Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

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;

tiltbillings wrote:

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;

I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.

daverupa wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:

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;

I would approach this stuff carefully in that I seriously doubt if the copyrights of many of these books are not being violated.

No doubt.

(see what I did there? ha ha!)

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?

retrofuturist wrote:

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?

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.
Papanca is what can happen when dhammas are granted substantiality. If they're not, then there's only nippapanca.

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.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

With reference to MN 1...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sanna, 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.

mikenz66 wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand the second one, thought...

retrofuturist wrote: "Re-recognizing what we have previously cognized" is not to "directly know" something.

retrofuturist wrote: An arahant doesn't papañca-saññā-sankhā-ize.