All dhammas are personal, not public

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Dec 25, 2017 1:30 am

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:59 am
Ok thanks for clarifying. Nothing to really disagree with there, since with the explanation it sounds fairly mainstream.
That's good. As for the question I've posed several times now, which remains unanswered...
Maybe now we can get back to the issue of whether noumena are regarded as dhammas in the Buddhadhamma, and if so, are they sankhata? And if not sankhata, how should they be regarded?
... I'm going to take it to a new topic, so do not feel under any obligation to answer it here.

Update: The poll is here

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:10 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:07 pm
Greetings Chownah,
chownah wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:26 pm
Retrofuturist:
Can you say what the difference is between the ideas you are bringing forth about noumena and the plain old idea of there being a real world out there with real things in it?
chownah
Noumena are those "real things" "out there".

Metta,
Paul. :)
Perhaps 'real' things from the conditioned mind's point of view. What is real?

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Circle5 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:23 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:10 am
Perhaps 'real' things from the conditioned mind's point of view. What is real?
To put is simple: The computer you are watching right now is real. The unicorn sitting on top of it is not.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:55 am

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:23 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:10 am
Perhaps 'real' things from the conditioned mind's point of view. What is real?
To put is simple: The computer you are watching right now is real. The unicorn sitting on top of it is not.
Who decides what is real? Real is a characteristic, not a truth. Real has no substance one could identify.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Mr Man » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:41 am

Hi Paul
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:04 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:58 pm
And this "If you are (one is) seeking a world view that will give you liberating truth, in my opinion you are setting yourself up for disappointment."
The Dhamma is liberating... when understood with wisdom.
That's not really addressing my point (see it's original context) but that is gone now :smile:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30812&start=160#p449816


-----
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:04 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:58 pm
I'm not sure how determining the status of the four great elements (other than knowing them in the terms of the three characteristics) is "connected with the goal".
In that case, you're not sure.
& I was interested if you considered it "connected with the goal".

Possibly you have now answered this.
retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:22 am
... so regardless of whether the four great elements (or even rupa) are regarded as noumena, phenomena, qualities, quantum physics, or some combination of the above, the Buddha's ideal is that they should "have no footing" in the mind. That is how "name & form" is brought to an end in the Buddha-Dhamma.
The question "In the Buddha-dhamma, how should noumena be regarded?" is superfluous and possibly this is why it is not directly addressed in the sutta.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:25 am

Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:41 am
The question "In the Buddha-dhamma, how should noumena be regarded?" is superfluous and possibly this is why it is not directly addressed in the sutta.
The Buddha used the word "dhamma" for multiple purposes, in different contexts. If we wish to understand its use in certain contexts, then it's a very relevant question, but feel free not to answer it, or find it remotely interesting.

If one has a Buddhist practice which is disconnected from the teaching of paticcasamuppada, then I can see why they might rather just get back to their techniques, rituals and practices and such. That's fine, it's not for me to say how and whether people should regard and relate to paticcasamuppada.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Circle5 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:46 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:55 am
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:23 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:10 am
Perhaps 'real' things from the conditioned mind's point of view. What is real?
To put is simple: The computer you are watching right now is real. The unicorn sitting on top of it is not.
Who decides what is real? Real is a characteristic, not a truth. Real has no substance one could identify.
People have invented a thing called language through which they can communicate about all kinds of things. Take for example color red. When people see the color red popping up on a street light, they all generally stop their car. They don't start asking "why the F decided this is color red and that therefore I should stop my car ???"

In the same way, the adjective "existing" appeared in the english language and many other languages across the world. It is meant to describe exactly the kind of thing I explained in my previous post. The computer standing in front of you exists, the unicorn sitting on top of it does not exist. This is what the word "existing" is meant to describe in english language.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Mr Man » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:29 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:25 am
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:41 am
The question "In the Buddha-dhamma, how should noumena be regarded?" is superfluous and possibly this is why it is not directly addressed in the sutta.
The Buddha used the word "dhamma" for multiple purposes, in different contexts. If we wish to understand its use in certain contexts, then it's a very relevant question, but feel free not to answer it, or find it remotely interesting.
Okay so the question is "how should noumena be regarded".

So how is this question relevant to the goal?

And if it is relivent why it is not directly addressed in the sutta?

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:02 pm

Greetings Mr Man,
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:29 pm
Okay so the question is "how should noumena be regarded".

So how is this question relevant to the goal?
This has been explained many times. Paticcasamuppada is about how avijja gives rise to sankhata-dhammas. The poll itself shows there are different perspectives on what constitutes sankhata-dhammas, therefore different understandings of paticcasamuppada... and they're not all going to all be correct, no matter how delightfully ecumenical such a suggestion may be. So... It's the most profound teaching of the Dhamma, and we can either understand it correctly or not. And if you can't see the relevance of paticcasamuppada and improved clarity on the definition of "dhamma" to the Dhamma and the Four Noble Truths, then I can't help you.
Mr Man wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:29 pm
And if it is relivent why it is not directly addressed in the sutta?
Arguably it is, since those "things" are mentioned throughout the suttas, just not under the banner of "noumena". Have you never seen a sutta where the Buddha is talking of water, gold, huts, villages, bowls, robes, buildings, skin, bone, hair, body, arms, legs, back etc.?

Now, the significance of all this has been explained to you multiple times. You will either see significance, to the Dhamma and/or the pursuit of the Noble Eightold Path, or you will not. If you see no value in this line of inquiry, this topic may not be for you. And that's OK.

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Saengnapha » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:28 am

Circle5 wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 12:46 pm
Saengnapha wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:55 am
Circle5 wrote:
Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:23 am

To put is simple: The computer you are watching right now is real. The unicorn sitting on top of it is not.
Who decides what is real? Real is a characteristic, not a truth. Real has no substance one could identify.
People have invented a thing called language through which they can communicate about all kinds of things. Take for example color red. When people see the color red popping up on a street light, they all generally stop their car. They don't start asking "why the F decided this is color red and that therefore I should stop my car ???"

In the same way, the adjective "existing" appeared in the english language and many other languages across the world. It is meant to describe exactly the kind of thing I explained in my previous post. The computer standing in front of you exists, the unicorn sitting on top of it does not exist. This is what the word "existing" is meant to describe in english language.
I appreciate the logic you are using. But, this logic doesn't even begin to fathom what dhammas are or the logic of the Buddhist teachings. Since there is no unicorn, there is nothing to compare it with. Calling the computer real is meaningless except in contrived language. It is real only in comparison to something unreal which doesn't exist and which means it is an empty concept used in the conventional perception of the dream of existence.

User avatar
Dhammarakkhito
Posts: 1115
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Dhammarakkhito » Tue Dec 26, 2017 4:58 am

kind of solipsistic, don't you think?
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5

https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3

http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught

User avatar
Stiphan
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:53 pm
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Stiphan » Tue Dec 26, 2017 9:53 am

I haven't had the time to read through the thread, but:

“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional formations there are … these are called the volitional formations aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate. These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.”
-Khandha Sutta, SN 22.48

The five aggregates constitute all of our experience, all conditioned Dhammas. And they can be distinguished into "internal" and "external". I would imagine the internal aggregates are what you refer to as "personal" and the external aggregates are what you refer to as "public".

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by Circle5 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:29 pm

:goodpost: Stiphan. External form (mountains, rivers, etc.), external consciousness (consciousness of other beings,) etc. etc.- is also considered part of the aggregates.
kind of solipsistic, don't you think?
Indeed it is.
I appreciate the logic you are using. But, this logic doesn't even begin to fathom what dhammas are or the logic of the Buddhist teachings. Since there is no unicorn, there is nothing to compare it with. Calling the computer real is meaningless except in contrived language. It is real only in comparison to something unreal which doesn't exist and which means it is an empty concept used in the conventional perception of the dream of existence.
If you want to continue the discussion about solipsism at a more in-depth level, I suggest this thread where I had such a discussion with Bundokji: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=30326&start=20

What you are trying to do here is to show that the computer doesn't exist either, same as the unicorn does not exist, based on some postmodern language-jugglerly.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16460
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by mikenz66 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 2:49 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:35 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:31 am
Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:17 am
However, the progression from raw stimulus to objects to proliferation is a key part of aims of the meditation instructions that I know about (such as the Mahasi approach and variations based on it, such as Ven Nananada's meditation manuals).
In that case, could you provide us a link to a Mahasi manual that covers vinnana/nama-rupa/phassa ?

Thank you.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I'm not sure exactly what you are after here, but if you read, for example Seeing Through the Net:
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev-0_3.pdf you'll see the sort of thing that I've learned from other teachers.

E.g. on page 7:
To take as real what is of a mirage-nature, is a delusion. It
is something that leads to a delusion. It is an illusion that leads to
a delusion. In order to understand deeply this mirage-nature in
sensory perception, there is a need for a more refined way of
mental attending. So the meditator, instead of attending to these
objects as ‘form’, ‘form’ or ‘sound’, ‘sound’, moves a step
further and notes them as ‘seeing’ or ‘hearing’. Now he attends to
these sense-percepts even more briefly, not allowing the mind to
go far – as ‘seeing-seeing’, ‘hearing-hearing’, ‘feeling-feeling’,
‘thinking-thinking’.
And page 8:
Now, if perception is a mirage, in order to get at this
mirage nature, one has to be content with attending simply as
‘seeing, seeing’. One way or the other it is just a seeing or just a
hearing. Thereby he stops short at the bare awareness. He stops
short at the bare seeing, bare hearing, bare feeling and bare
thinking. He does not grant it an object status. He does not
cognize it as an object existing in the world. He does not give it a
name. The purpose of this method of mental noting or attending,
is the eradication of the conceit ‘AM’, which the meditator has to
accomplish so as to attain release. The conceit ‘AM’ is ‘asmimāna’.
It would take me a while to find actual quotes, but what is said there is, of course, quite standard Mahasi, as you'd expect, given his background. Ven Nananda does have a nice way of explaining it, however.

:heart:
Mike
Of course, having thought about it a bit, Ven Nanananda gives lots of clues in the Nibbana Sermons, but basically working though the insight knowledges (as pointed out very helpfully by Ven Analayo in his discussions on the Sermons:
https://www.bcbsdharma.org/resources/bh ... -lectures/

So the first insight knowledge is understanding nama-rupa: nāmarūpapariccheda-ñāṇa
Endowed with purification of mind and continuing the practice of noticing, the meditator now comes to know body-and-mind analytically as follows: “The rising (upward movement) of the abdomen is one process; the falling (downward movement) is another; sitting is another; touching is another,” etc. In this way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily process that he notices. Further he realises: “The knowing of the rising movement is one process; the knowing of the falling movement is another.” In that way he comes to know each mental act of noticing. Further he realises: “The rising movement is one process; the knowing of it is another. The falling movement is one process; the knowing of it is another,” and so on. In that way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily and mental process. All that knowledge comes from simply noticing, not from reasoning; that is to say, it is knowledge by direct experience arrived at by the mere act of noticing, and not knowledge derived from ratiocination.
...
When that knowledge has come to maturity, the meditator understands thus: “At the moment of breathing in, there is just the rising movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides; at the moment of breathing out, there is just the falling movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides.” Understanding it thus in these and other instances, he knows and sees for himself by noticing thus: “There is here only that pair: a material process as object, and a mental process of knowing it; and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage ‘being,’ ‘person’ or ‘soul,’ ‘I’ or ‘another,’ ‘man’ or ‘woman’ refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate person or being, I or another, man or woman.”
http://aimwell.org/progress.html#1.Anal ... odyandMind
Of course, Mahasi didn't write "body and mind", that's the English translation of his Pali text...

The Nibbana sermons follow on to discuss the other insights:
Knowledge by Discerning Conditionality (paccayapariggaha-ñāṇa)
He now understands: “Consciousness arises in accordance with each object that becomes evident. If there is an object, there arises consciousness; if there is no object, no consciousness arises.”
Knowledge of Comprehension (sammasana-ñāṇa)
Knowledge of Arising and Passing Away: (udayabbaya-ñāṇa)
etc...

Of course, Ven Nananda has some different slants on the details of these knowledges. That's what is so interesting about the Sermons. However, the distinction between nama and rupa, the arising of concisousness, perception, etc are crucial parts of the ancient progress of insight, and the modern teachings based on them.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: All dhammas are personal, not public

Post by retrofuturist » Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:07 pm

Greetings Mike,
Of course, Mahasi didn't write "body and mind", that's the English translation of his Pali text...
Is your insinuation here that he meant something different? Do you happen to have access to the pre-translated sentence in question?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AgarikaJ, budo, gonflable, WindDancer and 105 guests