Dear Nina,
Thanks very much for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly. It was a good explanation and has clarified my understanding,
Metta, Bryan
________________________________
From: Nina van Gorkom <
vangorko@...>
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 5:14:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Q. Abhidhamma Series, no 5
Dear Bryan,
I understand your question and concern.
Op 29-mrt-2010, om 3:32 heeft Bryan Levman het volgende geschreven:
> “All exists,” Kacana, is one extreme. “All
> doesn’t exist,” is a second extreme. Not having approached these
> two extremes,
> the Tathāgata teaches the dharma of the middle. Depending on
> ignorance,
> volitional formations, ... (the other links in the chain of
> dependent arising follow).
>
> So I'm wondering if the duality of existence and non-existence
> which are extremes is comparable to the duality of ultimate and
> provisional truths, that is my question? Does it really matter (for
> liberation) if we look at the khandhas as ultimate truths or
> provisional, as long as we don't identify with them and mistakenly
> package them into an abstract concept, like individual? In other
> words, as long as we see them as instantaneous dhamma which rise in
> an instant and fall in an instant?
--------
N: I agree with your last sentence, your conclusion. Then we have
already left the world of concepts and conventional ideas.
I summarize your points as threefold;
1. Is the term paramattha dhamma used in the suttas.
2. Is the meaning of paramattha and khandha the same?
3. Is it essential for liberation to know the difference between
conventional truth and ultimate truth.
------
1: The terms paramattha dhammas are not found in the suttas, except
the expression paramatthato: in truth and reality.
--------
2:
Actually, one may have doubts as to the words paramattha dhammas, but
let us consider again what the words paramattha dhammas and khandhas
represent, thus, their meaning.
The khandhas arise and fall away all the time. When seeing arises,
there is vi~n~naa.nakkhandha , and there are the accompanying
cetasikas: vedanaakkhandha, sa~n~naakhandha, sa'nkhaarakkhandha
(including other cetasikas apart from feeling and sa~n~naa), and
there is eyesense which is ruupa-kkhandha.
Thus, the khandhas are: citta, cetasika and ruupa arising at this
moment. We do not have to name them in order to know them, they each
have their own characteristic that can be realised without naming.
Thinking arises shortly after seeing has fallen away, but we may be
confused about different cittas and take seeing and thinking
together. Thus, it seems that we see at once a person or a tree, but
these are concepts we think about, they are not seen through the
eyesense. Seeing sees only what is visible and it is different from
thinking.
At the moment of thinking there are five khandhas, but these are
different from the khandhas that arose at the moment of seeing. We
may think of a person or tree with clinging and wrong view. Thinking
is vi~n~naa.nakkhandha , and there are the accompanying cetasikas:
vedanaakkhandha, sa~n~naakhandha, and in sa.nkhaarakkhandha are now
included clinging and wrong view. Moreover there is a ruupa that is
the physical base of thinking.
Cittas arise and fall away so rapidly that it is difficult to
distinguish different cittas from each other. It seems that there is
one citta performing different functions at the same time. We take
seeing and thinking ofr my seeing and thinking.
When we read a text about the khandhas, the message is: they are not
self, they are citta, cetasika and ruupa. Or we read in the sutta
texts about the elements, for example M III, 61, Discourse on the
Manifold Elements. We read about the elements of eye, visible object,
seeing, of ear, sound, hearing, etc. The message is again: there is
no self who sees or hears, only different elements.
To return to your question: the duality of existence and non-
existence which are extremes is comparable to the duality of ultimate
and provisional truths, that is my question?
-------
N: I think that the duality of existence and non-existence refers to
eternalism and annihilation view. As to the first view one fails to
see falling away and as to the second view one fails to see arising
because of conditions.
I consider ultimate truth and conventional truth as a different subject.
-------
B: Point 3: Does it really matter (for liberation) if we look at the
khandhas as ultimate truths or provisional, as long as we don't
identify with them and mistakenly package them into an abstract
concept, like individual?
-------
N:We really are in trouble if we do not understand the khandhas that
arise and fall away at this moment as mere conditioned naamas and
ruupas.
Ultimate truth just means this: naama and ruupa, and except nibbaana,
they are conditioned naama and ruupa. They are different from
concepts of self, person, animal. We do not have to name them
paramattha dhammas, we can also call them dhammas, or elements. Their
characteristics can be directly known by pa~n~naa when they appear,
and this leads to liberation. Ultimate realities have characteristics
that can be directly known and understood. Seeing has a
characteristic that can be directly understood, no matter we name it
paramattha dhamma or khandha.
The meaning, the interpretation of conditioned paramattha dhammas
(excluding nibbaana) is the same as found in the suttas where the
terms khandhas, elements, aayatanas are used. Paramattha dhammas, not
concepts, are the objects of insight. Insight can eventually lead to
liberation from the cycle of birth and death.
Nina.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________________
The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at
http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]