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

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:12 am

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. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:06 am

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
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/mn/mn.107.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: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:18 am

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
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:02 am

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. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:52 am

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: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Khettadesa

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

Postby piotr » Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:56 am

Hi retrofuturist,

Will you somehow answer my remark or you're going to leave it untouched?
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:04 am

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.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11448&start=20#p173393
Is that wrong view too?

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:16 am

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. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:20 am

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. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:37 am

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

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:56 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I know that. The "seeing" is still conditioned. What makes you think that anyone is assuming a "reality"?

Come now. It is habitual for all of us in daily life to hold that the cake is real, and due to avijja, believe that we are seeing and experiencing reality when we see the cake, when all we are experiencing are sankharas. That's all samsaric existence is - sankharas. No cake in loka. The cake is irrelevant - it is beyond range. But let's be brutally honest with ourselves - how often are we properly regarding experience as sankharas, and how often are we regarding the multifarious things of the world as real things that exist? This is no time for kidding ourselves - this is serious business.

mikenz66 wrote:The Buddha, Ven N, and other teachers are just telling us to strip back the layers and examine our experience.

Yes, they are, and I won't comment on unnamed teachers, but the Buddha and ven Nanananda speak well.

mikenz66 wrote: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?

The sekha is trying to break the deeply ingrained habit of regarding both of these these things (e.g. cake, self) as real. The sekha, with the potential to use the Dhamma eye, is attempting to exert the required effort to break down these habits/tendencies (anusaya) and get into the habit of using the Dhamma eye all the time. How that is done by the sekha, in practice, is explained below...

SN 55.3 wrote:"Therefore, Dighavu, when you are established in these four factors of stream-entry, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself."

On the flipside, the practice is to stop remaining focused on cake and self. Instead, remain focused on sankharas themselves, and that nama-rupa/vinnana vortex. That's why I (and SN 12.15) keep saying that the view of "existence" diminishes Right View to an extent... because whilst "existence" or "non-existence" is being perceived (with respect to cake, self, anything...) rather than sankharas, progress is being stalled. Seeing paticcasamuppada is the middle way through perceiving "existence" (of cake and self) and "non-existence" (of cake and self). Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.

mikenz66 wrote:It would appear to be quite important to know the difference, judging from the suttas, and from exposition such as the one I quoted.

For the arahant, the Dhamma-eye is par for the course. Until then, the practice is as denoted above.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
piotr
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Khettadesa

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

Postby piotr » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:10 am

Hi,

retrofuturist wrote: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.


Uhm... Let me remind you that you've quoted MN 1 in order to show that it's a wrong view. :roll:

Moreover, as far as I can understand what the text is saying, what's better for puthujjana to think is to hold that body is a self and not the mind. Puthujjana assumption is wrong (in any case) because it assumes in one way or another a self. It's better for puthujjana to assume that body is a self because it's easier to see its impermanent nature and therefore it's easier to stop this assumption.

It's not wrong for a puthujjana to see body standing for some finite time. In fact it's a mean to gain wisdom.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:15 am

Greetings Piotr,

piotr wrote:Uhm... Let me remind you that you've quoted MN 1 in order to show that it's a wrong view. :roll:

MN 1 shows that it's a view to be abandoned by the sekha. That you extrapolate beyond that is your doing.

piotr wrote:Moreover, as far as I can understand what the text is saying, what's better for puthujjana to think is to hold that body is a self and not the mind. Puthujjana assumption is wrong (in any case) because it assumes in one way or another a self. It's better for puthujjana to assume that body is a self because it's easier to see its impermanent nature and therefore it's easier to stop this assumption.

I concur with all you have said here.

piotr wrote:It's not wrong for a puthujjana to see body standing for some finite time. In fact it's a mean to gain wisdom.

It can be, which is why I'm making the effort to clarify that it's not Wrong View, but a view to be abandoned by a sekha, who should be endeavouring to constantly see according to the Dhamma-eye (i.e. views in accordance with the Buddhadhamma) rather than via the putthujana's self-view that they will habitually lapse back into when not mindful.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
piotr
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Khettadesa

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

Postby piotr » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:20 am

Hi,

retrofuturist wrote:MN 1 shows that it's a view to be abandoned by the sekha. That you extrapolate beyond that is your doing.


But MN 1 says nothing whatsoever about the fact how long the body can stand.
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:44 am

Greetings Piotr,

piotr wrote:But MN 1 says nothing whatsoever about the fact how long the body can stand.

This topic is about the Dhamma eye. That question is one answerable only with Putthujana eye, because the Dhamma eye wouldn't attribute existence to the body.

Putthujana eye is to be abandoned.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:20 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Yes, I know that. The "seeing" is still conditioned. What makes you think that anyone is assuming a "reality"?

Come now. It is habitual for all of us in daily life to hold that the cake is real, and due to avijja, believe that we are seeing and experiencing reality when we see the cake, when all we are experiencing are sankharas.

Of course we all mistake various things for reality. That's the root problem and goes without saying.
I was replying to your criticism of my interpretation of Ven N and the Buddha's statements, that my "model" of practice was assuming something about reality (or not). It wasn't.
retrofuturist wrote:That's all samsaric existence is - sankharas. No cake in loka.

Now you're really confusing me. You now seem to be saying the cake is "just a concept". Is that what you mean by "not in loka"? And our experience is just "seeing", "tasting", etc?
I thought you were claiming the everything was a sankhara, both "cake" and "seeing".
retrofuturist wrote:The cake is irrelevant - it is beyond range. But let's be brutally honest with ourselves - how often are we properly regarding experience as sankharas, and how often are we regarding the multifarious things of the world as real things that exist? This is no time for kidding ourselves - this is serious business.

Of course. Who has claimed otherwise? Not me.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 10801
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: New Zealand

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

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:28 am

And this actually seems somewhat contradictory to the statement above that the cake is not "part of loka", which obviously I don't understand anymore.
retrofuturist wrote: Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.

I really am genuinely confused what exactly you are arguing for or against now, so I have no idea whether to agree or disagree.

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:43 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:You now seem to be saying the cake is "just a concept".

Not really... this whole "concept" business as framed in contemporary Dhamma discussion (abstracted to be outside loka) is a bit misleading. Rather, when I was talking about "cakeness", I'm talking about that which causes you to regard it as a cake. If you were to eat the "cake", at some point throughout the consumption you would come to perceive the remainder as "crumbs". Somewhere along the way the cake-dhamma ceased and crumb-dhamma arose, but the physical substance of the crumbs out there never changed... all that moved was your referent, and that's directly pertinent to the "whatever arising-dhamma cessation-dhamma" matter you raise. The change is not so much a change "out there", but a change in the sankharas you've created, and their arbitrary points of reference. Hence the Phena Sutta.

mikenz66 wrote:Is that what you mean by "not in loka"?

I mean that the so-called physical "existing" cake is not in loka. I've been talking about the vortex between nama-rupa and vinnana... it should come as little surprise then that "from name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense sphere", which is synonymous with loka. Loka is built upon the incessant iterations of name-and-form and consciousness.

(Whether you're prepared to relinquish or not is up to you, but I do hope that you're now at least seeing why I feel the three-life interpretation of paticcasamuppa does much violence to it... the first five components alone have been vital in explaining the structural causal relationship involved in samsaric experience - "rebirth-linking consciousness" need not apply).

mikenz66 wrote:And our experience is just "seeing", "tasting", etc? I thought you were claiming the everything was a sankhara, both "cake" and "seeing".

If it's what you're experiencing, it's sankhata (formed).

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 14813
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:48 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:And this actually seems somewhat contradictory to the statement above that the cake is not "part of loka", which obviously I don't understand anymore.
retrofuturist wrote: Note... and this is very important.... cake or self does not need to be disproved through any of this. We just need to stop regarding them as things that exist or don't, and remain focused on sankharas (i.e. what we are really experiencing) instead.

I really am genuinely confused what exactly you are arguing for or against now, so I have no idea whether to agree or disagree.

I appreciate your honesty.

What I'm saying here is that you don't need to prove or disprove the ontological existence or non-existence of atman or cake.

If our purpose for perceiving anatta in dhammas has been to prove to ourselves that "there is no self", we have been barking up the wrong tree.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20081
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

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

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

retrofuturist wrote:What I'm saying here is that you don't need to prove or disprove the ontological existence or non-existence of atman or cake.
In looking back over this exchange, I do not see that Mike was trying to do that.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson


Return to “General Theravāda discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 10 guests