psychology. He told me
that
"ego" was the same as conceit - one of the last fetters to go;
that
one will have a sense of ego even if one is a "non-returner".

That helped because I have been confusing atta with ego for the
past
30 years. Now, I can't seem to fit personality belief -
sakkaya-ditthi
- into the scheme of insanity. Could someone gently help clarify
these experiences? Thank you so much.

With Metta,
Mike B.
Is anyone able to help me out? Primarily, I'm trying to discern the
difference between sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief.... and
mano-conceit. Which would be considered the ego?

Thanks,
Mike B.


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

Victor Yu <victoryu@...>
 

Hi Larry,

I find the following discourses might be helpful:

Dhammapada 12
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html

Samyutta Nikaya XLIV.10
Ananda Sutta
To Ananda
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html

Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html

Regards,
Victor

Hi all,

I'm not sure what we (or the Buddha) mean by "self". There is a
conventional chariot and a conventional person but is there a
conventional "self"? By conventional I mean something everyone agrees
on, even though agreements can be short lived. The Buddha says a self
has to be permanent; why is that? Do we really _conventionally_ believe
that our self is permanent? What if I say my self is impermanent
patterned attachment (lobha) and aversion (dosa). Does that make me
real?

more grist for the mill,

Larry
ps: I had been taking to heart this idea that all I am is the momentary
arising of nama and rupa and I found it very hard to formulate anything.
I couldn't formulate understanding and I couldn't formulate
bewilderment. But, as you can see,I snapped out of it.
L.


Re: Deluded clarification assistance

mikebrotherto <mike@...>
 

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "mikebrotherto" <mike@p...> wrote:


Greetings!

I have been mindfully reflecting on the seemingly subtle differences
between three deluded mental experiences. I currently feel that it
is
skillful to reflect even on one's deluded experiences (in my case,
what else is there to reflect on?!?). With that, could someone help
me
differentiate between:

1. ego/mano/conceit (I think these are the same, yes/no?)
2. sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief
3. atta - self

I was on retreat the past 8 days with Bhante Gunaratana. (Look in
the
dictionary under mindfulness and you see his picture. Even when he
pulled his socks up, I went into complete body mudra bliss.) I asked
him how the word "ego" fit into Buddhist psychology. He told me that
"ego" was the same as conceit - one of the last fetters to go; that
one will have a sense of ego even if one is a "non-returner".

That helped because I have been confusing atta with ego for the past
30 years. Now, I can't seem to fit personality belief -
sakkaya-ditthi
- into the scheme of insanity. Could someone gently help clarify
these experiences? Thank you so much.

With Metta,
Mike B.
Is anyone able to help me out? Primarily, I'm trying to discern the
difference between sakkaya-ditthi - personality belief.... and
mano-conceit. Which would be considered the ego?

Thanks,
Mike B.


Re: BEGINNERS study program

Nina van Gorkom <nilo@...>
 

op 12-03-2002 21:08 schreef Lucy op selene@clara.co.uk:

Hi all


A good idea to keep the topics and discussions in a way that they can be
found easily. How about using the "Files" section? There could be a
"beginners study" folder and in it all the relevant files and e-mails. I
can make html files easily, no problemo amigo. I'll have plenty of time
this w/end with no list mail : )

But we need the author's permission to put up material from her book in
these files- Nina? could we, please?
Yes, Lucy, of course, with pleasure.
Nina


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

Nina van Gorkom <nilo@...>
 

op 13-03-2002 08:48 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@vtown.com.au:
Dear Christine, I appreciate very much your interest. Most questions you
raise you answer yourself very well. Just about the Vinaya: it is true we
learn more about defilements and there are very good examples of lobha, in
behaviour, such as beautifying body and dwellings. It is good to realize
this also for laypeople. We take these things for granted, but it is good to
know when lobha appears in our behaviour. Knowing, not suppressing. There
are suttas and abhidhamma in vinaya. The teachings are one, the Vinaya is
part of the Tipitaka. Worth reading also. It gives all the fine shades of
different defilements. Someone killed by accident, and had doubts. The
Buddha asked him: was it your intention to kill? We may have doubts about
killing an insect, did we have the intention? And so there are many points.
With appreciation, Nina.

Chr: On page 1 in ADL when talking about the Tipitaka that "Not only monks

but also laypeople should study the Vinaya." I wonder what could the
daily Rule written for renunciate males a couple of thousand years
ago, in a culture that no longer exists, have of value for a 21st
Century woman? I *can* see the point of reading about examples of
lobha, dosa and moha as reminders of our own defilements.....but
reading the whole thing......worth taking a closer look....?


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

Nina van Gorkom <nilo@...>
 

op 13-03-2002 02:24 schreef johnrloganis op johnrloganis@yahoo.com:

Dear L. John, I do appreciate your interest. I will react to some of your
points. Your questions were dilemmas also in former times, at the time of
the Buddha: concerning annihilation or eternalism. I am glad you brought
them up. Beginners Abhidhamma?

J: Isn't considering constituent parts something like dissecting a body.
Once a body (of anything) is dissecting it no longer exists as a body
of anything. Take a car apart and lay all the pieces out on the
ground to look at them -- and there is no car and it surely won't
run. The existence of the car is precisely in the assembly of the
parts.
N: Yes, it is like dissecting. In the teachings we read about a butcher who
dissects a cow, and when the cow is cut up no idea of cow, but only of meat.
The point is: there is no person, no self.
J: So the existence of a person (a being) consists in the fact of its
component parts joined in an assembly. Thus the "soul" or "vital
essence" of something does not exist in any part.

There would seem to be three possibilities:

1. Take something apart and it truly dies. There is no further
continuance.
N:Is that not annihilation? There are conditions for the arising again of
nama and rupa.
J: That which is the "vital essence" or "soul" is prior to the
assemblage and directs the assembly process to create a "being".

3. The existence of the "assembly" brings into existence a "vital
essence" or "soul" (I don't have any better term right now so please
bear with it) which, having been created in assembly, then persists
after dissolution of the assembly into its elements. This "essence"
becomes the creative force for "rebirth".

How does the Abhidhamma deal with the questions which this analysis
brings up?
N: Nama and rupa arise because of their appropriate conditions , fall away,
and then, so long as there are conditions present, nama and rupa arise
again. As regards citta: it falls away and is then immediately followed by a
succeeding citta which is a different one, but conditioned by the preceding
one and by many other factors. No annihilation, and no eternal soul. As to
rupa, rupa can be produced by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. So
long as there are conditions old rupas are replaced by new ones.
J: II. Second Response
J: "Nama" and "rupa" being the basic elements of consciousness and
existence by definition raises the following question:

In the 12 fold cycle of Dependent Origination there is persistence of
consciousness and thus rebirth leading to death. There must have been
a first act creating the first "nama" and "rupa".

So ... what started the first Nama-Rupa?
N: Ignorance of the truth about dhammas is the condition for the cycle of birth
and death. What was the first ignorance? These are unanswered questions,
because they do not lead to the goal: the cessation of ignorance.
..
J: I wish I had answers instead of questions...besides all these
questions just makes my head hurt.
N: Ken O is a very wise man. He would say: relax, enjoy the study. No need
for a headache. Let the study sink in, a person cannot understand all at
once.
It is not too difficult to understand the theory, but as Christine reminded
us, it should be the foundation for the practice, patipatti. How do we feel
about annihilation at death? We may be afraid that everything is finished, I
have such doubts sometimes. But then I learnt that it is only thinking and
conditioned. The sotapanna has no more doubt and is not afraid of death.
When one has no wrong view of self one is unconcerned of what will happen to
a self (which is non-existent) after death.Through the development of
mindfulness of nama and rupa these will be seen as elements arising because
of their appropriate conditions. When understanding has been developed to
the degree of insight knowledge, the arising and falling away will be
directly realized. When one realizes arising, no doubt that there is arising
again after death in a new life. The Visuddhimagga explains (XVII, 167):<
And with a stream of continuity there is neither identity nor otherness. For
if there were absolute identity in a stream of continuity, there would be no
forming of curd from milk. And yet if there were absolute otherness, the
curd would not be derived from milk.> When one realizes the falling away of
realities, one knows that they do not last, that there is nothing eternal or
permanent. By seeing conditions one keeps the Middle Way: no annihilation
belief, no eternalism. As I said, the theory is not too difficult, but the
direct realization of the truth is difficult for all of us, it takes a long
time. Here comes in the patience, the highest ascetism.

Best wishes from Nina.


Re: good reminders

Nina van Gorkom <nilo@...>
 

op 13-03-2002 07:27 schreef Kom Tukovinit op tikmok@yahoo.com:

Dear Ken O,

k: hmm trying hard my friend:) hmm it still
sounds like a purpose volition
:)
Thanks for this reminder. This reminds me of A. Sujin's
response to the question: so if we shouldn't
force/intend/purpose to have sati, shouldn't we just let
Sati arise? Her answer was, who's doing the letting?
Tanha/Mana/Dithi attaches to any objects. Just like when we
learn, having all these conditioned kandhas (dukkhas) is
having suffering. So, we may think to ourself, it's better
not to have any, not knowing that it is the more subtle (or
maybe not so subtle!) tanha that thinks this thought.

Appreciative,

kom
Dear Ken O. and Kom, I appreciate your good reminders, there is always
clinging around the corner. So subtle. Even when we believe we have noble
thoughts, wish for the cessation of dukkha, there can be clinging again. I
like Ken's reminders to be relaxed, not to force sati, to enjoy study, that
it should be fun.
Some people may wonder whether such a relaxed attitude is not conducive to
laziness. Should we just wait for sati, doing nothing? This is an issue
already discussed more than once in this forum. Recently Jon wrote a post to
Howard in which he so clearly explained the Middle Way. I would like to
quote part of this post, because I find it good food for consideration again
and again.

< Howard, I'd like to suggest that the idea that awareness or understanding
must be or is normally preceded by some form of volitional practice does
not give due account to the conditioned nature of realities that is so
central to the Buddha’s teaching. I will try to explain what I mean
(without being confident that I will succeed).

According to the abhidhamma and commentaries, all our tendencies both
wholesome and unwholesome are passed from one moment of consciousness to
the next and are latent in each moment of consciousness if not actually
manifesting. At any given moment, only the kusala or the akusala
accumulations/mental factors (i.e., not both) can manifest, and then only
certain of those kusala or akusala factors. But whether kusala or
akusala, their manifestation requires the right conditions. Obviously,
the stronger the particular trait, the more likely to occur, but this is
only one of a multitude of factors at play.

Now it is implicit in the conditioned nature of things that if the
necessary conditions for accumulated qualities wholesome or unwholesome to
manifest are in place then they will do so at an appropriate time. As our
general experience in life shows, tendencies have a way of choosing their
own time and occasion (think of the unwholesome tendencies that pop up at
the most unexpected and unwelcome of times). Precisely *when* or *what
object* is not something that is within our power to determine, so there
is no point in trying to make anything happen to our own timetable and/or
selected object.

In the case of our all too meagre accumulated store of awareness and
understanding, the underlying and most important of the necessary
conditions is I should think to have heard the teachings in this lifetime
and as a result having some sort of 'sense of urgency' (seeing the danger
in the round of existence). I suppose most of us having these discussions
have at least a budding notion of this sense of urgency (otherwise we
wouldn't spend our time having these discussions), so next come conditions
such as having a proper grasp of the teachings at a
theoretical/intellectual level as appropriate to our present level of
actual understanding.

What I am trying to show is that, if the right kind of nurturing is given,
our accumulated awareness and understanding can and must arise, and will
do so notwithstanding our accumulated kilesa. Even the akusala that is
manifesting at one moment need not be an obstacle for the arising of
awareness in a subsequent moment, and could indeed be the object taken by
that moment of awareness. If that were not so then there would be no
prospect of a way out. And we see that in the Satipatthana Sutta even the
hindrances are among the mental objects to be known 'as they really are'.

One thing is for sure. If we have the idea that awareness can *only*
arise when preceded by 'conscious, deliberate or determined practice', and
not at other times, this would be an almost insurmountable obstacle to the
arising of awareness at moments when no such practice was being
undertaken. It is likewise, but perhaps less obviously so, an obstacle to
have the idea that awareness is *much more likely* to arise when the
circumstance are those we perceive as being more conducive (e.g., our
'practice' time), and not at other ordinary’ times.

It is a sobering thought (to me, anyway) that it is not the defilements
that are so easily noticeable to us (and which we would very much like to
be rid of) that are the real obstacles to the development of insight. It
is our wrong view and ignorance -- aspects of our kilesa about which we
have relatively very little idea -- that are the major hindrances. The
development of the path might be a lot easier if it was a matter of
somehow dealing with more obvious kilesa.> End quote.

I like the reminder that whatever arises has its own time, thus, we cannot
predict anything, be it kusala or akusala.We can verify this for ourselves,
with regard to akusala and kusala, so unexpected. Also, even when relaxed,
there can still be a sense of urgency. We study what we can understand and
what we enjoy. We do not force anything. We develop understanding of
conditions for whatever arises. Even a sense of urgency is conditioned, and
this does not mean anxiety about our defilements, or, an idea that we better
get rid of dukkha soon. It is valuable to develop understanding, that is our
sense of urgency.
As to the defilements that are more obvious: yes, dosa, for instance. Don't
we like to have less aversion, sadness or fear? Ignorance and wrong view are
more hidden, but they are the real danger when unnoticed. <Aspects of our
kilesa about which we have relatively very little idea> as Jon says.
Ignorance arises with each akusala citta, but we usually notice the pleasant
or unpleasant feeling, not the ignorance. Understanding has to become very
keen to see such moments. And then wrong view of self, we know in theory
that it is not yet eradicated, but we know so little about it. Many points
in Jon's post I did not consider enough.

Nina.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


India Ch 7, no. 5

Nina van Gorkom <nilo@...>
 

India Ch 7, no. 5.
As regards the second noble Truth, we should thoroughly understand that
attachment is the cause of dukkha. We should realize it when we cling to the
idea of self. When we are seeing, thinking or considering the Dhamma there
may be an idea of self who does so. When we are looking for ways and means
to have more awareness, we cling to wrong practice, a form of wrong view,
ditthi, which causes us to deviate from the right Path. Wrong practice
prevents us from naturally developing the understanding of realities. It is
necessary to have a keener and more refined knowledge of attachment,
otherwise it cannot be eradicated. We can find out that it arises countless
times, more often than we ever thought.
As regards the third noble Truth, this is nibbåna, and nibbåna means the end
of clinging and all other defilements. We should have the firm intellectual
understanding that detachment and the eradication of defilements is the
goal. We should be convinced that it is possible to attain this goal if we
follow the right Path.
As regards the fourth Noble Truth, the way leading to the end of dukkha, we
should have the firm understanding that the development of satipatthåna is
the only way leading to this goal. We should understand the difference
between right view and wrong view. When we are really convinced that there
is no other way but the development of satipatthåna, we shall not deviate
from the right Path. Thus, we should not follow after the past nor desire
for the future, we should be aware of any reality appearing now.
When we listen to the Dhamma and consider what we hear the intellectual
understanding of realities, that is, the first phase, sacca ñåna, gradually
develops and then it can condition the arising of satipatthåna. This means
that the second phase, knowledge of the task, kicca ñåna, begins to develop.
The practice, patipatti, is actually knowledge of the task that is to be
performed, kicca ñåna. Thus, there are different levels of paññå:
intellectual understanding based on listening to the Dhamma, and paññå
accompanied by sati that is directly aware of the characteristics of
realities appearing now through one of the six doorways. These are the
dhammas we studied and considered before, but now they can gradually be
verified and directly understood. Knowing the difference between the moment
there is no sati but only thinking about nåma and rúpa, and the moment there
is awareness of one characteristic of nåma or rúpa at a time is the
beginning of the development of satipatthåna. Gradually we shall realize
nåma as nåma, and rúpa as rúpa, we shall realize their different
characteristics.
When one has reached the second phase, knowledge of the task or the
practice, the first phase, intellectual understanding of the truth, is not
abandoned but develops further. One understands more deeply what the four
noble Truths are and one sees more clearly that satipatthåna, awareness of
what appears now is the only way leading to detachment from the idea of self
and to nibbåna which is the end of defilements. The clinging to self is
deeply accumulated and very persistent. When paññå develops it sees even the
more subtle clinging to a self or the clinging to sati. A moment of right
awareness is very short and attachment can arise in alternation with
clinging. If paññå is not keen enough, one will deviate from the right Path.
There cannot be immediately clear understanding of realities, but we can
begin to develop understanding of the realities we used to take for people,
beings and things.


Re: Right Concentration and MN 117

yuzhonghao <victoryu@...>
 

Hi Jaran,

Thanks very much for this link
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html

I find the discourse MN 117 very illuminating and helpful.

Regards,
Victor


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "jaranoh" <jaranoh@y...> wrote:
Hi Christine, Victor and All:

I was reading the suttas on the following site. I was surprised to
find this interesting passage in an unexpected context.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html

The Buddha talks the 'right concentration' and explains how it
arises
and what supports it. One thing I find striking is that the right
concentration is when the other seven factors of the 8-fold path
are
fullfilled. Of the most importance of 8-fold path is always
the 'right view' as it is stated many times in the sutta above. The
prerequisite of all factors of the Path is 'right view').

On each of the right factor, there two kinds of the right factors:
with and without fermentations (asavas). Only those without asavas
can together condition the right concentration. Examples of asavas
are anger, greed, attachment (to things, forms, rituals, and most
relevant here, RESULTS).

Best Regards,
jaran


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 - to Howard

manji <manji@...>
 

This is where emptiness comes into play. The beginning as a thought is a
mere conceptual image, a mental image. The mental image is a rupa,
however this in particular is a concept.

That table does not have that "beginningness" in it, it does not carry
that "beginningness". Searching for this "beginningness" is like
searching for the tree that made the table. Just so like the table not
actually having "tableness" intrinsic to it. There is no table, and no
beginning, however there is clearly something that serves the function
as table, and with respect to "beginning" what clearly serves the
function of beginning?

The only thing that comes remotely close is the kamma process, so that
which serves the function of beginningness is actually probably right
here, under our noses.

-manji-

-----Original Message-----
From: upasaka@aol.com [mailto:upasaka@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:25 AM
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [dsg] BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1 - to Howard

Hi, John -

In a message dated 3/14/02 12:55:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
johnrloganis@yahoo.com writes:


--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., upasaka@a... wrote:
Hi, John -

In a message dated 3/12/02 8:25:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
johnrloganis@y... writes:


In the 12 fold cycle of Dependent Origination there is
persistence of
consciousness and thus rebirth leading to death. There must have
been
a first act creating the first "nama" and "rupa".

==========================
Why? ;-)

With metta,
Howard
Hi Howard,

Because!

Seriously because it is a "causal" chain. So there must be a First
Cause, something which started it all in the "first" place. This is
not something like 2+2 = 4 which is a principle which is true whether
or not anything exists.

Ignorance is ignorance of the Dhamma, as I understand it.
The "unborn" is living it and so is not "ignorant" of the Dhamma. The
question really points to "How did it all begin?"

Layman John

============================
There *is no need* for a first cause, and the Dhamma does not
assume
one. The chain of dependent arising is, in fact, not a linear chain, but
a
cyclic one.

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)










Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Memory: To Sarah And KKT

abhidhammika <abhidhammika@...>
 

Dear Sarah And KKT

How are you?

KKT asked:

"If memory is a cetasika
and lasts a very brief instant
and then falls away then
how does << recollection >>
or << recognition >> work?"

KKT gave an example:

"Suppose I meet Mr. X,
an image of X is a cetasika
making a mark in my 'mind'
but lasts only a fleeting moment."

Sarah has already given a very good answer to KKT's question.

I merely wanted to add a little bit. Hope it did not look like adding
too much sugar!

When we see Mr X, it is true that the first visual consciousness
lasts only a fleeting moment. But, to cover the whole of Mr X, the
first visual consciousness alone is not enough. There is an
uncountable number of visual consciousness cognitive series
called "cakkhuviññaanaviithi" to process Mr X.

And each cognitive series comes with additional supportive
consciousnesses in addition to the visual consciousness. This means
that all consciousnesses within each cognitive series come with
successive emergences of memory. This also means that there emerge
countless reinforcing instances of memory to process Mr X.

In short, there has been sufficient mental processing time for the
image of Mr X to be available for future retrieval.

Now, how could an entirely new future memory in a totally new future
consciousness recollect, and recognize an image of Mr X?

The answer is to do with the fact that each of us is merely a mental
chain that operates as a systemic whole. Every event that happens in
one part of the system affects every other part of it.

When our visual consciousnesses first processed Mr X, our minds also
performed various other actions in addition to merely seeing Mr X.
Some of these other actions are efficacious ones
called "javanacittas" that are capable of giving rise to future
results. As these results are associated with Mr X, even though those
results happen in totally new future mental events in totally new
future circumstances, an image of Mr X becomes available for new
instances of memory to retieve, recollect and recognize.

By the way, it pays to remember the function of memory in this
context.

The function of memory is to retrieve, recollect and recognize the
past events. A particular mental phenomenon comes to receive the
name "memory" precisely because it is capable of performing the
function of memory, which is connecting the present consciousness
with the past events (Retrieval, recollection, and recognizing). The
lack of such capability is called dementia, a form of mental illness.

Therefore, nothing can prevent a future instance of memory from
retrieving and remembering the work and result of a past memory as
long as the past memory and future memory emerge within the same
mental chain.


With best wishes,

Suan Lu Zaw

http://www.bodhiology.org

(Recent Denial of service attack to the bodhiology website has now
been overcome. During the attack, the Science And Academic Journal Of
Bodhiology has been redesigned into yearly archived contents such as
Content 2000, Content 2001, and Content 2002. Therefore, old
bookmarks for Journal articles are no longer valid. Please kindly
update your bookmarks if you had them.)




--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., Sarah <sarahdhhk@y...> wrote:
Dear KKT,

--- phamdluan@a... wrote: >
KKT: The reason of my question is that:

If memory is a cetasika
and lasts a very brief instant
and then falls away then
how does << recollection >>
or << recognition >> work?
The simple answer is that each instant of `marking' is accumulated
and
never lost. Each citta conditions the next citta and all its make-
up is
collected, gathered and passed on by the work of the 24 conditions,
Rob K
listed recently.

> Suppose I meet Mr. X,
an image of X is a cetasika
making a mark in my 'mind'
but lasts only a fleeting moment.

The next time I meet Mr. X,
there is a << recollection >>
or a << recognition >> that
I've already known Mr. X,
that means the << old image >>
of X must be somewhere
in order to have a << comparison >>
between the new image and the old one.
Exactly so. Howard was recently discussing the seeing of a rose --
you
could check `rose' in escribe for the relevant posts-- and how the
various
markings with moments of seeing and thinking, all accompanied by
sanna,
lead to the idea of seeing a rose. We can say that none of the
markings
are ever lost, but also that they never last or are ever the same
as any
other marking.

Hope that it makes sense :-))
Likewise....good comments of yours.

Sarah
======


______________________________________________________________________
_
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at
http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

Sarah <sarahdhhk@...>
 

Dear Christine & All,

--- christine_forsyth <cforsyth@vtown.com.au> wrote:>
The illustration of the chariot broken down into component parts used
to refute the idea of 'a person' or 'a being' is effective, to a
degree. It increases understanding that what we take for self are
only nama and rupa which arise and fall away. (But, still...., why,
at some level is there a lingering wondering whether it is possible
that 'consciousness' might not retain some on-going identity?). In
developing understanding of Anatta, what has been of most benefit to
me is continuing to study 'conditionality' and gradually being
brought to accept that I have no certain, solitary, independent,
control of any thing.
..........

Why the lingering wondering? Because of the deep-rooted ignorance,
clinging and wrong view we all have, I think. I�m so very glad to hear,
Chris, that you�re finding it so useful to study �conditionality� and
gradually the strong clinging to �self having control� begins to get worn
away.
..........
In the Abhidhamma commentary., Sammohavinodani, We read the following
paragraphs which explain how very �difficult to penetrate� anatta is for
us all and a little more about no control or �no power� at the end:
..........
Ch2, 240
�In such passages as : �Materiality, bhikkhus, is impermanent; what is
impermanent is painful; what is painful is not self; what is not self,
that is not mine, that am I not, that is not my self� (Siii 82), he taught
the characteristic of no-self by means of both the impermanent and
suffering.

�Why? Because of the obviousness of impermanence and suffering. for when
a plate or a saucer or whatever it may be falls from the hand and breaks,
they say: �Ah! Impermanence,� thus impermanence is obvious. but as
regards the person (attabhaava), when boils and carbuncles and the like
have sprung up, or when pierced by splinters and thorns, etc, they say:
�Ah! The pain.� thus pain is obvious. The characteristic of no-self is
unobvious, dark, unclear, dificult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate,
difficult to make known.

�The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or
without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is
not made known without the arising of the Englisghtened Ones; it is made
known only on the arising of the Englightened ones.........for the making
known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else;
it is the province of the fully Enlightened Ones only. Thus the
characteristic of on-self is unobvious........

�But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of
what and owing to concealment by what that these characteristics do not
appear?...........impermanence...pain.....The characteristic of no-self
does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the
resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to
its being concealed by compactness...............When resolving of the
compact (ghanavinibboga) is effected by resolution into the various
elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its
true essential nature........

�......Herein, the five aggregates are impermanent. Why? Because they
rise and fall and change, or because of their absence after having been.
Rise and fall and change are the characteristic of impermanence, or mode
of alteration (aakaaravikaara) called absence after having been.

�But those same five aggregates are painful because of the words �what is
impermanent is painful� (S iv 1). Why? Because of continual oppression.
the mode of being continually oppressed is the characteristic of pain.

�But those five aggregates are no-self because of the words �what is
painful is no-self� (S iv 1). Why? Because there is no exercising power
over them. The mode of insusceptibility to having opower exercised over
them is the characteristic of no-self......................� <end quote>
****************

So many useful reflections from everyone at the moment...

Sarah
=============================================


_______________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk


Re: Memory: To Sarah And KKT

howard wasserman
 

Hi, Suan -

You express worry below that this post of yours might add too much
"sugar". As far as I'm concerned, if this is sugar, then I have very much of
a "sweet tooth" for it! I find this to be a *wonderful* post! It's crystal
clear to me, and very informative without being overloaded with Pali
terminology. Thank you very much.

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 3/14/02 9:47:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
abhidhammika@yahoo.com writes:



Dear Sarah And KKT

How are you?

KKT asked:

"If memory is a cetasika
and lasts a very brief instant
and then falls away then
how does << recollection >>
or << recognition >> work?"

KKT gave an example:

"Suppose I meet Mr. X,
an image of X is a cetasika
making a mark in my 'mind'
but lasts only a fleeting moment."

Sarah has already given a very good answer to KKT's question.

I merely wanted to add a little bit. Hope it did not look like adding
too much sugar!

When we see Mr X, it is true that the first visual consciousness
lasts only a fleeting moment. But, to cover the whole of Mr X, the
first visual consciousness alone is not enough. There is an
uncountable number of visual consciousness cognitive series
called "cakkhuviññaanaviithi" to process Mr X.

And each cognitive series comes with additional supportive
consciousnesses in addition to the visual consciousness. This means
that all consciousnesses within each cognitive series come with
successive emergences of memory. This also means that there emerge
countless reinforcing instances of memory to process Mr X.

In short, there has been sufficient mental processing time for the
image of Mr X to be available for future retrieval.

Now, how could an entirely new future memory in a totally new future
consciousness recollect, and recognize an image of Mr X?

The answer is to do with the fact that each of us is merely a mental
chain that operates as a systemic whole. Every event that happens in
one part of the system affects every other part of it.

When our visual consciousnesses first processed Mr X, our minds also
performed various other actions in addition to merely seeing Mr X.
Some of these other actions are efficacious ones
called "javanacittas" that are capable of giving rise to future
results. As these results are associated with Mr X, even though those
results happen in totally new future mental events in totally new
future circumstances, an image of Mr X becomes available for new
instances of memory to retieve, recollect and recognize.

By the way, it pays to remember the function of memory in this
context.

The function of memory is to retrieve, recollect and recognize the
past events. A particular mental phenomenon comes to receive the
name "memory" precisely because it is capable of performing the
function of memory, which is connecting the present consciousness
with the past events (Retrieval, recollection, and recognizing). The
lack of such capability is called dementia, a form of mental illness.

Therefore, nothing can prevent a future instance of memory from
retrieving and remembering the work and result of a past memory as
long as the past memory and future memory emerge within the same
mental chain.


With best wishes,

Suan Lu Zaw


/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]


Re: Memory

Luan D. Pham
 

Dear Sarah,


Thanks for answering to my question.
-------------

<<
From: sarahdhhk@yahoo.com.hk (Sarah)


> KKT: The reason of my question is that:
>
> If memory is a cetasika
> and lasts a very brief instant
> and then falls away then
> how does << recollection >>
> or << recognition >> work?


The simple answer is that each instant of ‘marking’ is accumulated and
never lost. Each citta conditions the next citta and all its make-up is
collected, gathered and passed on by the work of the 24 conditions,
Rob K listed recently.

>>




KKT: I note the main point of your answer is:


<< the markings are never lost >>
although they last only for a fleeting moment.


This makes me think of kamma
which has a broader sense than
memory. The question is:


If memory and kamma are
<< never lost >> then logically
they must be << stored up >>
somewhere ?


I know that this << somewhere >>
is out of question in Abhidhamma,
not like in Yogacara of Mahayana
where a Storehouse Consciousness
(Alayavijnana) was postulated.


So how does Abhidhamma deal
with the problem of << never lost >>
of memory and kamma without
a << storehouse >> ?


Best regards,


KKT


Re: BEGINNERS ABHIDHAMMA - ADL ch 1

christine_forsyth <cforsyth@...>
 

Lucy,

Of course, it may be of help if I give you the link:
http://www.geocities.com/ganges_sangha/realities.pdf

Chris

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "christine_forsyth" <cforsyth@v...>
wrote:
Dear Lucy, :-) :-)

I've always wanted to do this..... Usually (just about always) I
ask a question and end up with lots and lots of reading to do.....
(not that I'm complaining..) Joy and delight! Now I can give you
some :-)

Have a look at Khun Sujins'
Realities and Concepts : The Buddha's Explanation of the World

I think you will find the first few pages will be of help just at
the
moment. :-)

metta,
Christine

--- In dhammastudygroup@y..., "Lucy" <selene@c...> wrote:
Hi Group
<<<SNIP>>>>
Why are these components called "realities" ? I've read
explanations before
and at the time they made sense, but every time the
word "reality"
crops
up, I flinch...which means, I don't really understand it...

Pass on rupa for now.

Best wishes
Lucy

154421 - 154440 of 166179