robertk » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:17 am
So how do the details of abhidhamma help understanding?
QUOTEi) formal concept (santhana pannatti) corresponding to the form ofthings, such as land, mountain or tree, which are so designated onaccount of the mode of transition of the elements
.ii) collective concept (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes ofconstruction of materials, to a collection of things, such as avehicle or a chariot.
iii) conventional concept (sammutti pannatti), such as person orindividual, which is derived from the five khandhas.
iv) local concept (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from therevolving 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 toseasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha.
vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It isderived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements.
viii) nimitta pannatti, the mental image which is acquired throughthe development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.
See http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm Realities and Concepts SujinBoriharnwanaket.
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, theyare vijjamana pannatti. Words such as person, animal, computer,Robert, Mike do not refer to paramattha dhammas and are calledavijjamana pannati.
oesn'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 alsohas concept as an object.By the development of satipatthana the difference between conceptand paramattha dhamma must gradually becomes clearer.
Now you arereading this so it might be worthwhile analysing what is actuallyhappening. There is visible object, the different colours making upthe computer screen. The colours are real (but arising and passingaway rapidly) the computer screen is not real, however the variousrupas that make up the screen are real,(and arising and passing awayceaselessly). There is cakkhuvinnana, seeing consciousness which isreal (and ephemeral) which arises due to the contact of the eyebase(real, conditioned by kamma done in the past, evanescent). Then thereare processes of citta which experience the same object and thenthere are mind-door processes which think about what was seen and soconcepts are formed up. Yet these concepts do not actually exist.There must be this process occuring, no one can stop it occuring. Ifit 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 thingthat concepts arise.Unfortunately, though, throughout samasara we have given theseconcepts special staus that they don't deserve, namely we think theyexist. This mistaken notion means that we will do all sorts of evilto protect these illusionary figments such as self. (endSo how do the details of the Abhidhamma and commentaries help
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am
Re: The causes for wisdom
by tiltbillings » Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:34 am
robertk wrote:The colours are real (but arising and passingaway rapidly) the computer screen is not real
So one set of condition "things" is real, but another is not. What is meant by "real?"
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.
Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Turtle Island
Re: The causes for wisdom
by robertk » Fri Jul 05, 2013 8:57 am
here is a conversation in poland last year which might be useful
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastu ... age/131573
(Than Acharn sujin in Poland, 12th, pm-A, 14m30)
- 2 -
Ann: She asks: <In one discourse Ajahn Sujin said, <...>, how to cling less
<...> not to give in to the attachment, I don't understand.>
TA: Usually people don't want to understand at all, just want to (know) how, are
they Buddhist? because they don't want to understand.
Jon: Sometimes they want to understand, but they see understanding as a way of
reaching a certain... 'fringe benefit'.
TA: but how?
Jon: by self
TA: (does) the word 'how' indicate understanding, or theory, or what? just
wanting to get, that's all;
J: wanting to know a method;
TA: would you like to understand or to know how?
J: understanding's better.;
TA: otherwise we might not be able to answer the question she's just (asked),
that way - just to show how.
A: <How to study (Dhamma) in a moment of attachment? to food for example. And
you explained again that the answer is 'understanding',<...>, and some of the
conditions for understanding are hearing the true Dhamma and considering it,
discussing it >
TA: - until it's her own understanding
J: There isn't an answer, to the question 'How can I develop understanding when
there is craving for food?'
TA: Who can tell her how? That's why we talk about arammana (object) - food is
arammana, at moment of seeing it - craving for food, food is the arammana; not
understanding what arammana is, so how can there be no craving when there's no
A: There can't, but I guess ... when there is no understanding the next logical
TA: Don't you want to know what craving is? and no one can stop its arising;
just the self trying not to have it.
A: When people who are just beginning to study the Dhamma, to listen...
TA: That person should understand what Dhamma is; understanding one word at a
time is the best thing.
A: I'm thinking about this in the context of people who ask, <...>, when someone
asks and shows an interest in the Dhamma.
TA: But there are many people who show interest in Dhamma, like wanting to know
or to understand; wanting to know what Dhamma is or don't want to know what
Dhamma is, just want to know, whatever they like to know, like craving for food.
A: I don't think they know.
TA: Tell me how to be happy, see, who can tell? tell me that you don't have
attachment, who can do?
A: I think she would like to know how to develop understanding.
TA: Of now, or what? not of seeing; whatever appears, does she want to
understand (that)? Maybe she'd say "no, I want to understand how to be happy".
A: <... This is quite new to me, to develop understanding by intellectual
understanding, since Goenka always told me to do the contrary.>
TA: Not Buddha.
Lukas: <...> you always talk about the Dhamma, the Dhamma, but this is not yet
understood at all, and my point is that even if there is thinking like this, in
my case like even if it's not dhamma but just a story that thinks of 'this is
anatta, dukkha, anicca', and isn't it the way to develop more understanding?
TA: What thinks?
TA: Or, dhamma; no one thinks, anytime that thinking arises there can be the
understanding of that moment which thinks, that is not that which sees - all
comes to anattaness, realities; because sometimes one thinks "ok, seeing is no
me, but thinking is me, I (think)".
L: But it's a long way; it's like one moment of understanding and then many
moments of ignorance <...>
TA: Yes, so you understand what is meant by khanti (patience), viriya (effort),
sacca (truth), adhitthana (resolution, four of the ten perfections)...
L: Yes, little by little, by I'd like to understand more than khanti.
; can you understand everything, in a day, or two days, or two
years, or twenty years?
It seems like that's not so difficult to understand, but actually the more you
know the more you can see the subtlety of reality - it's beyond expectation,
nobody can think about the moment when it arises and falls away, just know that
whatever appears now arises and falls away, that's all and that's not enough,
because it's only thinking about that but not the direct experience of it; when
one knows that it is true, shouldn't one follows it until it can be moment of
penetration, penetrating the truth, with understanding
L: <...> I appreciate your teaching so much because it's so natural, <...>, just
read and listen and the mind finds its own way by different moments, even if
it's very slow; but some people have their particular way of developing, <...>
and observe what happens in daily life, what do you think about this?
TA: Who is doing this?
L: A self.
TA: Ok, so that is not the way to eradicate the idea of self.
L: But maybe by way of self ...
TA: No, never, the way of self is avijja, not understanding, ignorance;
otherwise there is no self, if there is no ignorance.
Where is ignorance now? Whenever there is no right understanding, whenever
akusala citta arises, there is a clinging to the idea of I or self, and vijja is
the opposite of ignorance.
Can anyone show a way to get rid of ignorance, a shortcut, a method? when it's
method it's ignorance.
J: If we choose...
TA: Actually, lobha chooses.
J: But if we choose, for example, visible object, is it in fact visible object?
or is it just an idea...
TA: And how can you understand visible object as not self? - uncontrollable, how
come to appear to this moment.
J: I suppose the idea is that by choosing to observe visible object, you see
TA: Ok, observe - in what way, to understand it? it's like this, just like this;
and what's the way to observe? open you eyes, or what?:-)
L: It's like trying so much.
TA: Is cetana (intention) one of the eightfold (factors of the) path?
L: No. But Ajahn, people usually want some particular way...
TA: People, not me; I can't do anything for those people at all -
arammanupanissaya paccaya, pakatupanissaya paccaya, why do we read about all
these (conditions) - just to forget about it, and have the idea of choosing; it
doesn't help at all if one reads and there is the idea of selecting, choosing:
to understand this, not that.
Sotapanna eradicates wrong view completely, from everything: thinking, liking,
attachment, aversion - whatever it is it's conditioned.
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am