Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by Virgo »

pt1 wrote: One important thing I can think of is whether these two (conditional arising and falling, and characterisitics) can be actually experienced in insight, or not (what would make them just conventions then as well), though I haven't got a confirmation from Kevin or tilt yet whether this is the important bit or not. I think the two can be directly experienced, and I think Kevin would probably agree with this, so would be interested to hear what tilt thinks as I couldn't really gauge it from his statements as yet.

Best wishes
Hi PT,

What can be directly experienced during real insight, ie satipatthana, is only one of the three characteristics of conditioned dhammas, ie. either the anicca (impermanent), anatta (not-self), or dukkha (suffering) aspect of the single dhamma apprehended at that time.

When the anatta aspect is penetrated, there is understanding of conditionallity and uncontrollability. The Visudhimagga, in fact, defines anattaness as uncontrollability (due it arising and falling based only on conditions). It is not self because it is uncontrollable by an entity. It is uncontrollable because it is conditioned by various conditioning factors over which there is no power.

Thus, one can traverse all the stages of insight as panna becomes keener and keener aprehending the not-self characteristic of arising dhammas during satipatthana. It traverses all the stages of insight until dispassion toward presently arising, conditioned phenomena becomes so strong that it conditions panna to be able to turn away fully from conditioned phenomena for the first time, and actually take the unconditioned element as it's object because that is the only alternative. At that time the lokutarra maga citta arises, and nibbana is known. One is then no longer a worldling.

I hope this helps.
Kevin
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by tiltbillings »

Virgo wrote:I think this is a problem of understanding. Some people get ancy when they hear that paramattha dhammas have sabhava, or that they actually exist.
No antsyness here, but it is interesting that in an above msg you claim: “Even if I say they are "things", I don't hold that they have a self-nature of some sort.” But now you seem to hold that they do have a self-nature, sabhava, as I pointed out by referring to Buddhaghosa.
You see, these things are real-- real "things". They actually exist, for a short duration of time and then fall away.
It depends upon what you mean by the word “exists.”
People think that if things "exist" then there must be some self in them or to them. But that is not the case. In fact, it is precisely because things exist for real as individual things that their is anatta, no so self or beings.
And this, of course, makes no sense, though whatever it is that you might mean could be expressed a bit more skillfully. It may be that what you are saying is that the self-nature (true-nature) of an “existing” thing is its emptiness of a self. But if it is empty of a self, it is certainly empty of any sort of ultimate or absolute existence no matter how brief or how long, given that ultimate or absolute existence is a defining characteristic of a self.
Paramattha dhamams are conditioned dhammas. They only arise by conditions, not by their own will or by any will. They arise and fall because of conditions. Because there are these real parts, there is no real entity.
And a “part” is not an entity? If a part is real, it then is, obviously, an entity.
The "being" is not real ultimately, only conventionally; it is a concept. What is real ultimately is only parts, like nama and rupa. A "chair" does not exist ultimately, only through conventional thought (conventional thought by the by misses the mark and is deluded). What exists are the rupa that arise and fall away, which are all seperate particles, and which we may conceive of as a "chair. The parts are real, but there is not being, person, or "thing". Nevertheless, nama and rupa are real things that exist in the _ultimate_ sense. It is precisely because uncontrollable nama and rupa that arise only by conditions exist and are real that there is no "self".
Nama and rupa are no different from the chair in that they are made up of “parts” and when certain parts are put together in particular ways, we have either nama or rupa, just like the chair or chariot. And the parts themselves would have to be conditioned. If the parts are unconditioned they cannot condition anything. Given that you, Kevin, have not shown that nama and rupa are not in any way ultimately different from a chair (which is made up of conditioned parts), you cannot reasonably argue that a chair is only conventionally real and nama and rupa are somehow ultimately real, given that they have essentially the same conditioned nature.
All citta, cetasikas, rupa, and nibbana are real in the ultimate sense.
But you have not shown that “citta, cetasikas, rupa” are any more real than a chair, all of which are made up of conditioned "parts." (Nibbana is a different animal altogether.)
Again, because these things are real, they make up what we perceive as "wholes", but the "wholes" are only conceptual, and not real in the ultimate sense.
Only half correct. Because we perceive them as wholes, we conceptualize them as existing somehow other than in a conventional sense.
As far as the "things", paramattha dhammas, having a self, they do not because they cannot control or will anything; they only arise by conditions and fall away.
I hope this helps, and is clear.
Having no “self,” there is no need to posit any sort of absolute reality to dhammas of any sort. The reality of paramattha dhammas is no different from that of a conventional “dhamma.”

Positing some sort of absolute existence to paramattha dhammas unnecessarily reifies them. Paramattha is simply a more refined way of talking about the flow of experience. It is not a matter of these things existing or not-existing, the idea of which the Buddha rejected.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by tiltbillings »

Sorry, pt1, I missed this first time around.
pt1 wrote:One important thing I can think of is whether these two (conditional arising and falling, and charactersitics) can be actually experienced in insight, or not (what would make them just conventions then as well), though I haven't got a confirmation from Kevin or tilt yet whether this is the important bit or not. I think the two can be directly experienced, and I think Kevin would probably agree with this, so would be interested to hear what tilt thinks as I couldn't really gauge it from his statements as yet.
What one experiences with mindfulness practice, bare attention, is simply the rising and falling - the flow of experience - of what we are. There is nothing else but that. It is in the rising and falling of our mind-body process that there is the "seeing" in what we see, touch, taste, hear, cognize. In that, the seeing of the rise and fall of the very experiences that makes us up, as mindfulness and concentration grows clearer and stronger, we "see" anicca, dukkha, anatta and conditionality. It is after the fact that we might call the insight from our "seeing" anicca or dukkha or anatta given that the "seeing" is non-conceptual.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by Virgo »

Tilt take it with the Buddha who authored the Dhammasangani.

Kevin
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by tiltbillings »

Virgo wrote:Tilt take it with the Buddha who authored the Dhammasangani.
There is not a thing I have said in my above msg that contradicts the Dhammasangani. And do not forget that Dhammasangani goes hand in hand with the Patthana.

The problem is, Kevin, you, in your above msg, have given us no reason to see any ultimate difference between a chair and a cetasika, given that they are both ultimately made up of conditioned “parts” and are empty of self. The further problem is that when you start positing that dhammas exist, you have jumped into the realm of ontology, which raises the questions of existence, essences, which is clearly a position rejected by the Buddha in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta.

Clearly the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts are not ontological texts; rather, it is the flow of our total mind-body experience that is the subject of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the phenomenology of our interdependent experience. And the function of the idea of dhammas in the Abhidhamma Pitaka texts is as a way of looking at our experience, of seeing aspects of our ever flowing experience in relationship to the causes and conditions that shape it, giving insight into conditioned/conditioning/transitory/empty of self nature of all of what we are. It is not that dhammas exist; rather, it is that the idea of dhammas can be used to help us see what our experience is, giving us insight into the three marks. The idea of dhammas is not to establish that some sort of existence/thing exists, which is what happens when it is claimed that dhammas exist.

Paramattha has to do with a refined way of talking about our experience, but being “paramattha” neither makes it more true nor more effective than the “conventional” suttas teachings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by pt1 »

Thanks tilt and Kevin for your replies about insight, I appreciate it.

I have one question in that regard - I would think that insight goes through the following phases (not necessarily separate and linear):

1. understanding the difference between the conceptual and non-conceptual aspects of experience (dhammas and concepts in ultimate terminology)

2. Understanding the difference between wholesome and unwholesome aspects of non-conceptual experience (i.e. understnading the individual characteristics of dhammas)

3. understanding the tilakkhana characteristics and conditionality of the non-conceptual experience (dhammas).


So, I think you both confirmed points 1 and 3 (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you here). But I can't see whether you agree with point 2 about the individual characteristics?

I mean I would think that point 2 is crucial to developing the path, like knowing "this is mindfulness and this is greed, this is right concentration and this is wrong concentration, etc." I mean, then it's clear what is the path, and what is not the path, and then insight can actually progress in the right direction.

Would you agree here? Further, would you agree that individual characteristics define dhammas on par with tilakkhana, or do you think they are more (I'm trying to find the right words here) "conceptual" in nature, i.e. not really happening in experience?

Best wishes
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by tiltbillings »

Briefly, since I am in the middle of my Irish lesson. These question may have meaning in terms of Abhidhamma style practice, but I kind of think you are maybe over thinking this stuff. How are you going to accomplish #2 without actually mindfully paying attention to what it is you are experiencing and then looking at what you experienced?
pt1 wrote:Thanks tilt and Kevin for your replies about insight, I appreciate it.

I have one question in that regard - I would think that insight goes through the following phases (not necessarily separate and linear):

1. understanding the difference between the conceptual and non-conceptual aspects of experience (dhammas and concepts in ultimate terminology)

2. Understanding the difference between wholesome and unwholesome aspects of non-conceptual experience (i.e. understnading the individual characteristics of dhammas)

3. understanding the tilakkhana characteristics and conditionality of the non-conceptual experience (dhammas).


So, I think you both confirmed points 1 and 3 (apologies if I'm misrepresenting you here). But I can't see whether you agree with point 2 about the individual characteristics?

I mean I would think that point 2 is crucial to developing the path, like knowing "this is mindfulness and this is greed, this is right concentration and this is wrong concentration, etc." I mean, then it's clear what is the path, and what is not the path, and then insight can actually progress in the right direction.

Would you agree here? Further, would you agree that individual characteristics define dhammas on par with tilakkhana, or do you think they are more (I'm trying to find the right words here) "conceptual" in nature, i.e. not really happening in experience?

Best wishes
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by pt1 »

tiltbillings wrote:Briefly, since I am in the middle of my Irish lesson. These question may have meaning in terms of Abhidhamma style practice, but I kind of think you are maybe over thinking this stuff. How are you going to accomplish #2 without actually mindfully paying attention to what it is you are experiencing and then looking at what you experienced?
Thanks tilt. As far as I can tell, the three "phases" are in practical terms one and the same occurrence only of different depths at different times so to speak. So it's basically an instance of insight (wisdom, understanding, etc) arising that can happen when the conditions are there. So, it's not like the three have to happen in succession one after the other, but sometimes one depth happens, sometimes another, though usually many instances of one depth need to happen before another depth can take place at some other time. Of course, after an instance of such insight arising, there can be thinking and trying to conceptualise about what happened, but that's not insight anymore.

Best wishes
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by tiltbillings »

pt1 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Briefly, since I am in the middle of my Irish lesson. These question may have meaning in terms of Abhidhamma style practice, but I kind of think you are maybe over thinking this stuff. How are you going to accomplish #2 without actually mindfully paying attention to what it is you are experiencing and then looking at what you experienced?
Thanks tilt. As far as I can tell, the three "phases" are in practical terms one and the same occurrence only of different depths at different times so to speak.
A couple of questions, "whence the three phases?" I am assuming you are doing an abhidhamma type meditation practice, without getting personal, if you would rather not don't feel pressured to, could you describe the practice you do. Was it taught to you by an experienced abhidhammika?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by pt1 »

tiltbillings wrote: A couple of questions, "whence the three phases?"
Ah, that's just a summary of the three issues I was asking about - differentiating dhammas, individual characteristics and tilakkhana. From what I learned so far, that's how it seems a neat summary of the progress of insight can be made relating to our topic. Of course, there are much better summaries of insight progress, e.g. Mahasi Sayadaw, Vsm, Psm, etc.
tiltbillings wrote: I am assuming you are doing an abhidhamma type meditation practice, without getting personal, if you would rather not don't feel pressured to, could you describe the practice you do. Was it taught to you by an experienced abhidhammika?
Well, I only spend time with samatha really, at least as far as I understand it to be samatha. Insight kind of takes care of itself, so I don't really have an insight practice at the moment other than what happens as a consequence of reading, thinking and discussing this stuff.

Best wishes
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by Virgo »

Hi Pt.
pt1 wrote:
I mean I would think that point 2 is crucial to developing the path, like knowing "this is mindfulness and this is greed, this is right concentration and this is wrong concentration, etc." I mean, then it's clear what is the path, and what is not the path, and then insight can actually progress in the right direction.
Hi Pt. Panna on the conceptual level can understand what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Panna on the experiential level, satipatthana, does not care and can insight wholesome and unwholesome mindstates just the same. Any dhamma wether kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome) can be an object of insight. Even dosa, for example can be the object of insight. One can even attain magga citta through natural (conditioned) satipatthana on dosa, anger. That means, one could be angry at someone and panna (wisdom) and sati (awareness) could arise together, insight the charactersitic of dosa, and one could attain nibbana (given that one already traversed the other levels of insight either slowly over time, or very quickly all in a row like Bahiya of the Bark Cloth did). It matters not wether a dhamma is wholesome or unwholesome for insight, that only matters in terms of cultivating kusala which brings good results (brings wholesome kamma vipaka). Panna that understands wholesome and unwholesomeness and sees the drawbacks in unwholesomeness is a different kind of panna than the panna that leads to insight (same cetasika, different accumulations and function). The Buddha taught dhamma that conditions both of them. He taught dhamma that conditions insight into anatta and leads to cessation because he was an Ariya and foudn the path for others. He taught dhamma that leads to understanding the wholesome and the unwholesome, and adopting what is wholesome, discarding what is unwholesome, because he also had panna on the level that very clearly sees the drawbacks of even a slight unwholesome deed. Both insight and kusala should be cultivated, by conditions.

I don't really understand this part:
pt1 wrote:Would you agree here? Further, would you agree that individual characteristics define dhammas on par with tilakkhana, or do you think they are more (I'm trying to find the right words here) "conceptual" in nature, i.e. not really happening in experience?

Best wishes
Kevin
pt1
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:30 am

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by pt1 »

Thanks Kevin.
Virgo wrote: I don't really understand this part:
I'm basically trying to ascertain whther individual characteristics of dhammas (their functions) are seen through insight or not. You both agree that tilakkhana charcteristics are seen during insight, but I'm not sure whether you agree on individual characteristics. Obviously, if these are not see during insight of whatever level, that would not make them actual characteristics of dhammas.

E.g. sometimes the Buddha says in the suttas "feeling is dukkha, peception is dukkha" etc, but sometimes he says "all formations are dukkha". So to me that kind of says that at one instance one may actually see feeling as feeling (so not just a concept about a felling), what would mean one actually knows that it's feeling by it's individual characterstic/function (e.g. it's clear it's not perception, nor concentration, but feeling) and also sees it as dukkha (general/tilakkhana characteristic). But at some other instance, no matter what formation becomes object of citta, one sees it as dukkha. So, I'm wondering whether individual characteristics of dhammas are actually seen during insight, or do they belong to the latter conceptual process of thinking about what was experienced.

Best wishes
User avatar
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by Virgo »

Hi Pt,

Both are known. If it is feeling for example, it is known that it is feeling; however, there is not proliferation about it at that moment because the consciousness at that moment is drenched, if you will allow me to use that term, in it's understanding of impermanence, not-self, or dukkhaness of the the dhamma at that time.

Kevin
Last edited by Virgo on Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Virgo,
Virgo wrote:Both are known.
At that very 'moment'?

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
Virgo
Posts: 1546
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States

Re: Questions regarding rising and falling of phenomena.

Post by Virgo »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Virgo,
Virgo wrote:Both are known.
At that very 'moment'?

Metta,
Retro. :)
I know that the dhamma has to be known by citta with at least the seven universal cetasikas, plus sati, so the dhamma is definitely known for what it is. Panna also arising though, accompanying the citta and that is what understands the characteristic of the dhamma. I am not sure if this is a mind-door process that takes multiple moments or not. I suspect that it may be. One single rupa, for example, since it lasts longer than citta, can condition many cittas, so perhaps this mind door proces takes more than one moment. I don't know. In any event, sati will be firmly aware of the dhamma itself.
Post Reply