The causes for wisdom

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:10 am

tiltbillings wrote:
robertk wrote: . . .



These conditions are absolutely real
Do you know this experientially?

Yes, feeling, for example, is so real (to me).

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby kirk5a » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:49 pm

robertk wrote:"practicing meditation", what does it mean?

The Pali term for meditation is bhavana: development. It's a shorthand word for the development of skillful qualities in the mind. Bhavana is a type of karma — the intentional activity ultimately leading to the end of karma — but karma nonetheless.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... endas.html
do you think that someone eating a tuna sandwich could have satipatthana,

That is possible.
or do you belive that only the person at the foot of a tree, or in a isolated room who focuses on the breath is really developing the Buddhas path.

:strawman:
But the real 'change'
is not anything outward it is purely the arising of understanding.
And this type of understanding, as the suttas say, depends on hearing Dhamma.

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby kirk5a » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:54 pm

robertk wrote:
kirk5a wrote:
robertk wrote:There is no self right?



It is quite clear, the Buddha did not instruct to take "there is no self" as right view.

"There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right."
Visuddhimagga XIX19

QUOTE
"This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person"
XVIII24

QUOTE
"The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here
But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll"

They often talk about dhatus (elements) in the suttas. What does it mean - element? There are several definitions including this:

"Element is a term for what is soulesss."
Visuddhimagga XV 22, and

"They are only mere sortings out of suffering because no mastery is exercisable over them."
Visuddhimagga XV 20

"There is removal of false view in one who sees thus: "If formations were self it would be right to take them as self; but being not-self they are taken as self. Therefore they are not self in the sense of no power being exercisable over them; they are impermanent in the sense of non-existence after having come to be; they are painful in the sense of oppression by rise and fall"visuddhimagga xx83

I'll stand by what I said, unless someone can show otherwise. The Buddha did not explain right view in terms of holding the view "there is no self." We know he saw a distinction.
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

dhamma follower
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby dhamma follower » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:13 am

Dear PB,

(and there are many more suttas that explain the wholesome and the unwholesome, the skillful and the unskillful.

And they are rather recognizable if you ask me. If you don't think you can recognize them then maybe it's because the hindrance of doubt/uncertainty is overwhelming you.


To know what is wholesome and unwholesome in term of sila, or in term of the ten basis of merit is one thing, to know their characteristics as they are present is another. There are gross and subtle defilements, very few people actually recognize the subtle ones, hence the sutta quoted. Of course those people do not meditate believing they are cultivating defilements, but not having the neccesary level of panna which can distinguish the characteristics of the two, they go on nourishing the unwholesome thinking they are going the right way. Thats why the Buddha laid out the criteria of right development of samatha as in that sutta, as well as in many others.

Does that mean mistakes won't be made along the way? No, (and I've made plenty of my own and continue to do so to lesser and lesser extents) but you have to start somewhere and learn as you go. Otherwise you just roll around in samsara aimlessly


We have to start where we are. I agree with that. And where we are, in my assumption being the case of the majority today, is still a level of learning to distinguish the wholesome from the wholesome, to see the danger of the unwholesome and that will naturally incline the mind toward wholesomeness. But i no longer think we need to be in a special place to learn that. All dhammas arise to be understood whenever we are. Moreover, unlike many people here, I believe it indeed is a long process and should unfold in a natural way, otherwise, it is lobha again. We read

Monks, these five are forest-gone. What five?

One is forest-gone out of folly and blindness;

one out of evil desires and longings;

one foolish and mind-tossed;

one at the thought: ”It is praised by Buddhas and their disciples”;

and one is forest-gone just because his wants are little,

just for contentment, just to mark (his own faults),

just for seclusion, just because it is the very thing.


Verily, monks, of these five who have gone to the forest,

he who has gone just because his wants are little,

for contentment, to mark (his own faults), for seclusion,

just because it is the very thing–

he of the five is topmost, best, foremost, highest, elect.

Monks, just as from the cow comes milk,

from milk cream, from cream butter, from butter ghee,

from ghee the skim of ghee which is reckoned topmost;

even so, monks, of these five forest-gone,

he who has gone just because his wants are little,

for contentment, to mark (his own faults), for seclusion,

and just because it is the very thing–

he of the five is topmost, best, foremost, highest, elect.



Gradual sayings, forest-gone

That being said, the level of panna which distinguish the kusala from akusala can be developed anytime, even at the time without the Buddhas teaching. To have the chance to develop the panna which undderrstand dhammas as dhammas is much more difficult. Therefore, now that I have come accross the Buddhas teaching, i believe it is of more importance to really understand realities.

Brgrds,

D.F

dhamma follower
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby dhamma follower » Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:24 am

Greeting Kirk5a,

kirk5a wrote:[
But the real 'change'
is not anything outward it is purely the arising of understanding.
And this type of understanding, as the suttas say, depends on hearing Dhamma.

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


We could have also underline the first part of this passage. The same sutta, but our undertanding can be different. To me it just confirms how much deeply understanding the Dhamma that one hears is important. When there is truly deep understanding, it conditions chanda and the sense of urgency, which condition the mind to be is heedful to be aware of whatever arises now and approach it with right understanding accumulated from hearing and right considering. A totally empty process. In any case, there is always the danger of reading the sutta which uses conventional language with self-view.

Brgrds,

D.F

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby kirk5a » Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:38 pm

dhamma follower wrote:

There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
We could have also underline the first part of this passage. The same sutta, but our undertanding can be different. To me it just confirms how much deeply understanding the Dhamma that one hears is important. When there is truly deep understanding, it conditions chanda and the sense of urgency, which condition the mind to be is heedful to be aware of whatever arises now and approach it with right understanding accumulated from hearing and right considering. A totally empty process. In any case, there is always the danger of reading the sutta which uses conventional language with self-view.

Let's underline this part again:
one makes an exertion

You guys are totally confused about the difference between putting effort into the practice as described by the Buddha, which is right effort, and self-view. You conflate effort with self-view and greed.
"And what, monks, is right effort?

[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

dhamma follower
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby dhamma follower » Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:56 am

kirk5a wrote:
dhamma follower wrote:


Let's underline this part again:
one makes an exertion

You guys are totally confused about the difference between putting effort into the practice as described by the Buddha, which is right effort, and self-view. You conflate effort with self-view and greed.
"And what, monks, is right effort?

[i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

[iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.

[iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html


So ????

Are you suggesting that because the Buddha uses the word "one" and "he" and "a monk" and therefore right effort is not a conditioned dhamma which arises because of its appropriate conditions ?

Self-view comes when those conditioned dhammas are taken to be I, me, mine, like in this sutta

"There are, monks, these six grounds for false views.[15] What are the six? There is here, monks, an uninstructed worldling who has no regard for Noble Ones, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it; who has no regard for men of worth, who is ignorant of their teaching and untrained in it: he considers corporeality thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';[16] he considers feeling... perception... mental formations thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed, and thought;[17] what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind,[18] this also he considers thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self';


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html

Effort, viriya comes under formations khanda.

When there is right understanding, even at the intellectual level, isn't right effort is there? How does it feel?

In the meditation environment, we hear the expression "effortless awareness", I guess it is because when there is some -approximately - right awereness, it feels like there's no effort at all. However, effort must be there too, because it arises with 73 out 0f 89 cittas, and it is right effort becauses it arises with sati in that case.That means what one thinks ordinarily as being effort might very well be lobha accompanied with ditthi- greed with self view.

Brgrds,

D.F

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 22307
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:06 am

dhamma follower wrote: Are you suggesting that because the Buddha uses the word "one" and "he" and "a monk" and therefore right effort is not a conditioned dhamma which arises because of its appropriate conditions ?
I do not know why it is that you Sujin followers need to be told repeatedly that no one here is suggesting right effort is not some sort of unconditioned thing.

In the meditation environment, we hear the expression "effortless awareness", I guess it is because when there is some -approximately - right awereness, it feels like there's no effort at all. That means what one thinks ordinarily as being effort might very well be lobha accompanied with ditthi- greed with self view.
What you are saying here is not clear. Please elaborate.
.


++++++++++++++++
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
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby kirk5a » Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:59 am

dhamma follower wrote:That means what one thinks ordinarily as being effort might very well be lobha accompanied with ditthi- greed with self view.

Like what - please give an example.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

User avatar
SamKR
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby SamKR » Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:38 am

robertk wrote: The sutta is using conventional words to explain conditions. There is no self like a manager behind conditions deciding to do this or that: each element is conditioned by various complex conditions. These conditions are absolutely real .

robertk wrote:
Yes, feeling, for example, is so real (to me).

This thing puzzles me. Isn't feeling (or any conditions) a sankhara? Can we take a position that sankhara are absolutely real (or unreal), according to the Buddha's teachings?

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:49 am

One may - as with ascetics before teh Buddhas time have a deep rooted view of self but be abke to develop aeven to jhana level.

Or one can have right view, know with deep understanding that there is no self, and develop the jhanas. One may still use the common parlance of me, I and so on. But one knows that these are simply designations, terms that are useful ways of communicating but that do not refer to actual realities. Thus one can still train "oneself", but understand that it is only by conditions that any kusala will arise - and thus one will not be perturbed if the kusala does not arise.

Samattha and vipassana can go hand in hand - even for those who are sukka -vipassaka, dry insight workers (pure vipassana). For example, the development of vipassana makes metta -bhavana much easier. The far enemy of metta is anger but if panna is developed one can reflect easily "what am I angry with? Those namas and rupas that arose an instant ago have ceased already. Am I angry with the new ones? But these ones were not the ones that conditioned the sound that impinged on the ear sense. And that ear-sense and hearing consciousness have likewise long since passed...". this is just a very rough example of the type of reflection conditioned by the development of vipassana. This level of understanding allows metta to replace the anger. Lobha, desire, is the near enemy of metta. And for the true development of vipassana there must be good understanding of the characteristic of lobha - otherwise, as we often discuss, one will take refined lobha for sati. Thus as lobha is better and better understood, by developing satipatthana, one is less fooled by it also when developing metta.



The thinking process is composed of namas and some of these also condition rupa. What is not real is the concept that may be the object of thought (purple elephants, mother, self, tables, cars, pretty woman....) The javana moments are always rooted in either kusala (with amoha(wisdom) or without) or akusala. Thus we can talk about wise or unwise thoughts. When we consider Dhamma at the level of pondering the thoughts are to some extent rooted in amoha, wisdom, alobha, detachment and adosa, non aversion. (Ideally that is - we can of course be thinking about Dhamma with underlying delusion or attachment.)

Right Understanding at the level of thinking is a crucial factor before deeper levels can arise. And too, as the direct understanding develops this supports more understanding at the thinking level. It is an unward spiral - wise thinking, direct understanding, wise thinking, direct understanding, wisethinking.... A very gradual upward spiral, cira kala bhavana (long, long time development). Even after vipassana nanas are reached (the real ones) wise thinking and study is needed to further assist wisdom to grow.

The visuddhmagga XVIII24 says


"
after defining mentality -materialty thus according to its true nature (i.e. after the first vipassana nana), then in order to abandon this wordly designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroghly, to surmount confusion about beings and to establish his mind on the plane of non-confusion he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely 'this is mere mentality-materiality,there is no being, no person' is confirmed by a number of suttas. .."

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:55 am

SamKR wrote:
robertk wrote: The sutta is using conventional words to explain conditions. There is no self like a manager behind conditions deciding to do this or that: each element is conditioned by various complex conditions. These conditions are absolutely real .

robertk wrote:
Yes, feeling, for example, is so real (to me).

This thing puzzles me. Isn't feeling (or any conditions) a sankhara? Can we take a position that sankhara are absolutely real (or unreal), according to the Buddha's teachings?

the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas, including feeling, all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. Let us consider a couple of [examples of] thinking.

1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real.

2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept.

Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by.

Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects.

Now there is thinking happening , trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, not you. These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:57 am

so all the khandhas, including feeling, are very real, they are conditioned, and they last - according to the texts- for an infinitley short period of time before falling away and ceasing.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:10 am

this is some questions that I replied to many years ago on dsg
1) How is concept specifically different from vitakka?

Vittaka is a paramattha dhamma. The usual translation is applied thinking. Howeer it is not exactly the same as what we usually meaqn by thinking. Even when we are in deep, dreamless sleep vittaka arises. Nevertheless we can say it is or may be predominant when we are thinking (in the conventional sense). When we are thinking about some idea one of the dhammas that is arsing and passing away during those moments is vittaka. If sati of satipatthana takes vittaka as an object, or any other dhamma, then the concept will disappear for the moments that this is happening. This is because sati, of this type, only takes paramattha dhamma for object.

2) Is there a pali word for concept?

Pannatti is the pali for concept. As Acharn Sujin explains in 'Realities and concepts' there are different types of concept. Such words as dosa, lobha, metta, colour, hatred, sound are concepts that designate paramattha dhammas, they are vijjamana pannatti. Words such as person, animal, computer, Robert, Mike do not refer to paramattha dhammas and are called avijjamana pannati.

3) Doesn't a concept arise at the mind-door?

Concepts are dhammarammana(mental object) and they appear at the mind-door. The mind-door has many different objects including citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana which are all paramattha dhamma. It also has concept as an object.

4) Is it not taken as an object by citta?
Yes but not in the same way that paramattha dhammas are taken as object. How could it as it is not real. The cittas and cetasikas are arising and passing away at great speed and forming up concepts but these concepts have no existence, although they give the illusion of existence. It is so hard to talk about this -- we are using concepts to discuus it-- and yet this is all happening right now. Can we see it? By the development of satipatthana the difference between concept and paramattha dhamma must gradually becomes clearer. Now you are reading this so it might be worthwhile analysing what is actually happening. There is visible object, the different colours making up the computer screen. The colours are real (but arising and passing away rapidly) the computer screen is not real, however the various rupas that make up the screen are real,(and arising and passing away ceaselessly). There is cakkhuvinnana, seeing consciousness which is real (and ephemeral) which arises due to the contact of the eyebase (real, conditioned by kamma done in the past, evanescent). Then there are processes of citta which experience the same object and then there are mind-door processes which think about what was seen and so concepts are formed up. Yet these concepts do not actually exist. There must be this process occuring, no one can stop it occuring. If it didn't occur we would be utterly vacuous, know nothing at all, much less than a new born baby. Thus it is the most natural thing that concepts arise.

Unfortunately, though, throughout samasara we have given these concepts special staus that they don't deserve, namely we think they exist. This mistaken notion means that we will do all sorts of evil to protect these illusionary figments such as self. When we see that concepts are simply concept, and that even parammattha dhammas are so temporary, would we still get so upset when we are critisised? Would we hate the man who steals our wife once we know that both are only idea? I think we would not kill, steal, lie or cheat over distintergrating colours, sounds or tastes. We can only get angry because of the distorted vision that can't fully penetrate these matters. Thus papanaca and mannati are working.


5) Can someone please cite a clear, direct instruction on this topic from the sutta-pitaka?

The Buddha said that the all includes the 6 doors and there objects and the sense bases. There are many suttas classifying dhammas in different ways, the ayatanas, the khandas, the dhatus, so that they can be understood, so that concept is not mistaken for paramattha dhamma. The satipatthana sutta elucidates different dhammas that can be insighted. Anger is one of the objects listed in the satipatthana sutta- it should be understood. When we are angry do we see that we are angry with an illusion? Do we understand that what is really happening is simply cittas arising and passing away that are roooted in dosa. By studying our "lives", which are only these brief moments of anger and lust and doubt and fear and pleasure and pain, and seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, by applying the satipatthana sutta, we are beginning to separate paramattha dhamma from concept.

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:44 am

Pannati, concepts can be classified in many ways (see the p.s to this post). In fact, things like a unicorn and God and rabbits horns can be considered as different types of pannati from trees. Trees, computers, humans, Robert, Sam are the shadows of what is really there - and what is really there are only namas and rupas, mentality and matter, insignificant dhammas that can barely be said to exist because they pass away instantly. These concepts are more deluding than concepts like unicorns (which we know have no reality).

Because of accumulated avijja, ignorance, these type of concepts (pannatti) delude and instead of being given their correct status - as neccessary designations* - they are assumed to be actual. And that is where all problems begin and end.

*Note that these designations happen long, long before they are linguistic labels. What is called a thought in conventional language is comprised of billions of momentary arisings which repeatedly take a concept as object and may include metally naming it. Becuase of this repetition - and the lack of insight into the actual dhammas - the illusion of permanence is solidified.

The commentary to the UDANA ( translation by Peter Masefield from PTS) (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter)




"it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e. men, women) and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e. it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas].


------
As I said above the conceptualising happens long before any naming has time to occur. Even babies and animals who have no linguistic abilities are fully involved in processes of conceptualising. However, animals and babies cannot yet expand concepts into the religions, sciences, and general craziness and wonder that is the fruit of civilisation.
I think it can only be known by direct insight whether this is true or not and that is why the Buddha's teaching is ehipassiko - come and see. Which is why I believe vipassana is not a matter of doing something to get something ; instead it is simply the developing of insight into what is real and what is not. All these processes, the realities and the concepts are happening every moment of the day. They do not have to be searched for - they only need to be seen.



p.s. Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis:


QUOTE

i) formal concept (santhana pannatti) corresponding to the form of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated on account of the mode of transition of the elements.

ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot.

iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas.

iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of East or West.

v) concept of time (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening.

vi) concept of season (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha.

vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements.

viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.

User avatar
SamKR
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby SamKR » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:54 am

Thank you Robert for detail, clear and insightful reply. I think I understand what you mean in the above posts as some of that has been my understanding too.

But still, I am reluctant to say the "paramattha dhammas" are absolutely real and even the concepts are absolutely unreal, absolutely existing or absolutely non-existing - based on the Buddha's teachings like Kalakarama sutta, Kaccayanagotta sutta and other suttas regarding right view. Because taking positions about reality/unreality and existence/non-existence is not right view if I understand what the Buddha is trying to say.

And I think we can make at least there distinctions:
1. "paramattha dhammas" (eg, feeling) in ultimate infinitesimal sense -- incessantly arising and passing away in an infinitesimally small "time" -- even for them reality/existence or non-reality/non-existence does not apply
2. Sankharas (eg, "envelope of those feelings mentioned in 1.": like gross feeling of headache) that are created or fabricated out of those little infinitesimal dhammas. They can actually give rise to concepts, and actually create the "world". The concept of self is created due to this level, I guess.
3. Concepts like father, mother, computer, house etc. Still, the actual objects these concepts refer are ultimately infinitesimally small physical/mental units arising and passing away rapidly.

All three can be "tried" to be seen as "such": arising and passing away (in different speeds), and we cannot take a position that they really absolutely exist or they really absolutely don't exist. Perhaps one category (as mentioned above) is relatively more real/unreal than the other.
They are "such" and those who see this "such" are themselves "such". Right view pertains to "see" this "such", the things really are (like: "this feeling is not self), rather than sticking to any ontological proposition like "there is no self".

Sorry for my bad English, but I hope you will sense what I am trying to say, and reply with more insights.
Thanks.
Last edited by SamKR on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:00 am, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
SamKR
Posts: 872
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby SamKR » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:25 am

I can not admire enough the following. Actually I am kind of "attached" to the following sublime words:

"Whatever is seen or heard or sensed
and fastened onto as true by others,
One who is Such — among the self-fettered —
wouldn't further claim to be true or even false.

"Having seen well in advance that arrow
where generations are fastened & hung
— 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' —
there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 1790
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby robertk » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:35 pm


User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3469
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby Alex123 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:36 pm

robertk wrote:2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real, but mother and father is concept.


Why is then murder of mother or father is heinous kamma with definite result of going to hell, but murder of man or woman is simply bad kamma?
Is Buddha a concept? If so, why can't anyone kill a Buddha but can kill another man?


Where in Abhidhamma PITAKA is there explicit teaching that concepts don't exist, but only paramattha dhammas do? As far as I know, nowhere... It is found in post canonical commentaries...
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: The causes for wisdom

Postby kirk5a » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm

robertk wrote:2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real.

How do you distinguish that from wrong view?
There is .. no mother, no father...This is wrong view.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], cappuccino, D1W1, Keith, Zom and 28 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine