ශුන්‍යතා දහම

nuwan9999

Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    895
    696
    93
    didnt get what you said..

    btw you get to be careful using normal

    mind is working that way is normal
    does not mean normal mind works that way

    its like this
    people overthink - normal
    doesnot mean - normal people overthink
    Ok let me try this way :-), setting dhamma aside for a moment and using only what we already know (even using modern science if you prefer) what actually happens when light hits the cells in the eye that detect it (in this case, the light forming your Abhidhamma post on my screen)?

    Where do “I (me), Sydney, Texas, the distance between Sydney and Texas, Rosh, huge, ego, Abhidhamma,” and all the rest actually come from? Were these things/thoughts truly out there as fixed entities and distances, or do they only appear as entities within a mental process at the exact moment (or right after) light contacts those cells?

    The point I’m trying to make is that without that light and those cells (how they come into contact can be explained through dhamma, but that’s out of scope here), none of the above would have existed. In fact, my entire “world” in that moment wouldn’t have existed. So my view on the accuracy of the statement “Rosh has a huge ego about Abhidhamma” is a minor issue or maybe even irrelevant compared to the far more mistaken view that there is an external world full of independently existing things, places, time, distances, and so on.

    So, based on above, am I way more wrong than taking the statement “Rosh has a huge ego about Abhidamma” is correct here? What do you think?

    BTW: I am not sure I made my point clear, there’s a great dhamma talk on this topic if you’re interested.





    if i may jump:

    there is no time axis is paramatta domain (we all know)

    A = 2
    B = 2 * A
    C = B - 4

    A purvajath to B and C
    B purvajath to C

    this doesnt mean A happens before B or B happens beofre C

    this is not timing order - they all happen in the moment (not one before or after)
    this is logical order (conditioning order)

    same goes wirh eye-con.

    eye-base + visible form arise BEFORE the consciousness - does not mean they happens in different times. they happen same moment (so, no anicca violation)

    conditional order - eye + visible form before eye-consciousness

    i know bit wired to grasp.. let me give another example,

    3 lights A, B, C

    B light lights only if A lights up, C lights up only B lights up...

    when you turn on they all light up at the same time..

    B lights up only if A lights up,
    C lights up only if B lights up

    so, before C condition satisfied, B needs to be satisfied...

    this is how all paticcasampudaya...and other stuff works... timely independent, logically/conditionally dependent.


    ------ Post added on Jul 25, 2026 at 6:02 AM
    (y)
     

    nipund

    Well-known member
  • May 17, 2007
    797
    1,085
    93
    නැහැ නිපුන් අයියෙ ඔයා වැරදියි - පුරේජාත ප්‍ර‍ත්‍යය කියවන්න (චක්ඛායතනය >> චක්ඛුවිඤ්ඤාණය) :-)
    https://pitaka.lk/books/abhidharmaye-mulika-karunu/11-9.html

    BTW. නිත්‍ය කලින් තිබුන ඇහැක් ගැන නෙමෙයි කියන්නෙ - අරක බලන්න ;)

    කලින් තිබ්බ ඇහැක් නෙමේ නම් පූර්ව ජාත කියන්නේ කර්ම මත කියන තේරුම
    සහ ඇහැ + ආලෝකය = පෙනීම කියන එක වැරදි.
    ඇහැ කියන්නේ චක්කු ඉන්ද්‍රිය නම් අදහස් කරේ ඇහැ කියන වචනය යොදන එක වැරදි.

    යොදාගන්නා පරියාය අභිධර්ම නම් එකේ වචන හෝ පරියාය mention කරන්න. 🙂

    මං හිතන්නේ මල්ලි කියන්නේ මුලින් චක්කු විංඥානය මනෝ ද්වාරයේ ගැටිල එකෙන් මනෝ විංඥනය එනවා. කලින් චක්කු කොටස pure. ඒක නේද?
    අභිධර්ම කතාව
    I have my doubts, even so for චක්ඛු විඤ්ඤාණය

    Because of චක්ඛු විඤ්ඤාණය - eye and light
    Not the other way around ,yes all arise simultaneously.
    Please read on රෝස් අයියා 's explanation for time.


    @ek_rosh
    Agree.
    And good example
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nuwan9999

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    895
    696
    93
    කලින් තිබ්බ ඇහැක් නෙමේ නම් පූර්ව ජාත කියන්නේ කර්ම මත කියන තේරුම
    සහ ඇහැ + ආලෝකය = පෙනීම කියන එක වැරදි.
    ඇහැ කියන්නේ චක්කු ඉන්ද්‍රිය නම් අදහස් කරේ ඇහැ කියන වචනය යොදන එක වැරදි.

    යොදාගන්නා පරියාය අභිධර්ම නම් එකේ වචන හෝ පරියාය mention කරන්න. 🙂
    Yes, apologies my mistake 🙏
    මං හිතන්නේ මල්ලි කියන්නේ මුලින් චක්කු විංඥානය මනෝ ද්වාරයේ ගැටිල එකෙන් මනෝ විංඥනය එනවා. කලින් චක්කු කොටස pure. ඒක නේද?
    අභිධර්ම කතාව
    Yes this one ☝️
    I have my doubts, even so for චක්ඛු විඤ්ඤාණය

    Because of චක්ඛු විඤ්ඤාණය - eye and light
    Not the other way around ,yes all arise simultaneously.
    Please read on රෝස් අයියා 's explanation for time.


    @ek_rosh
    Agree.
    And good example
    Simultaneously means without time axis, but as Rosh ayiya said conditioning order applies (prathya)
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nipund

    nipund

    Well-known member
  • May 17, 2007
    797
    1,085
    93
    Yes, apologies my mistake 🙏

    Yes this one ☝️

    Simultaneously means without time axis, but as Rosh ayiya said conditioning order applies (prathya)
    Yes.
    Forget all Dhamma
    Why we say we have an eye?
    Why we say we have things to see?
    It's because of the ability to see.
    For both eye and scenes
    Seeing is the reason..
    Even the blind has the ability to see ,just it's eye and scenes are missing.
    Even gods , yaksha and perethas see
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nuwan9999

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    895
    696
    93
    Yes.
    Forget all Dhamma
    Why we say we have an eye?
    Why we say we have things to see?
    It's because of the ability to see.
    For both eye and scenes
    Seeing is the reason..
    Even the blind has the ability to see ,just it's eye and scenes are missing.
    Even gods , yaksha and perethas see
    Yes, but in this case, [thing, eye and seeing] happens at the same time. Conditioning perspective, eye and thing are conditions for seeing. IMHO
     

    nipund

    Well-known member
  • May 17, 2007
    797
    1,085
    93
    Yes, but in this case, [thing, eye and seeing] happens at the same time. Conditioning perspective, eye and thing are conditions for seeing. IMHO
    Depends
    Do you believe pattichchasamupada is real entity or for explanation purpose?
    When pattichchasamupada theory apply to it self (to theory) it doesn't/can't survive as true entity.
    *---
    All theories religious/philosophical and science are developed to explain experiences.
    As you said earlier experience is considered as a fact(rosh's ego) in most cases.

    In Buddhism and even in scientific practices there are no facts.
    ( Science by theory has no facts was the real eye opener for me. Facts they say are truly assumptions)

    මෙහෙම වෙනවා ඇති කියලා තමා scientific paper එකේ කියන්නේ .අපි කියවන්නේ මේක මෙහෙමයි වෙන්නේ කියලා.
    *--
    Seeing is the basic experience - theory is that we need eye and light to see. Because when we close eye we don't see and in pitch black we don't see. But they forget ability to doesn't need light or an eye 👁️.
    Ability to see is the core reason
    What's your opinion on the blind person? Is his eye in nirwana? What has happened to is චක්ඛු විඤ්ඤාණය?
     

    ek_rosh

    Well-known member
  • May 9, 2014
    3,275
    2,134
    113
    all arise same-time/ simultaneously is also not correct...

    there is no sametime/simultaneous in paramatta scale either

    same-time/simultaneous also time based..

    difficult to explain
    cant think of a good example to show this atm...all example comes to my mind has one way or another connection with time..
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nipund

    Blair Solari

    Well-known member
  • Dec 9, 2025
    2,496
    1,962
    113

    @dilann

    මොකද කියන්නේ අහලා බලනවද? මාසයක්, මාස දෙකක් වුනත් ගත්තට කමක් නැහැ, හැබැයි සම්පූර්ණෙන් අහන්න ඕනේ.


    ------ Post added on Jul 24, 2026 at 7:28 PM


    @dilann මාස 2-3 හරි අරන් බලලා ඉවර කරලා කියන්න.
     
    • Haha
    Reactions: dilann

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    895
    696
    93
    all arise same-time/ simultaneously is also not correct...

    there is no sametime/simultaneous in paramatta scale either

    same-time/simultaneous also time based..

    difficult to explain
    cant think of a good example to show this atm...all example comes to my mind has one way or another connection with time..
    Yes this is the problem, you can't really explain අකාලිකත්වය, unfortunately we have to use words, but as soon as we use them අකාලිකත්වය left 🥀. What you see in Abhidamma level is also there in real life. You need to KNOW the dhamma to see it.
     

    Blair Solari

    Well-known member
  • Dec 9, 2025
    2,496
    1,962
    113
    You need to KNOW the dhamma to see it

    එක කියමනක් මට මතකයි, කටුකුරුන්දේ ඤාණානන්ද හාමුදුරුවෝ දේශනා කරපු එකක් මට මතක විදිහට, කියමන මතක විදිහට,

    කන්දක් බදාගත්තත් එකයි, අණුවක් බදාගත්තත් එකයි..

    අණු බදාගන්නවා වගේ තමයි සක්කාය දිට්ටිය තියෙන පෘථග්ජනයා චිත්ත, චයිතසික, රූප ක්‍රියාවලිය මඤ්ඤණා කරන්නේ. ධර්මය වැරදි තැනින් ඇල්ලුවොත් සර්පයෙක් වගේ කියනවනේ..

    හැම දෙයක්ම අන්තිමට පොයින්ට් වෙන්නේ නුවණට, imho.

    @ek_rosh
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nipund

    ek_rosh

    Well-known member
  • May 9, 2014
    3,275
    2,134
    113
    Ok let me try this way :-), setting dhamma aside for a moment and using only what we already know (even using modern science if you prefer) what actually happens when light hits the cells in the eye that detect it (in this case, the light forming your Abhidhamma post on my screen)?

    Where do “I (me), Sydney, Texas, the distance between Sydney and Texas, Rosh, huge, ego, Abhidhamma,” and all the rest actually come from? Were these things/thoughts truly out there as fixed entities and distances, or do they only appear as entities within a mental process at the exact moment (or right after) light contacts those cells?

    The point I’m trying to make is that without that light and those cells (how they come into contact can be explained through dhamma, but that’s out of scope here), none of the above would have existed. In fact, my entire “world” in that moment wouldn’t have existed. So my view on the accuracy of the statement “Rosh has a huge ego about Abhidhamma” is a minor issue or maybe even irrelevant compared to the far more mistaken view that there is an external world full of independently existing things, places, time, distances, and so on.

    So, based on above, am I way more wrong than taking the statement “Rosh has a huge ego about Abhidamma” is correct here? What do you think?

    BTW: I am not sure I made my point clear, there’s a great dhamma talk on this topic if you’re interested.



    (y)

    everything is about which perspective level you are using to look at the issue

    moral/ethical level - at this level killing someone is an ethical/mortal issue.

    psychological (mind‑analysis level) - focus is on cognitive processes. ethical/moral issues still exist, but not relevant in this level

    atomic / physical level - stabbing is just atoms interacting with atoms. all higher level issues (moral, psychological) still there, but not relevant at this level of description

    paramattha dhamma level - even atoms are not relevant. all above conventional issues are there but irrelevent in this frame.

    so there is no major/minor issues as you say. each issue only exist relative to the level of perspective you are looking from. as i said before there is no absolute issue/problem, they all are relative to a chosen frame.


    I post my weight is 155 lbs.
    it is a fact for your mind and your mind takes it as it is.
    no fabrications (no wrong interpretation)
    no actions upon a wrong interpretation

    i post many abhidamma posts.
    rosh posts many abhidamma posts is the fact for your mind.
    rosh has ego is not a fact but a wrong interpretation/facbrication (this is normal, but an issue) - psychological/mind level issue
    and then acting on them (issue, normal or abnormal depending on the person) - psychological/mind level issue + moral/ethical issue

    sure, if you go to atomic/dhamma level, these issues do not disappear (in their own levels) but are not relevant in this level.

    රෝෂ් අයිය missing, ගංවතුරට ගහගෙන ගියාවත් ද?

    @ek_rosh is all ok with you?

    නැ බන්...මේ දවස් වල ටූනමන්ට් එකක් යනව..වීකෙන්ඩ් එකෙ බැක් ටු බැක් මැචස් තිබුන...ගෙදර එනකොට කෙලින් හිටගන්න පන නැ... 😴

    තැන්ක්ස් ෆො චෙකින්න්..
    ------ Post added on Jul 27, 2026 at 11:54 PM

    එක කියමනක් මට මතකයි, කටුකුරුන්දේ ඤාණානන්ද හාමුදුරුවෝ දේශනා කරපු එකක් මට මතක විදිහට, කියමන මතක විදිහට,

    කන්දක් බදාගත්තත් එකයි, අණුවක් බදාගත්තත් එකයි..

    අණු බදාගන්නවා වගේ තමයි සක්කාය දිට්ටිය තියෙන පෘථග්ජනයා චිත්ත, චයිතසික, රූප ක්‍රියාවලිය මඤ්ඤණා කරන්නේ. ධර්මය වැරදි තැනින් ඇල්ලුවොත් සර්පයෙක් වගේ කියනවනේ..

    හැම දෙයක්ම අන්තිමට පොයින්ට් වෙන්නේ නුවණට, imho.

    @ek_rosh

    ඔව්, ස්කන්ද වලින් නිත්ය පරමාර්ත වලට ගියොත් අවුල් තමයි...අභිදම්මයේ අවුලක් නෙවේ, ගොඩක් අභිදර්මයට පිවිසෙන සෙට් එකට වෙන අවුලක්...

    හැබයි අනු ලෙවෙල් එකෙන්ම හරියට අවුල අල්ලගත්තන් අයෙ උඩින් අල්ලන්න අවුලක් නැතිව යනව...
    ------ Post added on Jul 28, 2026 at 12:16 AM
     
    Last edited:

    nipund

    Well-known member
  • May 17, 2007
    797
    1,085
    93
    I post my weight is 155 lbs.
    it is a fact for your mind and your mind takes it as it is.
    no fabrications (no wrong interpretation)
    no actions upon a wrong interpretation
    Probably you took this as a example.
    But weight is also a relative feel. What I grasp is very different from someone else.
    For example I am trying to convert lbs to kg and lbs also has 2 different interpretations (American vs British වෙනස් නේද?) (linguistics levels)
    එහෙම සරල දෙයක් වත් fact එකක් විදිහට pass වෙන්නේ නෑ.

    *And these simple every day things we take for granted are the hardest to Vipassana to see .
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nuwan9999

    ek_rosh

    Well-known member
  • May 9, 2014
    3,275
    2,134
    113
    Probably you took this as a example.
    But weight is also a relative feel. What I grasp is very different from someone else.
    For example I am trying to convert lbs to kg and lbs also has 2 different interpretations (American vs British වෙනස් නේද?) (linguistics levels)
    එහෙම සරල දෙයක් වත් fact එකක් විදිහට pass වෙන්නේ නෑ.

    *And these simple every day things we take for granted are the hardest to Vipassana to see .

    in this example what i meant by fact is the direct recognition of what was given (post)

    posts abhidamma - direct recognition
    asks questions - direct recognition

    has ego - not a direct recognition
     
    • Like
    Reactions: nuwan9999

    nipund

    Well-known member
  • May 17, 2007
    797
    1,085
    93
    in this example what i meant by fact is the direct recognition of what was given (post)

    posts abhidamma - direct recognition
    asks questions - direct recognition

    has ego - not a direct recognition
    It doesn't happen like that නේද?

    Posts - readers' interpretation
    I might miss the idea due to lack knowledge on abhdarma
    Question - it's actually very hard to get the real question's meaning through. We answer the question interpreted by the answer.
    එහෙම ලේසි උනානම් මෙච්චර මේවා අදෙන්නේ නෑ.
     

    nuwan9999

    Well-known member
  • Sep 25, 2024
    895
    696
    93
    everything is about which perspective level you are using to look at the issue

    moral/ethical level - at this level killing someone is an ethical/mortal issue.

    psychological (mind‑analysis level) - focus is on cognitive processes. ethical/moral issues still exist, but not relevant in this level

    atomic / physical level - stabbing is just atoms interacting with atoms. all higher level issues (moral, psychological) still there, but not relevant at this level of description

    paramattha dhamma level - even atoms are not relevant. all above conventional issues are there but irrelevent in this frame.

    so there is no major/minor issues as you say. each issue only exist relative to the level of perspective you are looking from. as i said before there is no absolute issue/problem, they all are relative to a chosen frame.


    I post my weight is 155 lbs.
    it is a fact for your mind and your mind takes it as it is.
    no fabrications (no wrong interpretation)
    no actions upon a wrong interpretation

    i post many abhidamma posts.
    rosh posts many abhidamma posts is the fact for your mind.
    rosh has ego is not a fact but a wrong interpretation/facbrication (this is normal, but an issue) - psychological/mind level issue
    and then acting on them (issue, normal or abnormal depending on the person) - psychological/mind level issue + moral/ethical issue

    sure, if you go to atomic/dhamma level, these issues do not disappear (in their own levels) but are not relevant in this level.
    Absolutely, and when talk about these different levels, you see that each level is standing on some sort of base.
    For examples:
    Atomic level – defined by atoms, electrons, protons… etc.
    Paramattha dhamma level – Roopa, Chiththa, Chaithasika… etc.
    Have you ever wondered about an absolute level? Meaning that it is not standing on "something/s" but only defined by its nature. Are you able to comprehend such a level? Beauty is that you can define all other levels using this absolute level.



    නැ බන්...මේ දවස් වල ටූනමන්ට් එකක් යනව..වීකෙන්ඩ් එකෙ බැක් ටු බැක් මැචස් තිබුන...ගෙදර එනකොට කෙලින් හිටගන්න පන නැ... 😴

    තැන්ක්ස් ෆො චෙකින්න්..
    ------ Post added on Jul 27, 2026 at 11:54 PM
    :love2: එල එල එහෙනං කමක් නැහැ... cricket tournament ද?