Sensing Dhamma as they really
are
Discussion with Torloff87048
2632004 (25 March 2004) in Journey to Nibbana. Yahoo Group
Dear Tep,
See below in answer to your question. I leave both our messages in
place so others can follow the thread if they want to.
With Metta, Toby
Toby:
"Now I see there is another way to watch thoughts, even noting if
one chooses whether they are past feelings, perceptions, cittas,
formations or concepts, without getting tangled up in thinking."
Tep:
If it does not cause you much trouble, please elaborate a bit on
the "another way" you mentioned above. In particular, how can
you "choose" any of the five aggregates when it occur at a given
moment?
The "another way" is what Hasituppada's post showed to me: To watch
thoughts as they arise before they become thinking. The thought is
just the non-five-sensory thing that enters into the mind that wasn't
there the moment before. What I mean about noting if the thought is
past feeling, perception, citta, formation or concept is not about
the aggregates that are arising with the thought. It is about the
classification of the thought as a mind-object. The complete
classification from the Abhidhamma (as we all know by now) is:
Sensitive matter.
Subtle matter.
Cittas
Cetasikas
Concepts
Nibbana.
What this means to me is that when watching thoughts arise, one can
note which type of thought it is, such as, "This thought is about the
feeling I had last night," or, "This thought is about my perception
of sound a minute ago," or, "This thought is about a concept I read
yesterday." Or more briefly, "This is thought about feeling," etc.
In my description I broke "cetasikas" down into feeling, perception
and formations, along the lines of the aggregates, because that was a
familiar way to classify such previously arisen mental factors. I
left out sensitive matter, subtle matter and nibbana only because I
do not find them as mind-objects during my meditation at this point.
I hope this answers your question.
Dear Htoo, Han Tun, Hasituppada and others,
Thank you for your comments on my questions concerning mind-objects.
It is a complicated topic compared to the five sense-bases. Your
responses help me to look at it in a more fruitful way. I still have
some confusion over the analytical understanding of mind-objects
since the experience of them is so different from the other five
sense-objects. It seems to me now that the important thing with mind-
objects is to watch the arising and passing away of the mind (citta)
and mental factors (cetasika) that occur with them, and not worry too
much about what the actual object is in terms of the classification
as sensitive matter, subtle matter, citta, cetasika, Nibbana or
concept. However we classify it, there is still an experience that
can be watched mindfully.
With Metta,
Toby
See below in answer to your question. I leave both our messages in
place so others can follow the thread if they want to.
With Metta, Toby
Toby:
"Now I see there is another way to watch thoughts, even noting if
one chooses whether they are past feelings, perceptions, cittas,
formations or concepts, without getting tangled up in thinking."
Tep:
If it does not cause you much trouble, please elaborate a bit on
the "another way" you mentioned above. In particular, how can
you "choose" any of the five aggregates when it occur at a given
moment?
The "another way" is what Hasituppada's post showed to me: To watch
thoughts as they arise before they become thinking. The thought is
just the non-five-sensory thing that enters into the mind that wasn't
there the moment before. What I mean about noting if the thought is
past feeling, perception, citta, formation or concept is not about
the aggregates that are arising with the thought. It is about the
classification of the thought as a mind-object. The complete
classification from the Abhidhamma (as we all know by now) is:
Sensitive matter.
Subtle matter.
Cittas
Cetasikas
Concepts
Nibbana.
What this means to me is that when watching thoughts arise, one can
note which type of thought it is, such as, "This thought is about the
feeling I had last night," or, "This thought is about my perception
of sound a minute ago," or, "This thought is about a concept I read
yesterday." Or more briefly, "This is thought about feeling," etc.
In my description I broke "cetasikas" down into feeling, perception
and formations, along the lines of the aggregates, because that was a
familiar way to classify such previously arisen mental factors. I
left out sensitive matter, subtle matter and nibbana only because I
do not find them as mind-objects during my meditation at this point.
I hope this answers your question.
Dear Htoo, Han Tun, Hasituppada and others,
Thank you for your comments on my questions concerning mind-objects.
It is a complicated topic compared to the five sense-bases. Your
responses help me to look at it in a more fruitful way. I still have
some confusion over the analytical understanding of mind-objects
since the experience of them is so different from the other five
sense-objects. It seems to me now that the important thing with mind-
objects is to watch the arising and passing away of the mind (citta)
and mental factors (cetasika) that occur with them, and not worry too
much about what the actual object is in terms of the classification
as sensitive matter, subtle matter, citta, cetasika, Nibbana or
concept. However we classify it, there is still an experience that
can be watched mindfully.
With Metta,
Toby
No comments:
Post a Comment