The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by vinasp »

Hi Retro,

You have just admitted that you do not have any knowledge.

This means that you know absolutely nothing.

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by ground »

vinasp wrote:Hi Retro,

If nothing persists in the mind then:

1. Where are your memories when you are not attending to them?

2. Where is your knowledge when you are not attending to it?

Regards, Vincent.
There cannot persist anything in "mind" since "mind" cannot be found. If nothing can be found it is convention to speak of "no-thing". So there is nothing. What may persist in nothing?
Neuroscience may come up with the rupa corresponding to memory. But it will take a long time. Even then the found rupa will no be the memory just like the brain is not the thinking but the rupa corresponding to thinking.
The term "Mind" corresponds with the term "nama" which is just a nominal category. So "(living)body and mind" are "rupa-nama" (usually "nama-rupa") and it is consciousness with what there is mutual dependence. Memory manifest in consciousness and consciousness arises out of ignorance and volitional formations besides depending on nama-rupa.

Knowledge that manifests as consciousness is memory. But this type of knowledge is not the opposite of ignorance.


Kind regards
vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by vinasp »

Hi TMingyur,

An interesting post.

But, in order to write that, you had to use your knowledge of English.
That knowledge must persist somewhere, if not in the mind - then
where?

Regards, Vincent.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by ground »

vinasp wrote: But, in order to write that, you had to use your knowledge of English.
That knowledge must persist somewhere, if not in the mind - then
where?
As I said above: As rupa (aspect) which however is not it. Bio-chemical molecules which may give rise to consciousness if the appropriate secondary conditions (belonging to the sphere of "nama-rupa") are also present.
Where does this matter (i.e. rupa, i.e. bio-chemical molecules) persist? In the brain and/or some other region of the CNS.
When you think that mind exists you are just reifying a nominal category qua concept/idea. There is just this word "mind", which in itself is a meaningless optical symbol, and the ideas (concepts) that arise upon contact (phassa). All these ideas are consciousness. Consciousness can be observed (by itself) but "mind" can never be observed because there is nothing beyond consciousness and "becoming conscious" in the context of ideas.
There is no need to be distracted into a metaphysical speculation of "the mind" as "true" because natural science and buddha dharma are perfectly compliant in this context here.

Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Vincent,
vinasp wrote:You have just admitted that you do not have any knowledge.

This means that you know absolutely nothing.
Sabbe dhamma anatta.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
TMingyur wrote:There is no need to be distracted into a metaphysical speculation of "the mind" as "true" because natural science and buddha dharma are perfectly compliant in this context here.
I concur.

It's also worth noting that the ancient cardiac theory that prevailed within India at the time of the Buddha was such that the heart was understood to be the seat of consciousness. This legacy continues even today where people regard citta as the heart. Modern science would likely mock this cardiac theory, prefering to place the seat of consciousness in the brain, yet, the prevalence of the cardiac theory (which I might add, the Buddha didn't approve or reject) did not prohibit people becoming enlightened. It just goes to show how entirely irrelevant such things are to the pursuit.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:However, it would be much more interesting if you would engage with it
The irony here being that I'm trying to point out that concepts are within loka and should be seen and understood accordingly, whilst you're trying to turf them out of the realm of potential engagement (i.e. loka) by saying that "they are not sankharas in the sense of having the three characteristics". Your statement is non-sequitur, and if it ought be directed at anyone, it should be directed towards yourself.
Oh well, lets try another tack about why it is important to get past being tangled up in conceptual objects.

Bhikkhu K. Nyanananda
SEEING THROUGH - A Guide to Insight Meditation -
http://nibbanam.com/nibbana_guide_en.htm#_edn2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nananda wrote: Whenever there is grasping, there is ignorance present. Grasping is something that leads to the perpetuation of ignorance. But as the phrase `anupubba sikkhà, anupubba kiriyà, anupubba patipadà'[2] [gradual discipline (anupubba sikkhà), gradual action (anupubba kiriyà) and gradual practice (anupubba patipadà), MN 107 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .horn.html]implies, there is a gradual training, a gradual mode of action, a gradual path in this meditative attention as well. So it is by stages that one arrives at this realization. At the preliminary stage, one avoids the usual mode of attention in the world such as `woman', `woman', `man', `man' in the case of a visual object, thus dispensing with those details which lead to various unskillful states of mind and attends to those visual objects in such a way as not to encourage those unskillful mental states. So one is content with attending to those visual or auditory objects as `form' or `sound'.

However as one proceeds in Insight Meditation, one comes to reflect that in this mode of attention, there is present a certain illusion - a wrong notion one has been cherishing throughout `samsàra'. That is, the concept of two ends and a middle. When one notes a visual object as `a form' and an auditory object as `a sound', there is a kind of bifurcation between the eye and form, the ear and the sound. So thereby one is perpetuating the illusion, the wrong notion, of two ends. Whenever there are the two ends, there is also the middle. In short, this way of mental noting leaves room for a subject-object relationship. There is the meditator on one side, whoever it may be, and there is the object that comes to his mind; and he attends to it as an object, even though he may not go into its details. Now the meditator has to break through this barrier as well. He has to break this bondage. Why?

In the case of `saññà' or perception, there are the six kinds of percepts - rupa saññà, sadda saññà, gandha saññà, rasa saññà, photthabba saññà, dhamma saññà (i.e., the percepts of form, sound, smell, taste, touch and idea). These are the six objects of the senses. The Buddha has compared the aggregate of perception to a mirage. Now if perception is mirage, what is `rupa saññà' or a visual percept? That also must be a mirage. What about `sadda saññà'? What about the auditory percept or what strikes the ear? That too must be a mirage. Though it is not something that one sees with the eye, it has the nature of a mirage.

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'.

In short, the attempt here, is to escape the net of `saññà' or perception and to limit oneself to the bare awareness. To stop short just at the bare awareness. This is an attempt to escape the net of language, the net of logic and also to be free from the duality of two ends which involves a middle. Everywhere one is confronted with a subject-object relationship. There is one who grasps and something to be grasped. There is a seer and an object seen. But this way of attending leaves room for delusion.

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 a to attain release. The conceit `AM' is `asmi-màna'.
It is at this deep level that one is able to truly observe: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma", not at the "conceptual" or "mirage" levels of "man", "woman", or the somewhat deeper levels of "form", "sound".
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

To perhaps clarify, I don't want to get hung up on "reality" or "unreality" of particular objects. What I think, is important, and as the quote from Ven Nanananda demonstrates, there are very different levels of objects, from the grossly conceptual to the most basic:
  • man/woman/..., form/sound/... feeling/hearing/...
Call the distinction what you like, but I think that it's an important one.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

What venerable Nanananda says here is absolutely 100% bang on.

If you can read his words "To take as real what is of a mirage-nature, is a delusion" and then willfully (as if it's in no way pivotal to the entire matter) ignore the question of the "reality" or "unreality" of particular objects, then I can only wish you luck in whatever it is you're trying to achieve here.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

Sure, Ven N is cool.

Clearly there is some very large difference between "man"/"woman"/"self" and "hearing"/"seeing". Ven N explains this very eloquently.

The Buddha told us conceive a "self" was not the correct thing to do, but arahants are still said to have sense bases. So we need to understand phenomena more deeply than than "they are all just sankharas".

What you call the difference is up to you. Perhaps you could suggest a term that you like.

You might also explain what you mean by:
"reality" or "unreality" of particular objects
Are you now saying that some are real and some unreal? You are confusing me, since I thought you were arguing against taking anything as real.

As you know, I don't think reality, or not, is of particular significance, since the Buddha just talked about what we experience.


:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by piotr »

Hi retrofuturist,

Will you somehow answer my remark or you're going to leave it untouched?
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

piotr wrote:Hi retrofuturist,

Will you somehow answer my remark or you're going to leave it untouched?
Yes, that's a very interesting question:
retrofuturist wrote:Identifying with the body is Putthujana-eye, not Dhamma-eye.
piotr wrote: That's exactly what I've said. But you've suggested that not only holding a body as self but also seeing it as standing for a year or more is a wrong view.
And if it were, what about seeing that:
'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p173393" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is that wrong view too?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,

In many ways, I'd just be saying the same thing over again, so given that I know you're earnest and I have a lot of respect for that quality, please allow me to try a different way of explaining via simile...

Image

Right. Just sit and look at that for a few moments...

Your way of approaching the challenge here has been to slice it up into ever-decreasing slices, anticipating perhaps that by cutting it down to a certain level of atomic granularity, the mysteries of cake will open up and all be revealed. Bang. Path moment. Awesome.

What I'm saying is, ease back a moment from that way of approaching the challenge and lay down the knife for now.

Step back... what is it you're cutting up? Cake. OK, underlying you calling it "cake" is a vast array of assumptions, and it's these assumptions you need to be looking at, rather than trying to slice the cake into crumbs.

What makes it cake? You're seeing a form and attributing "cakeness" (name) to the cake. Just there - stop.

See that you're doing this.

See that what you're actually becoming conscious (vinnana) of, is the name-and-form itself, and not cake (out there).

From this point on, any assumption you may hold that you're directly "seeing, seeing" or whatever is in error. Rather - you are experiencing through consciousness the name-and-form that you fabricate within your loka. The object you are focused on is not cake (out there), but name-and-form itself. Samsaric experience is stuck in this vortex between name-and-form and consciousness. Nanananda speaks much about this vortex and since you rightly acknowledge that he is cool 8-) maybe venture off for a moment and see what he has to say about it in the Nibbana Sermons.

I don't know whether that was of any use. I thought it was worth a go. If it wasn't, I'm sorry, and if you took offense in any way or feel I am shoving words or views into your mouth, I sincerely apologise for that. My intention was only to get through a point which seems to forever miss its mark, because you seem to think it is about the cake, rather than name-and-form.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Piotr, (and Mike)
piotr wrote:Will you somehow answer my remark or you're going to leave it untouched?
Just because it is better for a putthujana to think A over B in no way logically makes either Right View, nor connected to the Dhamma-eye... it merely means it would be better for the putthujana to do A over B.

Most importantly, I didn't actually call it Wrong View... it just isn't viewed via the Dhamma-eye. That was an erroneous leap of logic on your part.

Ditto with what Mike appended to question, above. I never said that was Wrong View either.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Dhamma eye: "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma"

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: From this point on, any assumption you may hold that you're directly "seeing, seeing" or whatever is in error. Rather - you are experiencing through consciousness the name-and-form that you fabricated within your loka. )
Yes, I know that. The "seeing" is still conditioned. What makes you think that anyone is assuming a "reality"? The Buddha, Ven N, and other teachers are just telling us to strip back the layers and examine our experience.

You seem to be avoiding my statement that the sekha or arahant still has the "seeing" but not the concept of self. He/she still has the "whatever aising-dhamma cessation-dhamma", the "writing in water".
So what's the difference between the (fabricated) seeing and the (fabricated) self? It would appear to be quite important to know the difference, judging from the suttas, and from exposition such as the one I quoted.

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply