The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:28 am

Greetings Sentinel,
sentinel wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:52 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:10 am
No dependently originated sense base.
No dependently originated sense object.
Mind explain the meaning ?
There is no paticcasamuppada for the arahant, thus no dependently originated things.

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

pegembara
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by pegembara » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:57 am

The signs and features(nimitta) are what creates 'reality'. The purpose is for the survival of the species.

A rope can be mistaken for a snake. An Arab looking man with a backpack may be immediately looked upon with suspicion.
When the practice has reached a point of non-grasping at signs/features (animitta samadhi) then in the seen will only be seen.
And what, bhante, is the signless liberation of mind?
Here, with non-attention to all signs, a monk enters and dwells in the signless concentration
of mind.
This is called the signless liberation of mind.
Animitta Ceto Vimutti
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

sentinel
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by sentinel » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:06 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:28 am
Greetings Sentinel,
sentinel wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:52 am
retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:10 am
No dependently originated sense base.
No dependently originated sense object.
Mind explain the meaning ?
There is no paticcasamuppada for the arahant, thus no dependently originated things.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Isn't that the five / six sense base (seeing hearing smelling etc) would just be normal as other people ? Arhat still thinks ?
Truth to self

Srilankaputra
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:56 am
Location: Sri Lanka

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Srilankaputra » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:11 am

bridif1 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:17 pm

Evidence, (no matter how much evidence, whether theoretical or experiencial) is not enough to posit that the truth has been reached without any posible future refutation.
why does the police have to provide evidence in court? because the jury has not seen the the defendant committing the murder.

why does the flat-earther doubt the consensus view? because he was not strapped on to a rocket and sent to outer space.

why did Pythagoras have to prove his theorem? because it is not self evident.

why does the sotapanna not doubt 'this i am not" ? because he has seen with the eye of wisdom how each phenomena is originate from causes. ( so have i heard)


bridif1 wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:17 pm
We can say that the khandhas are not the self, but does that imply that there is not self at all? How can we reach that conclusion without any doubts?
This problem arises due to thinking of the khandhas in abstract terms. When khandhas are included everything is included.
O seeing one,we for refuge go to thee!
O mighty sage do thou our teacher be!

Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ,
Tattha tattha vipassati

“Yato yato mano nivāraye,
Na dukkhameti naṃ tato tato;
Sa sabbato mano nivāraye,
Sa sabbato dukkhā pamuccatī”ti.

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:52 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:18 pm
Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:46 pm
The impression I have is that the suttas are mostly concerned with "my world" and not with "THE world".
So it's about the way we experience our "personal reality", rather than an investigation of "ultimate reality".
Agreed. The only physical aspect of "THE world" that seems to be affirmed are the four great elements, however to your point, the suttas focus on "my world" and the constructed forms, derived from those four great elements.

As ven. Nanananda says, we can only ever experience rupa (form), via rupasanna (perception of form).

Metta,
Paul. :)
I think technically its the perception of derived form, ie sense-objects - sights, sounds, sensations, odours and flavours. The Four great elements of rupa are really abstractions, and not things we directly experience. For example we experience "wind" indirectly as a cool, light pressure on the skin (external wind element), or as a light pressure inside the nose (internal wind element). Note that MN140 gives examples of internal and external form, ie inside and outside the body.

The suttas describe sense-consciousness arising in dependence on the presence of these sense-objects and the corresponding sense-base, eg eye-conscious arises in dependence upon eye and visible form. To put this more informally, seeing requires both the ability to see, and something to be seen.
Last edited by Dinsdale on Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:01 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:10 am
Greetings,
sentinel wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:00 am
So , enlightened person like Buddha and arhat looking at moon would appears differently from any ignorance person ?
"In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen." (Bahiya Sutta)

No dependently originated sense base.
No dependently originated sense object.

Metta,
Paul. :)
I think there are different ways of interpreting the Bahiya Sutta passage, though it seems to describe the cessation of self-view, the sense of "me".

"The seen" here appears to refer to sights, ie visual sense objects. I'm not sure what you mean by "dependently originated sense object". Doesn't a visual sense object (a sight) arise in dependence upon the four great elements?
Last edited by Dinsdale on Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:10 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:52 am
The suttas describe sense-consciousness arising in dependence on the presence of these sense-objects and the corresponding sense-base, eg eye-conscious arises in dependence upon eye and visible form.
They are described to show their dependent arising... not because they are "realities" to be grasped... rather, they are dependently arisen, dependent upon avijja.

For a similar reason, I cannot respond to sentinel's previous question, because it is not possible to explain the Dhamma in a manner that can be understood, when people keep seeing extant reality in dependently originated things.

:shrug:

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3768
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:16 am

where does Buddha speak of reality vs not reality?

I would think it never came up

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:17 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:10 am
Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:52 am
The suttas describe sense-consciousness arising in dependence on the presence of these sense-objects and the corresponding sense-base, eg eye-conscious arises in dependence upon eye and visible form.
They are described to show their dependent arising... not because they are "realities" to be grasped... rather, they are dependently arisen, dependent upon avijja.

For a similar reason, I cannot respond to sentinel's previous question, because it is not possible to explain the Dhamma in a manner that can be understood, when people keep seeing extant reality in dependently originated things.

:shrug:

Metta,
Paul. :)
I wish you would try to explain your interpretation, in your own words. Are you saying that sense-bases and sense-objects dont arise in dependence upon form? That they are ideas rather than "things"? Something like that?
Last edited by Dinsdale on Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:19 am

cappuccino wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:16 am
where does Buddha speak of reality vs not reality?

I would think it never came up
There are suttas which describe the extremes of existence and non-existence as both being wrong view.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

sunnat
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:08 am

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by sunnat » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:21 am

Everyone viewing the moon with a measure of ignorance will colour what they see with some judgement: it's beautiful, it's romantic, it's sad, it's bleak and so on depending on some sankhara that happens to rise in the moment the moon is seen or thought of. The fully self realised ones see only the moon.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3768
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:21 am

Dinsdale wrote:
cappuccino wrote: where does Buddha speak of reality vs not reality?

I would think it never came up
There are suttas which describe the extremes of existence and non-existence as both being wrong view.
which isn't quite the same as reality vs not reality

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 22168
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by retrofuturist » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:22 am

Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:17 am
I wish you would try to explain your interpretation, in your own words.
I do explain my interpretation in my own words. The fact people take them to mean something other than what is said, or cannot understand what is said in the suttas, is not something I can do much about.
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:17 am
Are you saying that sense-bases and sense-objects dont arise in dependence upon form?
Salayatana rises in dependence upon nama-rupa, rooted in avijja.

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

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:26 am

sunnat wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:21 am
Everyone viewing the moon with a measure of ignorance will colour what they see with some judgement: it's beautiful, it's romantic, it's sad, it's bleak and so on depending on some sankhara that happens to rise in the moment the moon is seen or thought of. The fully self realised ones see only the moon.
Yes, and MN1 seems to describe a distinction between "self-referential" and "objective" modes of experience. Its reminiscent of the Bahiya Sutta, "when there is no you there".
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Dinsdale
Posts: 7090
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The relation about Dhamma and reality itself

Post by Dinsdale » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:29 am

retrofuturist wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:22 am
Greetings,
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:17 am
I wish you would try to explain your interpretation, in your own words.
I do explain my interpretation in my own words. The fact people take them to mean something other than what is said, or cannot understand what is said in the suttas, is not something I can do much about.
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:17 am
Are you saying that sense-bases and sense-objects dont arise in dependence upon form?
Salayatana rises in dependence upon nama-rupa, rooted in avijja.

Metta,
Paul. :)
Well OK, but part of explaining your interpretation is surely a willingness to answer questions about it?

If salayatana arise in dependence upon nama-rupa, how are these not dependent upon rupa?
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 134 guests