I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously doubt if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.Kamran wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised (to put it mildly) at finding pdfs of most books I was planning to buy at the below location
http://www.watflorida.org/Library.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
No doubt.tiltbillings wrote:I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.Kamran wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised (to put it mildly) at finding pdfs of most books I was planning to buy at the below location
http://www.watflorida.org/Library.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.daverupa wrote:No doubt.tiltbillings wrote:I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously doubt if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.Kamran wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised (to put it mildly) at finding pdfs of most books I was planning to buy at the below location
http://www.watflorida.org/Library.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(see what I did there? ha ha!)
The point is about the loss of substantiality... that dhammas are no longer regarded as substantial by the arahant, either by way of perception or thought.Spiny Norman wrote:One of the things I don't get here is the description of earth, water, fire and air as concepts - they seem to me like basic perceptions, a function of sanna. Earlier in the book he seems to say that papanca occurs subsequent to sanna but here he seems to be equating them?
I'm not clear on how the substantiality of dhamma relates to papanca. I looked at MN1, which Nanananda also refers to, and at MN1.147 it says: "The Tathagata directly knows earth as earth". This suggests that while the Tathagata isn't involved in conceiving ( mannati ) or proliferation ( papanca ) there is still the process of perception ( sanna ).retrofuturist wrote:The point is about the loss of substantiality... that dhammas are no longer regarded as substantial by the arahant, either by way of perception or thought.Spiny Norman wrote:One of the things I don't get here is the description of earth, water, fire and air as concepts - they seem to me like basic perceptions, a function of sanna. Earlier in the book he seems to say that papanca occurs subsequent to sanna but here he seems to be equating them?
Papanca is what can happen when dhammas are granted substantiality. If they're not, then there's only nippapanca.
I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
...
"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
...
"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.
By apperception do you mean conceiving? And are you suggesting that an Arahant doesn't perceive? As far as I can see MN1 is basically saying that an Arahant perceives ( sanna ) but doesn't conceive ( mannati ) - if an Arahant wasn't perceiving then he presumably wouldn't be able to distinguish earth from water and so on.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
With reference to MN 1...I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.
By "apperception" do you mean this?retrofuturist wrote: I would suggest that what the arahant directly knows (in contrast to the run-of-the-mill's perceives) is what presents at the sense doors, uncontaminated by apperception.
Let not the trainee contaminate sensory perception with apperception, so that he/she may comprehend it.
If so, the first sentence I quoted is quite standard, isn't it?In psychology, apperception is "the process by which new experience is assimilated to and transformed by the residuum of past experience of an individual to form a new whole."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception
Spiny Norman wrote:By apperception do you mean conceiving? And are you suggesting that an Arahant doesn't perceive? As far as I can see MN1 is basically saying that an Arahant perceives ( sanna ) but doesn't conceive ( mannati ) - if an Arahant wasn't perceiving then he presumably wouldn't be able to distinguish earth from water and so on.
Source: http://www.mahabodhi.org.uk/metta.htmlSanna, though it is sometimes rendered perception or recognition, is better translated as ‘apperception.’
Apperception is: “The process of understanding by which newly observed qualities of an object are related to past experience.” Apperception is in a way a combination of perception and recognition. For example, we perceive a chair; but we already have an idea in our minds about what a chair is. So our apperception of the chair is to re-cognize what we have previously cognized as a chair.
... just a paraphrase of the MN1 quotation as it pertains to "a monk who is a trainee"mikenz66 wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand the second one, thought...
But without previous cognition, what does "directly knowing" actually look like? An Arahant would previously have encountered and recognised "chairs" many times before, so how does he now experience a "chair"?retrofuturist wrote: "Re-recognizing what we have previously cognized" is not to "directly know" something.
Could you briefly describe what that means in practice?retrofuturist wrote: An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.
