The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I know that. The "seeing" is still conditioned. What makes you think that anyone is assuming a "reality"?
Come now. It is habitual for all of us in daily life to hold that the cake is real, and due to avijja, believe that we are seeing and experiencing reality when we see the cake, when all we are experiencing are sankharas. That's all samsaric existence is - sankharas. No cake in loka. The cake is irrelevant - it is beyond range. But let's be brutally honest with ourselves - how often are we properly regarding experience as sankharas, and how often are we regarding the multifarious things of the world as real things that exist? This is no time for kidding ourselves - this is serious business.
mikenz66 wrote:The Buddha, Ven N, and other teachers are just telling us to strip back the layers and examine our experience.
Yes, they are, and I won't comment on unnamed teachers, but the Buddha and ven Nanananda speak well.
mikenz66 wrote:You seem to be avoiding my statement that the sekha or arahant still has the "seeing" but not the concept of self. He/she still has the "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma", the "writing in water".
So what's the difference between the (fabricated) seeing and the (fabricated) self?
The sekha is trying to break the deeply ingrained habit of regarding both of these these things (e.g. cake, self) as real. The sekha, with the potential to use the Dhamma eye, is attempting to exert the required effort to break down these habits/tendencies (anusaya) and get into the habit of using the Dhamma eye all the time. How that is done by the sekha, in practice, is explained below...
SN 55.3 wrote:"Therefore, Dighavu, when you are established in these four factors of stream-entry, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself."
On the flipside, the practice is to stop remaining focused on cake and self. Instead, remain focused on sankharas themselves, and that nama-rupa/vinnana vortex. That's why I (and SN 12.15) keep saying that the view of "existence" diminishes Right View to an extent... because whilst "existence" or "non-existence" is being perceived (with respect to cake, self, anything...) rather than sankharas, progress is being stalled. Seeing paticcasamuppada is the middle way through perceiving "existence" (of cake and self) and "non-existence" (of cake and self). Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.
mikenz66 wrote:It would appear to be quite important to know the difference, judging from the suttas, and from exposition such as the one I quoted.
For the arahant, the Dhamma-eye is par for the course. Until then, the practice is as denoted above.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by piotr »

Hi,
retrofuturist wrote:Just because it is better for a putthujana to think A over B in no way logically makes either Right View, nor connected to the Dhamma-eye... it merely means it would be better for the putthujana to do A over B.

Most importantly, I didn't actually call it Wrong View... it just isn't viewed via the Dhamma-eye. That was an erroneous leap of logic on your part.
Uhm... Let me remind you that you've quoted MN 1 in order to show that it's a wrong view. :roll:

Moreover, as far as I can understand what the text is saying, what's better for puthujjana to think is to hold that body is a self and not the mind. Puthujjana assumption is wrong (in any case) because it assumes in one way or another a self. It's better for puthujjana to assume that body is a self because it's easier to see its impermanent nature and therefore it's easier to stop this assumption.

It's not wrong for a puthujjana to see body standing for some finite time. In fact it's a mean to gain wisdom.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Piotr,
piotr wrote:Uhm... Let me remind you that you've quoted MN 1 in order to show that it's a wrong view. :roll:
MN 1 shows that it's a view to be abandoned by the sekha. That you extrapolate beyond that is your doing.
piotr wrote:Moreover, as far as I can understand what the text is saying, what's better for puthujjana to think is to hold that body is a self and not the mind. Puthujjana assumption is wrong (in any case) because it assumes in one way or another a self. It's better for puthujjana to assume that body is a self because it's easier to see its impermanent nature and therefore it's easier to stop this assumption.
I concur with all you have said here.
piotr wrote:It's not wrong for a puthujjana to see body standing for some finite time. In fact it's a mean to gain wisdom.
It can be, which is why I'm making the effort to clarify that it's not Wrong View, but a view to be abandoned by a sekha, who should be endeavouring to constantly see according to the Dhamma-eye (i.e. views in accordance with the Buddhadhamma) rather than via the putthujana's self-view that they will habitually lapse back into when not mindful.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by piotr »

Hi,
retrofuturist wrote:MN 1 shows that it's a view to be abandoned by the sekha. That you extrapolate beyond that is your doing.
But MN 1 says nothing whatsoever about the fact how long the body can stand.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Piotr,
piotr wrote:But MN 1 says nothing whatsoever about the fact how long the body can stand.
This topic is about the Dhamma eye. That question is one answerable only with Putthujana eye, because the Dhamma eye wouldn't attribute existence to the body.

Putthujana eye is to be abandoned.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I know that. The "seeing" is still conditioned. What makes you think that anyone is assuming a "reality"?
Come now. It is habitual for all of us in daily life to hold that the cake is real, and due to avijja, believe that we are seeing and experiencing reality when we see the cake, when all we are experiencing are sankharas.
Of course we all mistake various things for reality. That's the root problem and goes without saying.
I was replying to your criticism of my interpretation of Ven N and the Buddha's statements, that my "model" of practice was assuming something about reality (or not). It wasn't.
retrofuturist wrote: That's all samsaric existence is - sankharas. No cake in loka.
Now you're really confusing me. You now seem to be saying the cake is "just a concept". Is that what you mean by "not in loka"? And our experience is just "seeing", "tasting", etc?
I thought you were claiming the everything was a sankhara, both "cake" and "seeing".
retrofuturist wrote: The cake is irrelevant - it is beyond range. But let's be brutally honest with ourselves - how often are we properly regarding experience as sankharas, and how often are we regarding the multifarious things of the world as real things that exist? This is no time for kidding ourselves - this is serious business.
Of course. Who has claimed otherwise? Not me.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

And this actually seems somewhat contradictory to the statement above that the cake is not "part of loka", which obviously I don't understand anymore.
retrofuturist wrote: Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.
I really am genuinely confused what exactly you are arguing for or against now, so I have no idea whether to agree or disagree.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:You now seem to be saying the cake is "just a concept".
Not really... this whole "concept" business as framed in contemporary Dhamma discussion (abstracted to be outside loka) is a bit misleading. Rather, when I was talking about "cakeness", I'm talking about that which causes you to regard it as a cake. If you were to eat the "cake", at some point throughout the consumption you would come to perceive the remainder as "crumbs". Somewhere along the way the cake-dhamma ceased and crumb-dhamma arose, but the physical substance of the crumbs out there never changed... all that moved was your referent, and that's directly pertinent to the "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma" matter you raise. The change is not so much a change "out there", but a change in the sankharas you've created, and their arbitrary points of reference. Hence the Phena Sutta.
mikenz66 wrote:Is that what you mean by "not in loka"?
I mean that the so-called physical "existing" cake is not in loka. I've been talking about the vortex between nama-rupa and vinnana... it should come as little surprise then that "from name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense sphere", which is synonymous with loka. Loka is built upon the incessant iterations of name-and-form and consciousness.

(Whether you're prepared to relinquish or not is up to you, but I do hope that you're now at least seeing why I feel the three-life interpretation of paticcasamuppa does much violence to it... the first five components alone have been vital in explaining the structural causal relationship involved in samsaric experience - "rebirth-linking consciousness" need not apply).
mikenz66 wrote:And our experience is just "seeing", "tasting", etc? I thought you were claiming the everything was a sankhara, both "cake" and "seeing".
If it's what you're experiencing, it's sankhata (formed).

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:And this actually seems somewhat contradictory to the statement above that the cake is not "part of loka", which obviously I don't understand anymore.
retrofuturist wrote: Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.
I really am genuinely confused what exactly you are arguing for or against now, so I have no idea whether to agree or disagree.
I appreciate your honesty.

What I'm saying here is that you don't need to prove or disprove the ontological existence or non-existence of atman or cake.

If our purpose for perceiving anatta in dhammas has been to prove to ourselves that "there is no self", we have been barking up the wrong tree.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:What I'm saying here is that you don't need to prove or disprove the ontological existence or non-existence of atman or cake.
In looking back over this exchange, I do not see that Mike was trying to do that.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:What I'm saying here is that you don't need to prove or disprove the ontological existence or non-existence of atman or cake.
In looking back over this exchange, I do not see that Mike was trying to do that.
Neither do I. It just seemed a timely opportunity to make the comment for anyone to whom it may be of interest. I know for quite some time I was under the impression the purpose of the anatta teaching was to prove the non-existence of the self - others may have laboured under similar misconceptions too... especially when we sometimes see the term "no-self" bandied around, in place of "not-self".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,

I'm still a bit confused since you appear to be contradicting yourself in this discussion.
retrofuturist wrote:The irony here being that I'm trying to point out that concepts are within loka and should be seen and understood accordingly, whilst you're trying to turf them out of the realm of potential engagement (i.e. loka) by saying that "they are not sankharas in the sense of having the three characteristics". Your statement is non-sequitur, and if it ought be directed at anyone, it should be directed towards yourself.
retrofuturist wrote:It is habitual for all of us in daily life to hold that the cake is real, and due to avijja, believe that we are seeing and experiencing reality when we see the cake, when all we are experiencing are sankharas. That's all samsaric existence is - sankharas. No cake in loka. The cake is irrelevant - it is beyond range.
To me, my statement that "cake/self/man is a concept" is not significantly different to your statement "not cake in loka". So perhaps I should just leave it there.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

The second statement is regarding (ontological) cake (out there)..... not the "concept" of cake.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,

The second statement is regarding (ontological) cake (out there)..... not the "concept" of cake.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Hmm, OK. It's not really worth me saying much more if you think ontology has anything to do with what I've been trying to explain above. We would just be talking at cross purposes.

I've tried to explain how I see the arising of concepts, in a way that I think is quite in line with how Ven Nananda (not to mention the Buddha) explains it. I really don't see much difference between what I've said and what I think you've said, just some minor matters of terminology. You may well disagree, but I probably should just leave it there.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote: . . . especially when we sometimes see the term "no-self" bandied around, in place of "not-self".
Looking at the mind/body process there is no self to be found.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply