Abhidhamma & vipassana

[hudoyo]

Betul sekali apa yg belum dia ketahui tentu tidak akan tahu apalagi jika arahat tertentu ditanya Abhidhamma seperti text book Abhidhamma . Tetapi ketika ia ditanya tentang apa itu pikiran , terdiri apa saja, benarkah proses nama dan rupa seperti ini dan itu, mereka dapat menjelaskannya dengan baik essensi Abhidhamma yg sebenarnya.Mungkinkah seorang arahat tidak memahami esensi Abhidhamma?
Apa bahasan Abhidhamma? dan 4 landasan apa yg dilatih dalam vipasana.? bukankah anica, anata, dan duka ditembus dengan menyadari fenomena nama dan rupa sampai kita mengetahui essensinya yg merupakan isi Abhidhamma juga? Adakah korelasinya?

Abhidhamma mana yang mau dipakai: Abhidhamma Theravada atau Abhidharma Sarvastivada? Kedua abhidhamma/abhidharma itu jelas berbeda satu sama lain; dalam Abhidharma Sarvastivada sistematikanya bukan rupa, citta, cetasika & nibbana, tapi lain lagi. Jadi yang mana "esensi Abhidhamma" itu?

Ketika seseorang dalam khanika-samadhi melihat proses-proses batinnya, apa yang dilihatnya itu KEBENARAN. Tetapi ketika ia keluar dari samadhi-nya, lalu dengan pikirannya yang terkondisi mencoba MEREKONSTRUKSIKAN Kebenaran yang dilihatnya, maka itu menjadi TAFSIRAN. Tafsiran itulah yang kemudian menjadi Abhidhamma Theravada dan Abhidharma Sarvastivada. Tafsiran berasal dari pikiran yang terkondisi secara berbeda antara Theravada dan Sarvastivada. Tapi TAFSIRAN bukanlah KEBENARAN. Jadi bisa berbeda-beda. The word is not the thing.

Apakah teori Abhidhamma muncul dari praktek Dhamma atau dari vipasanna atau kebalikannya. Marilah kita renungkan 

Lebih dulu orang melihat apa adanya dalam vipassana, lalu 'apa adanya' itu oleh pikirannya yang terkondisi diterjemahkannya menjadi konsep/teori yang berbeda-beda: menjadi Abhidhamma oleh orang Theravada atau menjadi Abhidharma oleh orang Sarvastivada.

Salam,
hudoyo

[hudoyo]

kalau baca di Milinda Panha, menurut Nagasena
seorang arahat tetap tidak akan tahu pengetahuan yg belum dipelajarinya, hanya tentang anatta (tiada diri), anicca (tidak tetap), & dukkha (penderitaan), dia tidak mungkin tidak tahu.

Betul, bagi batin yang bebas, PENGETAHUAN (knowledge) apa pun sama sekali tidak relevan. Bahkan "anicca", "dukkha" dan "anatta" pun tidak dilihatnya sebagai pengetahuan atau konsep, melainkan sebagai FAKTA di luar kata-kata.

Tidak ada lagi konsep "anicca" versus konsep "nicca", tidak ada lagi konsep "dukkha" versus konsep "lenyapnya dukkha", tidak ada lagi konsep "anatta" versus konsep "atta".  Yang ada adalah apa yang ada (yathabhutam), yang 'mengalir' tapi juga 'tidak mengalir'.

Salam,
hudoyo

[bond]

Untuk tembus tilakhana dengan baik kita harus mengalami dan melihat langsung prosesnya nama dan rupa, nah  proses ini bukankah apa yg ada di Abhidhamma(jika dikonsepkan)

saya kurang mengerti nih...
maksudnya utk memahami tilakkhana dg baik, seseorang harus melihat proses nama dan rupa yg hilang & muncul dg kecepatan yg tak dicapai oleh ilmu pengetahuan (saat ini). begitu?

Betul melihat dan mengalami sendiri proses nama dan rupa itu sendiri, bagamaina mungkin kita mengetahui tilakhana, tanpa melihat dan mengalami langsung. Karena ada hubungan dengan nyana2 yg muncul kemudian sehingga pemahaman tilakhana akan mulai seperti dari daging sampai ke sum2 tulang. Hal yg sederhana ketika kamu duduk lama, akan muncul sakit ==>dukha tetapi ia akan lenyap dan muncul kembali begitu seterusnya (anicca). Hal seperti nilah yg kita lihat dan alami langsung dst sampai pada yg lebih halus dalam hal ini mengamati nama.

[bond]

Betul sekali apa yg belum dia ketahui tentu tidak akan tahu apalagi jika arahat tertentu ditanya Abhidhamma seperti text book Abhidhamma . Tetapi ketika ia ditanya tentang apa itu pikiran , terdiri apa saja, benarkah proses nama dan rupa seperti ini dan itu, mereka dapat menjelaskannya dengan baik essensi Abhidhamma yg sebenarnya.Mungkinkah seorang arahat tidak memahami esensi Abhidhamma?
Apa bahasan Abhidhamma? dan 4 landasan apa yg dilatih dalam vipasana.? bukankah anica, anata, dan duka ditembus dengan menyadari fenomena nama dan rupa sampai kita mengetahui essensinya yg merupakan isi Abhidhamma juga? Adakah korelasinya?

Abhidhamma mana yang mau dipakai: Abhidhamma Theravada atau Abhidharma Sarvastivada? Kedua abhidhamma/abhidharma itu jelas berbeda satu sama lain; dalam Abhidharma Sarvastivada sistematikanya bukan rupa, citta, cetasika & nibbana, tapi lain lagi. Jadi yang mana "esensi Abhidhamma" itu?

Kalau seseorang menggenggam kuat text book dari salah satu versi ke dalam praktek vipasanna , saya yakin tidak akan mendapatkan essensi Abhidhamma, karena essensi Abhidhamma adalah sesuatu yg harus dialami.

Ketika seseorang dalam khanika-samadhi melihat proses-proses batinnya,

apa yang dilihatnya itu KEBENARAN. Tetapi ketika ia keluar dari samadhi-nya, lalu dengan pikirannya yang terkondisi mencoba MEREKONSTRUKSIKAN Kebenaran yang dilihatnya, maka itu menjadi TAFSIRAN. Tafsiran itulah yang kemudian menjadi Abhidhamma Theravada dan Abhidharma Sarvastivada. Tafsiran berasal dari pikiran yang terkondisi secara berbeda antara Theravada dan Sarvastivada. Tapi TAFSIRAN bukanlah KEBENARAN. Jadi bisa berbeda-beda. The word is not the thing.

 Sebenarnya suatu pengalaman itu bisa di cross cek dan perbedaan dalam penggunaan kata  juga bisa di cross cek apakah mengandung makna yg sama dalam pengalaman atau berbeda sama sekali. Memang the word is not the thing tetapi kita hidup di dunia perlu kata-kata. Kalau takut kata2 sebagai tafsir ya tinggal dibuktikan melalui praktek, dan menurut pak Hud kata2 Sang Buddha adalah tafsir atau bukan dan apakah tidak mengandung kebenaran?

Apakah teori Abhidhamma muncul dari praktek Dhamma atau dari vipasanna atau kebalikannya. Marilah kita renungkan 

Lebih dulu orang melihat apa adanya dalam vipassana, lalu 'apa adanya' itu oleh pikirannya yang terkondisi diterjemahkannya menjadi konsep/teori yang berbeda-beda: menjadi Abhidhamma oleh orang Theravada atau menjadi Abhidharma oleh orang Sarvastivada.

Setuju, yg terpenting tidak menggenggam konsep itu.
Salam,
hudoyo

[williamhalim]

Abhidhamma mana yang mau dipakai: Abhidhamma Theravada atau Abhidharma Sarvastivada? Kedua abhidhamma/abhidharma itu jelas berbeda satu sama lain; dalam Abhidharma Sarvastivada sistematikanya bukan rupa, citta, cetasika & nibbana, tapi lain lagi. Jadi yang mana "esensi Abhidhamma" itu?

Esensi Abhidhamma adalah Dhamma itu sendiri, karena Abhidhamma hanyalah bentuk detail dari Dhamma.

Contoh esensinya bila dihubungkan dengan praktik adalah sbb:

~ Memahami bahwa sifat citta adalah "timbul dan lenyap serta selalu berpadu (upgrade/diperbaharui)". Mengetahui hal tsb, akan membuat kita lebih berhati2 dengan apa yg kita pikirkan, krn setiap apa yg kita pikirkan otomatis akan mengupgrade kualitas batin kita. Jika kita sering2 berpikiran porno, maka selanjutnya batin kita akan merosot menjadi semakin mudah terpicu oleh hal2 yg porno. Demikian juga sebaliknya.

Membiasakan diri untuk tidak menanggapi pancingan lawan, akan mengupgrade batin kita menjadi lebih terbiasa untuk 'melepas' ego kita.

---

Contoh diatas adalah secuil dari esensi Abhidhamma yg dipraktikkan di kehidupan sehari-hari.
Masih banyak esensi Abhidhamma yg dapat kita praktekkan dalam hidup kita, misalnya berdana (sebelum, saat dan sesudah) dll sebagainya. Jika dapat mempraktikkan hal2 tsb, maka kita perlahan2 mulai mengikis 'ego' kita, kita menjadi sedikit lebih tenang dibanding sebelumnya. Batin yg tenang akan lebih memudahkan kita untuk 'sadar'. Sungguh sulit memaksakan 'sadar' terhadap batin yg belum tenang.

::

[Lily W]

Berikut ini saya kutip dari tanya jawab di buku "Buddha Dhamma dalam kehidupan sehari-hari" (Buddhism in daily life) ~ Nina Van Gorkom (seorang ahli dan praktisi Abhidhamma) yaitu sbb :

Penanya :
Jadi dengan hanya melihat segala sesuatu sebagaimana adanya, sudah merupakan praktek dari "Vipassana"? Tetapi banyak orang berpendapat bahwa cara bermeditasi seperti ini sangat rumit, dimana orang hanya dapat melatihnya di pusat-pusat latihan meditasi. Dan hal inilah yg menyebabkan banyak orang tidak berniat mencobanya. Akan tetapi dari pembicaraan kita, timbul pandangan bahwa "Vipassana" hanya melihat segala sesuatu sebagaimana adanya dalam kehidupan kita sehari-hari. Bagaimana menurut pendapat Anda, Apakah seseorang harus mempunyai pengertian-pengertian teoritis sebelum melaksanakan "Vipassana"?

Nina Van Gorkom :
Istilah "Meditasi" membuat orang menjadi takut. Mereka berpikir bahwa hal itu sebagai sesuatu yg sangat rumit. Pada kenyataannya, seseorang tidak harus melakukan hal-hal yg istimewa (khusus) dalam melakukan meditasi. Sebelum seseorang mulai melaksanakan meditasi, ia perlu menghayati teori-teorinya terlebih dahulu. Seseorang tidak harus mengetahui unsur-unsur bathin dan jasmani (Nama dan Rupa) secara terinci. Akan tetapi, seseorang harus mengetahui bahwa badan itu hanyalah terbentuk dari unsur-unsur fisik, yg berbeda dengan unsur-unsur mental.
Banyak unsur fisik yg berbeda, dan unsur tersebut terus-menerus berubah. Juga banyak unsur mental yg berbeda. Satu "Citta" timbul dan langsung tenggelam, kemudian disusul dgn timbulnya "Citta" yg lain dan tenggelam kembali. "Citta" timbul dan tenggelam berkesinambungan dalam jangka waktu yg sangat singkat.
Melihat adalah salah satu bentuk "Citta". Mendengar adalah "Citta" yg lain, yg berbeda dgn "Citta" melihat. Berpikir adalah "Citta" yg lain lagi. Semua itu berbeda satu sama lainnya.
Peningkatan latihan "Vipassana" bukan berarti menjadikan seseorang harus selalu sadar akan segala bentuk-bentuk unsur yg berbeda pada setiap saat. Kita mengetahui bahwa hal demikian tidak mungkin dapat dilakukan sampai pada taraf-taraf tertentu. Tidak ada satupun yg harus kita lakukan secara istimewa. Seseorang dapat melakukan segala kegiatan sebagaimana biasanya seperti yg biasa dilakukan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Seseorang secara bertahap akan mulai mengerti bahwa sesungguhnya yg ada hanyalah gejala fisik dan mental dan gejala-gejala itu benar-benar timbul secara alamiah, serta selalu timbul pada setiap saat.
Ketika seseorang mulai merasakan pentingnya menyadari semua gejala ini, maka kesadarannya akan timbul sedikit demi sedikit dengan sendirinya. Seseorang akan mengalami bahwa kesadaran akan dapat timbul bila ada kondisi yg benar-benar tepat.
Pada mulanya, tidak menjadi masalah bila kita tidak menyadari secara keseluruhan gejala-gejala itu. Tetapi sangat penting untuk di mengerti bahwa kesadaran itu bukan "Aku" , dan sebuah gejala mental yg timbul harus sesuai dgn kondisinya.
Dari pengertian ini kita dapat mengambil kesimpulan bahwa timbulnya kesadaran tidak dapat dipaksakan.
Dengan lebih mengerti lagi gejala-gejala fisik dan mental dan menyadarinya dalam kehidupan sehari-hari , maka kebijaksanaan akan dapat meningkat. Melalui kebijaksanaan ini, maka perbuatan-perbuatan baik akan bertambah dan perbuatan-perbuatan jahat akan berkurang.

[Indra]

Sitagu Sayadaw:

Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished.

sumber: http://www.abhidhamma.org/sitagu%20sayadaw.htm

[Lily W]

Vipassana
 
 A.  I understand that in the development of Vipassana we lean to see things as they are.  Seeing things as they are means: seeing nama and rupa as they are.  So we should distinguish nama and rupa from each other more clearly.  Rupa is that which does not experience anything.  Can we say that nama is that which experiences and rupa is that which is experienced?

 B.  You say that rupa is that which is experienced.  Your words imply that nama cannot be experienced.  Nama experiences not only rupa but it experiences nama as well.  Can you not notice it when there is a happy feeling, when there is aversion, when there is thinking?  It is not 'self' which notices this, but nama.  Nama knows nama at those moments.

 A.  In vipassana we develop awareness.  Awareness is always awareness of something.  I am not sure that I understand what awareness is.

 B.  The Pali term 'sati' is translated into English by 'awareness'.  The word awareness might create confusion.  When we say that we are aware of something it might only mean that we know or experience something- without there being sati.  It is, however, not important which word we use to name the reality which is sati, but it is essential to know its characteristic.

 Sati is a sobhana cetasika (beautiful mental factor) which arises only with a sobhana citta.  Each sobhana citta is accompanied by sati.  Sati prevents one from unwholesomeness.  When we are generous there is sati with the wholesome citta; when we think of the virtues of the Buddha there is sati with the wholesome citta.  When we develop insight and we realize a characteristic of nama or rupa there is sati with the wholesome citta.  No matter whether we perform dana, sila or bhavana, there is sati with the wholesome citta, but the quality of sati is different at these different moments.

 In the development of vipassana it is panna (wisdom) which knows the characteristic of the nama or the rupa which appears through one of the six doors, but this kind of panna cannot arise unless there is also awareness of the reality which appears.  Sati in vipassana is awareness of nama and rupa.

 A.  How do I know that there is sati?

 B.  When characteristics of realities which appear are known, it is evident that there is also sati at the same time.  When, for example, hardness appears and it is known as hardness, as only a kind of rupa, then there is sati which is mindful of that characteristic.

 Realities appear through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense and mind-door.  These realities are not 'persons' or 'things', but are only namas and rupas.  The visible object (colour) is not a 'person' or a 'thing', it is only a kind of rupa which is experienced through the eye-door.  Seeing is not a 'person', nor is it 'self', it is only a kind of nama which experiences visible object.  Sound is not a 'person' or a 'thing', it is only a kind of rupa which is experienced through the ear-door. Hearing is not a 'person', it is not 'self', it is only a kind of nama which experiences sound.  Smell is not a 'person' or a 'thing', it is only a kind of rupa which is experienced through the door of the nose.  Smelling is not a 'person', not 'self', it is only a kind of nama which experiences smell.

 If sati is mindful of the realities which appear one at a time they can be known as they are: only namas and rupas, not 'self',  In this way there will be detachment from the concept of 'self'.  Thus we see that sati in vipassana is completely different from what we mean in conventional language by mindfulness or awareness.

 It is important to realize the difference between the moments when there is no sati and those when there is sati.  There is often forgetfulness of realities, but then sometimes there is sati.  We will know the difference from experience.  After there has been unawareness for many moments sati may arise.  it is not 'self' which is aware of the characteristic of the nama or rupa appearing at that moment, it is sati.  We cannot force sati to arise because it is a type of nama and not self.  It can arise only when there are conditions.

 A.  We cannot be aware of nama and rupa at the same time, but I should like to know how nama and rupa are related to each other.  When there is hearing there is also sound, which is rupa.  When there is seeing there is also colour, which is rupa.  Feeling is nama, but what kind of rupa causes feeling?

 B.  Do you want to have a theoretical knowledge of all namas and rupas or do you want to develop the wisdom which knows by experience the characteristics of the phenomena appearing through the five senses and through the mind-door?  There are different levels of wisdom and we should find out what kind of wisdom we are developing.

 There are several kinds of rupa, some of which are conditioned by kamma, some by citta, some by temperature and some by food.  There are many kinds of nama.  Nama can condition rupa and rupa can condition nama in many different ways.

 A.  Why do you use the word 'condition'?  Is condition the same as cause?

 B.  When we speak about cause we usually think of one cause which brings about one effect.
There are, however, many different kinds of conditions for each nama and for each rupa.  For example, when there is seeing, colour conditions the seeing by way of object.  But seeing does not have only colour as its condition.  Eye-sense, which is another kind of rupa, conditions the seeing too.  In studying the teachings we shall know more about the different conditions and about how complex the process of knowing an object is.

 We should know what kind of wisdom we want to develop; do we want to develop only that knowledge which is knowing the truth in theory and thinking about it, or do we want to develop the wisdom which knows the truth by direct experience?

 A.  I do not understand the difference between thinking about the truth and the direct experience of the truth.  How can we directly experience the truth?

 B.  The truth can be known from direct experience; however, it is not 'self' who knows it, but panna.  Panna can know different characteristics of nama and rupa when they appear.  When for example, we feel pain, this characteristic can be known.  It is not necessary to think about the pain.  When we start to think about the pain or we call it 'pain', the characteristic of pain cannot be known.  Only the characteristic of what appears at the present moment can be directly known.  Knowledge acquired from the direct experience of characteristics which appear is deeper than knowledge acquired from thinking about a phenomenon which has fallen away already or which has not yet appeared.

 A.  But pain can last for some moments.

 B.  It falls away immediately, but it can arise again and again.  We think that pain lasts, as we cannot yet directly experience the impermanence of realities.

 A.  When there is seeing, the seeing is conditioned by the rupa which is colour and by the rupa which is eye-sense.  Could I experience the rupas which condition the seeing?

 B.  It is important to remember that we can experience only the nama or rupa which appears at the present moment; not the nama or rupa which does not appear.  It depends on one's accumulations and on the development of wisdom which types of nama and rupa one can experience directly.  It is impossible to regulate which namas and rupas we should experience and in which order we should experience them.

 A.  Is it right that we should not name realities since the nama or the rupa has fallen away by the time we name it?

 B.  Is thinking of the name a reality?  Does it appear?

 A.  Yes, it appears, it is a kind of nama.  We cannot help it that this kind of nama appears.

 B.  That is right, it arises because there are conditions.  Do you not think that this reality can be known as well?  When there is seeing, the characteristic of seeing can be known.  When the nama which thinks of the word 'seeing' appears, there is a kind of nama which is different from seeing.  If we try to regulate awareness and think there should or should not be awareness of certain realities, we do not realize that awareness is anatta, not 'self'.  Nama and rupa arise because of conditions; they are beyond control.  If we try to control sati we will not know realities as they are.

 A.  I still think that it is better not to think of the names of phenomena.  Am I right?

 B.  There is no need to think of their names; the characteristics of nama and rupa can be directly experienced.  But if the nama arises which thinks of a name, we cannot prevent it; this is again another reality which can be known too.

 A.  I have heard that the four applications of mindfulness or 'maha-satipatthana' are: body, feelings, cittas and dhammas.  How can I be aware in accordance with the four applications of mindfulness?

 B.  There is no need to think of the four applications of mindfulness when we are aware.  We can develop knowledge only of the reality which appears at the present moment.  The Buddha spoke about the four applications of mindfulness in order to show people that all namas and rupas can be the object of mindfulness.  He did not mean that we should think of those four applications when we are aware.  We cannot control which nama or rupa will appear; they are anatta (not self).

 A.  Can the so-called 'ego' be the object of mindfulness?  In which application of mindfulness is it included?

 B.  Where is your 'ego' and what are its characteristics?  How do you experience it and through which door?  Do you experience it through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body-sense or mind-door?

 A.  I do not experience the self.  I can only think of the self.

 B.  We could think of many different things, but the reality of that moment is only thinking.  In the development of insight we learn that thinking of the self and what we take for self is only nama and rupa which arise and fall away.  There is nothing else besides nama and rupa.  Since there is no 'ego' it is not included in any of the four applications of mindfulness.

 A.  What about realities outside ourselves?  Those we do not take for self, is that right?

 B.  Can you give an example of realities outside ourselves?

 A.  I mean realities such as a bottle, a table or a chair.

 B.  A bottle, a table or a chair we take for things which stay so long as they are not known as different kinds of rupas which arise and fall away.  To take something for 'self' does not merely mean that we think 'It is I', it means that we do not see it as it really is: as phenomena which arise and fall away.  The wrong understanding of reality can only be eliminated if there is the knowing of the characteristic of the phenomena which present themselves one by one through the different doorways.

 A.  I heard of people who concentrate on the movement of the abdomen.  They say that sometimes there is awareness of the arising and falling of rupa and sometimes there is awareness of the knowing of the arising and falling of rupa.  Is this the right way of developing awareness?

 B.  What we call abdomen is in reality many different kinds of rupa.  Sati can be aware of only one characteristic of rupa at a time.  For example, through the body-sense we can experience the characteristics of hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure, but we can experience only one of these characteristics at a time.

 A.  When we experience the rupa which is motion do we not experience the arising and falling away of a rupa?

 B.  In the development of vipassana there are many stages of insight (nana).  The first stage is knowing by direct experience the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa (in Pali: nama-rupa-pariccheda-nana).  When this stage has been attained there is no more doubt about the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa.  Only at a later stage can the arising and falling away of nama and rupa be known.  This stage cannot be attained unless the previous stages have been realized.  How can there be the experience of the arising and falling away of phenomena if the difference between the characteristics of nama and rupa are not clearly discerned?

 A.  Is the arising and falling away of rupa faster than the movement of the abdomen?

 B.  Namas and rupas arise and fall away very quickly.  Only when insight is highly developed can one experience the arising and falling away of nama and rupa.

 Why should we concentrate on the abdomen?  The whole day there are countless namas and rupas which arise and fall away.  We may be aware of hearing and after that we may be aware of thinking, which could not arise unless hearing had fallen away.  But we cannot yet experience the arising and falling away.  Our knowledge of different characteristics has to become keener and keener.

 A. How could this knowledge become keener?

 B. Only by being aware of namas and rupas when they appear, one at a time. Is there not seeing now, or hearing now? If one concentrates on the movement of the abdomen one will not realize other characteristics of nama and rupa. We cannot help it that realities such as seeing, hearing or thinking appear. Should we not know their characteristics? Or should we continue to remain ignorant of them? If   we try to concentrate on one nama or rupa we are clinging and this will not lead to detachment from the concept of self.

 A. It seems that we have to be aware of such a lot of different namas and rupas.

 B. We have to continue to be aware in order to become detached from the notion of self. It is not sufficient to be aware of only one kind of nama or rupa. There should be awareness of whatever reality appears. If there is the right awareness, without the concept of self which has awareness, there will be a condition for panna gradually to know more namas and rupas. There is no 'self' which can control anything.

 A. I can see that it is useful to know in theory about the different between nama and rupa. But when we are aware of nama and rupa I am inclined to think that it is not necessary to distinguish between them; I doubt whether that will help us to become detached from the concept of self.

 B. How can we have a precise knowledge of realities if we cannot realize the different between the reality which experiences something, feels or remembers, and the  reality which does not experience anything? If we do not realize the difference between nama and rupa we confuse for example hearing and sound. Only one characteristic appears at a time. If we do not know which characteristic appears, hearing or sound, it is clear that we are still ignorant of the characteristic which appears at the present moment.

 A. The reality of the present moment falls away so quickly, how can we ever catch it?

 B. If we try to 'catch' a reality, we do not have the right understanding and thus the truth will not be known. Realities are experienced through the sixth door-ways, but if insight has not been developed we cannot clearly know which reality is experienced through which doorway. As long as there is no precise knowledge of the characteristics of realities , there can be no detachment from the concept of 'self'. When insight is more developed, panna will know which reality is experienced through which doorway.

 A.  Is it difficult to know that a reality is nama or that it is rupa? It does not seem very difficult.

 B. You may think that it is very simple to know that seeing is a kind of nama, and different from visible object, which is rupa; but are you sure as to what appears at the present moment whether it is nama or whether it is rupa?

 A. No, I am not sure. It seems as if seeing and visible object appear at the same time.

 B. Awareness can be aware of only one reality at a time. If it seems to us that seeing and visible object 'appear' at the same time, then there is no sati, there is only thinking about phenomena. In our practice we have not yet developed the precise knowledge of realities such that they are known one by one. We know in theory that nama is different from rupa, but that is not the panna which leads to detachment from the concept of 'self'.

 The different between the nama and rupa which appear should be known, but we should not try to 'catch' the reality of the present moment. We have only just started to develop insight- there cannot yet be a clear knowledge of realities. When characteristics have been experienced time and again, wisdom will develop until it is so keen that we do not take things for 'self' anymore.

http://www.dhammastudy.com/mental4.html
Sumber : Mental Development in Daily Life by Nina van Gorkom

[bond]

Berikut ini saya kutip dari tanya jawab di buku "Buddha Dhamma dalam kehidupan sehari-hari" (Buddhism in daily life) ~ Nina Van Gorkom (seorang ahli dan praktisi Abhidhamma) yaitu sbb :

Bagus sekali artikelnya mam. Dan keliatannya (karena belum kenal atau info ttg dia) mempraktekan vipasanna dengan baik sehingga bisa disebut ahli dan praktisi Abhidhamma yg sebenarnya. Bagaimana dengan diri kita sendiri?   

[Lily W]

Mari kita renungkan dan praktekkan....



Btw...Nina van Gorkom (foto atas) adalah orang Belanda dan suaminya pernah menjabat sebagai duta Belanda di Indonesia. Suaminya juga Buddhis dan Mereka sekarang tinggal di Belanda. Coba baca artikel yg di bawah ini :

Interview with Nina van Gorkom 
September 1999
by Robert Kirkpatrick

Nina van Gorkom was born in 1928 to a family of socialist intellectuals. Her father was a member of the Dutch parliament. She studied at Leyden University and during this time she became a catholic. In 1952, she married Lodewijk van Gorkom, a Dutch diplomat.

In 1965, Lodewijk was posted to Thailand and Nina started learning Thai language. She took a keen interest in Buddhism, attending classes for foreigners at Wat Mahathat. There she met, in the summer of 1966, Sujin Boriharnwanaket. Impressed by the profundity of the Buddhist teachings, she became convinced of the truth of the Buddha’s words and later assisted Khun Sujin in discussions about Buddhism for Thai radio stations. These talks were later published as Buddhism in Daily Life, her first book. 

Nina and Lodewijk left Thailand in 1970 and lived in Japan, New York, Indonesia (where Lodewijk was the Dutch ambassador) and Austria. Lodewijk retired in 1990 and they now live in The Hague in Holland. 

Nina’s writings are well-known amongst English speaking Buddhists, and she is highly respected in Thailand where several of her books have been translated into Thai language with (after many reprints) over one hundred thousand copies now. Her books have also been translated in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Nepal and Germany.

What started your interest in Buddhism?
When I came to Thailand, I was impressed with the kindness and graciousness of Thai people. I wanted to understand their culture. Once I began to study Buddhism, I wanted to apply it to my life rather than just learn it as a philosophy. After I met Sujin Boriharnwanaket I was able to ask any number of questions. I just kept coming and asking. Her answers always related to nama and rupa (mind and matter), to the realities that we experience every moment in daily life. 

How did studying Buddhism affect your life as a catholic?
Khun Sujin told me to continue going to church. She said that by studying nama and rupa I would come to see what was most helpful in life. After a while I just stopped going to the church and spent all my time in Buddhist activities.

What attracted you about Khun Sujin?
She explained so clearly the realities that arise at the different doorways. She always reminds us “what about this moment now, what appears?” What is the aim of vipassana: to get something for ourselves? The aim is detachment from the self, from the beginning. Khun Sujin helps us to notice the subtle clinging to self. Even now, Lodewijk and I go regularly go to Thailand, to meet with Khun Sujin and other teachers, to discuss aspects of mind and matter. In October we are meeting Khun Sujin and other friends, in India, for Dhamma discussions.

When you write about the development of vipassana, you don’t speak about concentration methods or sitting practice.
Vipassana, insight, is actually panna (wisdom) which has been developed to clearly understand realities as they are, as non-self. It is not some special practice, it is not sitting or breathing. If one wishes to induce calm by sitting one still wants to get something. There is subtle clinging which can pass unnoticed. The aim of vipassana is to have less ignorance of realities, including our defilements, even subtle ones. Therefore it can and should be developed in daily life; any object can be an object for mindfulness and understanding.

But can’t sitting quietly be an assistance for mindfulness to arise?
Even mindfulness is anatta, non-self, it cannot be induced just by concentrating or trying to be calm or by sitting quietly. The conditions for mindfulness to arise are listening to the Buddha’s teaching, discussing, considering and pondering over realities. And it develops by studying realities as they appear in our daily lives. Some people find it difficult to accept that one cannot force sati to arise, and they wonder whether this means idleness. The Buddha taught us to develop all good qualities, such as generosity and metta, along with right understanding. It is understanding, actually, that should be emphasized.

Nevertheless, the Buddha taught concentration practices such as anapanasati- breathing mindfulness. Doesn’t that suggest that they are important?
We read about this in the scriptures because in the Buddha’s time there were people who were able to concentrate on the breath. This is a very subtle rupa, which is produced by citta. It is most difficult to be aware of breath, before one knows it one takes for breath what is something else, air produced by other factors, not breath. The commentary to the Kindred sayings V, The lamp, states that only Maha-Purisas, the great disciples can practice it in the right way. Thus, the Buddha did not teach that everyone should practice it. To those who were gifted, who had the accumulations to do so, he taught it. He explained that there is no self who is breathing, and that breath is only rupa.

How should we practice vipassana?
The situation is not: that a teacher tells you first what to do, that you “practise’ together, that you do this, then that, at a certain time, in a special place. There is no rule, there is no special technique. In fact, we don’t use the words practising vipassana, but rather: developing understanding of realities little by little, and that, quite naturally, in daily life. We should see the advantage of understanding different realities, different momentary conditions, to realize that there is no "me" who is developing but that wisdom gradually develops. That this development can only happen if the right conditions are present. It can’t occur because of wanting or forcing or pretending to ourselves that “we’ are making progress. However, understanding will, gradually, grow if there are the right conditions. It is anatta, not controllable by any self.

You write exclusively within the Theravada tradition. What is your feeling about other Buddhist traditions?
Khun Sujin explanations are based on the scriptures and commentaries of the Theravada teaching. But we do not have to name it Theravada, that is just a label .We should consider whether the teaching helps us to understand whatever reality is appearing at this moment. That is the test of truth – this very moment.

http://www.dhammastudy.com/ninabio.html

[Suchamda]

Belajar Abhidhamma itu kayak pungutin tai ayam !

[tesla]

tergantung tiap individu...

bagi sebagian mungkin seperti memungut tai ayam,
bagi yg lain bisa saja seperti memungut telur ayam.

objek adalah netral, pikiran kitalah yg membuat penilaian ini & itu

[ryu]

Keknya enakan jadi kr****n deh

[Suchamda]

tergantung tiap individu...

bagi sebagian mungkin seperti memungut tai ayam,
bagi yg lain bisa saja seperti memungut telur ayam.

objek adalah netral, pikiran kitalah yg membuat penilaian ini & itu

Protes aja ke Ajahn Chah yang konon udah menjadi arahat, itu pendapat beliau kok.

http://dhammacitta.org/forum/index.php/topic,3372.0.html

Selama kunjungannya di Inggris, Ajahn Chah berceramah ke banyak kelompok-kelompok buddhis. Pada suatu malam setelah berceramah, dia mendapat pertanyaan dari seorang wanita Inggris terhormat yang menghabiskan waktu beberapa tahun mempelajari cybernetics komplex dari pikiran berdasarkan 89 kelompok kesadaran dalam buku teks psikologi Abhidhamma buddhis. Apakah Ajahn Chah berkenan untuk menjelaskan beberapa aspek di sistem psikologi yang rumit dan sulit kepadanya agar dia dapat meneruskan pelajarannya?

Dharma mengajarkan kita untuk melepas. Tapi pertama-tama, kita secara alamiah melekat pada prinsip-prinsip Dharma. Orang bijaksana mengambil prinsip-prinsip ini dan menggunakannya sebagai alat untuk menemukan esensi hidup.

Menyadari betapa si penanya terjebak dalam konsep intelektual daripada mendapatkan manfaat dari praktek di hatinya sendiri, Ajahn Chah menjawab dia dengan gamblang, "Anda, bu, seperti orang yang memelihara ayam betina di halaman rumah," jelasnya, "dan berkeliling halaman memunguti kotoran ayam ketimbang telornya."

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books2/Ajahn_Chah_A_Still_Forest_Pool.htm

Kalau yang ngomong suchamda atau Pak Hud kalian tentu tidak menganggap, bukan?
Nah, sekarang tinggal diadu aja siapa yang lebih keren, Ajahn Chah atau Nina von Gorkom?

Note : kalian berdiskusi buat apa?
so, kalau berdiskusi tolong berargumentasi berdasarkan nalar. Gak perlu jadikan forum ini jadi ajang promosi atau advertising.

[nyanadhana]

ngapain jadi karesten,mending belajar kundalini abis itu dapat pencerahan penambahan lobha dosa moha.