Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:"Dharmas are without blame."

Does that apply even to lobha-mula-cittas that are characterised blaming something?

Of course.

If not, wouldn't that be establishing a duality between experience and experiencer?

Why would it?

Greetings,

Alright, stepping back a bit...

Samsaric existence is founded on sankhata-dhammas. If ""Dharmas are without blame", this means that the sum of samsaric existence is without blame either since all the dhammas that constitute it are "without blame".

Yet, there is something called "blame", and experience of "blaming" or being "blamed"... and that "blame" does not fall outside the dominion of samsaric existence.

So then, what is it if it's not a dhamma?

Metta,
Retro.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

Alright, stepping back a bit...

Samsaric existence is founded on sankhata-dhammas. If ""Dharmas are without blame", this means that the sum of samsaric existence is without blame either since all the dhammas that constitute it are "without blame".

Yet, there is something called "blame", and experience of "blaming" or being "blamed"... and that "blame" does not fall outside the dominion of samsaric existence.

So then, what is it if it's not a dhamma?

And a dhamma is what it is dependent upon causes and conditions, conditioning and conditioned, no different in its nature (nibbana aside) from any other dhamma.

Greetings,

tiltbillings wrote:And a dhamma is what it is dependent upon causes and conditions, conditioning and conditioned, no different in its nature (nibbana aside) from any other dhamma.

Dhammas share those common characteristics yes, but not all sankhata-dhammas are the same. The use of wording like "no different in its nature... from any other dhamma" obscures that there is a qualitative aspect to dhammas that goes beyond mere ti-lakkhana.

If all sankhata-dhammas were all the same, the Abhidhamma Pitaka could be written on one page.

Metta,
Retro.

DAWN wrote:

ground wrote:

DAWN wrote:Are dhammas perfect or imperfect?

There is dependent arising and dependent cessation. Where and when does perfection arise? Where and when does imperfection arise?

By following your question i can answer that "in dependent arising perfection arise".

If perfection is understood as mere idea, then yes.

DAWN wrote: I see what you mean, i agree with you, there is no any perfect dhamma, there is no any dhamma in harmony, there is just pefection there is just harmony.

Actually you agree with your interpretation of my words, not more and not less.

DAWN wrote: But actualy is not the true question, the true question of this topic is if peoples see perfection or they see imperfection.

Whatever is seen arises dependently.

DAWN wrote: Buddha say that sankharas are dukkha, they are imperfect (only when the mind is full of difilements?), but we can see, here and now that they are actualy perfect by nature.

Sankharas are just that: sankharas. And imputation of imperfection or perfection is just that: (another) sankhara. So where is the sankhara that is either perfect or imperfect in the first place?

retrofuturist wrote: there is a qualitative aspect to dhammas that goes beyond mere ti-lakkhana.

Sure; however, the three characteristics are not "mere." Dhammas may be wholesome or not or neither, but within each experience is the potential for insight. Dhammas are what they are. We either get lost in thought or we pay attention.

Ground, it's true

acinteyyo wrote: Why should anyone make an end to suffering then?

In my opinion the aim is not to stop dhammas, but to stop suffering about them. Purify the vision.

But if we watch deeply, we see that "dhammas are" because "suffering is", they are like a shadow of impurity, so with end of suffering, dhammas disapears.

DAWN wrote:

acinteyyo wrote: I see... but according to your definition then everything is perfect the way it is, isn't it?

Yes it is. Dhammas are perfect in their conditions.
They seems to be perfect on relative point of view and absolute point of view, because they are in "harmony" on both. Do i mistake?

acinteyyo wrote:Why should anyone make an end to suffering then?

DAWN wrote:In my opinion the aim is not to stop dhammas, but to stop suffering about them. Purify the vision.
But if we watch deeply, we see that "dhammas are" because "suffering is", they are like a shadow of impurity, so with end of suffering, dhammas disapears.

I can't follow your line of thought. You agreed that according to your definition everything is perfect the way it is.
Therefore I asked why anyone should make an end to suffering then. I didn't ask why one should stop dhammas. I asked why stop suffering, if everything is perfect the way it is, as you think?
dhammas aren't because suffering is and with the end of suffering dhammas do not disapear. With the end of ignorance sankhara end but not all dhammas.
Can you explain what you mean with your last sentence, particularly this part: "we see that "dhammas are" because "suffering is",... , so with end of suffering, dhammas disapears"

best wishes, acinteyyo

acinteyyo wrote: I can't follow your line of thought. You agreed that according to your definition everything is perfect the way it is.
Therefore I asked why anyone should make an end to suffering then. I didn't ask why one should stop dhammas. I asked why stop suffering, if everything is perfect the way it is, as you think?
dhammas aren't because suffering is and with the end of suffering dhammas do not disapear. With the end of ignorance sankharà end but not all dhammas.
Can you explain what you mean with your last sentence, particularly this part: "we see that "dhammas are" because "suffering is",... , so with end of suffering, dhammas disapears"

best wishes, acinteyyo

Why stop suffering? Good question, because suffering is perfect too. Perharps stop suffering about suffering

By last words i mean that after parinibbana there is no dhammas, that we experiance dhammas because we suffer.

I dont know if it usefull for others to understand the perfection and harmony of Samsara, but it helps me to see dhammas as they are, and dont judge them, dont suffer about them, see Nibbana in Samsara.
Just observe how rainbow of shines.

In my opinion suffering is not any quality of dhammas, suffering is illusion, a defilement caused by ignorance.

DAWN wrote: Why stop suffering? Good question, because suffering is perfect too. Perharps stop suffering about suffering

By last words i mean that after parinibbana there is no dhammas, that we experiance dhammas because we suffer.

I dont know if it usefull for others to understand the perfection and harmony of Samsara, but it helps me to see dhammas as they are, and dont judge them, dont suffer about them, see Nibbana in Samsara.
Just observe how rainbow of shines.

In my opinion suffering is not any quality of dhammas, suffering is illusion, a defilement caused by ignorance.

Hi Dawn, after reading your posts in here, I think that maybe we should take care not to try put the Dependent Origination up on the pedestal, for everyone to worship... as the new Atta from which everything seems to revolve.

We also need to take care not to view (not even) Anatta as the new Brahma... from whence it seems to make everything OK.

We also shouldn't try to view the suffering as something that seems perfect and harmonious, just because it is pure Anatta... or as if that's something which sprang up right out of the eternally great, all-mighty Dependent Origination.

We shouldn't view the suffering as something that should be just left alone, in its own total perfection... to allow the human beings to forever burn within the great fires of the First Noble Truth, as if they're our sacrificial animals, for the sake of our own view of the D.O.

I think that we also should take care not to turn Kamma into a version of the Brahma's foot-and-mouth. The brahmins used to try to use the kamma as an explanation for why some people were born untouchable... and also to explain why some people were born as fragrant as the Brahma's breath. (Their ideas of Brahma's foot-and-mouth were only a metaphor for this.) They basically told us that it was our kamma, and that we should learn how to live with it.

The Buddha basically took that right out from the brahmins' hands, and then turned it into a tool of true liberation... to their amazement, not to mention their consternation. That's it. There is nothing perfect nor imperfect about that... it's just pure liberation.

Thanks to him, we can now use this earth-shattering view of the kamma as a tool to lead ourselves right out of whatever the world we happen to find ourselves in, shackled up right in the fetters of the greed, hatred and delusion... that is all.

These ideas of perfection or imperfection, I think, are nothing but worldly things. As far as I can see... perfection is basically a greed for something; imperfection is a hatred for something; and being satisfied with either of those as a true nature of things = a delusion.

I hope that helps you to see.

I dont know why, your reply was made me smiling "all-mighty Dependent Origination."

Yes i'am agree with you "These ideas of perfection or imperfection, I think, are nothing but worldly things."

Thanks for your time