22000 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 8:52pm Subject: Re: Long time, no see. Hi Peter, Welcome back. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298" wrote: > A couple of quotes which particularly interested me:- > > ...Some of these works suggest that early Christians not only > reached insights similar to those of the Eastern religions but also > had a sophisticated understanding of human consciousness in their > own right. Many were concerned with what they called gnosis, a word > that means "knowledge" in Greek. This is knowledge of a very > specific kind —direct, intuitive knowing that surpasses ordinary > reason and confers spiritual liberation. Gnosis strongly resembles > enlightenment as portrayed in Hinduism and Buddhism.... > > ...Knowledge that liberates consciousness is often described as > esoteric. The word "esoteric" is somewhat forbidding, usually > connoting something obscure, exotic, and irrelevant to daily life > — in short, something "far out." But etymologically the > word > means exactly the opposite: it comes from the Greek 'esotero', which > means "further in." You have to go "further in" > yourself to > understand what this knowledge is about. In this book I will use the > terms "inner Christianity" and "esoteric > Christianity" > interchangeably.'... > > What I got from this was two points: Firstly, that 'gnosis' seemed > to come very close to 'sati' knowing and remembering. And secondly > that what they endeavoured to know was God, which presumably would > include the Uncreated aspect of the Creator. > > Although this lacks the Buddhist discipline of stripping out all > notions of a self and all self view, I do feel a Buddhist's duty > should include pointing out these aspects of the theistic religions > to those who showed any such interest. While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might want to look at message 21250 for more details. Metta, Rob M :-) 22001 From: connie Date: Thu May 8, 2003 8:19pm Subject: factoid Hi, Rob M ~ Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational skills) and thought I'd share it with you. Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the same verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie 22002 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:32pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear RobM, > Could you explain the difference between "not-self" and "non- self" . > RobertK I am aware of a position taken in the following articles: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html Metta, Rob M :-) 22003 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:39pm Subject: Re: factoid Hi Connie, Interesting.... Thanks for sharing. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Rob M ~ > > Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational skills) > and thought I'd share it with you. > > Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the same > verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I > haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called > Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, > which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic > activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle > of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, > stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > Metta, Rob M :-) 22004 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 8, 2003 9:58pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, Thank you for the reply. I don't see that there is anything wrong with seeing nama-rupa as they actually are with right discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self."* Your feedback is appreciated! Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > Victor, > > I understand the point, I was merely stating the aspect of clinging > that creates the delusion of a self,that he would not like to let > go. But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall > away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying > that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....! > > with metta, > Yasa 22005 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 8, 2003 10:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hi Peter, --- peterdac4298 wrote: > Hello all, > > Have been off list awhile, but been lurking from time to time, > especially when in need of stability, inspiration and some cool > reflection. .... It’s always great to hear you and it’s encouraging for us all when lurkers tell us they are around and being ‘inspired’ from time to time. Thanks for posting this and your other reflections. I’ll look forward to hearing other comments. > This is just a thought and well outside of the dsg remit. But had > hoped it emphasised the role of sati, simply 'just knowing', in a > wider context, so won't be taking it any further. ..... I understand there to be a kind of sati with each moment of wholesomeness (e.g dana and sila as well as samatha and satipatthana). If you come across any references in the texts you’re reading to further express your understanding of sati as you see it here, perhaps you could share further. I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. Pls don’t run away!! You've been missed by many of us. With metta, Sarah ======= _______________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 22006 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 8, 2003 11:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), Pardon my jumping in. Victor: > I would say that: > Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > are impermanent, dukkha, not self, and there is nothing special > about the so-called "paramattha dhammas". > Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment > thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." > Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards them. The goal is > liberation, not some special direction experience with the so- > called "paramattha dhammas." Victor, correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of your perspective. Because we take everything that we experience, realities and concepts, as permanent and self, you see the need not to discriminate between the two but only to correct our attitude by reminding ourselves that "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." etc. I liked what Yasa said to you, which is similar to what I once stated about 'intellectual overlay' : "But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....!" While I appreciate what you and others here remind about the danger of creating 'self-view' out of any understanding of nama and rupa, I think it is necessary to understand the distinction between ultimate realities and concepts. Insight cannot arise from wholesale indiscriminate labeling of every experience as being anatta, anicca and dukkha. Because insight is not something that a "self" acquires. It is panna which is developed and it is panna which understands the trilakkhana. Panna doesn't have an attitude; it just penetrates the nature of reality as deep as it does according to the level of accumulation. Panna and not 'self' which makes the distinction between nama and rupa and it is panna again which sees the three characteristics. No "self" with whatever attitude can arrive at this understanding, no matter how it repeats the same formula of "this is not me, not myself etc. for no matter how long. Part of what I consider Right View is this acknowledgement of the existence of paramattha dhammas and the difference between this and concepts. That the trilakkhana can be observed only with reference to these ultimate realities and not of the latter. Doubt can only be eradicated by actual penetration of these realities, not by applying the formula "this is not me", etc. Victor, I think no matter how much we read the description of citta for example, we cannot imagine what it is trully like, this I feel is why one should be grateful to the commentaries for giving us the description from many, many angles. But even then we can only know it as it really is when vipassana nana is reached. Similarly, anatta, anicca and dukkha will remain only a vague idea in our minds until enlightenment is reached. And this happens only after knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa. So do you think then, it would get us anywhere if we just repeat a formula with regard to all experience? Don't you think there is more danger of deluding ourselves, not knowing what the three marks trully mean and not knowing first what they are a characteristic of?! Hope I haven't misunderstood you. Await your feedback. Metta, Sukin. 22007 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 8, 2003 11:51pm Subject: Nyanatiloka's On-Line Buddhist Dictionary DSG, Just rediscovered Nyanatiloka's On-Line Buddhist Dictionary, thanks to Jon. If you aren't already familiar with it, it's at: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html A really great resource. Mike 22008 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:39am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hello All, I had an opportunity to discuss with Nina this particular section of the book on truthfulness and Nina suggested that I posted what I said to the group to get an opinion on my views, and perhaps to get further discussions about the values of truthfulness. So here it is. Nina mentioned that truthfulness might be hard to understand. ==== kom ==== I think this is an unfamiliar concept to Westerners, and to Buddhists: it is often misunderstood anyway. Very difficult idea to understand, especially if one doesn't see (or vaguely see) the benefits of truthfulness itself. ============ Some people may have doubts about the ³Assertion of Truth² referred to in the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an Assertion of Truth can bring its result according to one¹s wish. However, when a person has to experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to overcome his suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what truthfulness is and without understanding its high value. It is essential that one, before making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the benefit of truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the perfection of truthfulness. ==== kom ==== For me, it suffices to say, that we shouldn't expect that we can do this (and have a similar results) in our daily life. This result, as mentioned in the story, is a result of one who knows the values of truthfulness. A. Sujin mentioned in one of the tapes I have, that, when one faces danger, what does one think of? Does one think of the values and the benefits of being truthful? ============= ==== kom ==== For me, the benefits of being truthful is not tied directly to the danger I currently face. Truthfulness is great from the standpoints of: 1) By being truthful to our resolution, it conditions more kusala to follow thru with the resolution. I may have a resolution in the past to have kusala, but when the conditions arise, I might be shaken by kilesa, but if I remember the value of truthfulness, it allows me to follow thru with what I intended. 2) By being truthful to our resolution, it conditions more patience to withstand both adverse and pleasant conditions. 3) By being truthful, one is not led by attachment or anger. When somebody tells me that I know more than others about the dhamma, I naturally like this, but if I am truthful, and know that I know the real dhamma so very little, then I am not persuaded by the attachment to the praise. When somebody tells me I do things I shouldn't do, but I am truthful in accordance to realities, when what is said that is not true I will ignore, and when it is true I will gladly take and keep in mind (for truth is hard to come by). If one is not truthful, one doesn't see the 4-truths, this is the ultimate benefits of truthfulness. 4) truth = straight; akusala = crooked! ================= kom 22009 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Grimm recipe Hi Andrew and Ken H, Your post is very interesting, Andrew, and you’ve raised good and difficult questions. Perhaps the person who wrote the preface to Grimm's book hadn't read the text as carefully as you have;-) One translation of King Milinda (if not more) is available on line. I tried (without success) just now to access it at: http://www.aimwell.org/assets/Debate%20of%20King%20Milinda.pdf In any case, the passage you refer to is in the chapter titled ‘the Distinguishing Marks’, 3rd Division <63>. It is exactly as you summarised. like the ingredients of the soup, Nagasena says: “Even so, sire, it is not posible, having again and again analysed these mental states the nature of which it is to arise together, to point to a difference between them, saying: ‘This is sensory impingement, this is feeling, this perception, this volition, this consciousness, this applied thught, this sustained thought, though (all) are present each with its own distinguishing mark.” This follows a detailed elaboration on the characteristics of these various mental factors and consciousness, similar to descriptions given in other texts and indeed suttas like MN 147, Cularahulavada Sutta give details of all namas and rupas to be known as well as you suggested. ..... Howard, I think your comments are very perceptive and I’m not sure I can add anything other than a little speculation: > My thoughts are: What is the metaphor? Does soup stand for the > experience of an object? Is Nagasena pointing out that the > conventional, thinking mind does not know the difference between the > sense object (rupa), and the mentality (nama), that experiences it? > > Or, does soup stand for citta and the ingredients for cetasikas? ..... I think the latter. See quote above. Perhaps citta (consciousness) is also one of the ingredients, in that the soup, like the chariot is only a collective term. ..... > Without knowing the context, I can only guess. Perhaps Nagasena is > making the observation that conventional wisdom does not know > dhammas any more than it knows the ingredients in soup. This obvious > fact is not always so obvious. I think we have all tried to force > dhammas out into the open (by concentrating and by trying to stop > thought). But only dhammas experience dhammas, the conventional mind > knows concepts (soup). ..... Even when satipatthana begins to arise and be aware of different characteristics, is it really possible for sati to be aware of say applied thought (vitakka) as opposed to sustained thought (vicara)? Only the very highly developed panna will know precisely that this is vitakka or vicara or cetana etc. (These distinctions in characteristics also have to be known by the panna in samatha development for developed samatha practice and jhana attainment). Also, I think that in the beginning, sati doesn’t arise often and doesn’t penetrate the characteristics deeply. It is followed by an idea of self, stories and many concepts as usual. The characteristics of namas and rupas are not clearly distinguished and there may be attachment to the basic knowledge and awareness too. Like you say, the forcing, watching, focussing, labelling or even 'matching' with lists as Sukin described, with an idea of self, can creep in very easily. This doesn’t mean that the moments of sati and panna are not extremely precious, leading to more, so that gradually the characteristics of various realities can be known. ..... > At a moment of seeing, the various cetasikas that experience visible > object, flavour the citta. There is no separate moment of experience > for each individual cetasika (ingredient). Perhaps this is the point? .... Good point anyway;-) ..... > However, a subsequent mind-door process can take an individual > cetasika as its object. The actual cetasika has just fallen away but > subsequent cittas can see it just as we can hear a reverberating gong > when it is no longer being struck. ..... Yes, well put. Of course, in this case, the reverberations are perfect duplications of the original and so to all intents and purposes have just the same characteristics. .... > So what was Nagasena's point? I think we both need to go back to our > ADL reading. ..... I think they are really good points that Andrew has raised. I’d be glad to hear any other comments. Sukin or NUM (the food expert;-)) may also like to raise the passages with Khun Sujin and report back. It also reminded me of these other passages on food ingredients at Vism 1V, 120ff and SN V, Mahavagga, 47 Satipatthanasamyutta, 8 (The Cook). Could be relevant? According to comy note to the sutta, satipattthana is treated here ‘as insight of the preliminary stage’. Not sure if I’ve added anything to Ken H’s fine comments. With metta, Sarah ======= _______________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk Weight Age Gender Female Male 22010 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:06am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, I wanted to wait for your response to Sarah before replying, but right now I am 'too' free ;-), so I hope it is OK that I do it now. My comments are between yours. > I like the analysis of citta and specially those connected with the > bhavanga and patisandhi citta, santirana, votthapana, jhavana . > Various types of kamma, ahetuka and vipaka, kusala, akusala and the > roots, lobha, dosa, moha.. I have of course come across them and > understood them in Sutta, but to take them on their own as in > Abhidhamma is different. It is a wealth of information. If I may say Yasa, just to express my own attitude which will surely not be the same as others, that I personally don't view Abhidhamma as a 'wealth of information', at least not at this point of my development. I = feel quite uneasy about details and my head spins when I see more than a few pali words being used. So I am not really attracted to that part of the Abhidhamma, though I do see much value in it and hopefully one day in a future life, I will not feel too intimidated by them. To me the impersonal and straight to the point descriptions is what I find helpful. "Impersonal", because I do not have to cut through layers of 'self' to see what it is that is being referred to. "Straight to the poi= nt", because I can actually come to notice to some degree, these phenomena right away, without any suggestion of first having to do any formal practice, which to me, is nothing but a 'conventional activity'. > I also think that I perhaps understand why Buddha, did not teach > Abhidhamma to his disciples. He would rather teach it to, those who > had highly developed minds, having practiced meditation in the > past ,and with wholesome accumulations.. Buddha had made what may be > called "instructional" teachings to his disciples, and" analytical" > teachings to Devas. It is like the Manuals given to you when you by > a machine. One part contains the characteristics-the nuts and bolts, > and the other, instructions, as to how to make the machine work. In > the teachings of the Buddha, the Abhidhamma is just the "nuts and > bolts", of what a being is composed . It has its own interest > but what is more important for the disciples and the lay > followers, are the instructions, "which" are in the Sutta. If you > leave aside the Sutta instructions to Meditate, you are getting away > from the essential, to inessential. You might be interested to know that it has been suggested here on dsg, that the *whole* of the Tiipitaka is "descriptive", not "prescriptive". You= will have to look up the archives if you want to read those discussions... = My impression of why the Buddha taught in conventional terms most of the time, is opposite to yours, I think that he did precisely because those= people had the high panna to penetrate through conventional expressions to realize the ultimate meaning! It is us, who are less than optimal, who need details or for me especially, to not be distracted by concepts of 'beings', 'situations' and 'things to do'. With regard to what is essential and inessential, I think the only essential thing at this point is to grow in understanding of the distinctio= n between concept and reality, otherwise we might take 'concepts' such as of "meditation" as being essential and the study of realities and the the understanding of this very distinction as being inessential!! > How many of us see ourselves as mere "paramatta dhammas"- > pancakkhanda ? We cannot see that unless we develop our minds > through meditation to the level of a Sakadhagami, because in the > existence of a being in the samsara, he is not a mere > pancakkhandha, but he is a panca-upadankkhandha . He is blinded by > clinging, to a "self". Therefore, he does not see ultimate reality. I think it is a mistake to jump to the conclusion that because we do not have 'anatta sanna' yet, that we have to work from the standpoint of 'atta'. Thinking this way I believe, will not get us anywhere. There *is* a level of understanding which is "pariyatti", which must not be overlooked. It is the base upon which the next level of patipatti is built,= and there is *no self who decides to be practical*. If one ignores this important relationship, then as it seems to me, one will then 'try' to practice, and this is clearly "self" at work. I have seen people who primarily give importance to Abhidhamma, but who believe at the same time, about formal meditation and putting forth of 'effort'. They know such details about the Teachings that I often have to open the dictionary to refer. And their experience is of 10, 20 and 30 years. But these same people when they talk about their experience during and outside of formal practice, is such that it makes me feel quite = sad. "I practiced vedananupassana, I watched my breath, I suppressed my feelings, I saw cetana arise, I this, I that.." It seems to me that ther= e is so much self there. But maybe I am just projecting?!.... > Satipattahana –is mindful, and it is an essential part of > meditation. But it is not the meaning of the word "satipatthana" I > am speaking about, it is the Sutta-Maha Satipatthana, I refer to, > which gives instruction on how to meditate and it is the only > discourse of the Buddha where he makes a "challenge" , he says that, > if anyone would develop the four frames of reference the way it has > been explained in the Satipatthana Sutta ,for seven years or, six > years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven > months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one > month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: > right here and now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging- > sustenance -- non-return. The Buddha gives that assurance, and gives > us the Key into our hand and we refuse to accept it. Budhha's, > teaching is not complicated, it is simple and straightforward, it is > we who make it difficult and complicated, without accepting it as it > is. Yes, it is we who complicate what we hear, but this is not unexpected since there is so much ignorance and wrong view accumulated. This is why we need wise friends and to discuss :-). But, I don't think the teachings are so straightforward for the same reason. It is deep and hard to see, the self is always making false interpretations, hence I would advice against taking our own impressions too seriously. My impression of your quote above, is that *yes*, the fruits can be attained if indeed there is constant mindfulness. But is there? And can there be, if a "self" is trying?! > Sarah, too has made very interesting comments on one of my posts. I > will make my comments on it, and perhaps, some of my comments on > that post may interest you as well. I look forward to it and your comments to this post of mine. Best wishes, Sukin. 22011 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! ------ In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Sorry, I messed up. > > I am aware of the subtle difference between "not-self" and "non- > self". Somebody already contacted me off-list and pointed this out > as well. [And: ]I am aware of a position taken in the following articles: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html > > > ______________ Dear Rob. Thanks for these articles. Could you explain your view in more detail. You wrote last week: "According to the Visuddhi Magga (Path of Purification), "… So in many hundred Suttas there is only mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles… are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot… so too, when there are the five khandhas of clinging there comes to be the mere conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision."" Do you still think the Visuddhimagga is correct here? I think the articles you sent have a different viewpoint. RobertK 22012 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Thanks for these articles. Could you explain your view in more > detail. > > Do you still think the Visuddhimagga is correct here? I think the > articles you sent have a different viewpoint. Taking a view on this point is on my "to do" list. I read the articles a year ago and have been mulling them over in the back of my mind. So far, I haven't really applied myself to properly research this topic, so I am avoiding taking a position. Having just read the articles, do you have a view yet? Metta, Rob M :-) 22013 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:19am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 39-40 for comment Consciousness (Citta) & Mental Factors (Cetasikas) Slide Contents ============== Unwholesome Cittas (Between 15 and 22 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas - Unwholesome Cetasikas Wholesome Cittas (Between 31 and 38 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas - Wholesome Cetasikas Rootless Cittas (Between 7 and 12 cetasikas) - Ethically Variable Cetasikas Speaker Notes ============= One of the definitions of citta mentioned earlier was, "the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object. The accompanying mental factors are the cetasikas; the second type of ultimate reality. Cittas never arise without cetasikas and cetasikas depend upon citta to get access to an object. Cittas are pure awareness; it is the accompanying cetasikas that determine if the citta is unwholesome, wholesome or neutral. The Abhidhamma lists three classes of cetasikas: - Ethically variable: can be unwholesome, wholesome or neutral - Unwholesome: always bad - Wholesome: always good Ethically Variable Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all cittas: - Contact / Sense Impression - Feeling / Sensation - Perception / Recognition - Volition / Intention / Will - One-pointedness / Concentration - Life Faculty / Vitality - Attention / Advertence / Reflection In some cittas: - Initial Application / Applied Thinking - Sustained Application / Discursive Thinking - Determination / Decision - Energy / Effort / Exertion - Enthusiasm / Zest / Rapture / Interest - Desire / Zeal / Wish Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of the 13 mental factors which are unwholesome when they arise in unwholesome cittas, wholesome when they arise in unwholesome cittas and neutral when they arise in a neutral citta. In the seeing-consciousness citta, each cetasika has a task to perform as follows: - Contact connects with the visible object - Feeling experiences the "taste" of the visible object - Perception marks and remembers the visible object - Volition coordinates the tasks of the accompanying mental factors - One-pointedness focuses on the visible object - Life faculty sustains the citta and accompanying mental factors until they fall away - Attention drives the citta and the accompanying mental factors towards the visible object 22014 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 3:08am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > > Taking a view on this point is on my "to do" list. I read the > articles a year ago and have been mulling them over in the back of > my mind. So far, I haven't really applied myself to properly > research this topic, so I am avoiding taking a position. > > Having just read the articles, do you have a view yet? __________ Dear Rob, I feel the Dhamma of the Buddha is something profound and wonderful. I believe it only comes to be taught rarely during samsara. It is natural that many misperceptions are about. Some Buddhists do not even respect the ancient monks who carefully preserved the Tipitaka, the same great monks who also preserved the ancient commentaries . In the future I am sure anatta will come to mean something different from not-self. This is because of the natural decline that the Buddha predicted. I have made it clear on many occasions that anatta does- according to my understanding - mean that there is no self anywhere. Never has been. There are only evanescent, conditioned mental and physical phenomena arising and passing. Khandha parinibbana is the ending of this continual becoming of dukkha. I believe this is the teaching of the Buddhas. TG wrote "We operate as if we are a self and all our perceptions are tied into that outlook. This is the difficulty of understanding the Buddha's teaching. The difficulty is in trying to develop insight powerful enough to see past the way the mind mis-perceives experiences. Once this insight is developed, then one can start down the Path of the Buddha's teaching. Until this insight arises, one cannot even see the Path."" This is, I believe, true. RobertK 22015 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > You say: > "If someone says that meditation is not necessary to attain nibbana, > he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." > > Well, I can only say it depends on what you mean by 'meditation' > ;-)). I'd be interested to know what your understanding is of this > term (as far as I know, it's not a term used in the suttas). > > Jon > ______________________________________________________________________ Jon, Jon, Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the English word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India long before Buddhism. The meditation for concentration of the mind, used in Buddhism is the Samatha. When the mind is in samadhi, it is further developed to attain one pointed concentration, to absorp jhana. There are four stages of jhana ( used in Buddhist Meditation). That in it self, cannot be used to attain panna, as the sense doors are "temporarily" not functioning, when the mind is absorped into deep one pointed concentration . The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique "discovery" of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies prompting ! Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to see the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is sati, translated as mindfulness. Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken from "accesstoinsight": "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrications….." with metta, Yasa ______________________________________________________________________ _ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk 22016 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply! I appreciate it. I would say this again: Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self."* I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, but also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), [snip] > Metta, > Sukin. 22017 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi, Rob & Connie - In a message dated 5/9/03 12:41:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Connie, > > Interesting.... > > Thanks for sharing. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" > wrote: > >Hi, Rob M ~ > > > >Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > >questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational > skills) > >and thought I'd share it with you. > > > >Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the > same > >verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > > >Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera > that I > >haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > > >The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > >'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is > called > >Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to > move, > >which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > >Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh > Kammic > >activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual > cycle > >of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > >reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains > Nibbana, > >stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > >deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > > > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ============================= Yes, I found this very interesting as well, Connie. Though, when one thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way of doing so. No urges, no desires, aversions, or contaminated "will" pulling one to one action or another, pushing one to "move" in a particular manner. And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be interested in hearing a bit about that. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22018 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin (and Victor, Jon, and KKT) - Sukin, I agree with what you wrote here! I would also like for you to consider the matter of the usefulness of merely repeating the formulas 1) "Rupa is rupa, and nama is nama," 2) "(The referents of) concepts are not impermanent, due to not existing," and 3) "Concepts are not realities". The mere reciting of formulas, and even contemplating them and coming to intellectually understand the facts they represent is not enough. Your criticism of Victor's repetition of varying applications of "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." in a variety of contexts has merit, I think. Does it not also have merit when applied to other facts that become empty mantras? Doesn't the Buddha present us with *training* to cultivate the mind so that is can come to directly see, with wisdom, these truths, most especially the truths that Victor mentions? If not, then why do we follow him? With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/9/03 2:34:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Victor, (Jon and KKT), > > Pardon my jumping in. > > Victor: > >I would say that: > >Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > >are impermanent, dukkha, not self, and there is nothing special > >about the so-called "paramattha dhammas". > >Both the so-called "paramattha dhammas" and "conventional objects" > >are to be seen as they actually are with right discernment > >thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not my self." > >Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards them. The goal is > >liberation, not some special direction experience with the so- > >called "paramattha dhammas." > > Victor, correct me if I am wrong, but this is my understanding of your > perspective. Because we take everything that we experience, realities > and concepts, as permanent and self, you see the need not to > discriminate between the two but only to correct our attitude by > reminding ourselves that "They are not mine. They I am not. They are > not my self." etc. > > I liked what Yasa said to you, which is similar to what I once stated > about 'intellectual overlay' : > > "But, one should just see the nama-rupa as they arise,and fall > away, without saying "that is not me, not myself". Because in saying > that too, there is a "seeing" of a self .....!" > > While I appreciate what you and others here remind about the danger of > creating 'self-view' out of any understanding of nama and rupa, I think it > is necessary to understand the distinction between ultimate realities and > concepts. > > Insight cannot arise from wholesale indiscriminate labeling of every > experience as being anatta, anicca and dukkha. Because insight is not > something that a "self" acquires. It is panna which is developed and it is > panna which understands the trilakkhana. Panna doesn't have an > attitude; it just penetrates the nature of reality as deep as it does > according to the level of accumulation. Panna and not 'self' which makes > the distinction between nama and rupa and it is panna again which sees > the three characteristics. No "self" with whatever attitude can arrive at > this understanding, no matter how it repeats the same formula of "this > is not me, not myself etc. for no matter how long. Part of what I > consider Right View is this acknowledgement of the existence of > paramattha dhammas and the difference between this and concepts. > That the trilakkhana can be observed only with reference to these > ultimate realities and not of the latter. > > Doubt can only be eradicated by actual penetration of these realities, not > by applying the formula "this is not me", etc. > > Victor, I think no matter how much we read the description of citta for > example, we cannot imagine what it is trully like, this I feel is why one > should be grateful to the commentaries for giving us the description > from many, many angles. But even then we can only know it as it really > is when vipassana nana is reached. Similarly, anatta, anicca and dukkha > will remain only a vague idea in our minds until enlightenment is > reached. And this happens only after knowing nama as nama and rupa > as rupa. > > So do you think then, it would get us anywhere if we just repeat a > formula with regard to all experience? Don't you think there is more > danger of deluding ourselves, not knowing what the three marks trully > mean and not knowing first what they are a characteristic of?! > > Hope I haven't misunderstood you. > Await your feedback. > > Metta, > Sukin. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22019 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sarah, Sarah, Thank you, for your reply to my post. I am happy to continue my observations. I have problems with panna, I am aware of the suttamaya, bhavanamaya panna. But these states are land marks of the path we are traversing. They are very high mental states, because it is panna that will ultimately give us insight into anicca, dukkha,anatma, and release the mind from Samsara. Therefore, we will have to clear our minds of the wrong views, with some thing lesser than panna. In the Buddhist Countries of Asia, the Buddhists have what is called Saddha ( it is translated as confidence or faith), it has taken root in the minds of these people, such that there isn't a modicum of doubt in their minds about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. This is some thing that does not exist in the West, being more Cartesian , looking for reason and proof. This saddha guides these native Buddhists through the different stages of meditation sessions or "seeing things as they are" or whatever you may want to call. In addition to that, Satipatthana Sutta is a household word with them. In the four foundation of Mindfulness, the first is the Kayanupassana. In this they see the 32 parts of the body. They visualise the body parts in their meditation, and see that there is nothing permanent, satisfying or a self a soul. In meditation, we see the rising of citta in five stages- contact (passa), feelings(vedana),perception (sanna), consciousness (vinnana) and mental formations( sankhara). They understand the nama as the mind and the rupa as the body. They can understand the ear as impermanent, and the sound as impermanent, and therefore the ear consciousness is also impermanent. All these is to say that there is a way, and a preparation for meditation. But when in this forum, you say there is no sitting or a particular time for seeing things as they are, I begin to ask how do you do this "seeing things as they are" or "arising and falling away of citta." ? Arising and falling away of citta happens countless times. If you listen to a sound there are innumerable citta arising and falling away. If you are crossing the road, the number of cittas that arise and fall away are countless. Do you mean to say you see rising and falling away of these multitude of cittas …..every moment of the day, from the time you get up until you go to sleep in the night ? Sarah, you know, having had meditated for a long time, and now having a very good grasp of the Abhidhamma teaching, how citta arises and falls away, and how you could see that while meditating, and now keeping it up in the course of all your daily activity. But can you really see the arising of the citta and its final passing away ? At the moment your eyes come in contact with the object, citta moments begin to start, but the eye consciousness arises four or five citta moments after, and only then you see the object. The Actual arising of the citta you had not seen, but if you are mindful then it is possible the mind goes back to the moment of the rising of the citta, sees a "review" of it. It is the same with the falling away of the citta, after about 10 or so thought moments. This happens all the time and seeing the rising and falling away of citta every moment of the day, you see Sarah, is a very difficult exercise. But on the other hand if you are seated, on a cushion, with an appropriate posture, you will be able to see this phenomena of citta rising and falling away vividly, during the course of your sitting, and the mind settling into a calm serenity…..when you hear a sound just stop at hearing, without going further…........ Bhavana is nothing else other than being mindful, holding your mind onto an object, say the "in and out" breath, in your normal breathing. Your eyes are closed and that is a way of being within. First step is the Samatha, where you concentrate your mind to a state of samadhi-beginning of concentration, and get jhana (dyana in Sanskrit) absorptions, step by step to the fourth jhana, at a pre-decided time. Then you come down from the Jhana in the descending order, and begin Vipassana meditation. In Samatha you are completely absorbed in deep concentration, and the sense doors are not functioning. In Vipassana ( seeing in different ways- the literal meaning ), your mind is not concentrated to a one point(ekaggata), therefore, you are able to analyse the mental states, see the rising and falling away of dhamma, see anicca, dukkha, anatma, clearly and vividly. You will observe that in the Suttas , the discourses of the Buddha to his disciples, he uses terms appropriate to their minds deluded in self, the familiar conventional terms. That is because they are the instructions for meditation , where as the terms in the Abhidhamma are to describe characteristic of the panchakkhanda, a being, the Buddha did not want his disciples to get lost in the vastness of Abhidhamma. Perhaps a word of Abhidhamma, not critical, I dare not, because that too is the word of the Buddha. In Abhidhamma you see the working of the mind, its sense-door activities, accumulation of wholesome , unwholesome kamma. Different types of kamma, sahetuka, ahetuka, vipaka , kiriya. And the cittas, bahavanga citta, how it gets activated, vibrates and gives rise to particular citta and falls away gradually in javana and tadarammana. And then the most interesting to read for me were the final stages of life, the cuti- citt and the patisandhi citta. One's birth depends on the citta that conditions the cuti-citta- which "colors" the patisandhi citta and all the citta thereafter. But yet no one can say which karma conditioned the relevant cuti and patisandhi cittas. Which vipaka kamma caused a handicap in a person. Those things were said not to speculate on, but just to show the mechanism of paramatta dhamma. Your comments are very objective and it is interesting to discuss Dhamma with those who know what it is despite the controversies . Visuddhimagga as you know, contains the commentaries to the Sutta, translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa into Pali. And the most of it contains instructions on meditation and what happens in meditation. It would be interesting to read about the Vipassana-nanas, that arise as meditation develops and how panna arises in the mind to see through the anicca, dukkha and anatma. * * * Sri Lanka was a beautiful place in the 1970ies, now it has lost much of its natural beauty, with hotels and what not, coming up every where. That is the change of things, for good or for bad. I am really impressed by your sojourn in a monastic atmosphere in Sri Lanka, I am sure that helps to understand dhamma better. I have found the tapes of Khun Sujin, in the internet,speaking on a question and answer session. I found them very interesting. I have said most of the things, I know of the Dhamma here. But I will not hesitate to elaborate, if you have comments. I think Sukin has replied to one of my posts and I have to go back to see what more I could say. Every thing expressed here is in metta and goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because it was not my intention. With metta, Yasa 22020 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:41am Subject: Typo Correction Re: [dsg] Re: factoid In a message dated 5/9/03 9:19:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Though, when one > thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an > important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way > > of doing so. ========================= My phrase "at last" was meant to be "at least". Sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22021 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > The five aggregates include whole range of the conditioned > phenomena/things/situations. Like you have mentioned earlier, > concept* is assembled by mind. It is conditioned, subject to > change, does not last, impermanent, disintegrates.** Clinging to > what is impermanent leads to dukkha. ... > * > 1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION > 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular > instances synonym see IDEA > http://www.webster.com/ > > ** > "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at > the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect > disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on > contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or > neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-082.html I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. You seem to find some significance in the fact that the word 'idea' appears in both the dictionary definition of concept and the ATI translation of 'dhammayatana'. I personally wouldn't draw any conclusion from this. As I understand it, 'dhammayatana' has a specific meaning that, according to the commentaries, excludes concept. Jon 22022 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Jon, the following is an extract from the Chapter 14-Function of > Javana, in NINA's Book Abidhamma in Daily Life. > > "When we are not mindful of realities, we take the objects we > experience for self. When panna realizes the objects which are > experienced as nama and rupa, elements which do not last, there is > less opportunity for akusala javana-cittas. > > I think this speaks for itself on the very regular question about > the "Computer " as an object. Thanks for the quote from Nina's ADL. This is always a useful reminder. I would be interested to hear your further thoughts on this passage and the question about 'computer' as object, since I'm sure members feel they've heard quite enough from me on the subject! Thanks. Jon 22023 From: m. nease Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Robert and TG, I know we're supposed to avoid 'me too' replies, but--hear, hear! Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 3:08 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! > TG wrote "We operate as if we are a self and all our perceptions are tied into that > outlook. This is the difficulty of understanding the Buddha's teaching. The difficulty > is in trying to develop insight powerful enough to see past the way the mind mis- > perceives experiences. Once this insight is developed, then one can start down the > Path of the Buddha's teaching. Until this insight arises, one cannot even see the > Path." > This is, I believe, true. 22024 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Swee Boon You said: > Seeing the present moment's ultimate dhamma is one thing. Realizing > the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is another thing. > > Seeing the present moment's conventional dhamma is one thing. > Realizing the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is > another thing. > > Whether it is ultimate dhamma or conventional dhamma doesn't > matter. It is a non-issue. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'conventional dhamma' in this context. But I would agree that seeing (panna) is wholesome and always to be developed, whether the object of the seeing/understanding is an ultimate dhamma or is other than an ultimate dhamma (what I would call a concept). On the other hand, I think it is necessary to get to know the distinction between panna that is of the level of insight and panna that is not of that level. Only panna of the level of insight/satipatthana develops the mundane path factors that lead towards enlightenment, and this level of panna should not be confused with other (lesser) levels of panna, even though they also are worthy of being developed. To this extent I suggest we shouldn't dismiss all differences in panna as a non-issue. Hoping there is some room for agreement here ;-)). Jon PS I've added a couple of comments below for clarification --- nidive wrote: > Jon > > > Again, I'm having difficulty getting your point. > > I too am bewildered as to why you would claim that the seven > perceptions apply only to the Sangha and not the individual. What's > a Sangha, except a collection of individuals? I don't think I made such a claim. You perhaps misunderstood my comment. But since it apparently wasn't relevant to what you were saying anyway, I suggest we just let it drop here. > I do not think that having the knowledge of Abhidhamma is the key > to liberation. The Chief Disciple Venerable Sariputta was fully > enlightened even before he received the Abhidhamma from the Buddha. > He had no prior knowledge of the Abhidhamma even at the time of his > full > enlightenment. Do all arahants know the Abhidhamma then? Certainly > not. Do all arahants know what is `ultimate realities` then? > Certainly not. I don't think I've ever said that having the knowledge of Abhidhamma is the key to liberation (although I think there is a sense in which that knowledge is indeed 'key'). As I understand it, all arahants would know a lot of what is in the Abhidhamma, but they wouldn't necessarily have acquired that knowledge through a study of the Abhidhamma. Let's not forget that much of what's in the Abhidhamma is in the suttas too. > Seeing the present moment's ultimate dhamma is one thing. Realizing > the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is another thing. > > Seeing the present moment's conventional dhamma is one thing. > Realizing the dispassion for it, the relinquishment of it, is > another thing. > > Whether it is ultimate dhamma or conventional dhamma doesn't > matter. It is a non-issue. > > Swee Boon 22025 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: Long time, no see. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Welcome back. > > While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a > student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might > want to look at message 21250 for more details. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Thanks Rob Most interesting. I was really thinking about how some of the meaning of the word 'sati' was to be found in theistic religions under the term 'gnosis'. It is only in very long term retrospect that I now realize I had my first encounter with the idea of a Koan when just five years old or so. The idea had gotten around "...if God created the Universe, then who created God?..." This variant on "...who was I before I was born...", back in the late 'forties, did not open our very young minds to the infinitude of the present moment, but merely closed it up for fear of shattering our embryonic 'faith'. I just thought that, in these more enlightened times, when engaged in interfaith dialogue with Theists, it might be of some value if this was brought up in any such discussion, together with 'not knowing' being responsible for the separation from the Unborn, Uncreated. If ever there was a bridge between Buddhism and the rest, this could form some part of it. However, let this line of enquiry continue off line, so as to not undermine the group focus. Cheers Peter 22026 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/9/03 9:53:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the > mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of > concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, > fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. > > ================================ Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then ceases. Now, one may say that there actually is no unicorn-idea that arises in the mind, that what actually arise are several things including fuzzy mental "pictures" of horses with single horns, of associated vague thoughts of medieval times in England (if one is a Westerner), and of the label 'unicorn' associated with these. So, there isn't a single unicorn-idea that arises, but kind of a unicorn-idea package/khandha. Okay. But all the parts of this package, interrelated in various ways, are conditioned (and mutually conditioning). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22027 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I don't see the definition of concept convey the the un-conditioned nature of concept. On the contrary, I see that it does convey the conditioned nature of concept. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > I like the definition of 'concept' as 'something conceived in the > mind'. I think this conveys nicely the un-conditioned nature of > concept, as compared to, say, visible object or attachment, > fundamental phenomena that occur because of their own conditions. > > You seem to find some significance in the fact that the word 'idea' > appears in both the dictionary definition of concept and the ATI > translation of 'dhammayatana'. I personally wouldn't draw any > conclusion from this. As I understand it, 'dhammayatana' has a > specific meaning that, according to the commentaries, excludes > concept. > > Jon 22028 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe, not so grimm. Abhidhamma. Dear Andrew and Ken, This simile makes me think of The Questions of King Milinda, Book III, Ch 7, 87: "A man were to wade down to sea, and taking some water in the palm of his hand, were to taste it with his tongue. Would he distinguish whether it were water from the Ganges, or from the Jumna, or from the Aciravati, or from the Sarabhu, or from the Mahi?" "Impossible ,Sir." "More difficult than that, great king, is it to have distinguished between the mental conditions (concomitants) which follow on the exercise of any one of the organs of sense!" There is reference here to: contact, feeling, sanna, cetana and cittam. Thus, the Buddha did a difficult thing. However, he taught us their different characteristics and when they appear one at a time they can be discerned. See below. op 07-05-2003 06:36 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: In that chapter, he uses a dialogue from the > 147th Dialogue of the Majjhima Nikaya and Milindapanha in which > Nagasena denies that one can identify phenomena and say "This is > contact, this is sensation, this is will, this is consciousness, this > is idea, this is discursive thinking." Nagasena likens the situation > to a cook preparing a soup for a prince using various ingredients. > Once the soup is made, the cook cannot separate the ingredients and > say "This is sour cream. This is salt. This is sweet. etc" They are > all lost in the unity of the soup. > Nina says that the purpose of classifying realities is to demonstrate > that what we take for self are only nama-rupa elements (ADL p 182). > Is Nagasena also saying this? N: Yes, all the time. See also his simile of the chariot. Thus, it is difficult to know different realities but it can be done thanks to the Buddha's teaching of dhamma. We cannot know all. I learnt from A. Sujin that in the development of insight we shall know the difference between citta and cetasikas. Citta merely knows an object. To me it is OK to use the word awareness for citta, this is also in the Co. So long as we explain that it is not sati. The cetasikas have each their own characteristic, function. This reminds me of another point that was brought up: bhavangacitta. Yes, in the course of the development of insight it can be known, a moment of: there is nothing impinging. We do not try to know it. Through insight all doubts will disappear: is bhavangacitta taught later on, a more modern teaching? No more doubts, it is reality. Andrew wrote: > As Abhidhamma students, we (intellectually) learn an ingredient list and a recipe. We experience dhammas.> An ingredient list? Again, there is more to the Abhidhamma. It is so understandable that people think of the Abhidhamma as only a list of classifications, ingredients. When we remember Book 2, Book of Analysis, where so many daily examples of good and bad qualities are given, we shall no longer think of an ingredient list or a dry classification. Yasa was inclined to think that the Suttanta is more for mental development and that the Abhidhamma is more like a backbone. I can really understand this, it is not strange that we could have this impression at first sight, when reading only the first Book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani which seems to consist of lists, although it is more than that, it helps to understand reality. But it is helpful to look at all the daily examples in this second book of the Abhidhamma, Book of Analysis, Small Items, on conceit. Or, just quoting what I see at first hand, § 903: And § 906: This is for the monk, but we also can see in how far we have a hostile attitude, persisit in antagonism, have lack of respect. There are also many similes, partly the same as those we find in the Suttas. The more I read the more I find that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. A: When I read his words, I am tempted to > identify self with "the unity of the soup" that cannot be unscrambled. N: Take courage, it is panna that very gradually develops and then can unscramble the soup. A self could not do this, as you know. Sorry I cannot pursue this thread now, I shall be (hopefully) away on two weeks vacation, conditions permitting. Nina. 22029 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 0:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and > excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the > apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be > interested in hearing a bit about that. I am not sure what you are asking here, but let me take a stab at it. The kiriya cittas performing the role of javana in an Arahant do not create kamma, but they could contain the following cetasikas which might be misinterpreted as kamma-creating intention: - Centana: volition (playing a coordinating role only, not pushing to create kamma) - Adhimokkha: Decision - Viriya: Energy - Piti: Zest - Chanda: Desire Howard, is this what you were wondering? Metta, Rob M :-) 22030 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -akusala citta, akusala kamma Hi Nina, I still need to reply to your message on doors / bases, but will do this one first (trying to do some spring cleaning on long- outstanding replies owing). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > back to my old dilemma: is every akusala citta akusala kamma? Did you find > something in Milinda? > I still wonder about Atthasalini: who gives the different requirements for > akusala to be akusala kamma patha. He is very definite here. Even when I > take up glass thoughtlessly: already akusala kamma? Looking out of the > window? I doubt about this, would this not give rise to undue fears and > scruples? My perspective is that every akusala citta creates akusala kamma. In the case of taking up a glass thoughlessly or looking out of the window, at these moments, there is not "seeing things as they truly are" (probably a moha-mula citta rooted in restlessness). There is no way that this could be completed kamma (akusala kamma patha), so the kamma created is not strong enough to send us to a woeful state at time of rebirth. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a very weak kammic potential (seed?) created. The arising of this moha-mula citta reinforces an accumulation of not seeing things as they truly are. To me, this is more worrisome than the kammic impact of being distracted... the accumulation to get distracted again in the future gives rise to the possibility of a more serious lobha-mula or dosa- mula citta to arise (as we know, lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas both have moha). If I take the opposing view (i.e. not every akusala citta creates akusala kamma), I now have to have a rule to determine what qualifies an akusala citta as "kamma-creating". I recently had a discussion with Jon on this and I believe, at the end, we agreed that "completed kamma" relates to rebirth-potential only (at least that's what I remember). Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 22031 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, Part II of my answers: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Brief comments on your other posts in a most jumbled, random order - > apologies to All for any confusion from the cryptic references: > > 1. post 21768, classifying cittas > > I'd remove the word `subconscious' which to many of us suggests an > undercurrent. You say "Resultant acts as "subconscious"" which isn't clear > to me. Later you use subconscious to refer to `what the mind is doing > when it is not doing anything else', i.e bhavanga cittas. Difficult to > translate I know. Either there are bhavanga or other kinds of cittas, so > nth subconscious to the way I understand the term. ===== I am using "subconscious" for bhavanaga. I can't think of a better word. Under Beautiful Cittas, I list two functions (I ignore kiriya): - Wholesome - Resultant My description of wholesome is: Wholesome creates good kamma My description of resultant is: Resultant acts as "subconscious" Perhaps the problem arose when I tried to reflect what was presented graphically on the slide in a text format. ===== > I also disagreed with your > comment that the Buddha attained `enlightenment without detailed knowledge > of the Abhidhamma'. Another topic in itself;-). ===== My understanding is that Buddha meditated on the Abhidhamma during the fourth week after enlightenment and it was at the point that the Buddha started into Conditional Relations that the six coloured rays started eminating from His body. Therefore, in the first three weeks after enlightenment, the Buddha had the capacity to explore the Abhidhamma in depth, He had "not yet got around to it". Remember our discussion as to whether the Buddha could have foretold 9/11. As I recal, the answer was, "If He had applied His mind to the subject, He could have." Metta, Rob M :-) 22032 From: connie Date: Fri May 9, 2003 2:01pm Subject: Re: factoid Hi, Howard and Rob M ~ I guess a difference in how we pay Attention (present perception formed by past habit) changes our Intention (volition/future focus)... goes back to developing right understanding as opposed to my own heterodox views again so there are fewer contaminants (push-pull motives) feeding the accumulation of clung-to kammic sankharas? My sanna not only recognizes, but tends to define everything as desirable or detestable, my feeling (vedana?) towards it, so I don't 'create' kiriya? This mess is stored/accumulated (sankhara) and my direction or (wrong) path is set up [anusaya = anu (follow) + saya (into dormant situation)]. Something else I read awhile ago said the original Sanskrit 'karma' meant 'ritual', which led to thoughts on 'clinging to rites and ritual' in terms of that being everything we do in our daily lives... even (especially?) how we breathe... "Sabbe dhamma vedana samosarana" - anything that arises in the mind starts flowing as a sensation on the body. Enough of my rambling. I'll be thinking about 'the intent of the Buddha' and would also like to see some thoughts on kiriya citta. With the previous posts following as per Christine's previous request. peace, connie Hi, Rob & Connie - In a message dated 5/9/03 12:41:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Connie, > > Interesting.... > > Thanks for sharing. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" > wrote: > >Hi, Rob M ~ > > > >Got a nice gift in response to another of my poorly thought out > >questions today (sometimes benefits to my lack of conversational > skills) > >and thought I'd share it with you. > > > >Asankharikam (unprompted) and sankhara (creations, etc.) have the > same > >verbal root 'kar' (to do, make) as kamma. > > > >Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera > that I > >haven't seen elsewhere yet: > > > >The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and > >'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is > called > >Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to > move, > >which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called > >Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh > Kammic > >activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual > cycle > >of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, > >reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains > Nibbana, > >stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of > >deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. > > > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ========== Yes, I found this very interesting as well, Connie. Though, when one thinks about it, this is a perfectly clear way of describing (at last an important aspect of) nibbana, it is also a rather fresh and interesting way of doing so. No urges, no desires, aversions, or contaminated "will" pulling one to one action or another, pushing one to "move" in a particular manner. And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, and excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its nature, the apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. I'd be interested in hearing a bit about that. With metta, Howard 22033 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hi Sarah At 13:12 09/05/2003 +0800, you wrote: >I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. Cheers >Pls don't run away!! You've been missed by many of us. If it were only that simple. >With metta, > >Sarah >======= Peter 22034 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: factoid Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/9/03 3:42:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >And yet, of course, the Buddha acted with intention all the time, > and > >excellently. This leads me to think about kiriya citta and its > nature, the > >apparent way out of the conundrum of how nibbanic action occurs. > I'd be > >interested in hearing a bit about that. > > I am not sure what you are asking here, but let me take a stab at > it. > > The kiriya cittas performing the role of javana in an Arahant do not > create kamma, but they could contain the following cetasikas which > might be misinterpreted as kamma-creating intention: > - Centana: volition (playing a coordinating role only, not pushing > to create kamma) > - Adhimokkha: Decision > - Viriya: Energy > - Piti: Zest > - Chanda: Desire > > Howard, is this what you were wondering? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, excellent! Very helpful to my understanding! ----------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22035 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:50pm Subject: no self/not self Hi the two Robs, The problem I have with rejecting "no self" is that by cognizing "this is not self" one leaves open the possibility something else is self, most likely the mind that cognizes "this is not self". I would think that the insight of a path moment would go beyond the characteristic of a particular arising dhamma. The real question is, what is a self? What does "Robert" mean, that is such a big problem? Larry 22036 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 4:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Here are few contrarian ideas. It is true that most people think the > idea of free will assumes a self but this isn't necessarily the case. We > could examine this concept by looking at what is meant by "free". "Free" > doesn't mean all powerful, although there is that implication. "Free" > actually means "without" as in without bondage or without a master as in > the master/slave relationship. So "free will" actually means will > without a master or without fetters. This fits in rather nicely with the > concepts of no self and no control. > > A will without fetters could be clear comprehension and mindfulness > arising in a javana series or the 10 perfections arising in javana. This > freedom from fetters includes freedom from compulsive unwholesome > reactions to kamma result and freedom from creating new kamma for an > arahant. > > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a highly > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part of > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, what > kind? Is there an "accumulations process" whereby conflicting > accumulations battle it out to see which one influences javana? This is > a very murky subject with no textual clarification and reasoning without > direct experience would seem inadequate to the task, imo. So I don't see > that we could say very much about accumulations. > > However this may be, we can say "free will" _could_ mean will free from > the 10 fetters: personality belief, sceptical doubt, clinging to mere > rules and ritual, sensuous craving, ill-will, craving for fine- material > existence, craving for immaterial existence, conceit, restlessness, and > ignorance. In other words, a moment of satipatthana or the usual > experience of an arahant. ===== I agree 100% with you. However, if you were to ask 100 people (even 100 Buddhists) what was their definition of "freewill", I doubt that many would answer as you have. I considered including a definition of "freewill" in my paper, but decided against it. Those 100 people surveyed would all have slightly different definitions and I did not want to distract the reader by having them check if their personal definition matched up with my "somewhat arbitrary" choice of descriptive words. I decided to remain silent on the definition, confident that at least 99 of the 100 surveyed would have a personal definition of "freewill" that included a concept of "self". Larry, perhaps you fall into the 1% :-) The other danger that arises from including a definition of "freewill" is that I would also have to include a defintion of "self". Then things become extremely messy. Another topic that spun off from this paper involves this definition of self. See Thanissaro Bhikkhu's papers: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself.html It appears as though Rob K is of the view that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is incorrect in these essays. My first reaction is to agree with Rob K. However, we must now counter the arguments raised in these well- written articles to support our position. Again, my first reaction is to say that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is playing with semantics. If we define "self" to be a concept to describe a instantaneous combination of five aggregates, then with this definition of "self", "self" does exist. However, I now go back to my survey of 100 Buddhists mentioned above. How many of those surveyed would not include some sense of permenance in their definition of "self"? I need to review those papers again (I haven't read them in a while). Metta, Rob M :-) 22037 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a highly > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part of > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, what > kind? Is there an "accumulations process" whereby conflicting > accumulations battle it out to see which one influences javana? This is > a very murky subject with no textual clarification and reasoning without > direct experience would seem inadequate to the task, imo. So I don't see > that we could say very much about accumulations. Picasso had his "blue period" where most of his paintings were done using the blue pallet. He then had a "rose" period and then a "cubism" period. I am in my "accumulations" period, where I see "accumulations" as a critical issue. The fact that the ancient texts do not share my focus on "accumulations" is exciting to me. It tells me that there is an even bigger perspective to be had. It tells me that I have a lot more to learn. I love learning and I never learn anything from anybody who agrees with me! Please keep challenging me. Metta, Rob M :-) 22038 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: no self/not self Dear Larry, I think I see what you mean. The Dhamma of the Buddha is deep and not at all easily comprehended. When we first encounter it we are all steeped in self view so whatever we hear - no matter how it is explained is perceived through self and control. Some people hear about anatta and fear it or reject it. WHy? because there is the idea of self: "I used to have a self and now there is none!! or " If I develop insight my self will go!" A more subtle misunderstanding is that we may think or say "there is no self" but have the view - as I think you mention below , Larry, that "I" have no self or "I" am selfless. These are simply different versions of self view. http://www.vipassana.info/002-sabbasava-sutta-e1.htm 1.2 Sabbaasavasutta.m ""doubts arise about the self in the present : Am I, or am I not. What am I. How am I . From where did this being come, where will it go. To whoever thinking unwisely in this manner, one of these six views arises To him a view arises perfect and clear, I have a self. Or I have no self. Or with the self I know the self.. Or with the self I know the no-self. Or with no-self I know the no-self."" endqoute And so wrong practice and wrong path develops. As TG indicated the pre-steps- before beginining the right path- are to come to understand anatta, not-self, no-self, non-self, (but not with the idea of 'me' who is understanding it). The texts often talk about bhavana (sometimes translated as meditation) and there are different aspects of this. A basic aspect is ditthujukamma - straightening of view. It can be happening right now. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi the two Robs, > > The problem I have with rejecting "no self" is that by cognizing "this > is not self" one leaves open the possibility something else is self, > most likely the mind that cognizes "this is not self". I would think > that the insight of a path moment would go beyond the characteristic of > a particular arising dhamma. > > The real question is, what is a self? What does "Robert" mean, that is > such a big problem? > > Larry 22039 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Dave, I gave the editor a list of topics (including Dependent Origination for Beginners; the thread that we started but I never finished) and he picked "Freewill or Not?". Perhaps for the next article, he will ask for your topic (or perhaps Connie's topic of "Buddhism by the Numbers"). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Hi Rob & Sarah, > > I'm still very much a novice compared to so many of you on this list, > but I thought I might throw out my $0.02 for consideration or > deleting! ===== Sorry that I am so far behind on my replies, it doesn't mean that I don't value your comments; quite the contrary. For the past week or so, I have been beating myself up mentally thinking, "I gotta get reply to Nina, Sarah, Dave, Victor and Larry". ===== > For what it's worth, I've always thought of our actions and "free > will" as a ongoing process of probabilities. Something similiar to > predicting the weather. When I watch the news, I hear that, because > of this and that condition, there's a probability of rain or sun. > Sometimes they are right, but other times, other factors play out and > the weather goes the other way (as it did yesterday much to our > children's disappointment!). ===== I really like your view on freewill; you have managed to take the "self" out of freewill. You and Larry are both in the 1% of the survey group! (please see my recent reply to Larry). ===== > > I've noticed that people too can be predicted. We do like to have > this concept of self and free will, but yet, we mostly act according > to predictable criteria. And, as you pointed out in physics, the act > of observing a particle changes it, so does the act of observing a > self. It too becomes a variable in the calculation and throws the > probabilities all off! > > Perhaps it is the computer geek-ness in me, but as a big fan of > science, I think it can show us some underlying factors. This "me" > is, like it or not, tied to this phycial body, complete with > hormones, neurological traits, etc. I think that we can learn a lot > from the scientific study of meditation. I don't think we'll ever > get to an "Enlightenment Pill" because the complexities are too ... > well... complex. Just like we will never be able to predict the > weather with 100% accuracy, let alone control it. > > The physical properties of the brain and our consciousness are > clearly entertwined. As such, I think we can learn a lot from the > scientific study of the workings of the brain. I like to think of > this type of research as helping in the understanding of the > impermanence or "no-self." > > All that said, I also think the Buddha was quite appropriate in > including the prohibition of intoxicants (which I would consider > consciousness altering chemicals to be a part) in his 5 Precepts. > While, perhaps we could chemically alter the brain to reproduce that > of those monks Rob mentioned, the person under this drug would not > have the patterns set up to deal with the condition in the right way > and therfore, the probabilities are that they would not become > Enlightened, but, perhaps psychotic! There are too many variables to > control, again, kind of like the weather. > > Anyway, I don't know if any of this is helpful or not. But, here it > is none the less! ===== Earlier, when I was in my "phenomenology" phase, I used to think that the Buddha's teaching perspective on science was purely phenomenological. Now I realize that this concept of phenomenology is a modern definition and the Buddha said it best when he said that he only discussed [science] that was related to leading the holy life or conducive to release from samsara. Dave, please send me an email at rob.moult@j... . I am going to the Vihara (temple) tomorrow, where they sell statues. I will take along my digital camera and reply to your email with images and costs. Metta, Rob M :-) Weight Age Gender Female Male 22040 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome action > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one chooses > has a consequence. You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. Metta, Rob M :-) 22041 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:47pm Subject: Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Theoretically, freedom from accumulations would necessitate the > > cessation of the consciousness process. This would be the end of > > accumulations, will, and freedom. However, "accumulations" is a > highly > > problematic concept for me. Why isn't it included as a formal part > of > > consciousness process? Is it a reality? If it is consciousness, > what > > kind? _________ Dear Larry, Ayuhanam (accumulation) in paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) is sankhara (volitional formations), specifically cetana. I wrote a little about this before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14917 The Mahavagga tika (subcommentary) to the Digha nikaya explains Aayuuhana.m sampi.n.dana.m, sampayuttadhammaana.m attano kiccaanuruupataaya raasiikara.nanti attho. Accumulating (aayuuhana.m) is the adding together or heaping up of its associated phenomena in accordance with its own function. sampi.n.dana.m -adding together rasi - heap kicca -function Here is a section from the Mahanidana sutta commentary, where aayuhana (accumulate) occurs in complex phrases. (from bodhi The great discourse on causationp65)about Paticcasamupadda: Deep is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally forming, ACCUMULATING, lustfulness, and lustlessness. gambhiiro, sa"nkhaaraana.m abhisa"nkhara.nAAYUUHANAsaraagaviraaga.t.tho and [the meaning] of existence as ACCUMULATING, volitionally forming, and throwing beings into the different modes of origin bhavassa aayuuhanaabhisa"nkhara.nayo nigati.thitinivaasesu khipana.t.tho, . It is an important aspect of Dhamma that is mentioned quite often in the texts. We shouldn't expect it to be easy to understand: ""Deep is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally forming, ACCUMULATING, "" _Robertk 22042 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > I've gone back to look again. You wrote: > > R:"Non-self (anatta¯) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) > says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although > there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; > although there is a path, there is no goer." > > Paraphrasing the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no > chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The > concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's > activities chooses a response." > ..... > S:Perhaps we use the word `paraphrasing' a little differently. I undrstood > you to be suggesting that "There is choice, but there is no chooser" could > be used to replace the Vism lines with the same meaning, but maybe it's > just the `template' or `core value' you are referring to. In other words, > I couldn't see how `there is choice' could be a paraphrase of `there is > suffering'. I agree that "Paraphrasing" is the wrong word as it implies replacing. I have changed the text to: ...although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser"... Metta, Rob M :-) 22043 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:39pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > R: >At some point, I will have > > to leave words and concepts behind me. For now, I use them to > > develop my practice. The Buddha said (Mn22) that we have to be > > prepared to leave the good states behind at some point. > ..... > S: I don't understand there being any suggestion that the `words and > concepts' need to be left behind. Rather the grasping and attachment to > those words or the Dhamma. In the Simile of the Snake, we are urged to > carefully examine the meaning of the words and the purpose of studying. > "Examining the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, they gain a > reflective acceptance of them." ===== You are correct, it is the grasping to words and concepts that needs to be left behind. ===== > > R: > As I see it, the paragraph that I quoted is not "typical Bhikkhu > > Bodhi". BB normally writes with an objective "academic" style (I > > love his stuff). In this specific paragraph, BB seems to be exorting > > the reader to improve their practice. BB resorts to conventional > > subjective language in an effort to create conditions supporting > > kusala energy in the mind of the reader. > ..... > S: I don't think it is a question of language or style, but some > difference of understanding. ===== I see two distinct styles in the Suttas. When the Buddha was explaining something, He would use often use technical language, sometimes verging on an Abhidhamma style. When the Buddha was exorting (as He often did), He used "conventional language" that could easily be misinterpreted as implying that there was a self that could make an effort. Consier the following exortations (these two are famous, but almost every Sutta has similar exortations): - Do good, avoid evil, purify the mind - Strive on with dilligence Metta, Rob M :-) 22044 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob, It occured to me that maybe accumulations are sanna memories and arise with the determining citta. It seems likely they are some form of cetasika. Larry 22045 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:46pm Subject: Re: Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > It is an important aspect of Dhamma that is mentioned quite often in > the texts. We shouldn't expect it to be easy to understand: ""Deep > is the meaning of volitional formations as volitionally > forming, ACCUMULATING, "" Does this mean that I don't have to give up my "accumulations" period? It would be boring not to develop :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 22046 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Robery K, Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations condition the javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate between determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of old javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana (volition)? Larry 22047 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 6:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, I'm not sure. You might of missed my views on sanna: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/19983 Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > It occured to me that maybe accumulations are sanna memories and arise > with the determining citta. It seems likely they are some form of > cetasika. > > Larry 22048 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, I think of sanna as recognition and "marking" for recognition, but it is a little difficult to distinguish this from registration citta. Since sanna accompanies all cittas, I'm assuming everything is remembered. Larry 22049 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, All cittas arise because of conditions. The falling away of the previous citta is one of the factors that condition the arising of the subsequent citta. The cetasika attention (manasikara) is called the "controller of the object"; when it arises in the adverting citta, it controls the flow of the citta process. When manasikara arises in the determining citta (the adverting citta of a mind-door process), it controls the flow of the javana cittas (kusala or akusala). The javana cittas then arise naturally, conditioned by either wise attention (yoniso manasikara) in the case of kusala and unwise attention (ayoniso manasikara) in the case of akusala. So what conditions the arising of either wise attention or unwise attention in the determining citta? Latent accumulations. At least that is how I see it. Perhaps Rob K can help more (sorry for butting in). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robery K, > > Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations condition the > javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate between > determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of old > javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana (volition)? > > Larry 22050 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry, Every sense door process with a registration citta is followed by some bhavanga cittas then multiple mind door processes. The registration citta marks the object to ensure continuity. I would not consider this to be "memory" according to the conventional definition. For example, I just sat down in this chair. Before this happened, there was a brief instant of noting where the chair was. The "memory" of where the chair is really only stayed in my mind for a very brief time. I would not group this with the conventional definition for "memory". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob M, > > I think of sanna as recognition and "marking" for recognition, but it is > a little difficult to distinguish this from registration citta. Since > sanna accompanies all cittas, I'm assuming everything is remembered. > > Larry 22051 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 7:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, You could well be right that registration citta is just a momentary mediator. I thought it was more potent, in the sense of deliberately fixing something in your mind. Larry 22052 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Accumulations: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Larry (and Rob K), Below, you also asked about the origin of accumulations. I am going to requote one of my favourite Bhikkhu Bodhi passages from "Questions on Kamma" (sorry, Sarah, I know you don't like this one): "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Robert, if we define kamma as including "accumulations", as this passage might suggest is possible, then "accumulations" become one of the central tenents of the Buddha's teaching! What do you think? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > All cittas arise because of conditions. The falling away of the > previous citta is one of the factors that condition the arising of > the subsequent citta. > > The cetasika attention (manasikara) is called the "controller of the > object"; when it arises in the adverting citta, it controls the flow > of the citta process. When manasikara arises in the determining > citta (the adverting citta of a mind-door process), it controls the > flow of the javana cittas (kusala or akusala). The javana cittas > then arise naturally, conditioned by either wise attention (yoniso > manasikara) in the case of kusala and unwise attention (ayoniso > manasikara) in the case of akusala. > > So what conditions the arising of either wise attention or unwise > attention in the determining citta? Latent accumulations. > > At least that is how I see it. > > Perhaps Rob K can help more (sorry for butting in). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Robery K, > > > > Re. accumulations, Nina once mentioned that accumulations > condition the > > javana series. I understood this to mean accumulations mediate > between > > determining citta and javana. Are accumulations accumulations of > old > > javana? Is that what is meant by accumulations are cetana > (volition)? > > > > Larry 22053 From: Andrew Date: Fri May 9, 2003 8:54pm Subject: A Grimm recipe Dear Nina, Sarah, Ken and Yassa Thank you so much for your lucid comments on my query. I certainly see myself as the cook, unable to discern the ingredients in the soup as it is tasted in the present moment. But I always considered that an arahant would be able to do such a thing. I think my query was essentially whether Nagasena was denying it could be done by any level of being, including an arahant. It seems there is agreement that the Buddha was able to do this - as Nina says - very very difficult thing. Thank you again Nina for reminding me of the practical nature of Abhidhamma studies, to which I will return. Sarah, I just want to point out that the [anti-Abhidhamma] preface to Grimm's book was written by Grimm himself! I postulate that early European studies may not have been aware of the extent to which the Tipitaka interweaves. I don't wish to spark another round of emails on this topic as I think most people have made their positions clear and their input has been much appreciated by this humble reader. Metta to all Andrew 22054 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, > I would say this again: > Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not > self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right > discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are not > my self."* This is where I have a problem Victor, is that you group paramattha dhammas and conventional objects together and ascribe the trilakkhana to both these with the same conviction. I do not believe that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence that a paramattha dhamma has. But one can superimpose an *idea* of impermanence to both of them, which is what I think you are doing. But of course on the other hand, you have also talked about ‘seeing’ the different phenomena ‘as they truly are with right discernment’. Here I believe you are being sincere. So your own experience might be the actual perception of say ‘visible object’ and this might follow with the understanding that it is anatta, anicca and dukkha in the sense of these being what the Buddha advised us to take all experiences as. It seems to me, that you see understanding all phenomena as having the three characteristic as the goal and aim of the Buddha’s teachings, so you do not care to make any distinction between them. So I am repeating what I said in the last letter :-/. Anyway, since I do not believe that concepts of people and things *have* the characteristic of impermanence and dukkha other than by deduction (but anatta can be quite safely attributed, I think), it would be misleading to think that they do in the same way as ultimate realities. On the other hand if you acknowledge the two different meanings, then why not state that they are different!? I see us unenlightened folks as more inclined to take the path of increasing wrong understanding if not held in check by wise consideration. I think part of what I consider wise consideration would be to clearly distinguish between concept and reality, if not, then taking what is unreal to be real would influence even our present understanding of what realities are. I know that ultimately wisdom is in seeing the trilakkhana, and I believe that just the distinguishing between concept and reality (intellectually) will not give rise to such wisdom. But it is based on this knowledge of concept and reality which the wisdom that sees the trilakkhana can arise. Do you agree with this? If yes, I am relieved. ;-). If not, then I request you Victor, to please be more elaborate in you explanation. You may see what you see, but I don’t, so please lead me gently to your understandings. I know you have been patient, but maybe what you need is a bit more empathy. :-) > I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and > the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are > is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see > thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the > Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, but > also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. I think the danger of coming up with self-view is much and I appreciate your reminders. Though I am sure I often do not notice them even after the reminders. ;-) > Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor Thanks for yours. Best wishes, Sukin 22055 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri May 9, 2003 9:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard and Victor, > Sukin, I agree with what you wrote here! I would also like for you to > consider the matter of the usefulness of merely repeating the formulas 1) > "Rupa is rupa, and nama is nama," 2) "(The referents of) concepts are not > impermanent, due to not existing," and 3) "Concepts are not realities". Thinking nama/ rupa, “concepts are not realitiesâ€? etc. not as a moment of wise consideration or knowing that it is just thinking, would I believe if repeated regularly, be a case of development of more ignorance rather than understanding. > The mere reciting of formulas, and even contemplating them and coming > to intellectually understand the facts they represent is not enough. Your > criticism of Victor's repetition of varying applications of "They are not > mine. They I am not. They are not my self." in a variety of contexts has > merit, I think. Does it not also have merit when applied to other facts that > become empty mantras? The process involves the relationship between pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. I don’t know what conditions are involved in the process, but allow me to relate my own understandings, which for sure is based on little subjective experience and made objective by inference according to the very limited panna that has been accumulated. But perhaps it might show that it does not necessarily involve what most otherwise consider the relationship between theory and practice. When one reads or hears the ‘dhamma’, there is either understanding or not depending on whether it confirms with what has been understood before, from whenever. Depending on the level of this understanding and the chanda it arouses, there may be noticing of these at that very moment or later on in daily life. All this is up to conditions, and if one thinks about *applying* the teachings, meaning one makes a deliberate effort to pinpoint and notice, this I think would be motivated by ignorance and craving, and will not condition the correct results. What can happen though, is one is reminded at any time of the day about satipatthana and the knowledge with regard to what are the objects of sati at this level, then whatever is the aramana at that time, that can be known. For example, the object might be a ‘person’, you know immediately, that it is a concept, and because of the knowledge that the eye only sees visible object, the accumulated panna may subsequently condition a not being drawn by the nimita and the anuvyanjana, and for a millisecond, there may be some sati of the level of satipatthana. And surely with so much ignorance accumulated, this is going to be followed by the different akusala cittas. And again, depending on accumulations, even this can be known, which will then be followed by ignorance and gang again. But even if there is never any sati, even this can be know ï?Š. In anycase, one must not be drawn then to try to ‘focus’ on one’s experience. One must see the value of detachment, the danger of wanting results and the appreciation that the development of satipatthana *must* take time. So there is ‘no one’ trying to arouse sati, but as you can see above, sati can arise and this would not have been possible without prior knowledge of the teachings. And like Sarah says, these moments are very precious. And to me, they have altogether a different quality to those moments when I deliberately sit down to watch by breath etc. In this case there is some degree of detachment I think, while in the other to me, it is mostly moha and a desire to get results which are conditioned. And of course one may judge one’s result in this regard and fall into the trap of desire and ignorance again, but even this can be known.:-) So Howard, this is the kind of experience which causes me to conclude that it *must* be natural and daily life. Otherwise there is a self which is going to determine what the result will be. I had something else in mind, which I thought would interest you to know, but I can’t remember, my children have been interrupting me every five minutes or less.:-( > Doesn't the Buddha present us with *training* to > cultivate the mind so that is can come to directly see, with wisdom, these > truths, most especially the truths that Victor mentions? If not, then why do > we follow him? To my present level of understanding, the process I believe involves more or less what I described above, but maybe my understanding will change in the future, I don’t know. And yes, I do believe that the truths which Victor mentions is the goal of our practice whatever that be. As to what the Buddha said and whether or not we follow him, I think his words are the only ones that can lead us out of samsara. But what are his words if we do not understand them, just words. And what is understanding, if not in this moment? I think we ‘follow’ every time there is a moment of satipatthana, if we think that we have to do certain things first, then there is a danger of not bridging the gap between theory and practice. And I think, pariyatti is part of the practice in this regard. Look forward to your thoughts on this. Metta, Sukin. 22056 From: Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Hi all, There are various ways of discovering that what is grasped is anatta. One is to analyze a whole into its parts. So what if we can't do that. Even if we could distinguish every single element in the citta, cetasika, arammana triad we would still have to find the parts of a single citta. One way to remedy this is to look for a greater whole. Another way is through objectivity; an object can't be a subject. The reason most relied upon by the Buddha is impermanence and dukkha. Larry 22057 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 9, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 39-40 for comment Dear Rob M, I appreciate your series. Here is just a typo: wholesome when they arise in > unwholesome cittas, unwholesome should be chnaged to wholesome. You may have noticed it too. Nina. op 09-05-2003 11:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > This is the list of the 13 mental factors which are unwholesome when > they arise in unwholesome cittas, wholesome when they arise in > unwholesome cittas and neutral when they arise in a neutral citta. 22058 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat May 10, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: Computer as arising and falling away Jon, I think in studying Abhidhamma, one has to contemplate on what is stated to get the meaning, once the essense of it is understood, " seeing things as they are", becomes meaningful. "When we are not mindful of realities, we take the objects we experience for self. When panna realizes the objects which are experienced as nama and rupa, elements which do not last, there is less opportunity for akusala javana-cittas. (Chapter 14-Functions of Javana-Abhidhamma in Daily Life by Nina Van Gorkom) I like Nina's simple statement of facts. There are no intellectual assertions or excessive verbal chatter. It helps the reader to understand the dhamma through contemplation. We are in the non- conceptual thought processes. There is the seer and the seen, the observer and the observed. Neither one nor the other is lasting. At the moment of seeing there is only the seeing, there is the mindful- awareness of seeing. Therefore, the kilesas do not arise. If the mindfulness has slackened, the bhavanga citta awakened by the impingement of the external object on the sense door begins to run its course and on the fifth thought moment –chakkudvaravajjana citta sees the object. Due to the slackening of the mindfulness, citta moments do not stop at seeing, but continues its course and when it reaches the eighth moment of determination of the object, likes or dislikes to the object arise and thus the clining and aversion and akusal citta is produced. In "seeing things as they are",as in all other sense door activities, the purpose is to see the nature of paramatta dhamma and be aware of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and no-self. But in getting involved or reacting to what is seen,( heard, smelled,felt etc) the whole purpose of "seeing as they are" is lost. In seeing mindfully, you do not investigate the external object, its color, its size, its make. You just see it that's it. Malukya Putta was an Old Bikkhu, he went to the Buddha and asked him to give instructions for him to meditate, and the Buddha made the discourse, which is called the Malukyaputta Sutta, (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/mahasi-malukya/mahasi-malukya-01.htm) "Malukyaputta, if when you see, you see it; if when you hear, you just hear it; if when you think, you just think it; when you know, you just know it, then you will realize that the sense objects you perceive have nothing to do with you." When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and the (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment of seeing. With metta, Yasa 22059 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a delineation of what I am or what you are.) An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome > action > > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one > chooses > > has a consequence. > > You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read > this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I > have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22060 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Rob M, Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a delineation of what I am or what you are.) An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > A comment I would make is that the existence or non-existence of > > self and freewill is irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. I would > > say that each one of us can choose between skillful/wholesome > action > > and unskillful/unwholesome action, and each action that one > chooses > > has a consequence. > > You wrote, "... each one of us can choose between... ". When I read > this, I see both "self-view" and "freewill" represented. Perhaps I > have misunderstood. Please help me to understand your perspective. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22061 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Nina, Hi Nina, If I understand your points, you are saying: - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible object, not a mental image - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image I have read these points before and the first point makes sense to allow "synchronization" between the sense-door citta process and the rupa that is its object. Nevertheless, I still have a problem in understanding this. Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of the retina. At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and vicara are not required in this citta. Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still impinging on the eye-base, but this citta arises at some other place than the eye-base (the heart base). If I understand correctly, this citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. This is where I am confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- base rather than heart base). Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Thanks for catching the typo on my slide --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > Thank you very much. > I just have one point that puzzles me somewhat:as I understand it, the other > cittas in the eye-door process also experience visible object, not a mental > image. I remember I had a conversation about this or something similar with > Howard. It is just the term mental image. > Also in the subsequent mind-door process the object is visible object, not a > mental image. There was some discussion about this before in view of > vipassana nana: it is visible object that is realized by insight knowledge > through the mind-door, in a mind-door process. It knows through the > mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa, not a mental image of rupa. > It helps to differentiate the functions of physical base, vatthu and > doorway, dvara. I see it more this way: cittas know on object through a > doorway, I would not stress: they access it through a base, since this is > only the place of origin of the citta, although it is the same rupa in the > case of seeing, namely the eyesense. I would not use the word mindbase for > the physical base of cittas, since this is also the word used for > manaayaatana. If you like to avoid the word heart base, you could say, the > rupa which is the base for those cittas. > After seeing has seen visible object it is succeeded by other cittas which > also experience visible object since this has not fallen away, it lasts as > long as seventeen moments of citta, comparing the duration of rupa with the > duration of citta. Thus, it is still experienced, it is not a mental image. > Perhaps Dhamma Issues no. 1 on ayatanas could be of interest here, quoting > only a part : > > eye-sense (cakkhu pasåda rúpa) etc. is åyatana at each moment of citta in > the eye-door process, not only at the moment seeing (cakkhuviññåna) arises. > > The reason for this conclusion is given by the ³Dispeller of Delusion², > Classification of the Bases (åyatanas), and the Visuddhimagga (XV, 10). We > read in the ³Visuddhimagga²: ³For only the åyatana of the eye-base is the > door of arising, and only the åyatana of visible object is the object of the > consciousness group (viññåna kåya) comprised in a cognitive series > containing eye-consciousness.² > This shows that the rúpa of eyesense (cakkhuppasåda rúpa) is the eye-door > and the åyatana of the eye (cakkhåyatana) at each moment of citta in the > eye-door process and that evenso visible object is the åyatana of visible > object (rúpåyatana) at each moment of citta in the eye-door process. The > reason is that both the eye-sense and the visible object are realities which > have not fallen away yet and that they are ³associating² at each moment of > citta of the eye-door process.> > > Nina. > > op 29-04-2003 06:25 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > The seeing consciousness citta is the only citta in the > > sense door citta process that "directly" touches the rupa (visible > > object); the subsequent cittas in the same sense door citta process > > only access a mental image (through the mind-base). > > - In the case of the remaining 16 cittas, the object must be > > accessed through the mind-base. For these cittas, the object is a > > mental image. This is a "less direct" connection than occurs with > > the seeing consciousness, so there is a need for the cetasiaka > > vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is a > > need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". 22062 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/10/03 12:49:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > I do not believe > that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence > that a paramattha dhamma has. ============================ Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional objects to have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I would agree), and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects appear to arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual experiences that are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make sense (and I would agree). But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional objects, due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does so, because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the tilakkhana as they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. The first unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns worldlings into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma and follow it, their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed application of the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that conventional objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" as things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, namely things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. That plant is impermanent - it will not last. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22063 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/10/03 5:54:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Rob M, > > Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. > > I would say that you have misunderstood what you read. This > misunderstanding is a misunderstanding of what self-view is. > > A self-view (or personality view) is delineation of what self is (a > delineation of what I am or what you are.) > An example of self-view is "self is form"/"I am form"/"one is form". > > Again, thank you for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > =========================== I agree that a self view or personality view is exactly such a delineation. The problem with all of these is that they presume that there is a self, and then attempt to specify which observed things *are* that self. The thing is, that wherever we look, nothing is ever come across that can rightfully be thought of as self. But to see this *in such terms*, we have to know what we mean by the TERM 'self'. To observe that there is no elephant in my kitchen, I need to know what I mean by 'elephant'. To use a term, think about it, and to define it, does not imply the presumption that there is anything that it is a name for. We can define 'unicorn' without there being any unicorns. My point here, specifically, is that to understand the meaning of "sabbe dhamma anatta," we must understand the meaning of the term 'anatta'. We cannot understand a statement communicated to us unless we know the intended meanings of the terms involved. Definitions of no-self and of self are different from "delineations" of self. The definitions are a means to understand the TERM 'self. To *define* the term is not the taking of a self view. It is merely a means to enable people to converse using terms in the same way. If when person A says "rhinoceros," person B understands 'unicorn', no meaningful communication can be carried out. By a 'self' in anything, I mean a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing. In any namarupic flux, such a core or essence would be what some people call "the soul", some call "personal identity", and some call "the I or ego". Using my definition of 'self' one can then look at all the aspects of one's namrupic flow to see if if there is to be found anywhere a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence, and formulate the conclusion in terms of whether or not anything has been found that is a self. Now, of course, even without a definition of the term 'self', one can still look and never find such a core or essence, and full enlightenment can arise. We do not need the definition for enlightenment! We only need it for communication. My point in the foregoing is simply that defining the term 'self' is different from a delineation of self, and, certainly different from the presumption of the existence of self. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22064 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Sat May 10, 2003 7:53am Subject: trip to Burma Dear Dhamma friends, The Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, where Tan Achaan Sujin teaches, is organizing a trip to Burma in January, to include Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan, among others. The exact dates are yet to be announced. We hope that by that time the SARS threat will have abated somewhat to allow any of you who might wish to join us to do so. I have a preliminary itinerary and an estimated cost of Bt 28,000 (US$650), from Bangkok and return. If you would be interested in joining us, please e-mail me at the address below and I will send you a translation of the itinerary. metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22065 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you for your reply. I would say that the goal of Buddha's teaching is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. Seeing every conditioned phenomenon being impermanent, dukkha, not self as it actually is, one grows disenchanted with it. Disenchanted, one becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, one is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' One discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' I would say that that making a distinction between the so- called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" based on the idea that the so-called "paramathha dhammas" have the three characteristics whereas the so-called "conventional objects" don't is erroneous. It is erroneous because the idea that the so- called "conventional objects" don't have the three characteristics is false. I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. I would not say "wisdom sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon." Rather, I would say that "one sees the three characterics of conditioned phenomenon with wisdom." Why? Because wisdom is not self. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > I would say this again: > > Both the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and the so- > > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, and not > > self. They are to be seen as they actually are with right > > discernment thus: "They are not mine. They I am not. They are > not > > my self."* > > This is where I have a problem Victor, is that you group paramattha > dhammas and conventional objects together and ascribe the > trilakkhana to both these with the same conviction. I do not believe > that conventional objects have the characteristic of impermanence > that a paramattha dhamma has. But one can superimpose an *idea* of > impermanence to both of them, which is what I think you are doing. > But of course on the other hand, you have also talked about ‘seeing’ > the different phenomena ‘as they truly are with right discernment’. > Here I believe you are being sincere. So your own experience might > be the actual perception of say ‘visible object’ and this might > follow with the understanding that it is anatta, anicca and dukkha > in the sense of these being what the Buddha advised us to take all > experiences as. > It seems to me, that you see understanding all phenomena as having > the three characteristic as the goal and aim of the Buddha’s > teachings, so you do not care to make any distinction between them. > So I am repeating what I said in the last letter :-/. Anyway, since > I do not believe that concepts of people and things *have* the > characteristic of impermanence and dukkha other than by deduction > (but anatta can be quite safely attributed, I think), it would be > misleading to think that they do in the same way as ultimate > realities. On the other hand if you acknowledge the two different > meanings, then why not state that they are different!? > I see us unenlightened folks as more inclined to take the path of > increasing wrong understanding if not held in check by wise > consideration. I think part of what I consider wise consideration > would be to clearly distinguish between concept and reality, if not, > then taking what is unreal to be real would influence even our > present understanding of what realities are. > > I know that ultimately wisdom is in seeing the trilakkhana, and I > believe that just the distinguishing between concept and reality > (intellectually) will not give rise to such wisdom. But it is based > on this knowledge of concept and reality which the wisdom that sees > the trilakkhana can arise. Do you agree with this? If yes, I am > relieved. ;-). If not, then I request you Victor, to please be more > elaborate in you explanation. You may see what you see, but I don’t, > so please lead me gently to your understandings. I know you have > been patient, but maybe what you need is a bit more empathy. :-) > > > I would not say that seeing the so-called "paramathha dhammas" and > > the so-called "conventional objects" as they actually are > > is "intellectual overlay". I would say that if one does not see > > thus, one could just come up with self-views and hold them as the > > Buddha's teaching: that is not only delusion in one's own part, > but > > also a misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching to others. > > I think the danger of coming up with self-view is much and I > appreciate your reminders. Though I am sure I often do not notice > them even after the reminders. ;-) > > > Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is much appreciated. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > Thanks for yours. > > Best wishes, > Sukin 22066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you again for your reply. Since you mentioned about effort, I would like to point to the passages on right effort with the link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html Your comment on the passages on right effort is appreciated. Regards, Victor > Hi Howard and Victor, [snip] > and if one thinks about *applying* the teachings, > meaning one makes a deliberate effort to pinpoint and notice, this I > think would be motivated by ignorance and craving, and will not > condition the correct results. [snip] > > Look forward to your thoughts on this. > > Metta, > Sukin. 22067 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Rob) - > [snip] > By a 'self' in anything, I mean a substantial, independent, unchanging > core or essence in that thing. In any namarupic flux, such a core or essence > would be what some people call "the soul", some call "personal identity", and > some call "the I or ego". Using my definition of 'self' one can then look at > all the aspects of one's namrupic flow to see if if there is to be found > anywhere a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence, and > formulate the conclusion in terms of whether or not anything has been found > that is a self. Now, of course, even without a definition of the term 'self', > one can still look and never find such a core or essence, and full > enlightenment can arise. We do not need the definition for enlightenment! We > only need it for communication. My point in the foregoing is simply that > defining the term 'self' is different from a delineation of self, and, > certainly different from the presumption of the existence of self. > > With metta, > Howard > 22068 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Victor and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor KKT: How could the idea << "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> be anything other than an assumption? Such thing does not exist. It exists only as an definition for the convenience of philosophical discussions. Regards, KKT 22069 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 10, 2003 8:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi KKT (and Howard), Thank you for your input. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing in the first place. Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor and Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. > > I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: How could the idea > << "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> > be anything other than an assumption? > > Such thing does not exist. > It exists only as an definition > for the convenience of > philosophical discussions. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 22070 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat May 10, 2003 9:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT (and Howard), Thank you for your input. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing in the first place. Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor KKT: Exactly, Victor. The Buddha's teaching is not based on the assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" Such assumption is of brahmanes and wandering ascetics of His time and in His teachings the Buddha refutes such erroneous views. Regards, KKT 22071 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/10/03 11:25:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it. > > I would say that the idea "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== It's not an assumption, Victor - it is a definition; it is a statement of what I mean by a certain term. If I were to say that a strange vegetative growth I'm seeing for the first time is a kind of tree, that would be an assumption, but if I were to say that by a "wiffo" I mean an extremely light yo-yo, that would not be an assumption, but rather a definition of a term. Do you get the difference I'm trying to put forward? It is not an assumption, for example, to say that a bus is a ground vehicle used for transporting several people from place to place - it is a definition of the term 'bus'. But once it is agreed upon what 'bus' means, then it is an assumption to say that busses are the most comfortable vehicles. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22072 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, KKT - In a message dated 5/10/03 11:49:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: How could the idea > <<"self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" >> > be anything other than an assumption? > > Such thing does not exist. > It exists only as an definition > for the convenience of > philosophical discussions. > > > Regards, > > > KKT > > ================================= Defining a term does NOT imply that it has an actual reference. A standard definition, for example, is "A unicorn is an animal that is in every respect a horse except for having a single hornin the center of its forehead". To state such a definition is not to make an assumption of any sort. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22073 From: Date: Sat May 10, 2003 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, KKT (and Victor) - In a message dated 5/10/03 12:48:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > > Hi KKT (and Howard), > > Thank you for your input. > > I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not based on the > assumption "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing". I would also say that self is not to be > assumed as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in > that thing in the first place. > > Again, thank you for your input. Your further feedback is > appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: Exactly, Victor. > > The Buddha's teaching is not > based on the assumption > "self is a substantial, independent, > unchanging core or essence in that thing" > > Such assumption is of brahmanes > and wandering ascetics of His time > and in His teachings the Buddha > refutes such erroneous views. > > > Regards, > > > KKT > > ================================ Absolutely wrong. The notion of self at the time of the Buddha was as I stated. The Brahmans and others assumed the existence of such, but the Buddha did not. It is the question of existence that was the matter of assumption. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22074 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:34am Subject: question! Dear menbers here. I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? It would be grateful if you could give me your reply. from kk 22075 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:51am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Howard, This morning I wanted to see what deep dhamma subject is under discussion and saw,that the more than ten posts are on "the free will or not". Trying to define "self". "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing." or again on definitions " Unicorn is an animal with a sigle horn in the centre of the fore head" "bus is a vehicle carrying passengers" Some such discussion. I just thought to myself, that however, one defines "self", all those definitions are concepts, and "self" is also a concept, and the unicorn and the bus as well. with metta, Yasa 22076 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: question! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear menbers here. > > I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . > > Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones > are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? > > As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post > lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. > > And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? > > It would be grateful if you could give me your reply. > > > from kk Please pardon my intrusion,to answer, when I am myself learning the elements of Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is the most profound of the teachings of the Buddha. Understanding it from the begining: what is a citta ? What are its contents ? How many difeerent types of citta are ther ? Why do we have citta ? What is its importance ? Can we stop them and how ?, would allow us to understand, why other people are different that they also have citta, and then to know the Buddhas, Paccheka Buddhas and the four Ariya Puggala, have citta, and also to understand concepts and whether there are things beyond concepts. Is Nibbana a concept or a non concept ? The question you ask , will be answered as you go deeper into Abhidhamma. I recommend you read " Abhidhamma in Daily life" by Nina Van Gorkom- see the website: http://www.vipassana.info with metta, Yasa 22077 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, You said: > Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional objects to > have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I would agree), Yes. > and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects appear to > arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual experiences that > are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make sense (and I > would agree). Yes, but that would not be the whole story. During samadhi meditation for example, the object will appear to last for a long time, when in actual fact the cittas rise an fall as usual. Ultimately when the conditions maintaining this object are no more, then yes it would be true that in this sense, the apparently-existing objects would have appeared to fall because of the falling of conditions. So the relationship is not direct as in saying that the citta falls, then the concept would have to appear to fall as well. But I am sure you realize this already ;-). > But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can > be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. > The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his > teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional objects, > due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does so, > because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the > Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the tilakkhana as > they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds > his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, > unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of > everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. The first > unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns worldlings > into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma and follow it, > their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed application of > the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional > objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - > that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is > then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the > tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold > onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found > within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, > and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. I don't think this is necessarily the case, not because conditions might change and a person might even be attracted to other religions and philosophies, but because I don't think there is a direct relationship between the two, except in thinking that it is so. Removing the tag of Buddhism, let us consider what conventional impermanence means, compared to the ultimate meaning. In the first case, there is a 'self' relying on memory to compare the past images with present ones and projecting a future image. This may give an idea that things out there, or one's own physical body does not last, so one sees that it is not worth clinging to. But this would still be relying on images and ideas. But what about knowing one's own citta, whether or not that is kusala? Whether this moment there is 'clinging' and that *this* is the cause of dukhha, and not the 'idea' of permanence!? That it is this that is impermanent and not-self? I think there will always remain this gap between conventional and ultimate understanding if there is no acknowledgement of momentary nature of experience. The conventional understanding is of a different nature to latter. Even other religions have to some degree this conventional knowledge, but as you know, in their case it conditions more miccha ditthi. Sammaditthi would require this acknowledgment of paramattha dhammas, I think. When the Buddha used conventional examples, I am sure he was aware that his audience knew about the ultimate meaning as well. I can look back at my own case and see that I was drawn to Buddhism through conventional understandings. But I arrived here today only becasue I heard about ultimate meaning and was attracted to it, my former understandings did not somehow materialize into paramattha understanding, and I would have gotten more deep into conventional interpretation, even with meditation practice, because it would have been without the knowledge of what anicca, dukkha and anatta as applied to ultimate realities really means. In your own case Howard, can you say that your understanding of the tilakkhana 'grew' out of conventional understanding, or was it because you were introduced to Abhidhamma?! I don't think there can be a "seeing through" of conventional constructs, what can take place is simply understanding them to be 'conventional' and this would only have been because we were 'informed' about the difference between this and ultimate realities... I think the way the Dhamma influences our understanding, is that it tells us what is actually out there and in here, so that we might not be drawn by our own projections and instead come to know what to expect. On our own with minimal knowledge and panna, I think we will keep on creating ideas about reality. Ignorance and craving are so influential that it will not allow us to 'see through' anything. ;-) > Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that conventional > objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" as > things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, namely > things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) So lets just say that they do not exist! So why say that they arise? Or that we can learn the nature of rise and fall from them?! > The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there > during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that > whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. > That plant is impermanent - it will not last. This relation as I said above is based on thinking about past, present and future. If our memory was all of a sudden lost, we wouldn't be able to tell if indeed your sprout was growing or shrinking! But in either case, what could be said for certain is that the perception of it arose and fell.... :-) I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post. Await your response. Metta, Sukin. 22078 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:13am Subject: Thankyou. Dear Yasalalaka, Thankyou for the lovely sites that you've given me. The sites has given me alot of information. I think the most interesting part was about 'Prince Siddharta'. There was a news article in Hong Kong about a baby. When this baby was born, the baby could speak. This baby was born on the Buddha's birthday, which we celebrated on Thursday in Hong Kong. The baby said that if you want to cure SARS, then you'll have to eat three spoons of green peas boiled with water, but no sugar added. After the baby had said it, the baby just died. But maybe it could be a rumor. I don't really know lot's of things about it. I heard the Buddha could speak when he was born. What do you think about it? Metta, Sandy P.S. Please tell me if I made any mistakes, because I'm only eleven. ______________________________________________________ 22079 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:15am Subject: SANdy!! Dear Sandy: How are you? It's so nice to hear from you. How are you doing at school? I was so suprised that you had learnt many things about Buddha! Well, I learnt something by reading the books about Buddha and reading the letters. Actually, I didn't learn as much as you did but I know a lot about human nature!! Some people are really nice, but some are really terrible! Finally, what do you think about Buddha? Take care Kiana 22080 From: Star Kid Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:18am Subject: Kiana Dear Kiana, I am Kimmy, I 'm mainly writing to answer the 'questions' in your letter. First, I am quite interested in Buddhism, just only part of it, I am interested in the stories. Second, I do not wholely believe in Buddhism, since I am studying in a Christian college, I believe more in Christianity. How about you? Do you believe in Buddhism or are you interested in it? Lastly, I have a question to ask you. Do you know the exact meaning of ADIDAS?? The answer is 'All Days I Dream About Sports'. Kimmy 22081 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional right view vs. Noble right view Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > > PS A follow-up question for you, Smallchap. In this thread > > we have > > been talking about the sense in which it can be said that a > > computer > > is conditioned. Would you say that the knowledge that a > > computer is > > built from parts and did not spontaneously come into existence > > as an > > assembled whole, or knowledge of the need for parts, skill and > > effort > > as a condition for the coming into existence of a computer, is > > conventional right view? (Not a trick question, I promise > > ;-)) > > S: Since it has not been included in MN 117 as right view, we > need not speculate on whether it is conventional right view, > else we risk falling into false views as described by the Buddha > in MN 72. This is perhaps a similar answer to the one I had in mind, namely that such a thought could arise either with or without right view, and only the person in whom the thought arose could know which was the case in a given instance, and even then, only if there was a level of awareness in relation to that mindstate. > Here is a small section copied from Vism. Ch XX 73. It descibes > how one should discern with reagrds to inanimate things. I am > sure you will find it interesting (and please don't throw away > your copy of Visudhimagga ;-)). Thanks for the interesting passage from Visuddhi-Magga that follows. I think you're drawing my attention to the fact that, on the face of it, the passage seems to be advocating the choosing of a conventional object as an object of 'practice', and then 'applying' awareness to it (I see what you mean about throwing my copy of Visuddhi-Magga away!). This passage is by no means unique in its style of presentation. In fact, a large part of the Visuddhi-Magga, including the rest of Ch XX, reads superficially in the manner of a 'do this next' manual. In my view, however, it is clear from many detailed references in the Visuddhi-Magga itself that no such literal interpretation is intended. Ch XX of Visuddhi-Magga deals with 'knowledge and vision of what is and what is not the path'. To be capable of this level of understanding, a person must have already developed the understanding that knows nama as nama and rupa as rupa (nama-rupa-pariccheda nana, the first of the 16 stages of 'vipassana-nana' (insight) leading to the first stage of enlightenment), and that discerns the conditions of nama and rupa (paccaya-pariggha nana, the second of the 16 stages). For such a person awareness arises frequently and has become habitual; there would be the firm realisation based on direct experience that awareness arises from its own conditions and not because of any intention for there to be awareness of a particular kind in relation to a particular object. Jon > "Having attributed the three characterics to that arising from > nutriment, etc., he again attributes the three characteristics > to natural materiality. Natural materiality is a name for > external materiality that is bound up with faculties and arises > along with the aeon of world expansion, for example, iron, > copper, tin, lead, gold, silver, pearl, gem, beryl, conch, > shell, marble, coral, ruby, opal, soil, stone, rock, grass, > tree, creeper, and so on (see Vbh.83). That becomes evident to > him by means of an asoka-tree shoot. For that to begin with is > pale pink; then in two or three days it becomes dense red; again > in two or three days it becomes dull red, next [brown,] the > colour of a tender [mango] shoot; next, the colour of arowing > shoot; next, the colour of pale leaves; next, the colour of dard > green leaves. After it has become the colour of dark green > leaves, as it follows out the successive stages of such material > continuity, it eventually becomes withered foliage, and at the > end of the year it breaks loose from its stem and falls off. > > "Discerning that, he attributes the three characterics to it > thus: The materiality occuring when it is pale pink ceases there > without reaching the time when it is dense red; the materiality > occuring when it is dense red ceases there without reaching the > time when it is dull red; the materiality occuring when it is > dull red ceases there without reaching the time when it is the > colour of a tender [mango] shoot; the materiality occuring when > it is the colour of a tender [mango] shoot ceases there without > reaching the time when it is the colour of a growing shoot; the > materiality occuring when it is the colour of a growing shoot > ceases there without reaching the time when it is the colour of > pale green leaves; the materiality occuring when it is the > colour of pale green leaves ceases there without reaching the > time when it is the colour of dark green leaves; the materiality > occuring when it is the colour of dark green leaves ceases there > without reaching the time when it is withered foliage; the > materiality occuring when it is withered foliage ceases there > without reaching the time when it breaks loose from its stem and > falls off; therefore it is impernanent, painful, not self. > > "He comprehends all natural materiality in this way. 22082 From: Nantawat Sitdhiraksa Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Dear Andrew, Nina, Sarah, Ken, Yassa, Larry, and everyon. Sukin brought the question of the soup up in our afternoon discussion yesterday. Let me put the debate up first. ___________________________________ King Milinda and Ven. Nagasena were discussing about characteristics of cittas and cetasikas. The king , “ was it possible to separate the citta and its associated dhamma, cetasikas: phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, vitakka, vicara.” Ven. “No, great king, this cannot be done. Like, a cook was to prepare a soup containing curds, slat, ginger, cumin seeds, and pepper (sounds like he is making a curry, not a soup for me J ). Then the king asked the chef to separate all the flavors to present him one at a time. Can it be done?” The king, “ No, yet each flavor would be distinctively presented by its characteristic sign.” Ven. “ Then it’s the same, to separate the dhammas out is impossible to do, but each dhamma would be distinctively presented by its own characteristic sign.” _________________________________ A.Sujin pointed this out as the debate regarding association condition (sampayutta paccaya). When rupas blended together, it’s very difficult to separate them out. It’s even much harder to separate out the namadhamma (cetasika from citta, or one cetasika from other cetasikas). We still can appreciate each flavor of the soup, even all the ingredients are blended together. Citta and its accompanied cetasikas can have only one object at a time. So when there is a moment of satipatthana, one can be aware of one dhamma at a time. The chef cannot separate all the ingredients out, but the taste of each ingredient can be distinctively experienced. The Buddha can know all dhammas, one by one, by his sabbannyuttanana. We can know only what we can know. I agree with Nina that dhamma is not a list of ingredients. To me, this debate is about satipatthana practice. It’s a function of sati to be aware of an object. Milindapanha borrows a lot from the tipitaka. Yes, all 3 pitakas were mentioned in Milindapanha. We then discussed about level of panna; sutamayapanna, cintamayapanna, and bhavanamayapanna. Panna of an arahant is definitely different from a lay person (puthuijana). Even among the arahants, their degrees of panna are varied. Without seeing dhammas as the way they are, anattaness is still a conceptual story. The thread also reminded me of a current controversy in Thailand. Actually, this controversy is not brand new, even in the Kathavatthu(the Point of Controversy) mentioned the same kind of debate. It’s about the idea of self. Some monks point out that the word “self” is used so many times in the tipitaka, so there is self. For example there is a famous saying “attahi attano natho” (one should refuge in oneself), so they say there is self. How come we say there is no self? To me, if we read or listen to only some parts of the teaching, we might have an inclination to jump to a conclusion too quickly. Best wishes, A quiet dsg member. Num <<<>>> 22083 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined > as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the > English > word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind > concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India > long before Buddhism. This clarifies a lot already. I would happily agree with the statement that: "If someone says that bhavana is not necessary to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." I believe this is a preferable way of putting it, given that 'meditation' means all sorts of different things to different people, and is not a term found in the texts. In particular, I would consider incorrect the statement that: "If someone says that a formal meditation practice is not necessary to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level of panna is different. I am not aware of anything in the texts that says a formal sitting practice is a necessary prerequisite for either. ... > The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration > and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed > mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally > means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of > suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and > attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique > "discovery" > of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies > prompting ! It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. > Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop > wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to > see > the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is > sati, translated as mindfulness. At moments of samatha the unwholesome mental factors are temporarily suppressed. However, only the development of vipassana bhavana leads to the permanent eradication of these unwholesome mental factors. > Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta > ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken > from "accesstoinsight": I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that no such meaning is intended. In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a formal sitting 'practice'. Jon > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the > wilderness, > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down > folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness > to > the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes > > in; mindful he breathes out. > "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or > breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or > breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or > breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He > > trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to > breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to > breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming > bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, > when > making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when > making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the > same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is > breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is > breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming > bodily > fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrications….." > > > with metta, > Yasa 22084 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then ceases. J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will be able to ;-)). Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those conditions do not include there being at that very moment a consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence no individual essence. You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to time. Jon 22085 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 5/11/03 3:53:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > Howard, > > This morning I wanted to see what deep dhamma subject is under > discussion and saw,that the more than ten posts are on "the free > will or not". Trying to define "self". > > "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing." or again on definitions > > " Unicorn is an animal with a sigle horn in the centre of the fore > head" > > "bus is a vehicle carrying passengers" > > Some such discussion. I just thought to myself, that however, one > defines "self", all those definitions are concepts, and "self" is > also a concept, and the unicorn and the bus as well. > > with metta, > > Yasa > ========================== Well, of course thet are! It is only concepts that we define. I agree completely. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22086 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: > > Jon, ... > When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". > For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and > the > (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object > and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all > impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment > of seeing. Thanks for this neat summary on the question of seeing the arising and falling away of an object such as a computer. I think the key thing here is, what is the 'object' at (2) of your paragraph above in the case of the computer? Is it a 'computer', or is it something called 'visible object'? To my understanding, it is the latter only. Jon 22087 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon (and Howard): The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the visible object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative inexperience with the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the explanation of the distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing given by Karunadasa in The Dhamma Theory as follows: ----- Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality. What the foregoing observations amount to is that while a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized (parikappasiddha).123 The former is an existent verifiable by its own distinctive intrinsic characteristic,124 but the latter, being a product of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought. It is a mental construct superimposed on things and hence possesses no objective counterpart. It is the imposition of oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) that gives rise to pannattis.125 " See http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ------ Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that "although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being." A fuller explanation is given in the cited article. --- Lee Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived > in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the > *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is > what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The > unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It > is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then > ceases. > > J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will > be able to ;-)). > > Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example > of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take > as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for > computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). > > Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were > to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The > conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. > In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing > of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object > that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue > to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now > be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. > > The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the > fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own > conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those > conditions do not include there being at that very moment a > consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the > other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of > the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence > no individual essence. > > You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't > believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number > of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to > time. > > Jon 22088 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 11, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: question! Hi KK, Welcome to DSG! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > I am a buddhist,just a beginner of Abhidhammas in Theravarda traditon . ===== I teach a class on Abhidhamma for beginners. ===== > > Could you please let me know if arahats and other 3 types of the noble ones > are having direct experience of Nibbana during before/post lokuttara-jhanas? ===== "Lokuttara" is a name given to two groups of cittas (mind moments): - The "path" (magga) citta arises once and never again (it does not even arise again in subsequent rebirths). There is a different "path" citta for each of the four stages of enlightenment. Think of it as "being initiated"; once you have been initiated as an sotapanna, you will never have to be initiated again. The function of the "path" citta is to uproot certain defilements so that they can never arise again. This is why it only needs to happen once, after a defilement has been uprooted, it never has to be uprooted again because it doesn't come back. The specific defilements to be uprooted depend on the level of sainthood being attained. The object of the "path" citta is Nibbana. - The "fruit" (phala) citta arises immediately after the "path" citta subsides and can occur whenever the saint practices vipassana meditation. It can occur many times and for extended periods. The object of "fruit" citta is also Nibanna. In the traditional way of counting cittas, there are 89 cittas, 8 of which are lokuttara (4 path; one for each stage of sainthood, 4 fruit; one for each stage of sainthood). In the extended way of counting cittas, there are 121 cittas, 40 of which are lokuttara. In this case, each of the 4 path cittas and the 4 fruit cittas are subdivided according to the jhana state attained by the saint. Jhanas are the mental levels reached through samattha meditation (different from vipassana meditation). ===== > > As a matter of facts, I even do not know there is such states like before/post > lokuttara-jhanas in the 4 type of noble ones. > > And Do you know any sutta reffering to before/post-lokuttara-jhana states ? ===== If you are really keen, you can read the Mahacattarisaka Sutta (Mn117) and if you are really a glutton for punishment, you can attempt the Vishuddhi Magga, Chapter XXIII. A simple explanation can be found in Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, p66. I am curious why this question would arise at the beginning of your study. This is a pretty theoretical area with virtually no bearing on daily life. The order should be: study --> practice --> realization In other words, the purpose of the study should be to enhance the practice. I would be pleased to answer any other questions you might have on the Abhidhamma. However, you might find the study more enjoyable if you first focus on the practical aspects. Metta, Rob M :-) 22089 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - You are misreading me at several points. I will try to clarify. In a message dated 5/11/03 4:25:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You said: > > Were you to say that there ultimately *are* no conventional > objects to > >have any characteristics whatsoever, it would make sense (and I > would agree), > > Yes. > > >and if you were to add that these only-apparently-existing objects > appear to > >arise and cease due to the arising and ceasing of the actual > experiences that > >are the basis upon which our minds project them, it would make > sense (and I > >would agree). > > Yes, but that would not be the whole story. During samadhi meditation > for example, the object will appear to last for a long time, when in > actual fact the cittas rise an fall as usual. Ultimately when the > conditions > maintaining this object are no more, then yes it would be true that in > this sense, the apparently-existing objects would have appeared to fall > because of the falling of conditions. So the relationship is not direct as > in > saying that the citta falls, then the concept would have to appear to fall > as well. But I am sure you realize this already ;-). > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We're still "in sync". --------------------------------------------------------- > > >But in that sense, a derivative, conventional sense, they can > >be correctly talked about as existing and as being impermanent. > > The Buddha certainly includes such impermanence as part of his > >teaching, as he also includes the dukkha and anatta of conventional > objects, > >due in part measure to their (derivative) impermanence. And he does > so, > >because the first step that turns one in the direction of pursuing the > >Dhamma, in walking the path towards freedom, is recognizing the > tilakkhana as > >they apply to the "conventional world" in which the worldling finds > >his/herself. This is where we begin! Seeing the impermanence, > >unsatisfactoriness, insubstantiality, dependency, and impersonality of > >everyday conventional objects is *critical* to release. > The first > >unsophisticated glimmerings of this in worldlings is what turns > worldlings > >into seekers. When these seekers come upon the Buddha's Dhamma > and follow it, > >their understanding of the tilakkhana grows, and the detailed > application of > >the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the > conventional > >objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their > construction - > >that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it > is > >then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have > the > >tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold > >onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be > found > >within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a > stand, > >and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. > > I don't think this is necessarily the case, not because conditions might > change and a person might even be attracted to other religions and > philosophies, but because I don't think there is a direct relationship > between the two, except in thinking that it is so. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Sukin, please reread more carefully what I wrote. I said the following: >The detailed application of >the Buddha's teaching eventually enables them to see through the conventional >objects to the direct experiences that are the basis of their construction - >that is, the conventional objects are "seen through", and, moreover, it is >then seen that the directly experienced phenomena themselves have the >tilkakkhana as characteristics, that there is nothing whatsoever to hold >onto, that there is no ground at all under one's feet - no self to be found >within, and no self to be found without, there is nowhere to take a stand, >and seeing this, at last, there is a complete and final letting go. The first three words of what I wrote are "The detailed application". Only by *carrying out* the Buddha's instructions in a precise and detailed way, cultivating liberating wisdom which *sees* (not thinks about) things as they actually are, does one "see through" conventional objects. I am among the first to say that we can read about and think over the Dhamma for twenty billion kappas, and if that is all we do, we will still be worldlings! ------------------------------------------------------------- > Removing the tag of Buddhism, let us consider what conventional > impermanence means, compared to the ultimate meaning. In the first > case, there is a 'self' relying on memory to compare the past images > with present ones and projecting a future image. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is memory that is active, and there are comparisons made, and concepts formed. Moreover, there is conviction that what have been constructed are separate realities, because the mental construction is not seen, and the "construction material" is largely missed. The sense of personal self, however, is not the primary factor here. Rather, it is a central one of the constructs that is made, rebuilt again and again. But it is still absolutely true, as I see it, that seeing the impermanence and insubstantiality of the only-apparently-existing conventional objects is the necessary first step. We begin from within the midst of illusion! Without the realization that "something is wrong here", that there is a fundamental unsatisfactoriness with our "world", that getting what we want is often thwarted, that getting what we don't want is common, and that loss of what is loved is unavoidable, and the frequent extremity of all this, is what turns people towards religion. If seeing conventional impermanence etc in conventional objects were missed, if there were no glimmering of things being "off kilter" (dukkha), then we would be doomed. Such a glimmering is a necessary first step. The Buddha didn't become a seeker, so the story goes, until he realized the three signs. ----------------------------------------------------------- This may give an idea > > that things out there, or one's own physical body does not last, so one > sees that it is not worth clinging to. But this would still be relying on > images and ideas. But what about knowing one's own citta, whether or > not that is kusala? Whether this moment there is 'clinging' and that > *this* is the cause of dukhha, and not the 'idea' of permanence!? That it > is this that is impermanent and not-self? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sukin, I'm not questioning at what level liberating insight occurs. I'm going back to way before that, to the barest beginnings of the process. It is lovely to think about all the concepts of Abhidhamma, about "ultimate realities" and detailed citta processes. At certain stages of practice, such information will be very supportive. At the earliest stages, not so at all. There can be the illusion of wisdom in place of the reality. It does one no good to read about 17 cittas going by for one rupa if that person doesn't *truly* and *fully* deep-down realize that all the people he/she so dearly loves will die. There must be the means of developing an initial sense of *urgency*! This will not come by list memorization and learning ancient languages. -------------------------------------------------- > I think there will always remain this gap between conventional and > ultimate understanding if there is no acknowledgement of momentary > nature of experience. The conventional understanding is of a different > nature to latter. Even other religions have to some degree this > conventional knowledge, but as you know, in their case it conditions > more miccha ditthi. Sammaditthi would require this acknowledgment of > paramattha dhammas, I think. > > When the Buddha used conventional examples, I am sure he was aware > that his audience knew about the ultimate meaning as well. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Really! Well, I'm not so sure. I'm sure that some did, but most did not. ----------------------------------------------------- > I can look back at my own case and see that I was drawn to Buddhism > through conventional understandings. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mm, hmm. -------------------------------------------------- But I arrived here today only > > becasue I heard about ultimate meaning and was attracted to it, my > former understandings did not somehow materialize into paramattha > understanding, and I would have gotten more deep into conventional > interpretation, even with meditation practice, because it would have > been without the knowledge of what anicca, dukkha and anatta as > applied to ultimate realities really means. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Without knowledge of Abhidhamma (at the time), I've had "fall out" from meditation that has enabled me to see somewhat beyond conventional objects, to see impermanence at "the ultimate level", to experience absence of personal self, and to experience the foam-like nature of the world. All this, of course, at a low level. I'm not claiming anything along the lines of "enlightenment" - just some bits of insight. I didn't need to start out having heard of paramattha dhammas etc. The practice, itself, leads to some insights, and that is the point I'm making. --------------------------------------------------- > In your own case Howard, can you say that your understanding of the > tilakkhana 'grew' out of conventional understanding, or was it because > you were introduced to Abhidhamma?! > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: My understanding of the tilakkhana began at the level of conventional understanding, without a question. It grew further as the result of reading the suttas. It went beyond mere "knowledge about" (to a limited extent) as the result of meditation, begun informally as a quite young child, and done more seriously as an adult. The bit of Abhidhamma study I've done in recent years, all from secondary sources, has only contributed at the conceptual level, not the level of direct knowing. --------------------------------------------------- > I don't think there can be a "seeing through" of conventional constructs, > what can take place is simply understanding them to be 'conventional' > and this would only have been because we were 'informed' about the > difference between this and ultimate realities... -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so either. It is not at *all* what I said. --------------------------------------------------- > I think the way the Dhamma influences our understanding, is that it tells > us what is actually out there and in here, so that we might not be drawn > by our own projections and instead come to know what to expect. On > our own with minimal knowledge and panna, I think we will keep on > creating ideas about reality. Ignorance and craving are so influential that > > it will not allow us to 'see through' anything. ;-) > > > Now, to return to the small issue at hand, to say that > conventional > >objects lack impermanence is already to treat "conventional objects" > as > >things, but, worse, as things that the Buddha wouldn't admit to, > namely > >things that arise but do not cease. (I speak conventionally now.) > > So lets just say that they do not exist! So why say that they arise? Or > that we can learn the nature of rise and fall from them?! > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: In a derivative sense, they arise and cease. What actually arise and cease are the phenomena from which we mentally construct the conventional objects. But to say that a tree is permanant, being a concept, is an absurdity. It is misleading, and far worse than the notion that a tree is an actual thing in the world that doesn't remain. ------------------------------------------------ > > >The sprouting plant I see in the corner of my garden was not there > >during the winter. It arose after the winter. The Buddha said that > >whatever is of the character to arise is also of the character to cease. > >That plant is impermanent - it will not last. > > This relation as I said above is based on thinking about past, present > and future. If our memory was all of a sudden lost, we wouldn't be able > to tell if indeed your sprout was growing or shrinking! But in either case, > > what could be said for certain is that the perception of it arose and > fell.... :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: With stop-motion photography, the changing could be seen. This conventional impermanence of conventional objects is conventional truth. Seeing this is a necessary first step. Without this, well, I'd say one is fooling oneself. I would be willing to bet that if the Buddha were to hear it said that trees are not impermanent, he would laugh! (Or, at least, give the slight smile allowable to arahants according to Abhidhamma.) The Buddha did NOT go around speaking in the sort of technical, paramatthic terms we so glibly express here - no one would have listened to him had he done so. Note: I'm not dismissing Abhidhamma here, not by a long shot. I think there is enormously valuable material to be found there, and I look forward to the time that I can get to directly peruse parts of the Abhidhamma Pitaka in English. What Iam dismissing is study of the dry word as substitute for Buddhist practice that leads to direct knowing, the only knowing worth of its name. ---------------------------------------------------- > > I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post. > Await your response. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22090 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 9:22am Subject: Re: Computer as arising and falling away --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > Jon, > ... > > When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". > > For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the(2) object and > > the > > (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object > > and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all > > impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment > > of seeing. > > Thanks for this neat summary on the question of seeing the arising > and falling away of an object such as a computer. > > I think the key thing here is, what is the 'object' at (2) of your > paragraph above in the case of the computer? Is it a 'computer', or > is it something called 'visible object'? To my understanding, it is > the latter only. > > Jon > > Yes Jon, it is just "seeing", nothing else. with metta, Yasa > 22091 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/11/03 8:35:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > H: Why in the world would one think that 'something conceived > in the mind' is unconditioned? If I conceive of a unicorn, the > *unicorn* certainly doesn't exist, but the thought of it, which is > what the concept is, *does* exist .. until it ceases. The > unicorn-idea was created in the mind by means of mental activity. It > is *not* unconditioned. It arises, due to conditions, and then > ceases. > > J: I will try to explain (without having any confidence that I will > be able to ;-)). > > Let's compare your example of conceiving of a unicorn with an example > of experiencing a dhamma, one of the fundamental phenomena. I take > as an example experiencing the visible object that we take for > computer (which conventionally we call 'seeing a computer'). > > Now, in the case of conceiving of a unicorn, if that conceiving were > to stop, there would no longer be any conception of unicorn. The > conceiving is purely a product of the consciousness of that moment. > In contrast, in the case of seeing the computer, if the experiencing > of that visible object were to stop, the dhammas of visible object > that are taken for computer would (other things being equal) continue > to arise in this plane, the only difference being that they would now > be doing so without being the object of consciousness at that moment. > > The explanation given for this is that visible object, as one of the > fundamental phenomena having 'individual essence', has its own > conditions for arising in this plane of existence, and those > conditions do not include there being at that very moment a > consciousness that experiences the visible object. A concept, on the > other hand, has no 'existence' outside its moment of being object of > the consciousness of that moment by which it is conceived, and hence > no individual essence. > > You may see this as 'reciting empty formulas' ;-)), but I don't > believe it is. It is basic Theravadin teaching, as found in a number > of standard textual sources that have been cited here from time to > time. > > Jon > ========================== Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts so long as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22092 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 1:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Bhavana, means the cultivation of the mind. It is further defined > > as development of mind or culture of mind. Meditation is the > > English > > word, generally in use. Bhavana was the means to get the mind > > concentrated to attain `dyana' in Hiduism. It existed in India > > long before Buddhism. > > This clarifies a lot already. I would happily agree with the > statement that: > "If someone says that bhavana is not necessary to attain nibbana, he > is getting far away from the Buddha's teachings." > > I believe this is a preferable way of putting it, given that > 'meditation' means all sorts of different things to different people, > and is not a term found in the texts. > > In particular, I would consider incorrect the statement that: > "If someone says that a formal meditation practice is not necessary > to attain nibbana, he is getting far away from the Buddha's > teachings." > > To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the > texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha > bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that > can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the > development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a > level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. > > Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level > of panna is different. > > I am not aware of anything in the texts that says a formal sitting > practice is a necessary prerequisite for either. > > ... > > The Buddha used samatha meditation for one pointed concentration > > and attain jhana(dyana) absorptions, to have a highly developed > > mental state, from there to turn the mind to Vipassana (literally > > means seeing in different ways), to have insight into causes of > > suffering, and through panna, to see anicca, dukkha and anatma and > > attain enlightenment. Vipassana Meditation is the unique > > "discovery" > > of the Buddha, he learnt it of his own, without any bodies > > prompting ! > > It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of > insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. > However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own > case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which > insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the > Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the > suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. > > > Bhavana is the removal of unwholesome mental factors and develop > > wholesome mental factors, to build calmness and concentration to > > see > > the true nature of all phenomena. In the sutta, the word used is > > sati, translated as mindfulness. > > At moments of samatha the unwholesome mental factors are temporarily > suppressed. However, only the development of vipassana bhavana leads > to the permanent eradication of these unwholesome mental factors. > > > Please see the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta > > ( discourse on the four foundations of Mindfulness), taken > > from "accesstoinsight": > > I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal > sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. > > In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that > no such meaning is intended. > > In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest > of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the > sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as > referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a > formal sitting 'practice'. > > Jon _____________________Yasa comments___________________________________ Jon, This is what you say: To my understanding, there are 2 kinds of bhavana mentioned in the texts, namely, samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. Samatha bhavana is the development of tranquility (accompanied by panna) that can lead to the absorptions (jhana). Vipassana bhavana is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas (again, a level of panna) that leads to the attainment of enlightenment. This what Yasa says: What you have understood is not incorrect, except for Samatha leading to Panna. If you would read the Suttas and what I explained about Samatha, you will see that , it is an ancient Meditation system ( call it what ever-contemplation- sitting and concentrating the mind, being here and now seeing the "moment", if the word meditation is what you cannot accept) practiced more than 3000 years ago in ancient India,by the Irshis, Hindu ascetics. ______________________________________________________________________ _____ This is what you say: Both kinds of bhavana involve the development of panna, but the level of panna is different. This is what Yasa says: Samatha is different from Vipassana. Samatha is a Bhavana to calm the mind by concentrating into one point (ekaggata). In that state, mind is unable to see any thing else. The mind becomes extremely calm and bright. It is empty of citta . But that is NOT PANNA. Buddha, used that highly concentrated mind to see through the veil of ignorance, through PNNA, to understand the cause of dukkha, and had recollection of his past births, then insight of the death of beings and their rebirth according to the accumulations of their past lives, and finally , had clear comprehension of Dukkha, its cause, way out of it and its cessation. ______________________________________________________________________ _____ This is what you say: It is true that in the Buddha's own case the final development of insight that issued in enlightenment was preceded by the jhanas. However, the issue for us is not what happened in the Buddha's own case, but what he taught afterwards as being the path by which insight is to be developed. For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries. Yasa says: It is not true that the Buddha's enlightenment was the issue of his Jhanas. After attaining Jhana, and purifying his mind he began analysis of his mental make up to see the paramatta dhamma and understand the causes that lead to the suffering of the beings: This is called VIPASSANA ( means seeing in different ways) (NOT JHANA). Issue for us is what really happened in the Buddha's enlightenment. We cannot understand it, unless we can ourselves get enlightened. Our enlightenment would not be the same as that of a Buddha. There is only one Buddha in a whole world period. Therefore our experiences cannot be equated to his. Our experience will be different, but according to the path shown by the Buddha. But we will attain the same Nibbana he attained. ______________________________________________________________________ You say "For this we need to look beyond the Buddha's own life-story, and study his words as recorded in the suttas and elaborated in the commentaries." Yasa says: We cannot look for any thing beyond the Buddha's life story, but the Buddha showed us the path and said in Satipatthana Sutta, in no uncertain terms, what we have to do to attain Nibbana in this very life. What we have to do is to follow it, not to get lost in concepts. The Concepts arise through thinking, and reality through Bhavana. ______________________________________________________________________ You say: I am aware that many people read this passage as advocating a formal sitting 'practice' of some kind for the development of mindfulness. Yasa says: And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore Jon, what is the image you have, when you read the above four lines I have copied from Maha Satipatthana Sutta. Is it a person seated and trying to do an exercise of concentration or ……what ? ______________________________________________________________________ You say: In my view, if one considers the wording carefully, it's clear that no such meaning is intended. Yasa says: The Buddha's words, which were not clear to ordinary people were, explained by Arahats, in commentaries. Visuddhimagga, you often refer to, is a collection of these commentaries translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa, into Pali. Visuddhimagga, contains instructions to meditate and what happens in meditation. We are too much involved in concepts, conceit, and ignorance. We are, therefore, unable to see the reality, because we are not trying to follow the path, without putting "self" in front of us. Therefore, what we see is not the Dhamma, but "ourselves", our attachments to our ideas, and what we think is the right understanding, it is clinging to self through (avijja) ______________________________________________________________________ This is what you say: In any event, even such an interpretation would still leave the rest of the section on Mindfulness of the Body, and the whole of the sections on Mindfulness of Feelings, Perception and Mind, as referring to the development of mindfulness other than by means of a formal sitting 'practice'. Yasa says: Despite the Suttas, and the Visuddhimagga, you refer to, has the Buddha said in Abhidhamma how to practice to see anicca, dukkha,anatma, and understand the four noble truths, clear avijja and attain Nibbana ? Yasa makes this REQUEST: Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. With metta, Yasa 22093 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, Jon and All, I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is very interesting (and I look forward very much to Jon's reply :-)). Would it be fair to say that your question implies that there IS a 'self' who has 'control' and can make specified mental states arise by performing particular actions in a particular posture? If there is no-self - 'who' is it that does these things? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Yasa says: > > Despite the Suttas, and the Visuddhimagga, you refer to, has the > Buddha said in Abhidhamma how to practice to see anicca, > dukkha,anatma, and understand the four noble truths, clear avijja and > attain Nibbana ? > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > With metta, > Yasa 22094 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun May 11, 2003 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I would say that the very definition that "self is a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing" is an assumption, a delineation what self is. I would also say that this assumption is to be abandoned in the first place: the Buddha's teaching is not based on that assumption. As for the definition of the term "self", I would refer to a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com/home.htm I don't see myself as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or essence in that thing. Nor do I see myself as some insubstantial, dependent, changing thing. Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor [snip] > It's not an assumption, Victor - it is a definition; it is a statement > of what I mean by a certain term. If I were to say that a strange vegetative > growth I'm seeing for the first time is a kind of tree, that would be an > assumption, but if I were to say that by a "wiffo" I mean an extremely light > yo-yo, that would not be an assumption, but rather a definition of a term. Do > you get the difference I'm trying to put forward? It is not an assumption, > for example, to say that a bus is a ground vehicle used for transporting > several people from place to place - it is a definition of the term 'bus'. > But once it is agreed upon what 'bus' means, then it is an assumption to say > that busses are the most comfortable vehicles. > > With metta, > Howard 22095 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 11, 2003 3:31pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Yasa, Jon and All, > > I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are > involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is > very interesting (and I look forward very much to Jon's reply :-)). > > Would it be fair to say that your question implies that there IS > a 'self' who has 'control' and can make specified mental states arise > by performing particular actions in a particular posture? If there > is no-self - 'who' is it that does these things? > > metta, > Christine > > ___________________________Yasa Comments________________________ Christine, We are living in the society. Conventionally we exist. We cannot go behind that fact. There is a small story in one of Joseph Goldstein's, books. Two meditators were walking slowly and mindfully down a road, and an elephant was walking in the opposite direction, if they were to see the elephant and tell them-selves that it does not exist and continue to walk, the elephant will not pay attention to the mindfulness of the two men, and will walk over them……… Therefore, we have to accept the "reality" of conventional existence. We have to look at ourselves, and understand our attachments, aversions, and delusions. We think we have security, we are healthy and we will live long. We are educated, we have good positions in society as doctors, lawyers, administrators or what not. People respect us, we are rich, we are English, German or American. We have everything we want .We are happy. Every thing around is for our enjoyment. Then when calamities occur we begin to think, every thing is not so secure, joy and happiness can turn to sorrow and sadness, we will be afflicted by illness and suffer. It is then that we begin to question, and it is these questions that make us doubt, and begin to think of impermanence, unsatisfactory of life, and the absence of a controlling "self", in a conventional manner. Then your turn to spiritual help to find out who "you" are ? How can you understand these illusive facts of existence ( it is still conventional "me"that is thinking) ? You read and think you are not "self", according to ultimate reality you cannot exist. But, when some one insults you, you get hurt. When someone, irritates you, you get angry. You think, if you were non-existent, why should you get angry, why should you get hurt. If your son were to leave you to fight in a war, why do you feel sad and feel like crying. But thinking will not give you the answers…………What will help you to find the reality of the existence of a self, and how to set about doing that ….? With metta, Yasa 22096 From: azita gill Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism dear Yasa, > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and > precisely. > > > > With metta, > > Yasa > > With some theoretical knowledge of the Abhidhamma, I believe I can 'practise' Buddhism. The Abhidhamma has shown me that all of the things I take for 'me, myself', are arising and falling away phenomena, useless to be grasped at because what I'm grasping at has fallen away already. this knowledge, I think, is what is classed as Pariyatti - theoretical knowledge, but I do believe in the beginning one has to have this knowledge before one begins to 'practise'. Actual practice, Patipatti, is also momentary. It can be a moment of awareness, sati, of a presently arising phenomena e.g. seeing, OR what is seen, never the two together. Even our intention to practise is momentary, intention/volition/will- Cetana - which is one of the 7 mental factors inseparably bound up wiht all cittas. Likewise, with awareness, Sati, it is a mental factor which arises with a wholesome citta, to be aware of an object, any object, not one 'I' choose to be aware of, and then it falls away. The next step is "Pativedha, penetration, which signifies the realization of the truth of the Dhamma, as distinguished from the mere acquisition of its wording [pariyatti] or the practice [patipatti] of it, in other words, realization as distinguished from theory and practice." - Buddhist dictionary. Nyanatiloka. > Pativedha is that highly developed knowledge that can know the truth. And I understand it is also impermanent, arises and falls away. For me, this is a loooooong way away! But maybe just maybe, there may be short moments of weak awareness which arise in a day, moments that I don't try to create, just brief moments that occasionally show me that 'I' have no control at all. Is this what the Buddha taught? To be honest, I don't know, I wasn't there [at least I don't remember], but the only way it can be proven, is to develop that wisdom, Panna, that knows the truth as it really is. We all need lots of patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 22097 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Way 87, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger Indeed, wrong reflection on an object of resentment produces anger. In this connection anger itself as well as the object which causes anger is called the resentment-object, or the sign of resentment. Wrong reflection has just the same character everywhere, and when it occurs much in the resentment-object or the resentment-sign, anger arises. Therefore the Blessed One said that intense wrong reflection on an object of resentment is the cause of fresh anger and of the increase and expansion of anger already existing. By right reflection of the liberating thought of love, the thought of love that frees the heart indeed, anger gets cast out. The term "love" here is applicable both to partial concentration (upacara samadhi) and full concentration (appana samadhi). Heart-liberating love is only full concentration. Right reflection has the same character throughout. When it occurs strong in the thought of love, anger is removed from the heart. Therefore the Master said: "There is, o bhikkhus, the liberation of the mind through love. Intense right reflection on love is the condition for keeping out new anger and for throwing out anger that is already in the heart." And it is said that these six things help to cast anger out: Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation; applying oneself to the development of jhana on the thought of love; reflection on one's action as one's own property, abundance of wise consideration; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists the development of the thought of love and the overthrow of anger. In explanation the commentator said: Anger will be put down in one who takes up the love subject of meditation by way of spreading it particularly or separately. Or if one takes up the love subject of meditation by way of spreading it generally, without particularization or directional restriction in space, then too anger will be put down, in one. Anger vanishes also through the development of jhana by spreading love restrictedly with differentiation on seven or twenty-eight ways or by spreading it unrestrictedly without differentiation in five or twenty ways or by spreading it directionally towards the ten points in space. Anger vanishes in one who reflects thus too: "What will you do to him by becoming angry?" "Will you be able to destroy things like his virtue?" "Have you not been born here just by your own actions and will you not also by your own actions get reborn hereafter?" "Getting angry with another is comparable to the state of him who wishes to strike another with glowing coals, red-hot crowbar, excreta and such other damaging things after taking them up in his bare hands." "And what can another who is angry with you do to you?" "Can he destroy your virtue or any other similar thing of yours?" "He, too, has been born here as a result of his actions and will be reborn hereafter just according to his actions." "Like a present not accepted is that anger of his and like a handful of dust thrown against the wind, that anger of his alights on his own head." In this way one reflects on one's own action as one's own property and also another person's action as that person's own, and puts out anger. To one remaining in an abundance of wise consideration after reflecting on action as one's or another's own property, anger vanishes. And it vanishes in him who is in the company of a sympathetic friend who delights in developing the jhana of the thought of love like the Elder Assagutta and through stimulating talk on the thought of love when in any one of the four postures. Therefore it is said: Six things are conducive to the casting out of anger. The anger cast out by these six things, however, is finally destroyed by the attainment of the state of the Anagami, the Never-returner. 22098 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - Draft for comment! Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/11/03 5:49:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > I don't see myself as a substantial, independent, unchanging core or > essence in that thing. Nor do I see myself as some insubstantial, > dependent, changing thing. > ============================== Neither do I! How about that? ;-)) I think that what you write here, and with which I quite agree "says" something quite deep, quite important, very much the middle way. Here I think we are getting beyond the words to the reality, and, amazingly, we seem to agree. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22099 From: Date: Sun May 11, 2003 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi all, Maybe someone would like to explain why we care about distinguishing between asabhava and anatta. On the surface, they look like the same thing, i.e., "not it". Also, does anyone know if this is explicitly spelled out as a practice in the tipitaka or by Buddhaghosa? Larry 22100 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 11, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Freewill or Not? - "Final" Our ancestors did not understand the world around them. Because they did not understand, they created external "Gods" that controlled the weather. These "Gods" could control the weather according to their whims and fancies. Today, we look back and smile at the naïveté of our ancestors. Today, we understand that the weather operates according to impersonal laws of nature. Modern man does not understand the world within himself. Because we do not understand, we create an internal "God" called the "self" that controls the flow of our thoughts. We believe that this self can control the flow of our thoughts according to its whim and fancy. Perhaps some day, our descendants will look back and smile at our naïveté because they understand that the internal world, the world of the mind, also operates according to impersonal laws of nature . The concept of self is deeply rooted within us. A recent book, "Why God Won't Go Away" by Dr. Andrew Newberg and Dr. Eugene Aquili, reported research on how the brain functions. According to this book, information from the senses is routed to a portion of the brain called the "Orientation Association Area" (OAA). The function of the OAA is to put the incoming sensory data into context by overlaying an artificial sense of self. Brain scans show that the OAA is normally a very active part of the brain; there is lots of blood flow in this area of the brain. Experiments were done with Franciscan nuns and Buddhist meditators of the Tibetan tradition. When the subjects reached deep stages of concentration, the blood flow to this portion of the brain was dramatically reduced. When interviewed later, the subjects indicated that at the times that the blood flow to the OAA was dramatically reduced, they were experiencing a "higher reality". The illusion of self may be hardwired, but we can overcome this hardwiring through correct practice. Belief in freewill is a belief in self ====================================== The doctrine of non-self (anattā) is central to Buddhism. The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is choice, but there is no chooser". If there is no chooser (self), how can there be freewill? The concept of freewill assumes a supervisory self that monitors the mind's activities chooses a response. Why freewill does not make sense ================================ Think of the last time that you were confused about something (reading this article, perhaps?). Does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" to be confused at that moment? What about the last time you were restless… was there a "choice born of freewill" working at that moment? We all know that anger is one letter away from danger. Knowing that anger is bad and dangerous, does it make sense that there was a "choice born of freewill" every time anger arises? Does it make sense that "choice born of freewill" only operates when there is a choice to do something good, but "freewill takes a vacation" whenever there is a choice to do something bad? How does choice work without freewill? ====================================== According to Buddhism, all things except Nibbāna are conditioned. This means that our actions arise because of conditions (not because of a self or freewill). What are the factors that direct choices? There are two: our current situation and our habits (our accumulations or mental tendencies). An idea or a sensory input arises in our mind and our mind reacts naturally according to it's habits. A mind that has a habit of mettā will naturally react to situations with loving kindness. A mind that has a habit of greed will naturally react to situations with craving and clinging. What does this mean in daily life? ================================== The flow of our thoughts is directed by our habits; not by a supervisory self. If we can develop and nurture "good habits" in our daily life, our thoughts will be directed accordingly. Habits are developed and nurtured through concentrated repetition. Another word for "concentrated repetition" is "practice". In his article, "Questions on Kamma", Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about the psychological effect of kamma, "When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future." Formal meditation is one form of "concentrated repetition". Sitting each morning and radiating mettā, develops a habit of mettā in th= e mind. When a mind that has a habit of mettā encounters a difficult situation, the habit of mettā directs the mind to a positive response. Vipasannā meditation develops a habit of seeing things as they truly are; impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Vipassanā meditation develops the habit or perspective of right view, the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. Imagine that you are driving along and somebody cuts you off. You start to get angry, but then you remember the Dhamma and calm your mind. Was this freewill at work? No. Your past experience of studying the Dhamma created a mental tendency or habit in your mind. When the situation arose, your mental tendency caused the memory of the Dhamma to arise and this calmed your mind. Everything occurred because of an impersonal law of nature, without the need for a self and without the need for freewill. Does the denial of freewill mean that Buddhism is fatalistic or deterministic? ============== In 1927, Werner Heisenberg wrote, "The `path' comes into existence only when we observe it." Heisenberg was one of the founders of modern physics and he was referring to the path of atomic particles such as electrons. Heisenberg was making the point that the classical view of an "objective observer" was wrong. We can say that the `path of our life' does not exist until it is observed. The concepts of "fatalism" or "determinism" are rooted in the self-view that there is an objective observer. If our "subjective observer" perspective makes it impossible for us to determine the future, how can we say that the future is predetermined? Conclusion ========== Belief in freewill is a belief in a self. The doctrine of anattā is incompatible with freewill. Understanding that choices arise naturally because of our habits is an important lesson. The Buddha stressed in the Bhūmija Sutta (Mn126) that results are obtained through proper practice, not through aspiration. Strong aspiration without proper practice will never yield results. Proper practice, with or without strong aspiration, will always yield results. 22101 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 0:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Since I misunderstood you and you had to write what I think is one of the longest posts by you, let me explain the situation. I had earlier that day, to go to my son's kindergarten for some `parents meet teachers day' thing. I didn't know that we had to pay the school fees so I was not prepared. I had then to go to my workplace to get the money because the school opens today. On the way I was thinking about your and Victor's post and how to reply to them. When I reached my shop at around 1 pm, I was so hungry because I hadn't had breakfast in the morning that I got lunch and overate. Now there was drowsiness, and I even thought that I should take a nap before replying to you, but there was no place to lie down. By the time I started to write, the response to your and Victor's posts were so mixed up, that I even wrote two long paragraphs which I had to delete after realizing that they were meant for Victor.:-) When I finished writing, and read through the post, I did not bother to read over your statements, but only my own response to them. But as soon as I was about to click the `send' button, I realized that I may have misunderstood what you were saying and instead of choosing to read your letter over again, I opted for, "I hope I have not misunderstood the point of your post." Obviously I am quite attached to my writing since it takes me longer than most to type. But also I may have what is conventionally called, "attention deficit",(in ultimate sense it must surely mean, lots and lots of kilesas, though I do not know precisely what they are) this makes it difficult for me to not only read anything, but also properly pay attention to anyone, (my walkman's rewind button is going to conk out soon as a result ;-)). So to avoid any chance of misunderstanding some more of what you have written, in this post I will mostly be simply stating my understandings without reference to your post, and we'll see what proceeds from there. But let me admit first of all, that I think I overstated about the role of conventional understanding, I agree with you that it must start with conventional understanding initially, even if this be about the subject of Abhidhamma, with exceptions of course, like Sariputta?! ;-). But I do have a reason to not give any special importance to this level of understanding, which I hope I will be able to show in this post of mine. Let us consider, what the Teachings really mean in terms of momentary experience. I think you will agree that it must be kusala accompanied by a level of panna. And since the unique teaching of the Buddha and the "one and only way" is that of Satipatthana, don't you think that the goal would be the panna that at least sees the importance of understanding this moment? And since either conventional examples or paramattha expression is used for the purpose of conditioning this level of panna, we must consider if indeed it does, shouldn't we? So what is it about conventional expression that would lead the mind to see this? I think on its own, without reference to the importance of satipatthana, it can at best condition samattha. From here which direction the understanding gets developed depends on whether the importance of satipatthana is seen or not. And what is understanding the importance of Satipatthana if not seeing that it can be developed `now' and at any time? Would the idea of `special time and place' or `application' or `utility' be any real understanding of what `satipatthana' really means, if by this it conditions the idea that certain other dhammas and situations are not the appropriate object? What if the next moment is cutti citta? I think we get confused and falsely inspired when we think the teachings of the Buddha in terms of stories involving doing certain things to reach a certain goal, or even with certain mental attitude, see that the teachings is about developing each limb of the eightfold path or viewing the 37 bodhipakaya dhammas with a mind of `how to'. I see the views that Abhidhamma is just a list of descriptions which have no practical value and the view that they "have", in the sense of *using the knowledge* for one's practice, as being in some ways equally wrong. In this sense, Abhidhamma is *not* out there to be accepted or rejected, it is as Nina has often pointed out, about "NOW". The criticism made against Abhidhamma is usually from the stand point of not seeing this. At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! Pariyatti conditions patipatti, but no one can make pariyatti happen, less patipatti to occur. Panna can condition chanda to cause us to look the text for more understanding, but whether this takes place at all, is not up to `us'. But if we view Abhidhamma as a `resource of knowledge' out there to mine whenever we choose, then this is wrong understanding. And I think this is what many outsiders disagree to, or even agree wrongly to.;-) But let me now try to describe what I think is the position of those outsiders! The very thing they accuse Abhidhamma of, being influenced by descriptions, is what I think they are doing. 1. "Ideas about formal meditation practice"!! 2. "Ideas about making the distinction about `the word and the experience'", this leads them to consciously reject the former and `chase after' the latter. But as I have expressed before, we *don't* choose to accept or reject anything, one only *sees* descriptions as such, and raw experience as such. One does not for any reason then to *try to consciously* choose the latter. Only panna can make the distinction, and panna is not-self. 3. Anatta is not properly understood, since they keep on ignoring the `self' which drives them to pursue different forms of practice and interpreting the Buddha's teachings as being certain "to do" things. I don't think one needs to wait for the English translation of the Abhidhamma Pittaka, I think if one is watching it from the `outside', then even after reading the whole of the Abhidhmma one may not come to know what it actually is!! Is the objection really a matter of whether it was the actual words of the Buddha, or is it an attempt to maintain our present perspective?! But of course, even the Abhidhammika may be indulging in self justification?! :-( Hope I haven't been too direct Howard!?....And sorry again for misunderstanding your other post. Look forward to your response. Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sukin - > > You are misreading me at several points. I will try to clarify. > 22102 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Grimm recipe Hi Num, Andrew & All cooks!, --- Nantawat Sitdhiraksa wrote: > > A.Sujin pointed this out as the debate regarding association condition > (sampayutta paccaya). When rupas blended together, it’s very difficult > to separate them out. It’s even much harder to separate out the > namadhamma (cetasika from citta, or one cetasika from other cetasikas). > We still can appreciate each flavor of the soup, even all the > ingredients are blended together. Citta and its accompanied cetasikas > can have only one object at a time. So when there is a moment of > satipatthana, one can be aware of one dhamma at a time. The chef cannot > separate all the ingredients out, but the taste of each ingredient can > be distinctively experienced. ..... Many thx Sukin & Num for raising the King Milinda passage and for reporting back so promptly. I also appreciated Nina’s comments and the other points from your discussion. Perhaps Sukin can raise other passages being discussed here at your meetings so that we get to hear more from you, Num;-) Andrew, thx also for clarifying that it was Grimm’s own preface. As you say, I think that many people tend to see the Abhidhamma as something separate and don’t realize ‘the extent to which the timpitaka interweaves’. We see it again and again in suttas being quoted here like those to Rahula and so on. The Qu of King Milinda draws on all parts of the Tipitaka as someone said. Hope you can find more good questions to draw Num out of the woodwork;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 22103 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 2:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: question! Hi KK & Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi KK, > > Welcome to DSG! ..... Welcome from me too. Like Rob says, it’s an unusual first questions, but then we all get used to unusual questions here and that’s half the fun. .... R: > - The "fruit" (phala) citta arises immediately after the "path" > citta subsides and can occur whenever the saint practices vipassana > meditation. It can occur many times and for extended periods. The > object of "fruit" citta is also Nibanna. ..... I agreed with all your other helpful comments and explanations but I think this one has to be modified to stress that it only applies to those whose lokutara cittas were accompanied by jhana factors, Rob. It’s a difficult area that I understand little about and you were probably wishing to keep it relatively simple. Anyway, you may both wish to look at a series Nina translated on ‘Fruition Attainment’. This is a link for the last post in the series: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14529.html Some of the others can be found under ‘Fruition’ at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Here is an extract from the post linked above: “Dhamma Issues 2, Fruition Attainment, no 7 There are three kinds of attainments, samåpatti: jhåna-attainment, fruition-attainment and cessation-attainment (nirodha samåpatti [15) which are progressively more subtle and refined. The ordinary person is able to attain at his own level mundane jhåna. The ariyan who has attained enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by factors of different stages of jhåna is able to enter fruition-attainment with the phalacitta (fruition-consciousness) accompanied by the jhånafactors in conformity with the stage of jhåna he has attained. With regard to the non-returner and arahat, only those with the eight attainments (of rúpa-jhåna and arúpa-jhåna), can enter cessation-attainment. Therefore, only those who are able to attain jhåna can enter these different attainments, depending on the individual?s accumulations.” ***** More details are given in the post with Vism refs. KK, can we persuade you to introduce anything further about your interest in Abhidhamma and about where you live/study? Hope you find it helpful on DSG. With metta, Sarah p.s RobM, I plan to get back to your other post(s) to me perhaps tomorrow....it’s my turn to run through posts due in my head, but we should never give ourselves a hard time over it;-) ==================================================== 22104 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: Thankyou. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > Thankyou for the lovely sites that you've given me. > The sites has given me alot of information. > I think the most interesting part was about 'Prince > Siddharta'. > > There was a news article in Hong Kong about a baby. > When this baby was born, the baby could speak. > This baby was born on the Buddha's birthday, which we > celebrated on Thursday in Hong Kong. > The baby said that if you want to cure SARS, then > you'll have to eat three spoons of green peas boiled > with water, but no sugar added. > After the baby had said it, the baby just died. But > maybe it could be a rumor. I don't really know lot's > of things about it. > I heard the Buddha could speak when he was born. > What do you think about it? > > Metta, > Sandy > > P.S. Please tell me if I made any mistakes, because > I'm only eleven. > ___________________________Yasa Replies________________________ Dear Sandy, I am happy you wrote back to say that you liked those websites. It gave me great pleasure, doing those two sites. I have still to finish the second one SAMBODHI. You had written your post excellently well. A book that I would recommend you to read is " The Buddha and His Teachings by Narada Thero". This book is available for FREE distribution by Amitabha Buddhist Society of U.S.A. 650 S. Bernardo Avenue, Sunnyvale,CA 94087,USA or The Corporate Body of the Buddha Educational Foundation, 11F, 55 Hang Chow South Road Sec. Taipei,Taiwan, ROC. About the child, who could speak at its birth, I tend to believe in those things,though on the face of it, it sounds irrational, one cannot deny these rare occurrences. It is sad the child died. He was a sort of a messenger, wasn't he ? He delivered his message and passed away. In the case of Buddha, it is said that he walked seven steps and at each step he took , a lotus flower blossomed to receive his tiny foot. At the seventh step he said " this is my last birth, and their would be no births hereafter" There is no historical writing about the birth of the Buddha, and one may attribute these stories to legend. The Buddha is an exceedingly great sage. There is only one Buddha born in one world period. To become a Buddha he had to fulfil 10 paramitas, and for nearly 500 life spans he dedicated himself for the wellbeing of others. He was born with a great mental power, therefore any thing is possible for such a great man. What is more important are not the stories about him, but what he taught . He once said, that he who sees his teachings (dhamma) sees him. The following website has very interesting stories about the Buddha http://www.goldsummitmonastery.org/resources/nowords.shtml May you be happy, dear Sandy with metta, Yasa 22105 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Azita, This is really inspiring for me.:-) I find myself used to giving long explanations and right or wrong they can give an illusion of 'knowing'. Plus they do become objects of attachment. I really like the way you don't care to identify nor attach labels. Please do write more often! Also your reminder about patience, courage and good cheer is inspiring as always. :-) Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > dear Yasa, > > > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and > > precisely. > > > > > > With metta, > > > Yasa > > > > With some theoretical knowledge of the Abhidhamma, > I believe I can 'practise' Buddhism. > The Abhidhamma has shown me that all of the things > I take for 'me, myself', are arising and falling away > phenomena, useless to be grasped at because what I'm > grasping at has fallen away already. > this knowledge, I think, is what is classed as 22106 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:42am Subject: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken H, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Sukin (and Sarah), KH: > ........... We are told that even jhana can > only suppress -- it can't eradicate. I suspect we have > seen the answers to this on dsg but I, at least, have not > fully absorbed them. For instance, RobK once wrote about > how the word 'kusala' was derived from 'kusa grass' -- > because it cuts both ways. He explained it twice for me > but I have forgotten; does it mean kusala kamma > eradicates akusala kamma in some way? ..... One of RobK’s posts on ‘kusa grass’ can be found here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m13595.html (If you want to find it again, I just put ‘kusa grass’ in the escribe search). “The quote: "Kusa grass cuts a part of the hand with both edges. Even so kusala cuts off both sections of passions - those that have arisen and those that have not arisen" (abhidhammathasangaha)” ..... KH:> On another occasion, I was having a non-cyberspace > conversation with Sundara about the benefits of kusala. I > couldn't see what was so good about it if it wasn't > accompanied by right view. If it leads to continued > existence in samsara, what's the ultimate use of it? Jon > briefly commented, "Because, if it's not kusala, it's > akusala." ..... S: Perhaps we can say that at any moment of kusala, there is a ‘cutting’ of akusala (in other words no chance for it to arise) and the tendency or accumulation for kusala is increased. As RobK mentions in the post linked above, the most important kind of kusala is the development of right view. Gradually the adze handle is worn down and eventually all wrong views are eradicated or cut off (those that have arisen and not yet arisen). Gradually the same applies to all kinds of kilesa. All kinds of kusala can be a support condition. but I think that at moments of dana or metta or other kinds of kusala, the wholesome nature of these cittas can only be known by panna (wisdom). ..... S: In another post (to Yasa) you said: KH: “There is no need to become a wonderful person, no need for wonderful experiences, just understand the realities that exist in this, present, moment.” S: I think this is very well put and any growth in detachment indicates a lessening of the stranglehold of the strong attachment to self and is therefore liberating. In another post (to Chris) you added a few comments about jhanas: KH:“So how can there be any question as to which way we should go? I think it's a matter of samvega (sense of urgency). Do we have the time to learn jhana? We could die tomorrow, who knows when we will have another opportunity to hear the Dhamma?” .... S: I just wished to comment that I don’t think it’s a question of ‘deciding’ which way to go or ‘learning’ jhana...Again it’s a question of conditions, anatta and panna of respective levels and kinds, I think. ..... KH: “Had we the accumulations for jhana, our opportunity would be less tenuous. (I can't quote any sources for this, by the way.) In our preliminary practice, we would have developed, for example, the ability to remember past lives. So we would have the luxury of time. In such a case, it would be quite appropriate that we emulate the Buddha more closely and that we develop psychic powers. In so doing, we could both pay more respect and be better able to pass on the teaching.” ..... S: I believe that any ‘preliminary practice’ lies in the understanding (again at the present moment) the nature of kusala and akusala cittas very precisely and the understanding of how particular objects of samatha can condition calm. Again, it is not by wishing and attachment, but by understanding the value of these wholesome moments when they arise. Talking about jhanas and remembering past lives/psychic powers etc without understanding the nature of moments of samatha (calm)that may arise now in daily life is like talking about nibbana and arahantship without understanding namas and rupas in daily life, I think. ..... I think it's safe to say that you and I are not such highly developed beings -- but are any of us? .... S:No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) ..... KH: “If, twenty-six centuries ago, a person had the accumulations for jhana, wouldn't he/she have followed the Eight-fold Path to Parinibana by now? (The obvious exception would be a Bodhisattha, of course.)” ..... S: Actually, not necessarily at all, I think. Remember those lifespans in brahma planes that last an eternity. Too ‘blissed out’ to understand anything about suffering and because of the long lifespan, unable to appreciate the teachings on impermanence even if heard;-) ..... KH: “Since that time, would anyone have *acquired* accumulations for jhana? -- in preference to developing vipassana? I don't see why. So I wonder, today, in this human realm, is the real jhana taught or practised by anyone?(!)” ..... S: (!) Of course it would depend on many conditions. Both the development of vipassana and samatha depend on clear and precise understanding of their respective objects and differentiation of kusala and akusala. Even though we read and consider a lot, how much insight is there at this moment into whether the mental state is one of metta or attachment and so on. We can see how difficult even the preliminary practice is, especially when there is any desire for results or short-cuts. KenH, you always raise interesting points. Briefly in another post you mentioned about how a lay arahant would have to ‘conceptualise’ himself as ordained and any such akusala would be beyond him (very rough paraphrase). I don’t know that it would quite be like that. I think that simply, without any kilesa or remaining attachment, there just wouldn’t be the conditions to continue a lay life, just as there wouldn’t be any conditions for a sotapanna to break the precepts and so on. With metta and appreciation for all your comments and look forward to many more. Sarah ======== 22107 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 6:54am Subject: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi All, The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His analogies. Here is an imaginary Sutta using a modern technology as an analogy. Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a cyber-café surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to Him, he sat down at one side and said: "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their functions?" "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the function of the software is to receive and process the information that is input." "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the software?" "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its nature." "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama is to receive and process the information from the visible object. Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in isolation?" "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation from the mind. How would you describe the `Internet', Engineer Rob?" "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the mind is also nama and rupa?" "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the Internet." "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and say, `This is the Internet'?" "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and software that we label as `Internet'. The `Internet' is a concept; the `Internet' is not a single piece of hardware or software." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever-changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving from one of the clients." "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects being apprehended by the five senses." "Please continue, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus their attention on the hardware or the software?" "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying hardware, software and rules work." "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on how nama experiences rupa (solidity, cohesion, temperature, motion) rather than the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from the Blessed One. Metta, Rob M :-) 22108 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 6:56am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 41-43 for comment Ethically Variable Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== Citta + Eye + Form -> Contact Contact -> Feeling Feeling -> Perception (Naming) Perception (Naming) -> Thinks About (Memory) Thanks About (Memory) -> Mental Proliferation Small circle (nucleus) = Ultimate Reality Big Circle (surrounding small circle) = What we think is real Area between small circle and big circle = Mental Proliferation Quotation from Honeyball Sutta (Mn18) Naturally arising phenomena --------------------------- Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. One's reaction to naturally arising phenomena --------------------------------------------- What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. Impact of one's reaction ------------------------ With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable though the eye. Speaker Notes ============= The list of mental factors used in the Abhidhamma were taken from the Suttas. Here is an example from the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18), which gives some insight into how the mind works. The first part of this extract lists the purely objective natural reaction occurring as part of the seeing process. The next part of this extract shows how, based on feeling, one reacts to the natural process of seeing. We can see that the Sutta uses many of the terms found in the Abhidhamma. The final part of this extract gives the impact of our reaction. What this Sutta tells us is that what we think is real is in fact 99% added by our own selves. Seeing things as they truly are means to understand what is an ultimate reality and what has been added onto it by our own habits and accumulations. To draw an analogy, seeing things as they truly are means to see a TV screen as coloured dots and not to be deluded by "images" on the screen. 22109 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard): > > The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the > visible > object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative inexperience > with > the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the explanation of the > distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing given by Karunadasa > in The Dhamma Theory as follows: > > ----- > Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are > delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the ... > oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) that gives > rise to pannattis.125 " > See http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm > ------ Thanks for this passage with its very clear and detailed explanation of the distinction between paramattha dhamma and concept, as found in the Theravadin commentarial literature. I would like to think that my own explanation was not in any way in contradiction with it ;-)) (but I would agree that this passage says it much better). I think the gist of the passage can be seen in the following extract taken from toward the end: "While a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized (parikappasiddha). The former is an existent verifiable by its own distinctive intrinsic characteristic... The latter, being a product of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought." To which could be added that the significance of this distinction lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 'How is it developed? Now the things classed as aggregates [khandhas], bases [ayatanas], elements [dhatus], faculties [indriyas], truths [sacca], dependent origination [paticca-samuppada], etc., are the soil of this understanding...' XIV, 32 The various classes mentioned here are simply different ways of classifying paramattha dhammas. (On the question of my usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the visible object, this is the translation of 'sabhava' used by Nanamoli, Bodhi and others. In other words, it has the same meaning as the expressions 'own-nature' and 'distinctive intrinsic characteristic' in Karunadasa's passage. It applies to visible object as to any other paramattha dhamma.) > Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above > passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that > "although the > term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in > such > a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that > implies a substantial mode of being." A fuller explanation is > given in the cited article. Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance of some kind. Thanks. Jon 22110 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Yes Jon, it is just "seeing", nothing else. Yes, the whole 'event' is "seeing". And as you correctly pointed out in your earlier post (relevant part copied below), that event is constituted of (at least) 3 separate paramattha dhammas. The second of these, the object, is the paramattha dhamma known as visible object, visible form or visible data (ruparammana). My question was directed to the nature of this particular paramattha dhamma. To my understanding, ruparammana is not the conventional object (computer, person, sky) that we interpret as being the object of our seeing at that moment, but is actually the mere 'visible data' that is experienced by seeing consciousness before anything is known about 'what it is' that is being/has been seen. I don't know if this makes any sense? Jon --------------- When we experience a sense door object, there are three" elements". For instance when we see, there is the (1) eye, the (2) object and the (3) eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, and so is the object and so is the eye-consciousness. They are therefore all impermanent paramatta dhammas. That is the insight to the moment of seeing. --------------- 22111 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 12, 2003 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > ========================== > Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > so long > as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is made in the Theravadin literature. Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. Jon 22112 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - I'll put in just a few brief comments below, in context. In a message dated 5/12/03 3:07:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Since I misunderstood you and you had to write what I think is one of > the longest posts by you, let me explain the situation. I had earlier that > day, to go to my son's kindergarten for some `parents meet teachers > day' thing. I didn't know that we had to pay the school fees so I was not > prepared. I had then to go to my workplace to get the money because > the school opens today. On the way I was thinking about your and > Victor's post and how to reply to them. When I reached my shop at > around 1 pm, I was so hungry because I hadn't had breakfast in the > morning that I got lunch and overate. Now there was drowsiness, and I > even thought that I should take a nap before replying to you, but there > was no place to lie down. By the time I started to write, the response to > your and Victor's posts were so mixed up, that I even wrote two long > paragraphs which I had to delete after realizing that they were meant > for Victor.:-) When I finished writing, and read through the post, I did > not bother to read over your statements, but only my own response to > them. But as soon as I was about to click the `send' button, I realized > that I may have misunderstood what you were saying and instead of > choosing to read your letter over again, I opted for, "I hope I have not > misunderstood the point of your post." Obviously I am quite attached to > my writing since it takes me longer than most to type. But also I may > have what is conventionally called, "attention deficit",(in ultimate sense > it > must surely mean, lots and lots of kilesas, though I do not know > precisely what they are) this makes it difficult for me to not only read > anything, but also properly pay attention to anyone, (my walkman's > rewind button is going to conk out soon as a result ;-)). > So to avoid any chance of misunderstanding some more of what you > have written, in this post I will mostly be simply stating my > understandings without reference to your post, and we'll see what > proceeds from there. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have been is no problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of difference do remain. That's fine too. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > But let me admit first of all, that I think I overstated about the role of > conventional understanding, I agree with you that it must start with > conventional understanding initially, even if this be about the subject of > Abhidhamma, with exceptions of course, like Sariputta?! ;-). > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't say much more than this. Conventional understanding is the merest beginning. It constitutes, as I see it, the lowest level of (quite compromised) wisdom. But that initial conventional understanding [and 'initial' doesn't mean only occurring at the very beginning, time-wise] is necessary. There is no proceeding onwards to more without that. ------------------------------------------------------- But I do > > have a reason to not give any special importance to this level of > understanding, which I hope I will be able to show in this post of mine. > > Let us consider, what the Teachings really mean in terms of momentary > experience. I think you will agree that it must be kusala accompanied by > a level of panna. And since the unique teaching of the Buddha and > the "one and only way" is that of Satipatthana, don't you think that the > goal would be the panna that at least sees the importance of > understanding this moment? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. Some think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the one-way path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from each other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". --------------------------------------------------------- And since either conventional examples or > > paramattha expression is used for the purpose of conditioning this level > of panna, we must consider if indeed it does, shouldn't we? So what is it > about conventional expression that would lead the mind to see this? I > think on its own, without reference to the importance of satipatthana, it > can at best condition samattha. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - seeing it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to face with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads us to look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual search. If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the jail his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not walk through. --------------------------------------------- From here which direction the > > understanding gets developed depends on whether the importance of > satipatthana is seen or not. And what is understanding the importance > of Satipatthana if not seeing that it can be developed `now' and at any > time? Would the idea of `special time and place' or `application' or > `utility' > be any real understanding of what `satipatthana' really means, if by this > it conditions the idea that certain other dhammas and situations are not > the appropriate object? What if the next moment is cutti citta? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a week is best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently guard the senses and observe mindfully. And, when there is time and opportunity, one should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and concentrated by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all that one can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: Ultimately, there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, directed by cetana and chanda.] ------------------------------------------------- > I think we get confused and falsely inspired when we think the teachings > of the Buddha in terms of stories involving doing certain things to reach > a certain goal, or even with certain mental attitude, see that the > teachings is about developing each limb of the eightfold path or viewing > the 37 bodhipakaya dhammas with a mind of `how to'. I see the views > that Abhidhamma is just a list of descriptions which have no practical > value and the view that they "have", in the sense of *using the > knowledge* for one's practice, as being in some ways equally wrong. In > this sense, Abhidhamma is *not* out there to be accepted or rejected, > it is as Nina has often pointed out, about "NOW". > The criticism made against Abhidhamma is usually from the stand point > of not seeing this. > At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of > awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" to do anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual commitment to the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake that paralyzes us. ------------------------------------------------------- Pariyatti > > conditions patipatti, but no one can make pariyatti happen, less patipatti > to occur. Panna can condition chanda to cause us to look the text for > more understanding, but whether this takes place at all, is not up to `us'. > > But if we view Abhidhamma as a `resource of knowledge' out there to > mine whenever we choose, then this is wrong understanding. And I > think this is what many outsiders disagree to, or even agree wrongly > to.;-) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The "spiritual path" is actually a spiral. One begins where one is. There is always *some* wisp of wisdom, else we would be totally lost. That wisp of wisdom is the beginning point. [Interestingly (perhaps ;-), in Kabbalah, the Jewish mystical tradition, the beginning point is Chochma, which is wisdom.] -------------------------------------------------------- > But let me now try to describe what I think is the position of those > outsiders! > The very thing they accuse Abhidhamma of, being influenced by > descriptions, is what I think they are doing. > 1. "Ideas about formal meditation practice"!! > 2. "Ideas about making the distinction about `the word and the > experience'", this leads them to consciously reject the former and `chase > after' the latter. But as I have expressed before, we *don't* choose to > accept or reject anything, one only *sees* descriptions as such, and > raw experience as such. One does not for any reason then to *try to > consciously* choose the latter. Only panna can make the distinction, and > panna is not-self. > 3. Anatta is not properly understood, since they keep on ignoring > the `self' which drives them to pursue different forms of practice and > interpreting the Buddha's teachings as being certain "to do" things. > > I don't think one needs to wait for the English translation of the > Abhidhamma Pittaka, I think if one is watching it from the `outside', then > even after reading the whole of the Abhidhmma one may not come to > know what it actually is!! Is the objection really a matter of whether it > was the actual words of the Buddha, or is it an attempt to maintain our > present perspective?! But of course, even the Abhidhammika may be > indulging in self justification?! :-( > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is descriptive of what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful when one is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. ---------------------------------------------------- > Hope I haven't been too direct Howard!?....And sorry again for > misunderstanding your other post. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it occurs, is just something that happens. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Look forward to your response. > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22113 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/12/03 10:23:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >========================== > > Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > >so long > >as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. > > I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the > distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is > made in the Theravadin literature. > > Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a > choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with > our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point > out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that > is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. > > Jon > =========================== I understand 'concept' to mean a thought, or at least a species of thought. It is a mind-door object. It arises.Wwhatever arises ceases, or so the Buddha said. It is a conditioned dhamma, for only nibbana is unconditioned. If you take 'concept' to mean something else, then we are simply using language differently. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22114 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob - You put a big grin on my face with this! Why, it is as if some some monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set upright! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22115 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: question! Dear Rob and Yasa Thank you for your great kindness. Sorry for my poor information on my background. I was born and brought up under Japanese education and culture here in Japan. I have been studying and practising Maha-yanas (including Vajra-yana ) Tradition before I met teachings of Theravada tradition last year and "discoverd "the greatness of theravadin. In most cases in maha-yana traditions , The teachings of theravada has been mistreated as almost the same as those of Sarvastivardin while I notice that some sayadaw mistake Maha-yana's views and practices for just the same as those of Hindu. Of course there are many similarities between maha-yanas and Hinduism in superficial ways , but their basic views and goals are far different. In my view , Both of the reasons are just lack of knowledge and experience. However , I have no intention at all to be involved in any argument on the differences between theravada and other traditions. I just want to understand cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. As a preliminary training, I started to read Suttas and writings by Theravardin monks and to attend Dhamma takls and meditation sessions led by several Sayadaws . Then I have just begun studying Abhidhamma. I 've read only about 80% of Abhidhammattasangaha in Japanese version with help of ebooks writtend by Pa-auk sayadaw and Nina Van Gorkom etc. Having said above that I do not want to mix theravadin with other traditions, it is natural for me at this stage that my questions come mainly from my own background, especially from my knowledge and experinece gained by my having learned Maha-yaha tradition. So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I get them on the net? It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher questions. With metta kk 22116 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: question! Hi KK-san (and Rob K), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . ===== The questions were valid; I was surprised to hear them asked by somebody who had just started to study Abhidhamma. ===== > > I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of > Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I > get them on the net? ===== Sorry, neither one of these are available on the net. Rob K (a regular contributor) works in Japan, perhaps he knows where Japanese versions might be available. ===== > > It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher > questions. ===== I look forward to you further questions! Metta, Rob M :-) 22117 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/12/03 10:23:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > >Howard > > > >--- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >>========================== > >> Sorry, but I don't accept the distinction. The concept lasts > >>so long > >>as the conditions needed for it last. This is no different. > > > >I don't think it need be a question of accepting or not accepting the > >distinction, but simply of acknowledging that such a distinction is > >made in the Theravadin literature. > > > >Whether we chose to 'accept' or 'not accept', that would not be a > >choice based on direct experience (panna), but a view tainted with > >our own particular wrong view and ignorance. As you correctly point > >out from time to time, we have to start from where we are, and that > >is more ignorance and wrong view than panna, I believe. > > > >Jon > > > =========================== > I understand 'concept' to mean a thought, or at least a species of > thought. It is a mind-door object. It arises.Wwhatever arises ceases, or so > > the Buddha said. It is a conditioned dhamma, for only nibbana is > unconditioned. If you take 'concept' to mean something else, then we are > simply using language differently. > > With metta, > Howard > ============================== I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because they do not exist. To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS! There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate these concepts (i.e.thoughts) with specific trains of experience, superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22118 From: connie Date: Mon May 12, 2003 9:45am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob M ~ With all due respect, it's pretty obvious even without your mentioning it, at least today, that this is an imaginary Sutta but even so, I object to this use of the word Sutta, which I think should be reserved for Canon. It seems acceptable in some Mahayana schools to call something a sutra when it is written by some other teacher, but I think it's another of those peg in the drum things... no matter how precisely your words might agree with Buddha's. peace, connie 22119 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 12, 2003 11:20am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Rob M, Interesting piece of writing. I would be very careful not to "put words in the Buddha's mouth" and not to fabricate what the Buddha would say. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma > using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha > were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His > analogies. Here is an imaginary Sutta using a modern technology as > an analogy. [snip] > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22120 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Connie and Victor, I am not going to use the word Sutta. I will replace it with "sutra"; hopefully, using the Sanskrit instead of Pali, putting quotation marks around the word and not capitalizing the word will make the text seem less "blasphemous". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Rob M ~ > > With all due respect, it's pretty obvious even without your mentioning > it, at least today, that this is an imaginary Sutta but even so, I > object to this use of the word Sutta, which I think should be reserved > for Canon. It seems acceptable in some Mahayana schools to call > something a sutra when it is written by some other teacher, but I think > it's another of those peg in the drum things... no matter how precisely > your words might agree with Buddha's. > > peace, > connie 22121 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:11pm Subject: 'Hymm for Vaishakha' by Francis Story Dear Group, A Vesak poem. metta, Christine "Hymn For Vaishakha By Francis Story (Anagarika Priyadarshi Sugatananda) Francis Story was born in London in 1910. He became a Buddhist by reading and independent thinking during his teens and married at 23. His wife died six years later. For several years he lived in India as voluntary worker for the Maha Bodhi Society. He became an Anagarika at Bodh Gaya, in 1948 and took the religious name of Priyadarshi Sugatananda. He began researching on rebirth while in Burma and this was to be a life-long interest until his death at the age of 61. This is a poem written on the occasion of Vesak. In the midst of the world's tumult we seek Thy Peace from clamour of many voices and the clash of conflict. Thou alone are the Silence where all things cease where suffering entereth not, and the pain of being findeth no sustenance. Here in the dark ocean of time strange currents bear us, bewildering and unseeing - only through Thee we know of the Further Shore, the unchanging clime. Long have we known the scant mercies of night and day: burned in the self-created fire and restless longing of the uneasy heart, the season's play has cooled with brief winds our fever, fleeting joy beckoned our wayward steps and wrapped us round with flowery snares of passion - make us pain's toy even to the last tear helpless and bound. Upon this day let us remember Thee; call up the still abiding mercy Thou has left us who came with compassionate eyes to view man's bondage and see beyond the proud glitter of Thy earthly state. No stranger Thou, but one who all things had shared, a fellow-wanderer encompassed by love and hate even as we - no human fear unknown, no sorrow spared. Upon this day let us remember Thy Birth, when the heavens poured forth their music and the world of gods stood hushed. The broad firmament throughout its girth quickened in wonder, for a Prince was come, a Chakravartin, a Master of gods and men, a righteous Charioteer of the rich-teeming sum of nations, and a Seer beyond human ken. Let us remember Thine Illumination - the keen sword of the Kshatriya's will that cut the bonds of Mara: Thy pitying heart that lifted man's degradation. Thou wert he who stood alone against the hosts, vanquished the phanton ranks, cleaving a way for lesser men. Baleful and beautiful, the ghosts of lust and passion melted in Thy holy Ray. Upon this day let us remember Thy Passing: Name and Form to the last vestige cast aside never to be renewed, the multitudinous worlds outclassing, Thou from the transient to the Eternal leapt. No more the swing of the stars nor the cycle of craving, no more the tongue that spoke nor the eyes that wept - only the Peace beyond thought, and Thy Law for our saving. In the midst of the world's tumult we seek Thy Way: the world is weary yet drugged with the madness of getting, and sick with the frenzy of things that cannot stay. But in the darkness still we behold Thy Light, and as a dreamer walking throws off the tangle of fear, so man beholds his refuge, measures the thread of night, and in the dawning feels his release is near.' 22122 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 12, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Re: question! --- Dear KK, I like your approach to study. Many people bring in ideas they got from other religions and sciences and this makes it hard to see what Theravada really is. As RobM said I work in Japan. My students are translating one of Nina van Gorkoms books and hopefully we will publish it when I return. The first section of the Visuddhimagga is available on my website: http://www.abhidhamma.org/visuddhimagga-1.htm It is translated into Japanese and since you read English it would be good to buy bothe English and Japanese versions. You can do a search and find the Abhidhammasangaha on the web. Use "Narada manuals of Abhidhamma" RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear Rob and Yasa > > . I just want to understand > cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other > traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different > between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on > Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. > > 22123 From: vital Date: Mon May 12, 2003 2:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. Hallo, Hello, Het tweede hoofdstuk van mijn levensfilosie is in voorlopige versie geplaatst op de site: http://www.vitalmoors.nl op de pagina levensfilosofie 2. Als je even tijd hebt, kan je het eens doornemen en me je reacties mailen. Kijk ook even bij de reacties 1 en reacties 2 misschien staat er ook jouw reactie geanonimiseerd tussen. The second chapter of my philosophy is ready. You can find it on my webside: http://www.vitalmoors.nl , if you have the time please take a look at let me know your reaction Groetjes, Greetings, Mr. Vital E.H. Moors Mr. Vital E.H. Moors homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Da Costa" To: Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 4:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Long time, no see. > Hi Sarah > > At 13:12 09/05/2003 +0800, you wrote: > > >I appreciate your sharing of current interest and consideration, Peter. > > Cheers > > >Pls don't run away!! You've been missed by many of us. > > If it were only that simple. > > > >With metta, > > > >Sarah > >======= > > Peter 22124 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard): > >> The usage of the phrase "individual essence" to refer to the >> visible object seems odd to me, but that may be my relative >> inexperience with the lanuage of the abhidhamma. I prefer the >> explanation of the distinction you (Jon) appear to be discussing >> given by Karunadasa in The Dhamma Theory as follows: >> >> ----- Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the >> latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not >> of the oneness on what actually is a complex (samuhekaggahana) >> that gives rise to pannattis.125 " See >> http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm >> ------ > > > Thanks for this passage with its very clear and detailed explanation > of the distinction between paramattha dhamma and concept, as found in > the Theravadin commentarial literature. I would like to think that > my own explanation was not in any way in contradiction with it ;-)) > (but I would agree that this passage says it much better). > > I think the gist of the passage can be seen in the following extract > taken from toward the end: "While a dhamma is a truly existent thing > (sabhavasiddha), a pannatti is a thing merely conceptualized > (parikappasiddha). The former is an existent verifiable by its own > distinctive intrinsic characteristic... The latter, being a product > of the mind's synthetic function, exists only by virtue of thought." > > To which could be added that the significance of this distinction > lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight > development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the > section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is > characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of > penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. > Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals > the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. >> Note that when Karunadasa talks of a dhamma as sabhava in the above >> passage, he uses that term in a very precise way such that >> "although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is >> interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of >> sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being." A >> fuller explanation is given in the cited article. > > > Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the > discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they > associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance > of some kind. Thanks. To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the term sabhava, including the following: 1. sabhava is a term that has a very different and very substantialist meaning when used by the Sarvastivadins. 2. As the article by Karunadasa notes, "the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own nature [Sabhava] has to be understood. Clearly, this is a definition according to agency (kattu-sadhana), and hence its validity is provisional." 3. Karunadasa further notes that "the commentarial definition of dhamma as sabhava poses an important problem, for it seems to go against an earlier Theravada tradition recorded in the Patisambhidamagga. This canonical text specifically states that the five aggregates are devoid of own-nature (sabhavena-sunnat).46 Since the dhammas are the elementary constituents of the five aggregates, this should mean that the dhammas, too, are devoid of own-nature. What is more, does not the very use of the term sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this not amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance? Karunadasa goes on to answer this third objection with the following: "The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions." In the end, I am left wondering why all the need to go through the verbal and mental gymnastics if all we wished to say was that "far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions"? 22125 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 4:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Why, it is as if some some > monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set upright! ;-)) Love your ending... I had considered using something like this, but felt that the reference might be a bit obscure. Metta, Rob M :-) 22126 From: lokuttaracitta Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:37pm Subject: Re: question! Dear Rob K and Rob M Thank you very much for your response and information I will do my best to get right view on What Pali canons transmit to us. I am looking forward to hearing the news on publications of Japanense versions of any valuable articles on Abhidhamma ,especially those which can introduce us the whole right scope of Abhidhamma without partiality if any. With metta kk 22127 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 12, 2003 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Howard, FYI - I also considered an alternate ending where Engineer Rob gets enlightened, but I wasn't "mana" enough to do it :-) ! Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Why, it is as if some some > > monitors and hard drives that had been overturned were now set > upright! ;-)) > > Love your ending... I had considered using something like this, but > felt that the reference might be a bit obscure. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22128 From: Date: Mon May 12, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Internet Sutta - Please comment ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/12/03 8:51:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > FYI - I also considered an alternate ending where Engineer Rob gets > enlightened, but I wasn't "mana" enough to do it :-) ! > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22129 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:11pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, Yesterday was a special day for me. By comparison, It started after I read Azita's post late in the afternoon. It may be ordinary for some of the more experienced folks here in dsg or it may even count as a 'low' day for some others. But for me it was more than any other day. There were many moments in which akusala conditioned kusala. And these were brief as Azita said, " patipatti is also one moment which arises and falls away". But they were enough to show me how development has to be. As you may have figured out, that normally in a day, in my case it is almost always akusala citta arising. This being so, I have no expectations that the path will be easy and show noticable results. And I am not surprised and feel unnecessarily concerned if these moments are very brief and imediately followed by lots and lots of akusala. I see that this is the way that it *must* be. The fire burning on our heads should not drive us to be frantic and find a quick solution. In fact the realization of the fire must be a moment of kusala and not condition craving and wrong view with regard to practice. One can simply see the danger of all akusala and the value of kusala, particularly right view. And one will not be driven to go beyond the understanding of this present reality. And even if by habit one is drawn to the meditation cushion, one can see what it has been motivated by. Is this wrong effort motivated by ignorance and wrong view? Yasa, I think one needs to examine one's motive, and I think if this can be seen, one may then find value in not 'going anywhere'. One may notice how movements towards any practice may be a case of "self" at work. And once you start to see the fact that sati can arise at anytime, you may start to notice the difference between 'induced sati' and one that arises naturally. The former may give an illusion of profoundness if the latter is not appreciated. The latter on the other hand, will not appear any special at all, but once you appreciate it, you will see that it is in fact more in line with the "truth" than the former. I know that were it not for your firm belief that the Buddha did teach formal meditation, you will have no objection to what Sarah, Jon and others have been saying. And since, you are in the process of establishing with Jon, what meditation really means, why don't you in the mean time suspend this particular belief and see what happens?! If anything you might come to realize the attachment you may have to the practice itself, no? :-) I hope you can begin to see this. Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Yasa, Jon and All, > > > > I am enjoying your posts and learning much from the threads you are > > involved in, for which I thank you. Your last question to Jon is 22130 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, Sorry for taking time to reply. My comments are between yours. > I would say that the goal of Buddha's teaching is liberation, the > cessation of dukkha. Seeing every conditioned phenomenon being > impermanent, dukkha, not self as it actually is, one grows > disenchanted with it. Disenchanted, one becomes dispassionate. > Through dispassion, one is fully released. With full release, there > is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' One discerns that 'Birth is > depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing > further for this world.' I believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be as you say, liberation, the cessation of dukkha. But sight of the goal, I believe must not push me to overreach and be driven by concepts which have deeper meaning than it at first sight appears. I can only understand what I can understand. What I do understand now is that I am motivated most of the day by lobha, dosa and moha. That these arise and color my perception in every direction, including my understanding of the Buddha's words. The concepts of liberation, dukkha, anicca, anatta, all these are only very superficially understood. But I do know that there is experience and that which is experienced. I know that there is anger, attachment, conceit, pride etc. Even these experiences are only vaguely noticable, and I cannot even say that I 'know' them. But I trust that they can be slowly understood more and more. I know by theory and deduction that they arise and fall. It makes sense to me however, that to see rise and fall I must first know what it is that arises and falls. My mind must be sharp enough to notice the just arisen dhamma. So I do not stress too much the concept of anicca except as an object of wise consideration, as in the case of experiencing any object, one is reminded that it does not stay. Certainly I do not presume to be actually experiencing it and so speak about it as if I have. Or that because I understand the concept, I should use it to label all experiences. In a day, many realities appear and each can have different intensities in terms of either conditioning more akusala or sati. Sati and panna can arise to be aware what ever reality, one must not be driven to use the idea of anicca for example, as it were the way to attain liberation. Otherwise one may not come to understand conditions. And anatta is not a matter of attitude towards an experience, but the actual characteristic of a dhamma. Likewise dukkha, is a characteristic of all realities which may not be understood if we simply label all experience as dukkha... I think. > I would say that that making a distinction between the so- > called "paramathha dhammas" and the so-called "conventional objects" > based on the idea that the so-called "paramathha dhammas" have the > three characteristics whereas the so-called "conventional objects" > don't is erroneous. It is erroneous because the idea that the so- > called "conventional objects" don't have the three characteristics > is false. I agree that making such a distinction should not be based on this idea alone, this is not enough reason. It must be based on what Satipatthana is all about, and what it is that the object of sati of this level can be. But conventional objects *do not* have the lakkhana of anicca and dukkha, thats for sure. What does have these characteristics are the different realities experienced through the different doorways, from which the idea of these conventional objects have arisen. And what also has these charateristic is the consciousness which experiences these conventional objects. And *these* are the potential objects of satipatthana. So it is important first to know theoretically the difference between concept and reality, knowing that it is only the latter which is experienced through the five sense doors. This is in order that one does not then in practice, believe what is not real to be real, and what does not arise and fall to do so. > I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" > are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. I think you can safely say that conventional objects are impermanent, if you make the distinction between this idea and what anicca really means. Dukkha, you may refer to your own citta, when these objects fail you. Not-self, is what they obviously are! ;-) I think... > I would not say "wisdom sees the three characteristics of > conditioned phenomenon." Rather, I would say that "one sees the > three characterics of conditioned phenomenon with wisdom." Why? > Because wisdom is not self. .....??!!..... Mai khow jai, in Thai means, "don't understand". :-) Metta, Sukin. 22131 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Victor, > Since you mentioned about effort, I would like to point to the > passages on right effort with the link > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html I am sure you know by now, what the general dsg interpretation of this would be. ;-) That it is conventional language used to express ultimate realities. My own understanding is that it refers to the effort which accompanies a moment of satipatthana. No one making any special effort, but sati and panna accompanied by right effort and all the other mental factors. Victor, have you any experience of being able to develop kusala or stop akusala without sati and panna? If not, why can't you see that it is because of these that this could have been? And that the 'effort' is just 'right' because it is part of the same citta?! Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. 22132 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 12, 2003 10:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, I hope you don't get tired of me...;-) My response is between yours. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have been is no > problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of difference > do remain. That's fine too. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I think so too. And maybe we will have to end up agreeing to disagree. But in the meantime we may discover more grounds to agree upon. After all, I don't have a clear perspective of my own views, less so of another. And I also find that I often reject another's view not after considering it, but quite indiscriminately based on disagreement on other aspects of the Teachings. :-/ > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. Some > think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the one-way > path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from each > other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". > --------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I think it is "the only way", what do you think? My conviction is not solely because the Buddha says so, but from understanding the nature of experience and what is it that we are all "ignorant" of. What as a logical consequence, would one be 'enlightened' into. Knowing how in ignorance the mind spins 'stories' of freedom and release, all the while not knowing that one is caught in the clutches of lobha and dosa resulting from the kilesas being conditioned to arise. Satipatthana is the only one that makes sense in this regard as being the way to come to really see the truth. And in the process I have come to know, at least in principle, that the "Truth" is not as postulated by other philosophies and religions, but this experience of mind and matter now!(and of course nibbana). > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the > impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - seeing > it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to face > with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads us to > look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual > search. > If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it > as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the jail > his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not walk > through. > --------------------------------------------- Sukin: I have to agree that the realization that "something is wrong" must have been there initially. And this can be kusala or akusala and can lead to any direction, or remain in the cell. But I think you will agree that all this doesn't matter now... > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a week is > best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without > deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to > whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently guard the > senses and observe mindfully. > ------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't aim at having sati for 24 hrs or even one hour or less, I don't view the practice with expectation or goal, less with any ambition. Similarly I have no view of following the 8-fold path at anytime or to keep sila, whether energetically or not. I have no such thoughts. When I read about sila, I may see its value, at other times I may see the harm in not keeping the precepts. But I don't consider it necessarily kusala to keep the precepts, for example I have refrained from taking alcohol for the last three years, but I do notice a struggle with it from time to time, and at other times there may be some kusala moments. And certainly sila is just the moment of refraining from akusala, no "I" who has it all the time! So "I" keeping the precept is not important as the moment of seeing kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. I think you may agree with this. But what I definitely don't agree with you on is the following: Howard: > And, when there is time and opportunity, one > should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and concentrated > by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all that one > can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: Ultimately, > there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, > directed by cetana and chanda.] ---------------------------------------------- Sukin: I don't believe in `doing' since I don't believe that having noble ideals is necessarily conditioned by kusala cetana and chanda. I do encourage kusala in whatever form, but that does not mean it will be so whenever I want to develop it. It certainly will not be conditioned by some ritualistic practice no matter how I view it, as a duty to perform or whatever. Only sati and panna can tell, and that too, only about that particular moment. ------------------------------------------------------- > > At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > > visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object of > > awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by > setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful > conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" to do > anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a > valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual commitment to > the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake that > paralyzes us. > ------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I agree that as much as I reject formal practice based on my insistence on anatta, I may unknowingly become lax ignoring any opportunity for developing kusala, but even this is not-self and in a way OK (as long as I am in the company of wise friends who will remind me about this every now and then ;-)) , I think. ------------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is descriptive of > what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful when one > is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. > ---------------------------------------------------- Sukin: :-) ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it > occurs, is just something that happens. Sukin: And I have a feeling today, that we are not as far as I previously thought we were. :-) Metta, Sukin. 22133 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Kom, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Hello All, > > I had an opportunity to discuss with Nina this particular > section of the book on truthfulness and Nina suggested that > I posted what I said to the group to get an opinion on my > views, and perhaps to get further discussions about the > values of truthfulness. ..... Thx for sharing your useful comments - pls keep sharing;-) ..... > Nina mentioned that truthfulness might be hard to > understand. > > ==== kom ==== > I think this is an unfamiliar concept to Westerners, and to > Buddhists: it is often misunderstood anyway. Very difficult > idea to understand, especially if one doesn't see (or > vaguely see) the benefits of truthfulness itself. > ============ > > Some people may have doubts about the ‘Assertion of Truth’ > referred to in > the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an > Assertion of Truth > can bring its result according to one1s wish. ..... I don’t think truthfulness as in the precept (as we understand it) is difficult for anyone to understand. However, the deeper and wider meaning of sacca (truth) as discussed in the section on sacca parami is not so simple. In particular, I found the sections on the ‘Assertion of Truth’ (post 21483) difficult to really comprehend even with the extra helpful clarifications Nina gave. The Jataka story (no 444, Kanhadipayana Jataka) is very interesting. When I read it, I just accept that the Act of Truth (the verse Dipayana, the Bodhisatta, uttered) was the condition for the child who’d been poisoned by the snake to recover. The question in the section Nina translated was very interesting about why the Bodhisatta was dissatisfied during this life as an ascetic in spite of inclinations to renunciation over so many existences. K.Sujin’s answer was that it was ‘because of the instability that is characteristic of non-enlightened people’. Even more interesting. ..... >However, when > a person has to > experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to > overcome his > suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what > truthfulness is > and without understanding its high value. It is essential > that one, before > making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the > benefit of > truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the > perfection of > truthfulness. > > ==== kom ==== > For me, it suffices to say, that we shouldn't expect that we > can do this (and have a similar results) in our daily life. ..... A few more Acts of Truth are given in these Jatakas: 463, 491,499 They are all very different. The last one is the famous Jataka about the giving of his eyes. After uttering an Assertion of Truth his sight is restored by Sakka. Definitely don’t try this at home!! ..... Thanks for your other good comments too, Kom. I’ll add another passage from one of the extracts on Sacca parami from the series after signing off as I found it particularly helpful with regard to the deeper meaning of sacca - "Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths"- and caga (relinquishment). Look forward to more of your reflections. With metta, Sarah ...... QUOTE from ‘The Perfections’: “We read in the ‘Paramatthadípaní’, the Commentary to the ‘Itivuttaka’, ‘As it was said’, Khuddaka Nikåya, the Commentary to The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, an elaboration of the words ‘arahat’ and ‘bhagavå’. We read about four aditthåna dhammas, dhammas which are firm foundations connected with the ten perfections. We read that the aditthåna dhammas are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquisment, cåga, calm or peace, upasama, and paññå [3]. Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We read in the Commentary to the Lobha Sutta: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 The word araham means that there should be truthfulness, sacca, with regard to the development of kusala ... As regards the word ‘bhagavå’, the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquisment. Thus, if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble Truths cannot be realized. We read: By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), namely, the defilements. Relinquishment, cåga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of all defilements. True relinquishment is the relinquishment of everything, even of all defilements. One needs from the beginning also sacca, truthfulness, as a firm foundation, so that defilements can be eradicated. We listen to the Dhamma, we understand it and we know that we still have a great deal of defilements. Therefore, we need to further develop and accumulate all the perfections in order to realize the noble Truths and to attain true relinquishment.” ******** 22134 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry Briefly, 'anatta' is a characteristic of dhammas that are 'sabhava'. That characteristic can become known to panna of the level of insight (panna that directly experiences the true nature of those dhammas). As I understand it, 'asabhava' refers to the absence of 'sabhava'. At a moment of consciousness conceiving of an idea, there is no mental object having 'sabhava' (only the consciousness itself), so there are no characteristics of that mental object the knowledge of which will help to break the bonds of samsara. Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > Maybe someone would like to explain why we care about > distinguishing > between asabhava and anatta. On the surface, they look like the > same thing, i.e., "not it". > > Also, does anyone know if this is explicitly spelled out as a > practice in the tipitaka or by Buddhaghosa? > > Larry 22135 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: question! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "lokuttaracitta" wrote: > Dear Rob and Yasa > > Thank you for your great kindness. > > Sorry for my poor information on my background. > > I was born and brought up under Japanese education and culture here in Japan. > > I have been studying and practising Maha-yanas (including Vajra- yana ) > Tradition before I met teachings of Theravada tradition last year and > "discoverd "the greatness of theravadin. > > In most cases in maha-yana traditions , The teachings of theravada has been > mistreated as almost the same as those of Sarvastivardin while I notice that > some sayadaw mistake Maha-yana's views and practices for just the same as > those of Hindu. Of course there are many similarities between maha- yanas and > Hinduism in superficial ways , but their basic views and goals are far > different. > > In my view , Both of the reasons are just lack of knowledge and experience. > > However , I have no intention at all to be involved in any argument on the > differences between theravada and other traditions. I just want to understand > cleary what pali canons say , without any confusion and mixture with other > traditions. I know that there are many terms whose meanings are different > between them. So I need to be very careful when reading writings on > Abhidhamma in order to avoid misunderstandings. > > As a preliminary training, I started to read Suttas and writings by > Theravardin monks and to attend Dhamma takls and meditation sessions led by > several Sayadaws . Then I have just begun studying Abhidhamma. I 've read > only about 80% of Abhidhammattasangaha in Japanese version with help of > ebooks writtend by Pa-auk sayadaw and Nina Van Gorkom etc. > > Having said above that I do not want to mix theravadin with other traditions, > it is natural for me at this stage that my questions come mainly from my > own background, especially from my knowledge and experinece gained by my > having learned Maha-yaha tradition. > > So please fogive me if there is any nonsense in my questions to you . > > > I do not have Vishuddhi Magga and Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of > Abhidhamma now ,but I do want to read them as your suggestions soon. Can I > get them on the net? > > It would be appreciated if you would give me your reply to my futher > questions. > > With metta > > kk _______________________________Yasa Replies________________________ KK You were referring to Mahayana, Vajrayana and Theravada traditions. All these traditions have the Basic teachings of Buddha such as the four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path and the Causal Genesis (paticcasamupada). The difference is in the traditional beliefs that got mixed into the teachings, specially ,with regard to ceremonies and certain beliefs. Mahayana was defined as a separate Buddhist tradition, in the second century A.D . Vajrayana still later, some where in the 8th century A.D.. Therefore in Vajrayana there may be Hindu beliefs. Theravada (means dialogues of the thera, elders or senior Bikkhus). The Buddha used Pali, the language of the common people in ancient India for his discourses. It was not a written language and most of the discourses of the Buddha were learnt by "word of mouth"- in the Oral tradition. The discourses so retained in memory were recited in groups, and each group verified the discourses with the other groups , thus correcting any errors. Three months after the death of Buddha all the Arahants the senior Bikkhus, the elders( thera), met in Council and recited all the discourses of the Buddha- Sutta Pitaka by Venerable Ananda and the Vinaya Pitaka by Venerable Upali. As these teachings were passed from teacher to pupil following the Oral tradition, it came to be called the Theravada. In the 3rd century B.C, Theravada was introduced to Sri Lanka. Abhidhamma was not included in the chapters, at the first and the second councils, but at the third Council. It is the higher dhamma, which explains the paramatta dhamma, the ultimate reality. A sort of a catalogue of what a being ( pancakkhanda) is composed of. It was not a teaching made to his disciples or lay followers, let alone to be followed as instructions for contemplation. For his disciples and the lay followers, the Buddha made the discourses (sutta) in which he explained the four noble truths, (dukkha, samudaya, nirodha and nibbana), and the path to follow to attain Nibbana- the eight fold path, which consist of: right understanding (samma ditthi), right thought( s.sankappa),right speech (s.vaca), right action(s.kammanata), right livelihood (s.ajiva), right effort (s.vayama), right mindfulness (s.sati) and right concentration (s.samadhi). The first two, is the Wisdom Group( panna), second three, the virtue group(sila), and the third three the concentration ( samadhi) group. According to the Maha Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, the Buddha says to follow the virtue(sila) group first, concentration (samadhi) group second and arrive at wisdom (panna) group. Here is an extract from the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, where the Buddha tells Subhadda about his teaching: "…… and the Blessed One said, "In any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is not found, no contemplative of the first... second... third... fourth order [stream-winner, once-returner, non- returner, or Arahant] is found. But in any doctrine & discipline where the noble eightfold path is found, contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order are found. The noble eightfold path is found in this doctrine & discipline, and right here there are contemplatives of the first... second... third... fourth order. Other teachings are empty of knowledgeable contemplatives. And if the monks dwell rightly, this world will not be empty of Arahants." Visuddhimagga is available in the web, but only parts of it. Just type "Visuddhimagga" on you browser window and then" click" search. Reading Abhidhamma in the Mannuals is rather boring. I am reading Nina Van Gorkom's Abhidhamma in Daily Life and it is much more interesting . Later on you may go back to the Manuals if you want to make further search and study. Study of Abhidhamma is very interesting for itself, but you should not give up reading the Suttas, which are important to follow the path the Buddha showed us. With metta, Yasa 22136 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > Yesterday was a special day for me. By comparison, It started after > I read Azita's post late in the afternoon. It may be ordinary for > some of the more experienced folks here in dsg or it may even count > as a 'low' day for some others. But for me it was more than any > other day. > There were many moments in which akusala conditioned kusala. And > these were brief as Azita said, " patipatti is also one moment which > arises and falls away". But they were enough to show me how > development has to be. > As you may have figured out, that normally in a day, in my case it > is almost always akusala citta arising. This being so, I have no > expectations that the path will be easy and show noticable results. > And I am not surprised and feel unnecessarily concerned if these > moments are very brief and imediately followed by lots and lots of > akusala. I see that this is the way that it *must* be. > The fire burning on our heads should not drive us to be frantic and > find a quick solution. In fact the realization of the fire must be a > moment of kusala and not condition craving and wrong view with > regard to practice. One can simply see the danger of all akusala and > the value of kusala, particularly right view. And one will not be > driven to go beyond the understanding of this present reality. And > even if by habit one is drawn to the meditation cushion, one can see > what it has been motivated by. Is this wrong effort motivated by > ignorance and wrong view? > Yasa, I think one needs to examine one's motive, and I think if this > can be seen, one may then find value in not 'going anywhere'. One > may notice how movements towards any practice may be a case > of "self" at work. And once you start to see the fact that sati can > arise at anytime, you may start to notice the difference > between 'induced sati' and one that arises naturally. The former may > give an illusion of profoundness if the latter is not appreciated. > The latter on the other hand, will not appear any special at all, > but once you appreciate it, you will see that it is in fact more in > line with the "truth" than the former. > I know that were it not for your firm belief that the Buddha did > teach formal meditation, you will have no objection to what Sarah, > Jon and others have been saying. And since, you are in the process > of establishing with Jon, what meditation really means, why don't > you in the mean time suspend this particular belief and see what > happens?! If anything you might come to realize the attachment you > may have to the practice itself, no? :-) > > I hope you can begin to see this. > > Metta, > Sukin > > _______________________________Yasa says_______________________ Sukin, Your post is not much different from those of others. I am awaitin to hear from Jon, Sarah, Christine to prepare a reply to Azita, which will help me to include my thoughts in one post for all: In your post you speak of kusala and akusala citta: but it is a vain attempt, to find out which is the akusala and which is the kusala cittah. See what Nina says in the 14th Chapter - Functions of Javana Citta in the ADL: "We may not know that both in a sense-door process and in a mind-door process there are akusala cittas or kusala cittas arising. Because of our accumulated ignorance we do not clearly know our akusala cittas and kusala cittas and we do not recognize our more subtle defilements. " with metta, Yasa 22137 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/13/03 1:35:36 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I hope you don't get tired of me...;-) > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly not! ----------------------------------------------------- > My response is between yours. > > >--------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > That's fine. BTW, whatever misunderstanding there may have > been is no > >problem. I think there may have been some. I still think points of > difference > >do remain. That's fine too. > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I think so too. And maybe we will have to end up agreeing to disagree. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I've read ahead, and, yes, some disagreement, but only some and in retreicted areas. --------------------------------------------------------------- > > But in the meantime we may discover more grounds to agree upon. > After all, I don't have a clear perspective of my own views, less so of > another. And I also find that I often reject another's view not after > considering it, but quite indiscriminately based on disagreement on other > aspects of the Teachings. :-/ > >------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Yes. BTW, there is some debate over the meaning of 'ekayana'. > Some > >think it should be rendered in English as "the straight path" or "the > one-way > >path" or "the direct path", which have slightly different senses from > each > >other, and all of which differ in meaning from "the only way". > >--------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I think it is "the only way", what do you think? My conviction is not > solely > because the Buddha says so, but from understanding the nature of > experience and what is it that we are all "ignorant" of. What as a logical > consequence, would one be 'enlightened' into. Knowing how in > ignorance the mind spins 'stories' of freedom and release, all the while > not knowing that one is caught in the clutches of lobha and dosa > resulting from the kilesas being conditioned to arise. Satipatthana is the > only one that makes sense in this regard as being the way to come to > really see the truth. And in the process I have come to know, at least in > principle, that the "Truth" is not as postulated by other philosophies and > religions, but this experience of mind and matter now!(and of course > nibbana). > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I also agree that the practice taught by the Buddha is the only way. (Of course, elements of it may be found elsewhere as well, and truth is truth wherever it is found.) --------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > It conditions the realization that "something is wrong". Seeing the > >impermanence of conventional objects, especially of beloved objects - > seeing > >it clearly, without averting one's eyes and mind, places one face to > face > >with the deep unsatisfactoriness of life as we experience it, and leads > us to > >look for a way to "solve the problem". This is the origin of spiritual > >search. > > If the prisoner gets used to his jail cell, if he comes to accept it > >as "the way things are and must be," if he even comes to consider the > jail > >his "home", then even though the cell door be wide open he will not > walk > >through. > >--------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I have to agree that the realization that "something is wrong" must have > been there initially. And this can be kusala or akusala and can lead to > any direction, or remain in the cell. But I think you will agree that all > this > doesn't matter now... > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, I don't agree with that. So long as we are worldlings or even beyond, ignorance and self-deluding remain in force, and we constantly need the realization that "something is wrong". That is what spurs the search and creates the sense of urgency (samvega). --------------------------------------------------------- > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > No doubt, paying close attention 24 hours a day, seven days a > week is > >best. In fact, following the entire 8-fold path all the time, without > >deviation is best. We should always practice sila, and always attend to > >whatever arises carefully and energetically. We should consistently > guard the > >senses and observe mindfully. > >------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I don't aim at having sati for 24 hrs or even one hour or less, I don't > view the practice with expectation or goal, less with any ambition. > Similarly I have no view of following the 8-fold path at anytime or to > keep sila, whether energetically or not. I have no such thoughts. When I > read about sila, I may see its value, at other times I may see the harm > in not keeping the precepts. But I don't consider it necessarily kusala to > keep the precepts, for example I have refrained from taking alcohol for > the last three years, but I do notice a struggle with it from time to time, > > and at other times there may be some kusala moments. And certainly > sila is just the moment of refraining from akusala, no "I" who has it all > the time! So "I" keeping the precept is not important as the moment of > seeing kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. I think you may agree > with this. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that we need to keep the intention of attentiveness with us as best we can. It is needed for seeing the way things are and for guarding the sentences. I thinbk that there is the definite need for effort to maintain vigilance. It is *very* easy to slip in this, due to our inclinations. ----------------------------------------------------------- But what I definitely don't agree with you on is the following:> > Howard: > >And, when there is time and opportunity, one > >should take special steps to train the mind to be attentive and > concentrated > >by various techniques that the Buddha encouraged. One should do all > that one > >can do as often as one can do it. [Note on conventional language: > Ultimately, > >there is no "one" to be doing any of this. But there can be the doing, > >directed by cetana and chanda.] > ---------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > I don't believe in `doing' since I don't believe that having noble ideals > is > necessarily conditioned by kusala cetana and chanda. I do encourage > kusala in whatever form, but that does not mean it will be so whenever I > want to develop it. It certainly will not be conditioned by some > ritualistic > practice no matter how I view it, as a duty to perform or whatever. Only > sati and panna can tell, and that too, only about that particular moment. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know this is a point of clear disagreement - between you and me, between others here and me. So be it. -------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- > >>At this moment is a reality arising which *can* be known, thinking, > >>visible object, aversion, hearing, anything at all, can be the object > of > >>awareness. *BUT* there is no one who can make this happen! > >> > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Correct (as I see it). But it can be made to happen, eventually, by > >setting up of appropriate conditions. If the opportunity to set up useful > >conditions is in place, but due to the accepting that there is no "one" > to do > >anything, the required cetana, chanda, and viriya do not arise, then a > >valuable opportunity has been squandered. A mere intellectual > commitment to > >the notion of no-self, when grasped wrongly, is a poisonous snake > that > >paralyzes us. > >------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I agree that as much as I reject formal practice based on my insistence > on anatta, I may unknowingly become lax ignoring any opportunity for > developing kusala, but even this is not-self and in a way OK (as long as > I am in the company of wise friends who will remind me about this > every now and then ;-)) , I think. > ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, oh! We're getting a bit closer here! ;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I consider Abhidhamma to be a conceptual system that is > descriptive of > >what can be known directly. I see it as a map. A map is very useful > when one > >is on the road, but less so when one is not going anywhere. > >---------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > :-) > ---------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Directness is just fine! And misunderstanding, to the extent that it > >occurs, is just something that happens. > Sukin: > And I have a feeling today, that we are not as far as I previously thought > we were. :-) > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Likewise! -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sukin. > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22138 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 13, 2003 5:28am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, and all, Sorry for the delay in replying (- I seem to be spending most of my time at the veterinarian this last week.) I understand anatta (a little) - though I mostly think in conventional terms about 'I' and 'myself', and though *I* am still subject to the desire for this *self* to 'do something' to progress quickly. -------------------------------- You say: "But thinking will not give you the answers…………What will help you to find the reality of the existence of a self, and how to set about doing that ….?" -------------------------------- CJF: Much of the time I remember the four factors of stream entry - i.e. association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. So I find reading and discussing the Teachings, and mindfulness, to be a great help. This has given me a growing understanding of the conditionality and impermanence of all physical and psychical phenomena. I have come to realise, with regard to my ignorance and defilements, the need for patience, and the truth of the Nava sutta "Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know, 'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way, when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know, 'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,' still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: 22139 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:31am Subject: Freudian Typo Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi again, Sukin - In a message dated 5/13/03 8:07:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Howard: > I think that we need to keep the intention of attentiveness with us as > best we can. It is needed for seeing the way things are and for guarding > the > sentences. I thinbk that there is the definite need for effort to maintain > vigilance. It is *very* easy to slip in this, due to our inclinations. > ========================== I guess I need to exercise more vigilance in "guarding the sentences"! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22141 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, --- yasalalaka wrote: > --- In > ...................... I am awaitin > to hear from Jon, Sarah, Christine to prepare a reply to Azita, > which will help me to include my thoughts in one post for all: ..... I appreciated your long and beautifully written post to me very much. It was very clear and informative. I've been too rushed these few days to do it justice - hopefully tomorrow as well as some others I have in mind. Greatly appreciating all your contributions meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ===== 22142 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 13, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Great to see you in such good form too;-) You asked me to let you know if there's anything I disagreed with in your posts, so here's one.... --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > I am sure you know by now, what the general dsg interpretation of > this would be. ;-) ..... Objection! I don't consider there's such a thing as a 'general dsg interpretation'. There are around 300 members and I'm sure that what you express below (which I happen to agree with) is a minority understanding here. Most members will be supporting Victor and wishing to encourage him and others to elaborate further on their views;-) Indeed it is the diversity of interpretations that makes the list what it is! Metta, Sarah ======= That it is conventional language used to express > ultimate realities. > My own understanding is that it refers to the effort which > accompanies a moment of satipatthana. No one making any special > effort, but sati and panna accompanied by right effort and all the > other mental factors. 22143 From: m. nease Date: Tue May 13, 2003 6:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah and Kom, Thanks for the good material re. truth. A question below: ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:32 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions > QUOTE from 'The Perfections': > ... > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > namely, the defilements. My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than pa~n~naa) could relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these potential readings seem misleading to me. Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent tendency to grasp at them again remains unabated. In the verse, "Gain/loss, status/disgrace, censure/praise, pleasure/pain: these conditions among human beings are inconstant, impermanent, subject to change. Knowing this, the wise person, mindful, ponders these changing conditions. Desirable things don't charm the mind, undesirable ones bring no resistance. His welcoming & rebelling are scattered, gone to their end, do not exist. Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state, he discerns rightly, has gone, beyond becoming, to the Further Shore.", http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an8-6.html the 'wise person's (the arahant's, in this case) "...welcoming & rebelling are scattered, gone to their end, do not exist." They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the accomplishment of some kind of right effort. Sorry if I'm belaboring the obvious... Mike 22144 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present moment. I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order to 'have satipatthana arise'. You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore " and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying to do an exercise of concentration. I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly to a person such as is described here. A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down cross-legged. Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at whatever reaction comes ;-)). Looking forward to your further comments. Jon 22145 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor Thanks for your analysis of SN V. 10, much of which I agree with (although I'm unclear about one or two of your comments). It is always best to consider the whole context of a particular passage. However, you haven't expressed a view on my earlier paraphrase of Vajira's reference to 'living being', which I suggested should be read to mean that: "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)" or, to put it in the terminology of the translation that you have used here: "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)". If our discussion is to proceed, I think you'll need to say whether you agree with that as an accurate restatement of the particular passage and, if not, then in what respect you find it not correct. Thanks again. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I read the discourse and found that what you quoted is a response > to Mara's questions. > > "By whom has this being been created? > Where is the maker of the being? > Where has the being arisen? > Where does the being cease?" > > As I understand it, Mara's questions are based on the > assumption "what being is"/"what self is". > > I will try to comment Vajira's reply as I understand it in context: > > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, have you grasped a view? > > I note that first Vajira replied Mara's questions with two counter- > questions, indicating that the questions sprang out of assumption. > > > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > Here no being is found. > > Since this heap of sheer construction is not self, no being can be > found there. Note that Vajira did not claim/assert that there is > no being. > > > Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > > Note that Vajira did not assert that chariot is an assemblage of > parts, nor did she assert that the word 'chariot' refers to an > assemblage of parts, nor did she claim that there is no chariot. > > > So, when the aggregates are present, > There's the convention 'a being.' > > Likewise, Vajira did not assert that a being is a > compositition/assemblage of the five aggregates, nor did she assert > that the convention 'a being' refers to a compositition/assemblage > of the five aggregates, nor did she claim that there is no being. > > > It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > Nothing but suffering ceases." > > This is a response to Mara's questions "Where has the being arisen? > Where does the being cease?" Mara's questions were in itself > wrongly phrased and stemmed from assumption. 22146 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue May 13, 2003 7:32am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Nina, Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. With much respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > I am so glad you are back, I missed you. I apppreciate your sincerity and > your kusala citta. I like it that at the end of a message you always have a > good wish, it is like a Buddhist prayer. > Now see below. > op 14-04-2003 20:44 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > > > What is eye openers? > N: The Abhidhamma is an eye opener, it helps us to see what we did not see > before. We were in the dark without the Tipitaka, The Vinaya, the Suttanta, > and the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma helps us to see cause and effect, what is > kusala, what is akusala. It helps us to see also our more subtle > defilements, our hidden motives. It helps us to understand conditions, to > see that whatever arises is conditioned. This can have a great influence on > us, beginning to understand that there is no self. But we have to apply > Abhidhamma in our life, as you like to stress. When we study the Vinaya we > can also be reminded of the many degrees of akusala and kusala. We can see > that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. All > three of them are very essential. > > H:And who is messenger in your post? > > N: In the olden days in Greece they would kill messengers who brought bad > tidings. But at least they would listen first to get the message. It is > worse when you see a messenger and you will not even listen, but start to > kill him off immmediately. > We can learn from this simile that it is important to listen to each other. > We may not agree with the opponents of Abhidhamma, but do they perhaps have > a point? What is the cause of misunderstandings which in the end may prove > to be quite unnecessary? Can we perhaps take another approach to explain the > Abhidhamma, to overcome misunderstandings? And for those who do not agree, > it may be helpful to listen without aversion. When there is aversion, we > cannot even listen. We can always learn from listening. > > May we all be openminded and learn to listen to each other, > Nina. > P.S. I hope you will write again, if time permits. 22147 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I would say that your paraphrase "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being'" or "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a being'" distorts the original passage So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.' I would say that your paraphrase is an inaccurate restatement of the original passage above. Why? Your paraphrase begs the question: What is conventionally called 'a being'? Or, what is it that we call a 'living being'? whereas in the original passage Sister Vajira simply stated that there's the convention 'a being'. She did not claim that the five aggregates are conventionally called 'a being'. I would be very careful not to distort the original passage with the paraphrase that you mentioned. And I would not assume that the five aggregates are a being. Thank you again for your reply. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for your analysis of SN V. 10, much of which I agree with > (although I'm unclear about one or two of your comments). It is > always best to consider the whole context of a particular passage. > > However, you haven't expressed a view on my earlier paraphrase of > Vajira's reference to 'living being', which I suggested should be > read to mean that: > "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being' (i.e., a > 'person', 'animal' etc)" > > or, to put it in the terminology of the translation that you have > used here: > "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called 'a > being' (i.e., a 'person', 'animal' etc)". > > If our discussion is to proceed, I think you'll need to say whether > you agree with that as an accurate restatement of the particular > passage and, if not, then in what respect you find it not correct. > > Thanks again. > > Jon 22148 From: Vital Moors Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:22am Subject: I try again I'm a dutch lawyer, 40 years. I've studied also western philosophy, catolic theology and marketing, but I like Asia and Buddhism. I try to know more about Buddhism by reading, studying and practissing it. Since the first time I was in a Thailand I felt as if I came home after a long searching. Afterm that I also was in Viet Nam, Singapore and Malysia. Maybe I lived in Asia in a previous life or it is my karma to settle me in Asia. I like to work and live in Asia to help people, to manage projects with and for people (AIDS-patients, homeless children, poor people, people with problems,...) or to become a novice or helper in a temple. So I can learn much more about the culture. But in first instance my purpose in to study and praktize of Buddhism. I hope someone can give me some advice. Or if you know other people who can giv eme the golden tip, give them my emailadress. My email is: vitalmoors@h... If you like to have more information about me, please look at my homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl I hope to hear from you very soon Mr. Vital E.H. Moors 22149 From: connie Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob M ~ I wouldn't say 'blasphemous', but do apologize for my lack of humour. I'm not sure I'd even call your sutra 'slanderous' and in fact, rather enjoyed it. I hope you do add Howard's ending to it... or both. Maybe changing it from sutta to sutra might make some future yahoo excavator trying to repair the damaged files of the Enlightenment Patriarch Engineer Rob wonder why it reads more like a sutta? (I'm making reference to Bodhidharma's 'Platform Sutra', my first clue that 'sutra' didn't necessarily mean 'said by The Buddha'). By way of further apology, begging your understanding, if not forgiveness, here is a part of a recent letter to another friend who thinks I'm a bit of a heretic and lost cause because I waste time reading (and actually believe) anything but the Lotus Sutra, the self-proclaimed 'highest teaching of the Buddhas' and/or Nichiren's gosho (honourable writings). "I suppose I've mentioned being told that the Mahayana version of the Nirvana Sutra hasn't been translated into English so I still haven't been able to find any of Nichiren's quotes from it. I'm afraid, though, that remembering things like "In the case of the last of the teachings, the Nirvana Sutra, I again do not know in what form it may exist in India or in the dragon king's palace, but in our country it exists in a forty-volume version, a thirty-six-volume version, a six-volume version, and a two-volume version" [WND149, p1041] and "In the third and ninth volumes of the Nirvana Sutra, we find the Buddha predicting that when his teachings are transmitted from India to other countries many errors will be introduced into them, and the chances for people to gain enlightenment through them will be reduced" [WND-066, p555] just leads me to the conclusion that the best place to go is to the Pali canon. My misfortune that I only read English, and that not terribly well. Or rather, the reading is well, shallow and the retention terrible. The two quotes I am most interested in finding are "Though the Thus Come One does not speak untruths, if I knew that by speaking falsely [I could help living beings gain the benefits of the Law, then for their sake I would go along with what is best and speak such words as an expedient means]" [WND012, p97] and "All living beings alike possess the Buddha nature" [WND106, p848]." What!? By 'expedient means', is one to imagine 'speaking falsely' means 'use conventional speech' or that Buddha would break the first precept? Anyway, my problem is just that... that both sutta and sutra have that authoritative air and people like me tend to believe what they read and attribute to things. Nothing really to do with you and certainly no question that your intentions are good... or that I liked your 'suttra' better than some I've read. peace, connie 22150 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Sukin, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I would think that it is good that you believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be liberation, the cessation of dukkha. That is indeed the goal, not some special insight to see things rise and fall. I would say it is not enough to just understand that you are motivated most of the day by greed, aversion, and delusion. Knowing so is not enough. I would say it is more beneficial that one generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts one's intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.* In response to most part of your reply, I would say that the dichotomy of the "conventional"/"ultimate" and the dichotomy of "concept"/"reality" is unnecessary and complicating. I see it as an instance of papañca/complication/proliferation. Regarding the statement "wisdom sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon", I would say that person with discernment, not wisdom itself, sees the three characteristics of conditioned phenomenon. To say that "wisdom sees", one confuses wisdom with the person who sees. Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vayamo.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > I believe that the goal of the Buddha's teaching must be as you say, > liberation, the cessation of dukkha. But sight of the goal, I > believe must not push me to overreach and be driven by concepts > which have deeper meaning than it at first sight appears. I can only > understand what I can understand. What I do understand now is that I > am motivated most of the day by lobha, dosa and moha. That these > arise and color my perception in every direction, including my > understanding of the Buddha's words. The concepts of liberation, > dukkha, anicca, anatta, all these are only very superficially > understood. But I do know that there is experience and that which is > experienced. I know that there is anger, attachment, conceit, pride > etc. Even these experiences are only vaguely noticable, and I cannot > even say that I 'know' them. But I trust that they can be slowly > understood more and more. I know by theory and deduction that they > arise and fall. > It makes sense to me however, that to see rise and fall I must first > know what it is that arises and falls. My mind must be sharp enough > to notice the just arisen dhamma. So I do not stress too much the > concept of anicca except as an object of wise consideration, as in > the case of experiencing any object, one is reminded that it does > not stay. Certainly I do not presume to be actually experiencing it > and so speak about it as if I have. Or that because I understand the > concept, I should use it to label all experiences. > In a day, many realities appear and each can have different > intensities in terms of either conditioning more akusala or sati. > Sati and panna can arise to be aware what ever reality, one must not > be driven to use the idea of anicca for example, as it were the way > to attain liberation. Otherwise one may not come to understand > conditions. And anatta is not a matter of attitude towards an > experience, but the actual characteristic of a dhamma. Likewise > dukkha, is a characteristic of all realities which may not be > understood if we simply label all experience as dukkha... I think. > [snip] > I agree that making such a distinction should not be based on this > idea alone, this is not enough reason. It must be based on what > Satipatthana is all about, and what it is that the object of sati of > this level can be. But conventional objects *do not* have the > lakkhana of anicca and dukkha, thats for sure. What does have these > characteristics are the different realities experienced through the > different doorways, from which the idea of these conventional > objects have arisen. And what also has these charateristic is the > consciousness which experiences these conventional objects. And > *these* are the potential objects of satipatthana. > > So it is important first to know theoretically the difference > between concept and reality, knowing that it is only the latter > which is experienced through the five sense doors. This is in order > that one does not then in practice, believe what is not real to be > real, and what does not arise and fall to do so. > > > I would not say that the so-called "conventional objects" > > are permanent, not dukkha, self. Rather, I would say that the so- > > called "conventional objects" are impermanent, dukkha, not self. > > I think you can safely say that conventional objects are > impermanent, if you make the distinction between this idea and what > anicca really means. Dukkha, you may refer to your own citta, when > these objects fail you. Not-self, is what they obviously are! ;-) I > think... > [snip] > > .....??!!..... Mai khow jai, in Thai means, "don't understand". :-) > > Metta, > Sukin. 22151 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah & Mike, > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 6:26 AM > > > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and > the complete > > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > > namely, the defilements. > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than > pa~n~naa) could > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > potential readings seem misleading to me. I think this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there is really nothing beyond the 4 paramatha dhammas. Once we understand this, then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas. We make the decisions to do something all the time, but who is making the decisions? If we don't see that it is not us, then we still have not yet directly understood the basic teaching of the dhamma, and we need to keep continuing developing panna to get there... My undererstanding of the relinquishment of defilement is that when they are abandoned, the kusala states are also abandoned. This makes sense from the Paticha-samutpadha stand point, if ignorance is abandoned, both kusala and akusala are abandoned automatically. Hence, we would not hear (at least from me!) that we should stop doing good (kusala) so we can abandon it, because abandonment of kusala can only be done by panna, by abandoning akusala. I also think it is very important to understand how abandonment comes about. If we recognize akusala in ourselves, and work to have less of it (by recollecting things that are useful, by thinking about conditionalities / stories of dhammas). This is good, but this is not the abandonment that only the Buddha can teach. The two meditation teachers of the Buddha can also teach you this. What the Buddha teaches that nobody else teaches is that by knowing directly the characteristics of the dhamma, as non-self, as impermanence, and as suffering, the wisdom eventually reaches the level of abandonment (nibbita nanna, sankharupekkha nanna, etc. until magga). The Buddha teaches the abandonment of defilements (and kusala) via the direct knowledge of realities. > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent > tendency to grasp > at them again remains unabated. If one understands what the path truly is, then it doesn't matter if one has the accumulation to abandon defilements thru samatha or not. However, I think one also needs to remember that it is good to develop all sorts of kusala! > > "...welcoming > & rebelling are scattered, > gone to their end, > do not exist." > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, but it may not be the right effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. kom 22152 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:22pm Subject: Re: I try again Hello Vital, Welcome back. It is always nice to hear from someone again on the List. Sometimes new members make introductory posts and then go into lurking mode, leaving us wondering "Whatever happened to .... ." I'm sure we'd all love to hear how you fared with the suggestions by James, Sarah and Dan given in reply to your previous post, and if you have any queries on what you have studied so far? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20357 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Vital Moors" wrote: 22153 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 13, 2003 3:37pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Connie (and all), Connie, your comment (and Victor's) prompted me to change Sutta to 'sutra'; in my heart, I am convinced that this is an improvement. I am thankful to both of you. All, I kind of "wimped-out" at the end and I would welcome any suggestions on how to change it. Setting upright a pot that was overturned may be a bit obscure for a general Buddhist audience and having Engineer Rob get enlightened could have others accuse me of claiming a false attainment. Any ideas on how to improve the ending? Does anybody have any ideas on other ways in which the metaphor can be further extended to bring out more points of the Dhamma? Metta (and peace), Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Anyway, my problem is just that... that both sutta and sutra have that > authoritative air and people like me tend to believe what they read and > attribute to things. Nothing really to do with you and certainly no > question that your intentions are good... or that I liked your 'suttra' > better than some I've read. 22154 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 13, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana > (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the > endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is > thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. > > As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't > think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good > reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot > of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the > development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from > one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been > heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present > moment. > > I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the > sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or > understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think > it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at > which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in > terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the > present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order > to 'have satipatthana arise'. > > You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, > > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to > > the fore " > and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying > to do an exercise of concentration. > > I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at > samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object > (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at > the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting > mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as > prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object > as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has > been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case > where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly > to a person such as is described here. > > A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to > the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk > remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the > passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down > cross-legged. > > Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably > said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well > aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held > views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at > whatever reaction comes ;-)). > > Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon > > ___________________________Yasa Replies_____________________________ Jon, Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some thing else to support it. I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry having had not taken his morning meal. After that he wanted to sleep and couldn't find a place. He went to his computer and prepared a post and wanted to send it off . But just as he was going to press the button, he had forgotten to whom that post was meant and so on. There are some instances of remembering, and being aware, not as a "practice" but in a general way. This remembering is also "sati" or " being mindful". You speak of Satipatthana and Sati, as the same thing. Satipattana Sutta, should not be understood by separating the word "Satipattahana" from Sutta, taking it merely to mean " being mindful" as a synonym to "sati". Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most important discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of the Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from the cycle of death and birth. The path is now clear for those who have eyes to see. If we were to close our eyes and grope about thinking there is no light we will stumble and fall all over. We will only have to open our eyes , to see that there is light , and all that stumbling and falling was due to our own fault of having closed our eyes. For you "sati" is a sort of awakening, that dawns upon you by the merit of your " seeing the arising of the moment, the present moment". Sati according to the teachings, is being mindful of every moment, when you eat , you know you are eating, when you walk, you know you are walking, when you write, you know you are writing, when you are angry, you know you are angry, when you dress, you know you are dressing. These are all instances of "being aware"-"sati". We are made of , hair of the head ,hair of the body, skin, muscles, sinews, nerves ,bones, marrow of the bones etc. We are all this, but also decently dressed, men, and women, eating drinking, thinking, talking, walking etc. We have names, each one of us. We are not the same. We are white or black or yellow. No body will tell us that we are paramatta dhamma. When we have things to eat and drink and are cheerful and happy we know we enjoy our lives. But when things go wrong, when we lose our jobs, or lose some one dear to us, we become sad and lost. When we are ill, we cry in pain, asking why, we were born if we are to suffer this way. We will die and be born again to go through the same enjoyments and the same suffering. There seems to be no end to it. The Buddha was born , more than 2500 years ago and explained this suffering, told us how to stop this cycle of suffering. It is for us to contemplate,to know who we are after all. When we will learn to clear our mind from its clouded state, and see for ourselves what is the meaning of this seemingly inevitable suffering. And attempt to see the cause of it. Then we will see that the cause of it is our attachments to a name , " Mr.Smith", "Mrs.Simpson ", "me" , "myslf", and "you". It is the clinging to a self, and acquiring wholesome or unwholesome karma, through lobha, dosa and moha. Then we try to see who is this" self ". And it is only then we will be able to see that the self is a "being" composed of the five aggregates ( pancakkhandha) of form (rupakkhandha), feelings (vedanakkhandha), perceptions (sannanakkhandha) , consciousness (vinnakkhandha), and mental factors (sankhrakkhandha). That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the conventional reality. The reality we understand is the conventional reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. Therefore to reiterate what I have said, to understand the ultimate reality, we have to understand the conventional reality. With metta, Yasa 22155 From: vital Date: Tue May 13, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: I try again I have read a lot of books and not only reading them, I meditate I try to praktize it. But sometimes it is difficult to know if your are on the right way. And somitimes it is dificult to explain it in English. But I will try to do it tomorrow. Mr. Vital E.H. Moors homepage: http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 10:22 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: I try again > Hello Vital, > > Welcome back. It is always nice to hear from someone again on the > List. Sometimes new members make introductory posts and then go > into lurking mode, leaving us wondering "Whatever happened > to .... ." I'm sure we'd all love to hear how you fared with the > suggestions by James, Sarah and Dan given in reply to your previous > post, and if you have any queries on what you have studied so far? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20357 > > metta, > Christine > 22156 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:14pm Subject: Way 88, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the Path of Purity. The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to practice the thought of love at first: On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. On an enemy, as anger might arise. On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness gathers together all beings with goodwill. The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason of the later reflection. Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of practice The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice again and again of the thought of love that has got partial concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. 22157 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor (and Sukin) - In a message dated 5/13/03 4:15:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Regarding the statement "wisdom sees the three characteristics of > conditioned phenomenon", I would say that person with discernment, > not wisdom itself, sees the three characteristics of conditioned > phenomenon. To say that "wisdom sees", one confuses wisdom with the > person who sees. > =========================== And just to be ornery (not really! ;-), I'd say that neither a person sees nor does wisdom see - there is just the seeing. May that come to pass! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22158 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/13/03 6:39:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Does anybody have any ideas on other ways in which the metaphor can > be further extended to bring out more points of the Dhamma? > > =========================== Well, if you were to use a Mahayana allusion, the internet, an interconnection of nodes each reflecting what is at other nodes is reminiscent of Indra's net, which is usually used as a metaphor for the general sense of interdependent arising (and which I like to use as metaphor for my own personal intersubjective phenomenalism), but I don't think this will be very suitable for your purposes! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22159 From: Date: Tue May 13, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thanks for your succinct and pithy reply concerning the difference between anatta and asabhava. Do you know where this highly philosophical practice of distinguishing between concept and reality originated? What is your experience of anatta and how does it differ from your experience of asabhava? Is the one experience as effective as the other in inducing relinquishment? Larry 22160 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue May 13, 2003 9:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Thank you for sharing your thought. I appreciate it. I would not go to extreme and say there is no one who sees.* Thank you again. Your further comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-096.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-024.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4- 04a.html [snip] > And just to be ornery (not really! ;-), I'd say that neither a person > sees nor does wisdom see - there is just the seeing. May that come to pass! > :-) > > With metta, > Howard 22161 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 13, 2003 11:26pm Subject: Re: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hello Sarah, Thanks for finding that quote on how kusala was named after kusa grass -- because it cuts both ways (cuts the arisen and the non- arisen sections of passions). You added: --------------- > Perhaps we can say that at any moment of kusala, there is a `cutting' > of akusala (in other words no chance for it to arise) and the tendency or > accumulation for kusala is increased. --------------- And that increased tendency for kusala counteracts, to a degree, the existing (arisen), tendency for akusala. Thanks, I'll try to remember that (for the third time). On the subject of not needing to be a wonderful person, you said: ------------------- > any growth in detachment indicates a lessening of the stranglehold of > the strong attachment to self and is therefore liberating. ----------------- So again, even without right view, we can be liberated [to an extent] by all kinds of kusala. In my post to Christine, I did warn that there would be a lot of mere speculation. I think the only value in it, was that it revealed black holes in my own understanding (to which you have so helpfully pointed :-) ) You said: -------------- > I just wished to comment that I don't think it's a question of > `deciding' which way to go or `learning' jhana...Again it's a question of > conditions, anatta and panna of respective levels and kinds, I think. ---------------- So the panna of jhana, just like the panna of vipassana, cannot be developed in a mind-without-panna. I tend to forget that. ------------------ > Talking about jhanas and remembering past lives/psychic powers etc without > understanding the nature of moments of samatha (calm) that may arise now in > daily life is like talking about nibbana and arahantship without > understanding namas and rupas in daily life, I think. -------------------- True, very important and worth repeating. On my opinions as to whether Christine, myself or others were highly developed beings with little dust in our eyes, your comment was: -------------- > No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) -------------- Again, very true. And no need for me to add anything beginning with "Yes, but . . ." ------------------- > Briefly in another post you mentioned about how a lay arahant would > have to `conceptualise' himself as ordained and any such akusala would > be beyond him (very rough paraphrase). --------------------- Not so rough but the typing is a bit off; "ordained" should be "unordained" I think :-) I have spent several hours theorising on how a concept of one's own self can be the object of akusala citta only. (except for a concept of a self who is a bhikkhu.) I know it is a doomed theory, but at least it has made me aware of some things I need to learn. For example, you referred me to a post of Smallchap's in which he quoted conceptual thinking that was, apparently, recommended by the Buddha: I need to know more about the definition of pannatti. Take, for example, "Just as I fear pain and death, so too do others so I shouldn't hurt them;" could that be a single concept (cognized by a single citta), or is it necessarily a series of concepts, cognized by a series of cittas? Could it be described as a concept of others (possibly accompanied by metta)? Or is a concept of self -- or of both, or neither? Can I just say that I didn't think the quoted concepts entirely disproved my theory. I was able to interpret them, either as 'concepts of others' or as conventional descriptions of paramattha dhammas. I'm being stubborn, but I really can't see how the conception of one's own suffering and death, could be accompanied by wholesome mental states. We need to be aware that it is only namas and rupas that are anicca dukkha and anatta. Conventional thoughts of our own vulnerability and mortality, would seem to be fraught with fear -- or, at least, with selfishness. Thanks again for your helpful comments. Kind regards, KenH 22162 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 0:30am Subject: saddha Hi Yasa & All, S: As I said, I appreciated your post to me very much. You raise a number of important topics. Let me start with the first one of saddha (confidence, faith) which hasn’t been discussed very much here, so if you don’t mind, I’m going to use it as an opportunity to consider further here. I’ll be quoting from the chapter on saddha in Nina’s book, “Cetasikas” and also from one of the extracts from the series on the Perfections: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas27.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16335 --- yasalalaka wrote: Y: >In the > Buddhist Countries of Asia, the Buddhists have what is called Saddha > ( it is translated as confidence or faith), it has taken root in the > minds of these people, such that there isn't a modicum of doubt in > their minds about the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. > > This is some thing that does not exist in the West, being more > Cartesian , looking for reason and proof. This saddha guides these > native Buddhists through the different stages of meditation sessions > or "seeing things as they are" or whatever you may want to call. ..... S: I understand exactly what you are saying and indeed there are great benefits to being brought up in a Buddhist country, having access to the Tipitaka and being encouraged in all forms of kusala (wholesome states). On the other hand, as we know kilesa (defilements) -- and in particular wrong views -- are deeply embedded and have been accumulated over aeons of lifetimes in different realms and births and countries. Nina writes in ‘Cetasikas’: “ "An object worthy of faith" is a proximate cause of confidence. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are objects worthy of confidence. This does not mean that someone who never heard of the Dhamma cannot have confidence. Confidence is an ultimate reality with its own characteristic, it is not specifically Buddhist. Each kusala citta is accompanied by confidence; kusala is kusala, no matter what nationality or race one is, no matter what faith one professes. Also those who never heard of the Dhamma can have confidence in ways of kusala such as generosity and true loving kindness. Also good deeds are objects worthy of confidence.” ..... S: In other words, saddha is a sobhana (beautiful) mental factor, accompanying all moments of kusala. At these moments there is confidence in dana (generosity), sila (morality) or bhavana (mental development). It is not blind faith and only at the stage of being a sotapanna is saddha firm ‘without a modicum of doubt....’. ..... In the ‘Perfections’, (being translated by Nina), A.Sujin writes: “When kusala citta arises it must be accompanied by saddhå cetasika,confidence or faith. There are many degrees of kusala citta. The faculty of saddhå, faith or confidence, is a leader with regard to its specific function. This will be clearer when we consider the four limbs or factors of streamwinning: unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues (síla) which are agreeable to the ariyans. "Someone may study the Dhamma and have confidence in listening to the Dhamma, but his confidence may not be firm, it may be unstable, uncertain. If he has no right understanding of realities and if he does not know the right practice for the realization of the four noble Truths, he may easily become confused. Confidence which is unshakable and firm, without confusion, and a condition for not deviating from the right Path, is the confidence of the ariyan, confidence which is a factor of streamwinning. It is the unshakable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha and the virtues of the ariyans.” ..... S: I understand just what you are saying about saddha as being a precursor to the development of panna and indeed we read in the Atthasalini <120>(as Nina quotes): “... So faith is the forerunner, the precursor to one who is giving gifts. Observing the precepts, performing the duties of uposatha and commencing bhavana. Hence it has been said: Faith has purifying and aspiring as its characteristic.” ..... Nina also adds: “The Atthasalini refers to a simile given in the Questions of King Milinda (35)...: a universal monarch crosses a small stream with his army. The water has been polluted by the army but his water-purifying gem purifies the water so that mud, sand and waterweeds subside and the water becomes clear and undisturbed. The water which is disturbed by pollution is like the mind which is disturbed by defilements. Faith purifies the mind so that it becomes clear, transparent and undisturbed.” ..... S: I don’t, however, see it as a matter of one person having saddha and not another or of having saddha and then panna. As we know from our studies, accumulations and inclinations are very complex and change all the time. A good Buddhist, following the precepts, has no saddha at moments of akusala (unwholesomeness) and someone who doesn’t claim to have taken any kind of refuge has saddha at moments of generosity or kindness. Again, Nina writes: “But so long as latent tendencies have not been eradicated defilements are bound to arise, time and again. The purity of confidence is in the ariyan of a higher degree than in the non-ariyan. The sotapanna does not cling to the concept of self, he has eradicated wrong view, and thus his good deeds are purer. His sila is more purified than the sila of the non-ariyan, he has no more conditions to transgress the five precepts.” ..... S: I believe that panna and saddha develop together and condition each other. Even as we discuss the teachings here, there has to be moments of panna and saddha from the very beginning in order to see the value of hearing and carefully reflecting. There have been many discussions about feeling discouraged or even depressed about slow progress, other understandings or confusions. At these times, I believe there is a lack of saddha in kusala, conditioned by our limited panna. Nina writes about this in the same chapter on saddha and I think it also helps us to understand why the eradication (or at least reduction) of the idea of self leads to higher sila and saddha: “There is no self who decides for kusala, it depends on conditions whether kusala citta arises or not. When there are conditions for aversion and discouragement, there is no resolution for kusala. We may have no energy for any kind of kusala when we feel annoyed because of our shortcomings, or when we are disappointed about other people, when we feel lonely and depressed, when we find life useless and frustrating. When we are depressed we are self-centred. We want pleasant objects for ourselves and when we do not get these we feel dissatisfied with life. If there would be less clinging to the self there would be less conditions for feelings of frustration. Right understanding can eventually eradicate the clinging to the self, but it can only develop very gradually. “If we are impatient because we do not notice any progress in the development of right understanding, we should remember the patience and determination of the Buddha in the lives when he was still a Bodhisatta. He was determined to develop right understanding life after life, without becoming discouraged, without coming to a halt halfway. Courage and patience are needed in order to develop understanding of the realities appearing in daily life. One has to have "aspiring confidence" like the hero who crosses the floods. It is useless to worry about the lack of mindfulness, or to think of ways to make it arise. When there is more understanding of what the object of mindfulness is, an ultimate reality, there are conditions for mindfulness now of whatever reality appears.” ..... S: We see that regardless of our country of origin or lifestyle, saddha can only become really firm with highly developed panna. I can’t resist quoting further from Nina’s book: “As we have seen, when the faculty of confidence has been more developed, it can become unshakeable and firm, it can become a "power" or "strength" (bala). So long as one has not attained enlightenment confidence can still be shaken. One may have doubt about the value of the development of right understanding, doubt about the eightfold Path. The confidence of the sotapanna cannot be shaken anymore; he has eradicated doubt. He has an unshakeable confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. At each stage of enlightenment the faculties and thus also confidence have become more developed. At the moment of the attainment of arahatship they have reached completion. “As we have seen, one of the proximate causes of confidence is an object worthy of confidence. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha are objects worthy of confidence. so long as we are not ariyans we do not really understand what enlightenment means; we have only theoretical understanding about it and thus our knowledge is very limited. We take our refuge in the Buddha, but our confidence in his virtues cannot be as strong as the sotapanna's confidence.” ..... S: Finally, let me also copy the quote Nina gives from MN (II, no. 70, Kitgiri sutta): “I, monks, do not say that the attainment of profound knowledge comes straightaway; nevertheless, monks, the attainment of profound knowledge comes by a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual course. And how. monks. does the attainment of profound knowledge came by means of a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual course? As to this, monks, one who has faith draws close; drawing close, he sits down near by; sitting down near by he lends ear; lending ear he hears dhamma; having heard dhamma he remembers it; he tests the meaning of the things he has borne in mind; while testing the meaning the things are approved of- there being approval of the things desire (1 kusalacchanda, "wish-to-do" which is kusala.) is born; with desire born he makes an effort; having made the effort he weighs it up; having weighed it up he strives; being self-resolute he realizes himself the highest truth itself and, penetrating it by means of wisdom, he sees...” ..... >Every thing expressed here is in metta and > goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because > it was not my intention. ..... S: Here is an example of saddha in kusala. Thank you for the example of goodwill and metta and of course there is nothing displeasing in what you write. With metta, Sarah ======= 22163 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasa, I’ll try not to repeat too much what Jon and Sukin have been saying, so and try to keep these comments brief: Y: > .................... I begin to ask how do you do > this "seeing things as they are" or "arising and falling away of > citta." ? .... S: No me or you to do anything;-) Y: >Arising and falling away of citta happens countless times. > If you listen to a sound there are innumerable citta arising and > falling away. If you are crossing the road, the number of cittas > that arise and fall away are countless. .... S: Agreed. ...... Y: >Do you mean to say you see > rising and falling away of these multitude of cittas …..every moment > of the day, from the time you get up until you go to sleep in the > night ? ..... S: No. ..... Y: > Sarah, you know, having had meditated for a long time, and now having > a very good grasp of the Abhidhamma teaching, how citta arises and > falls away, ..... S: I believe the only ‘knowing’ that counts is that of panna, not that of Abhidhamma theory or hours on a cushion as some put it (not that there were ever any cushions in my ‘meditation’ days;-)) ..... Y: >and how you could see that while meditating, and now > keeping it up in the course of all your daily activity. But can > you really see the arising of the citta and its final passing away ? ..... S: I’m not meaning to be ‘dificult’ but I don’t have any idea of ‘keeping it up’ or of trying to see any arising and passing away of citta. Even any wish or attempt to have mindfulness at this or any time would merely suggest a clinging to self and possibly an erroneous idea of being able to ‘keep it up’ to my way of thinking. ..... Y: > At the moment your eyes come in contact with the object, citta > moments begin to start, but the eye consciousness arises four or five > citta moments after, and only then you see the object. The Actual > arising of the citta you had not seen, but if you are mindful then > it is possible the mind goes back to the moment of the rising of the > citta, sees a "review" of it. .... S: That would be thinking. At the time of “review”, it’s gone already. ..... Y: >It is the same with the falling away > of the citta, after about 10 or so thought moments. This happens > all the time and seeing the rising and falling away of citta every > moment of the day, you see Sarah, is a very difficult exercise. ..... S: So we see that any exercise is not the way to develop mindfulness and knowledge. ..... Y: >But > on the other hand if you are seated, on a cushion, with an > appropriate posture, you will be able to see this phenomena of citta > rising and falling away vividly, during the course of your sitting, ..... S: Who is doing the seeing? ..... Y: > and the mind settling into a calm serenity…..when you hear a sound > just stop at hearing, without going further…........ ..... S: Who can start or stop cittas? You continue in your post to discuss details about jhanas and higher stages of vipassana. In Nina’s chapter on saddha she ended by saying that there should be ‘courageous determination’ ‘to realize what one has not yet realized’. It may seem that there is a clear understanding of namas and rupas and the arising and falling away of these, but is this really so? As you rightly point out, it’s not so simple as we may think. ..... Y: > You will observe that in the Suttas , the discourses of the Buddha to > his disciples, he uses terms appropriate to their minds deluded in > self, the familiar conventional terms. That is because they are the > instructions for meditation , where as the terms in the Abhidhamma > are to describe characteristic of the panchakkhanda, a being, the > Buddha did not want his disciples to get lost in the vastness of > Abhidhamma. ..... S: On the contrary, judging from the numbers who listened to the discourses and reached various stages of enlightenment, I believe (as Sukin has said) that those listening to the Buddha were able to hear the conventional terms without being deluded as to the deeper meaning of anatta. We also read a lot of Abhidhamma in these same suttas and I don’t draw a distinction. In a couple of other posts you’ve mentioned that according to your knowledge, the Abhidhamma was only taught at the 3rd Council. I’d be glad to hear where your information comes from because, apart from the detail in the Katthavatthu, this is different from what I read in the ancient commentaries for the main part. ..... Y: > Perhaps a word of Abhidhamma, not critical, I dare not, because that > too is the word of the Buddha. In Abhidhamma you see the working of > the mind, its sense-door activities, accumulation of wholesome , > unwholesome kamma. Different types of kamma, sahetuka, ahetuka, > vipaka , kiriya. And the cittas, bahavanga citta, how it gets > activated, vibrates and gives rise to particular citta and falls > away gradually in javana and tadarammana. And then the most > interesting to read for me were the final stages of life, the cuti- > citt and the patisandhi citta. One's birth depends on the citta that > conditions the cuti-citta- which "colors" the patisandhi citta and > all the citta thereafter. But yet no one can say which karma > conditioned the relevant cuti and patisandhi cittas. Which vipaka > kamma caused a handicap in a person. Those things were said not to > speculate on, but just to show the mechanism of paramatta dhamma. ..... S: ...the ‘mechanism of paramattha dhamma’ and even more to act as a condition for detachment from any idea of a self. ..... Y: > Your comments are very objective and it is interesting to discuss > Dhamma with those who know what it is despite the controversies . .... S: Hmmmm... ...... Y: > Visuddhimagga as you know, contains the commentaries to the Sutta, > translated by Venerable Buddhaghosa into Pali. And the most of it > contains instructions on meditation and what happens in meditation. > It would be interesting to read about the Vipassana-nanas, that arise > as meditation develops and how panna arises in the mind to see > through the anicca, dukkha and anatma. ..... S: I will agree that it is about bhavana and the development of all wholesome states, particularly vipassana (insight). The vipassana-nanas are discussed in detail under the section on Panna (understanding). I’d be delighted to discuss any sections further such as these. I apologise in advance for any delayed responses which are never for any reason other than a lack of time;-) .... * * * Y: > Sri Lanka was a beautiful place in the 1970ies, now it has lost much > of its natural beauty, with hotels and what not, coming up every > where. .... S: It’s still beautiful and I greatly appreciate the examples of saddha which continue to be so apparent in all kinds of kusala. I’ve certainly learnt a lot from the confidence in generosity, metta and respect for the Triple Gem and bhavana as shown in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka. ..... Y: >That is the change of things, for good or for bad. I am > really impressed by your sojourn in a monastic atmosphere in Sri > Lanka, I am sure that helps to understand dhamma better. .... S: I believe that really only the moments of right view help us to understand dhamma better and that the real assistance lies in the very careful consideration and reflection of what one reads and hears wherever that might be. I don’t believe there should be a gap between what one reads in the Abhidhamma texts and one’s daily life in the temple or city. I’m not sure if that makes sense. Sukin wrote helpfully (imho;-)) to someone else “...if we think that we have to do certain things first, then there is a danger of not bridging the gap between theory and practice. And I think pariyatti is part of the practice in this regard.” ..... Y: >I have > found the tapes of Khun Sujin, in the internet,speaking on a > question and answer session. I found them very interesting. .... S: Pls let Sukin or me know (off-list) if you’d like others. You may also find it interesting to read the short books Nina wrote on our trips with K.Sujin to Sri Lanka in the 70s. Connie also mentioned the tapes on the Foundation website (which I can't access from my Mac computer). If there are any short extracts of particular interest, please let us know or give others here a link to the tapes. ..... Y: > I have said most of the things, I know of the Dhamma here. But I > will not hesitate to elaborate, if you have comments. ...... S: Thank you. I’m very interested to read any of your comments and greatly appreciate your keen interest and confidence in the Dhamma. You write beautifully and very clearly as well. .... Y: >I think Sukin > has replied to one of my posts and I have to go back to see what > more I could say. Every thing expressed here is in metta and > goodwill and if any thing displeases you, please pardon me, because > it was not my intention. .... S: I’ve been reading your discussion with him carefully and I’m sure everyone would like to encourage you both. The goodwill is very apparent in both your posts. Btw, I liked the story in your post to Christine about the meditators walking mindfully, reflecting on anatta and being trampled by the elephant ;-) Of course, that would be a completely wrong understanding of anatta - an idea that an understanding of realities leads to inaction or an inability to cope in daily life. It’s rather like the idea of not having any thoughts.Any development of wisdom should make life easier and simpler, not harder or more complicated;-) Look forward to reading more of your posts. With metta, Sarah p.s Rob M - note from the subject heading that Yasa and I are still on slide 1!! ===== 22164 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi Connie, Thanks for your additional information on this thread (some time back tp RobM and me;-)) A couple more comments: --- connie wrote: > The 50 cetasikas (patterned, habitualized) called mental formation > (sankhara) or volition (cetana - 'will', or not) [can we just pick one > of the 50 out like that?] would be the ethical or responsible component > as opposed to the vedana/sensation and sanna/perception cetasikas. .... All 50 cetasikas are implied, but as I understand, cetana is the coordinator or director and plays the key role in ‘accumulating’ or acting as kamma. .... > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] ..... I don’t have the full reference, but surely this means that like the oxen yoked together (is it that sutta about Kotthita??), the cetasikas such as vedana and sanna cannot be separated from citta but all arise together? They cannot arise on their own. Pls would you give the reference if there's anything further to discuss. ..... >This (kamma) > conditions psychic activity, ensuring constant motion and arising... our > intention to continue has been formed. > > constant motion? Clinging/Upadana (that by means of which an active > process is kept going... 'taking'... and what conditions becoming/bhava) > is the support. .... Sorry, I got lost. ..... > motion? Asava (that which flows, intoxicant, taint). Will is stuck in > the current (moha), whether it's toward (lobha) or away from (dosa) and > therefore there is not free will as long as there is (like it or not) > kilesa/defilement... from verb kilissati, to adhere. And once there is > no kilesa? No new kamma, but still the old stuff to get unstuck/play > out... still not free? Maybe the question is more along the lines of > are we still knotted to will rather than free will or not. ..... Still no ‘we’ to be free or not;-) Still only conditioned namas and rupas regardless of whether there are any kilesa ‘adhering’ or not. (Thx for kilissati). ..... > Sanna/Perception/Recognition/Naming: negative kamma labels things > negatively. Kammic vision as opposed to Stainless... so even 'good' > kamma is a stain? [Say it taint so... we live intent (willingly) until > we're truly homeless]. .... ;-) Taint so, but actually all sankhara khandhas are taints...dukkha! To taint or not..... Thx again for your reflections and wit, Connie. Btw, Betty, Ivan and Elle will be glad to know you’re checking out the www.buddhadhamma.com website and discussions there. If you have any difficulties, pls also let them know (off-list) and from time to time share any links or extracts here as I mentioned. While I’m talking, I’d like to quote back a comment you made in your Q & A which I thought was very good (about being a Buddhist): C; “Truth is truth wherever you find it and just because I call it Buddhism doesn’t mean only buddhists can know it. Anyone who walks the path Buddha pointed out would be Buddhist to my mind and my calling myself Buddhist doesn’t mean that I have it right. In fact, I think you could argue that on one is a true Buddhist until they have attained what we call ‘change of lineage’ or stream entry...” You were also asked about the dying process and bardo states or intermediate states before another rebirth. There isn’t any such concept in the Theravada teachings and I don’t believe it would make any sense. This issue is raised in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy) and I can quote some detail if you wish as it’s often raised by those familiar with other traditions. Apologies for this belated hotch-potch! Metta, Sarah ===== 22165 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi Rob M, I thought your internet ‘piece’ was very skilfully written;-) I understand that ‘sutta’ may cause difficulties and don’t think Connie should apologise for pointing out what others will be feeling or thinking too. Humour is always difficult. One possibility would be to ‘spell’ it out at the start by calling it something like ‘Rob’s imaginary encounter/dream encounter with the Buddha’ and avoid all suggestion of sutta/sutra. Back to one of our discussions: --- robmoult wrote: > I am using "subconscious" for bhavanaga. I can't think of a better > word. .... Nanamoli - life-continuum consciousness. I believe this is widely used nowadays, but I understand no term is ideal;-) .... > Under Beautiful Cittas, I list two functions (I ignore kiriya): > - Wholesome > - Resultant > > My description of wholesome is: Wholesome creates good kamma > My description of resultant is: Resultant acts as "subconscious" .... It doesn’t make sense to me. 1) it is now the same term as for bhavanga which is one kind of vipaka citta with wholesome roots in some planes only. 2) I don’t understand in what sense ‘resultant acts as “subconscious”?? ***** On the other point about whether the Buddha attained ‘enlightenment without detailed knowledge of the Abhidhamma’, you clarified further: > My understanding is that Buddha meditated on the Abhidhamma during > the fourth week after enlightenment and it was at the point that the > Buddha started into Conditional Relations that the six coloured rays > started eminating from His body. Therefore, in the first three weeks > after enlightenment, the Buddha had the capacity to explore the > Abhidhamma in depth, He had "not yet got around to it". ..... This is what I understood you to be implying. I think that to say that after his enlightenment he reflected at length on C.R.and formulated the way he would teach it is one thing. To say he attained enlightenment without a detailed knowledge of Abhidhamma is another. Surely omniscience means that the knowledge is already there and ‘complete’ at the time of enlighenment,having been fully perfected. Not that the penny drops afterwards;-) ..... >Remember our > discussion as to whether the Buddha could have foretold 9/11. As I > recal, the answer was, "If He had applied His mind to the subject, > He could have." ..... Yes, agreed and good point. However, it is not new knowledge or wisdom, just a question of what details the fully developed wisdom turns to at that time as I see it. ***** post 22108, slides 41-43 comments: “perception (naming)” Can I persuade you to use ‘marking’ instead of ‘naming’ which carries so much baggage? Towards the end of the extract, you mention ‘what we think is real is in fact 99% added by our own selves.’ Perhaps ‘our selves’ might be replaced here by thinking or proliferating...also perhaps the ‘one’ reacts. I’m not suggesting you cut out all conventional language, but certain phrases can be particularly misleading imho which brings me back to the comments you added in support of the BB passage we discussed. I agree with what you said and the Sutta exhortations. This is why we need to listen and read a lot to know what is really meant by the Buddha or any modern teacher/writer. As I see it, the emphasis on ‘change our character’ in order ‘to change our total being’ which is often encouraged by teachers is quite different from the Buddha’s exhorting us to ‘do good, avoid evil, purify the mind’ and ‘strive on with diligence’ as you quoted which as I see it, means ‘understand the value of kusala and the danger or akusala so that panna can develop to eradicate defilements’. No self, being or change involved. I suppose I’ve met a lot of Buddhists who really believe in ‘making a change’ to 'character' or 'being' and this seems to lead to more attachment and less detachment of what is conditioned, rather than the other way round. I’ll be glad to hear any further comments, but no hurry (I know you’ve got several threads on the go;-)). Maybe others have comments too. Metta, Sarah p.s Nina has gone on holiday for two weeks - you may wish to remind her of your post to her when she returns if no one else replies. I’ve misplaced it for now, otherwise I’d take another look. =========== 22166 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > upasaka@a... writes: H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because they do not exist. J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things really are. H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS! J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested and verified for ourselves. H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only asserted that they *do* ;-)). Looking forward to hearing more from you. Jon 22167 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Kom, ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit To: Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the immaterial > > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than > > pa~n~naa) could > > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only the > > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > > potential readings seem misleading to me. > > I think this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there > is really nothing beyond the 4 paramatha dhammas. Once we understand this, > then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we > read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas. We > make the decisions to do something all the time, but who is making the > decisions? If we don't see that it is not us, then we still have not yet > directly understood the basic teaching of the dhamma, and we need to keep > continuing developing panna to get there... Agreed... > My understanding of the relinquishment of defilement is that when they are > abandoned, the kusala states are also abandoned. This makes sense from the > Paticha-samutpadha stand point, if ignorance is abandoned, both kusala and > akusala are abandoned automatically. Hence, we would not hear (at least > from me!) that we should stop doing good (kusala) so we can abandon it, > because abandonment of kusala can only be done by panna, by abandoning > akusala. also agreed... > I also think it is very important to understand how abandonment comes about. > If we recognize akusala in ourselves, and work to have less of it (by > recollecting things that are useful, by thinking about conditionalities / > stories of dhammas). This is good, but this is not the abandonment that > only the Buddha can teach. Yes, I think this is suppressing rather than abandoning. > The two meditation teachers of the Buddha can > also teach you this. What the Buddha teaches that nobody else teaches is > that by knowing directly the characteristics of the dhamma, as non-self, as > impermanence, and as suffering, the wisdom eventually reaches the level of > abandonment (nibbita nanna, sankharupekkha nanna, etc. until magga). The > Buddha teaches the abandonment of defilements (and kusala) via the direct > knowledge of realities. yes... > > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to consciously > > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). Even if they are > > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent > > tendency to grasp > > at them again remains unabated. > > If one understands what the path truly is, then it doesn't matter if one has > the accumulation to abandon defilements thru samatha or not. I'm inclined to agree, > However, I > think one also needs to remember that it is good to develop all sorts of > kusala! especially with this added caveat. > > "...welcoming > > & rebelling are scattered, > > gone to their end, > > do not exist." > > > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as the > > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > > > > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, but it may not be the right > effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. Yes, that's true and an important distinction--thanks for the reminder. Often difficult to know, though, whether it's kusala or akusala being developed. Mike 22168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 14, 2003 6:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... > To which could be added that the significance of this distinction > lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight > development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the > section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is > characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of > penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. > Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals > the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 L: I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. J: I think it is intended to be read as suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge of the level of insight. My understanding on this would be that there is nothing of samsara-busting significance to be known about a concept. I suspect this also implies that we don't mis-take concepts as being permanent and self, as least not in the same way that we do the underlying paramattha dhammas. (I'm not sure about this one, though ;-)). > Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the > discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they > associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance > of some kind. Thanks. L: To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the term sabhava, including the following: J: I can't comment on your first point (the substantialist meaning given to the term by the Sarvastivadins), but it seems to me it's not a problem that is inherent in the term itself. I have seen previously reference to the passage in the Patisambhidamagga in this context. I believe the generally accepted reading is other than mentioned by the author here. But one would have to check oneself to be sure. On the other point(s), I've not read the article by Karunadasa, but hope to do so when I have time (I would be interested to see the texts he gives as supporting his various arguments). However, from what you have extracted below, I take his main point to be the apparent contradiction between 2 different definitions for the term 'dhamma' found in the texts, namely dhamma as: - that which bears its own nature [sabhava] - that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma) I understand this to mean that a dhamma both: - has its own nature (the peculiar characteristic by which it can be distinguished from all other dhammas), and - is conditioned by its own set of conditions (rupas, for example, are conditioned by 1 or other of 4 conditions, namely, citta, kamma, nutrition and temperature). I see no problem here. Also conceptually, I don't see anything necessarily contradictory in defining something by reference to 2 different 'tests', even if one can characterise the thing as 'an agent/having active role' under 1 test and as 'an object/having passive role' under the other (although I suspect these characterisations are purely the author's and so may or may not correctly reflect the material contained in the texts). But I don't believe the author's view is the orthodox one, and so I would want to look at it carefully before placing too much weight on the views expressed. As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any bearing on the development of understanding? Jon ------------------------ 1. sabhava is a term that has a very different and very substantialist meaning when used by the Sarvastivadins. 2. As the article by Karunadasa notes, "the definition of dhamma as that which bears its own nature [Sabhava] has to be understood. Clearly, this is a definition according to agency (kattu-sadhana), and hence its validity is provisional." 3. Karunadasa further notes that "the commentarial definition of dhamma as sabhava poses an important problem, for it seems to go against an earlier Theravada tradition recorded in the Patisambhidamagga. ... 22169 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/14/03 12:42:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for sharing your thought. I appreciate it. > > I would not go to extreme and say there is no one who sees.* > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither would I (look, I said "I"!), except when speaking in an unconventional, extra-precise way to indicate that there are only events occurring rather than self-existent agents engaging in operations. Let me give some analogies (still including conventional, shorthand expression, but suggestive of my intention): As I've pointed out before, conventional talk of some "one who sees" is similar to a farmer saying that a seed has the power to sprout, but looking strangely at someone who asks him where in the seed the power is. [Here it is the "power" that is being linguistically refied.] It's similar to someone saying "It's windy today," and looking askance when asked what the "it" is. [Here it is an alleged "it" that is being reified.] It's similar to saying "The classroom is noisy today" as a shorthand for something such as "The students assembled together in this classroom today are talking loudly". [Here it is the "classroom" that is being linguistically treated as an agent.] In all three of these sentences, there is no problem with the terminology so long as one clearly understands the convention involved. (In fact, I'm speaking in this manner in the very last sentence!) Likewise when I say "There is some one who sees". --------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you again. Your further comment is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22170 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/14/03 9:41:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi again, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >upasaka@a... writes: > > H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To > speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through > the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor > does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to > ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because > they do not exist. > > J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular > moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible > object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail > what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the > opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things > really are. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Agreed. ------------------------------------------------ > > H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, > because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional > status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of > speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that > suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE > NO SUCH THINGS! > > J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is > really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being > experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested > and verified for ourselves. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed. -------------------------------------------------- > > H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate > these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, > superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking > at trees etc. > > J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to > be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should > not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally > say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we > fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's > surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts > in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and sounds do. --------------------------------------------------- > > H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in > the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as > all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the > den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because > *they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under > the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a > conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the > Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing > existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of > such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. > > J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't > said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only > asserted that they *do* ;-)). > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly experience them. --------------------------------------------- > > Looking forward to hearing more from you. > > Jon > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22171 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Yasa, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.We all well appreciate your post which contained extensive explanation regarding dhamma matter in detail.I would add something to your post. 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) 2.Vedanakkhandha Vedana + Khandha (Somanassa,Sukha,Domanassa,Dukkha and Upekkha) 3.Sannakkhandha Sanna + Khandha (Sanna Cetasika or memory_which is brought along with each Citta through out Samsara) 4. Sankharakkhandha Sankhara + Khandha (all Cetasikas except Vedana and Sanna) 5. Vinnana + Khandha (89 Cittas) With much respect, Htoo Naing yasalalaka wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yasa > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > ... > > Yasa makes this REQUEST: > > > > Please TELL how you PRACTICE Buddhism, clearly and precisely. > > I think the Buddha taught the development of satipatthana/vipassana > (panna) as the way leading to enlightenment and escape from the > endless round of samsara. Each moment of satipatthana/vipassana is > thus the 'practice' of the dhamma. > > As regards the arising of a moment of satipatthana/vipassana, I don't > think there's any 'how to' given in the teachings, for the very good > reason that there is no simple 'how to'. But the Buddha spent a lot > of time talking about the essential prerequisite conditions for the > development of insight, and these include hearing the teachings from > one who can explain it clearly to us, reflecting on what has been > heard, and applying what has been thus understood to the present > moment. > > I do not find in the suttas any references to 'practice(s)' in the > sense of 'things to be done in order to generate awareness or > understanding'. As I read the Satipatthana Sutta as a whole, I think > it indicates very clearly that every waking moment is a moment at > which satipatthana potentially may arise, so we need not think in > terms of having to look for/wait for a more opportune moment than the > present one. But there's no 'practice' to be 'undertaken' in order > to 'have satipatthana arise'. > > You refer to the passage from the Satipatthana Sutta that begins: > "And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? > [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, > > to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding > his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to > > the fore " > and you ask whether it describes a person who is seated and is trying > to do an exercise of concentration. > > I think this passage describes a person who is already adept at > samatha bhavana -- specifically samatha bhavana with breath as object > (this from the wording that follows the extract above) -- and also at > the development of mindfulness (this from the reference to 'setting > mindfulness to the fore'). I see the passage not so much as > prescribing the development of samatha bhavana with breath as object > as necessary for all, but as instancing a person in whom this has > been accomplished already (this from the wording 'There is the case > where ...'). In other words, what is to follow applies most directly > to a person such as is described here. > > A further point that I think is relevant here is that the answer to > the question posed at the beginning of the passage ('How does a monk > remain focused on the body in & of itself?') comes much later in the > passage; it is not to be found in the words about sitting down > cross-legged. > > Yasa, you made many other interesting comments, but I've probably > said quite enough for one post, so I'll close off here. I'm well > aware that what I've just said goes against many people's deeply held > views on things, and I've learnt by now not to be surprised at > whatever reaction comes ;-)). > > Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon > > ___________________________Yasa Replies_____________________________ Jon, Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some thing else to support it. I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry having had not taken his morning meal. After that he wanted to sleep and couldn't find a place. He went to his computer and prepared a post and wanted to send it off . But just as he was going to press the button, he had forgotten to whom that post was meant and so on. There are some instances of remembering, and being aware, not as a "practice" but in a general way. This remembering is also "sati" or " being mindful". You speak of Satipatthana and Sati, as the same thing. Satipattana Sutta, should not be understood by separating the word "Satipattahana" from Sutta, taking it merely to mean " being mindful" as a synonym to "sati". Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most important discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of the Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from the cycle of death and birth. The path is now clear for those who have eyes to see. If we were to close our eyes and grope about thinking there is no light we will stumble and fall all over. We will only have to open our eyes , to see that there is light , and all that stumbling and falling was due to our own fault of having closed our eyes. For you "sati" is a sort of awakening, that dawns upon you by the merit of your " seeing the arising of the moment, the present moment". Sati according to the teachings, is being mindful of every moment, when you eat , you know you are eating, when you walk, you know you are walking, when you write, you know you are writing, when you are angry, you know you are angry, when you dress, you know you are dressing. These are all instances of "being aware"-"sati". We are made of , hair of the head ,hair of the body, skin, muscles, sinews, nerves ,bones, marrow of the bones etc. We are all this, but also decently dressed, men, and women, eating drinking, thinking, talking, walking etc. We have names, each one of us. We are not the same. We are white or black or yellow. No body will tell us that we are paramatta dhamma. When we have things to eat and drink and are cheerful and happy we know we enjoy our lives. But when things go wrong, when we lose our jobs, or lose some one dear to us, we become sad and lost. When we are ill, we cry in pain, asking why, we were born if we are to suffer this way. We will die and be born again to go through the same enjoyments and the same suffering. There seems to be no end to it. The Buddha was born , more than 2500 years ago and explained this suffering, told us how to stop this cycle of suffering. It is for us to contemplate,to know who we are after all. When we will learn to clear our mind from its clouded state, and see for ourselves what is the meaning of this seemingly inevitable suffering. And attempt to see the cause of it. Then we will see that the cause of it is our attachments to a name , " Mr.Smith", "Mrs.Simpson ", "me" , "myslf", and "you". It is the clinging to a self, and acquiring wholesome or unwholesome karma, through lobha, dosa and moha. Then we try to see who is this" self ". And it is only then we will be able to see that the self is a "being" composed of the five aggregates ( pancakkhandha) of form (rupakkhandha), feelings (vedanakkhandha), perceptions (sannanakkhandha) , consciousness (vinnakkhandha), and mental factors (sankhrakkhandha). That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the conventional reality. The reality we understand is the conventional reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. Therefore to reiterate what I have said, to understand the ultimate reality, we have to understand the conventional reality. With metta, Yasa 22172 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Member, Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. With Great Metta, Htoo Naing LBIDD@w... wrote: Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the Path of Purity. The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to practice the thought of love at first: On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. On an enemy, as anger might arise. On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness gathers together all beings with goodwill. The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason of the later reflection. Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of practice The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice again and again of the thought of love that has got partial concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. 22173 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed May 14, 2003 8:51am Subject: RE: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Hi Mike, > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:43 AM > > > > When there is kusala, there is a right effort, > but it may not be the right > > effort of the 8-fold (or the 5-fold) path. > > Yes, that's true and an important > distinction--thanks for the reminder. > Often difficult to know, though, whether it's > kusala or akusala being > developed. > I especially agree with you here. It's a good reminder for me when I am told that wisdom is the forerunner, with it the development of other kusala states are possible; otherwise, we will always be mistaken... kom 22174 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Jon - With regard to our discussion of concepts, I have found the following within the PTS dictionary's article on 'dhamma': ****************************************** Applications and Meaning.--1. Psychologically; "mentality" as the constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of phenomena. It is that which is presented as "object" to the imagination & as such has an effect of its own:--a presentation (Vorstellung), or idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a psycho--physical phenomenon, or sensation (re--action of sense--organ to sensestimulus). The mind deals with ideas as the eye deals with forms: it is the abstraction formed by mano, or mind proper, from the objects of sense presented by the sense--organ when reacting to external objects. Thus cakkhu "faculty of sight" corresponds to rupa "relation of form" & mano "faculty of thought" (citta & ceto its organ or instrument or localisation) corresponds to dhamma "mentalized" object or "idea" (Mrs. Rh. D. "mental object in general," also "state of mind") **************************************** With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22175 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Howard and Ron: I have followed your discussion with increasing interest because you are touching upon a subject that has interested me since reading Dreyfus' "Recognizing Reality." Although this book was from the perspective of the later Indian and Tibetan traditions, it outlines quite well the attempts of the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions to explain both their ontology (that is, what is real and unreal) and their epistemology (how we gain knowledge). The Abhidhamma tradition, from my understanding, was one of the earliest attempts by any Indian tradition to explore how we can "know" reality in a systematic way. The later Indian traditions were forced to defend and expand upon the Abhidhammic notions as they were pushed and debated by non-Buddhist traditions on a variety of questions that have occurred in both eastern and western philosophical traditions. Most relevant to your discussion is the question how concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality ascribed to the paramatha dhammas. While I have read the debates on this point - with each tradition thinking they have solved the problem - I think Dreyfus sums up centuries of debate when he notes as follows: "Having understood Dharmakirti's system, which is based on the difference between a reality definable in terms of essence and a projected essenceless conceptual realm, the student is shown how this distinction leads to unsolvable difficulties. Those difficulties do not come from incidental limitations of the system but from its assumption that real things are defined by their essences. Demonstration of this insight occurs in numerous debates analyzing Dharmakirti's system on its own terms. In this way the crucial problems we have examined in this work, such as the relation between perception and thought and the difficulty of accounting for our experiences in terms of a reductionist typology of valid cognitions are exposed. This leads the student to the suspicion that what is wrong with Dharmakirti's system does not come from the intellectual limitations of its author but from his essentialist assumptions." --- Lee upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/14/03 9:41:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > >>Howard >> >>--- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi again, Jon - >> >>>In a message dated 5/12/03 10:49:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>>upasaka@a... writes: >> >>H: I may not be making myself clear, but I would like to. To >>speak precisely, the tree I seem to see right now as I look through >>the den window does not exist, nor does the "I" nor does the den nor >>does the window. From that ultimate perspective, it is nonsense to >>ascribe any characteristics to any of these supposed things because >>they do not exist. >> >>J: But there are things (dhammas) that 'exist' at that particular >>moment. What are those things? Seeing consciousness, visible >>object, thinking, feeling etc. The Buddha explained in great detail >>what *does* exist at a given present moment, so that there can be the >>opportunity of developing a better understanding of the way things >>really are. > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Agreed. > ------------------------------------------------ > > >>H: To say they are fictions is already just a manner of speaking, >>because that language suggests that they exist, but have fictional >>status. But there are no such things at all - except in a manner of >>speaking. When we say that these "things" are concept-only, that >>suggests that they exist and are concepts. That is false. THERE ARE >>NO SUCH THINGS! >> >>J: This is true, I believe, but more to the point is that what is >>really happening at that moment is that different dhammas are being >>experienced (not a 'thing' called a tree etc). This can be tested >>and verified for ourselves. >> > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Agreed. > -------------------------------------------------- > > >>H: There *are*, however, *concepts* of such things, and we associate >>these concepts (i.e. thoughts) with specific trains of experience, >>superimposing them, and fool ourselves into thinking we are looking >>at trees etc. >> >>J: Well, this rather begs the question ;-)). And it also seems to >>be making the same kind of assertion that you have just said should >>not be made in respect of conventional things. Could we not equally >>say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we >>fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. There's >>surely no need postulate the existence of something called concepts >>in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. >> > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and sounds do. > --------------------------------------------------- > > >>H: But the concepts, themselves, are merely thoughts that arise in >>the mind. They arise due to causes and conditions, and they cease as >>all conditioned dhammas cease. Their alleged referents, the tree, the >>den, the window: they neither arise nor cease in actuality, because >>*they do not exist* - ever. To speak of them is either to speak under >>the sway of illusion, or to consciously be simply using language in a >>conventional way, without being fooled, as was the case with the >>Buddha. This is how I understand the matter. I am not ascribing >>existence to so-called conventional objects, but to *thoughts* of >>such. I hope you understand the distinction I am making. >> >>J: Yes, I understand the distinction, but as I see it you haven't >>said *why* you assert that concepts have an existence, you've only >>asserted that they *do* ;-)). >> > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason as I > assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly experience > them. > --------------------------------------------- > > >>Looking forward to hearing more from you. >> >>Jon >> >> > > ============================== > With metta, > Howard > 22176 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > ... > >>To which could be added that the significance of this distinction >>lies in the question of what may and may not be the object of insight >> development. As the Visuddhi-Magga explains at the beginning of the >> section dealing with Understanding (panna) (Ch XIV): 'What are is >>characteristic, function etc? Understanding has the characteristic of >> penetrating the individual essences [sabhava] of states [dhammas]. >>Its function is to abolish the darkness of delusion, which conceals >>the individual essences of states.' XIV, 7 > L: I think this may be interpreted (even if not so intended) as > suggesting that concepts are not objects of knowledge. > > J: I think it is intended to be read as suggesting that concepts are > not objects of knowledge of the level of insight. My understanding > on this would be that there is nothing of samsara-busting > significance to be known about a concept. I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we deny that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For how can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in any normative sense? >>Yes, this is important to note. I think for some people the >>discussion on 'sabhava' is difficult to consider because they >>associate it with the idea of having an enduring nature or substance >>of some kind. Thanks. > > > L: To my mind, there are a number of possible difficulties with the > term sabhava, including the following: > > J: I can't comment on your first point (the substantialist meaning > given to the term by the Sarvastivadins), but it seems to me it's not > a problem that is inherent in the term itself. > > I have seen previously reference to the passage in the > Patisambhidamagga in this context. I believe the generally accepted > reading is other than mentioned by the author here. But one would > have to check oneself to be sure. > > On the other point(s), I've not read the article by Karunadasa, but > hope to do so when I have time (I would be interested to see the > texts he gives as supporting his various arguments). However, from > what you have extracted below, I take his main point to be the > apparent contradiction between 2 different definitions for the term > 'dhamma' found in the texts, namely dhamma as: > - that which bears its own nature [sabhava] > - that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti > dhamma) > > I understand this to mean that a dhamma both: > - has its own nature (the peculiar characteristic by which it can be > distinguished from all other dhammas), and > - is conditioned by its own set of conditions (rupas, for example, > are conditioned by 1 or other of 4 conditions, namely, citta, kamma, > nutrition and temperature). > > I see no problem here. Also conceptually, I don't see anything > necessarily contradictory in defining something by reference to 2 > different 'tests', even if one can characterise the thing as 'an > agent/having active role' under 1 test and as 'an object/having > passive role' under the other (although I suspect these > characterisations are purely the author's and so may or may not > correctly reflect the material contained in the texts). > > But I don't believe the author's view is the orthodox one, and so I > would want to look at it carefully before placing too much weight on > the views expressed. > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any bearing > on the development of understanding? Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. And this is without even raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, perhaps, just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical cutting up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to describe reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to concepts? But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic approach are wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and Howard are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers east and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not to debate but to simply note my own confusion. 22177 From: nidive Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:53am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard, > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > directly experience them. You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) There's no need for such an assertion. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html Swee Boon 22178 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 14, 2003 11:08am Subject: Happy Wesak Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy Wesak! Metta, Rob M :-) 22179 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. I don't think that saying "there is no one who sees" is extra- precise. And I don't think it is necessary and skillful to assume a self-existing agent engaging in operation then deny its existence. I would say that the assumption of a self-existing agent is not to come up in the first place. And I also don't think the analogy you use is adequate. I would say that the dichotomy of "conventional"/"unconventional" speech is unnecessary, a result of complication/proliferation in thought, as the assumption of a self- existing agent. I think that with the dichotomy of "conventional"/"unconventional" you have run into contradiction "there is someone who sees"/"there is no one who sees". I don't think this contradiction is helpful in clear communication. I think you might be interested in the essay "The Language Game" by Gary Goss. (If you are interested in the essay, please do a search with Google. I think the link is too long to fit in the message without truncation.) Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > Neither would I (look, I said "I"!), except when speaking in an > unconventional, extra-precise way to indicate that there are only events > occurring rather than self-existent agents engaging in operations. Let me > give some analogies (still including conventional, shorthand expression, but > suggestive of my intention): As I've pointed out before, conventional talk of > some "one who sees" is similar to a farmer saying that a seed has the power > to sprout, but looking strangely at someone who asks him where in the seed > the power is. [Here it is the "power" that is being linguistically refied.] > It's similar to someone saying "It's windy today," and looking askance when > asked what the "it" is. [Here it is an alleged "it" that is being reified.] > It's similar to saying "The classroom is noisy today" as a shorthand for > something such as "The students assembled together in this classroom today > are talking loudly". [Here it is the "classroom" that is being linguistically > treated as an agent.] In all three of these sentences, there is no problem > with the terminology so long as one clearly understands the convention > involved. (In fact, I'm speaking in this manner in the very last sentence!) > Likewise when I say "There is some one who sees". [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22180 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:25pm Subject: Message to Bogor Group from Nina F/W message from Nina ----------------------- Dear Selamat and group, My best wishes to you all for Vesak. I am away on vacation, but you are in my thoughts. I would like very much to hear from you, it is so inspiring. What were your discussions like on Vesak day? With metta, Nina. 22181 From: connie Date: Wed May 14, 2003 9:39am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi, Htoo Naing ~ Could you please say something more about your added detail to Yasa where you wrote: 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) Thank you, connie 22182 From: Date: Wed May 14, 2003 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as arising and falling away Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/14/2003 3:03:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it. > > I don't think that saying "there is no one who sees" is extra- > precise. And I don't think it is necessary and skillful to assume a > self-existing agent engaging in operation then deny its existence. I > would say that the assumption of a self-existing agent is not to come > up in the first place. And I also don't think the analogy you use is > adequate. I would say that the dichotomy > of "conventional"/"unconventional" speech is unnecessary, a result of > complication/proliferation in thought, as the assumption of a self- > existing agent. I think that with the dichotomy > of "conventional"/"unconventional" you have run into > contradiction "there is someone who sees"/"there is no one who > sees". I don't think this contradiction is helpful in clear > communication. > > I think you might be interested in the essay "The Language Game" by > Gary Goss. (If you are interested in the essay, please do a search > with Google. I think the link is too long to fit in the message > without truncation.) > > Thank you again for your reply. Your further feedback is > welcome. > > Regards, > Victor ========================== Thank you for "The Language Game" suggestion. I look forward to finding and reading it. I can tell that you are an intelligent man, but I have a great deal of trouble understanding you. I think it possible that should I be able to come to understand you I might well learn something important, and I hope this essay will help me in this. With metta, Howard 22183 From: connie Date: Wed May 14, 2003 1:47pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi, Sarah ~ > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] ..... S: I don't have the full reference, but surely this means that like the oxen yoked together (is it that sutta about Kotthita??), the cetasikas such as vedana and sanna cannot be separated from citta but all arise together? They cannot arise on their own. Pls would you give the reference if there's anything further to discuss. ..... c: Mi.293 is Patrick Kearney's (Freedom and Bondage) reference for it and I have yet to see if I can find it on-line, so probably shouldn't have quoted it, but will continue with the second half anyway: "What one senses, one recognises; what one recognises, one cognises. Hence these phenomena are united, not separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between them, even after repeatedly sifting through them." As you say, about interdependance, and he uses it in his discussion on 'contact' as one of the 12 links. ---------- >This (kamma) > conditions psychic activity, ensuring constant motion and arising... our > intention to continue has been formed. > > constant motion? Clinging/Upadana (that by means of which an active > process is kept going... 'taking'... and what conditions becoming/bhava) > is the support. .... S: Sorry, I got lost. ..... c: (8 That happens when you follow someone else trying to find their way. I still can't untangle that whole line of 'thought' but it has something to do with Nibbana not arising (motionlessness as opposed to samsara) and someone (??) saying "the states of mind which realize nibbana are called liberations (vimokkha)". If we go anywhere with this, I'm not leading. But Kearney again (crediting PTS Pali-English dict): Upadana is one of a number of terms from the same root which contain a complex of related meanings. Upadana is "that ... by means of which an active process is kept alive or going". It comes from: upa, denoting nearness or close touch, with the idea of approach from below or rest on top; a, "towards (oneself)"; and da, "to give". It can mean "taking up"; or "that which is placed under, support". ------------ S: You were also asked about the dying process and bardo states or intermediate states before another rebirth. There isn't any such concept in the Theravada teachings and I don't believe it would make any sense. This issue is raised in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy) and I can quote some detail if you wish as it's often raised by those familiar with other traditions. ....... c: Yes, Please! That would be great. peace, connie 22184 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will or Not? - (and sankhara) Hi Connie, Just briefly - --- connie wrote: > Hi, Sarah ~ > > > [Even though this falls apart when Sariputta tells Maha-kotthita that > > "Sensation, recognition and consciousness, Friend, are united, not > > separate, and it is not possible to distinguish any difference between > > them, even after repeatedly sifting through them."] .... > c: Mi.293 is Patrick Kearney's (Freedom and Bondage) reference for it > and I have yet to see if I can find it on-line, so probably shouldn't > have quoted it, but will continue with the second half anyway: "What one > senses, one recognises; what one recognises, one cognises. Hence these > phenomena are united, not separate, and it is not possible to > distinguish any difference between them, even after repeatedly sifting > through them." As you say, about interdependance, and he uses it in his > discussion on 'contact' as one of the 12 links. ..... Thanks and I’m glad you quoted as you did;-). Actually, I thought it was this one when I wrote yesterday but couldn’t find it quickly in MN. It’s from the Mahavedella Sutta, MN43 and I discussed this particular passage with Frank in this post: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m16856.html Here is part of the discussion with B.Bodhi’s transl also: ***** --- Frank Kuan wrote: > > I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: > > M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q & a) > > p. 389 b.bodhi version: > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - > these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what > one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these > states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > them." ..... There is a summary note from MA (the comy) at the back: "MA: Wisdom has been excluded from this exchange because the intention is to show only the states that are conjoined on every occasion of consciousness." ..... S:In other words, it doesn't mean the different characteristics cannot be known, but when they arise with a citta experiencing an object they are always 'conjoined', being universal cetasikas (mental factors accompanying all cittas). ..... ***** Like the passage Andrew quoted from K. Milinda, interdependence and co-arising don’t mean the characteristics cannot be known by panna. I’ll come back to the rest of your post and intermediate states later. Metta, Sarah ===== 22185 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 14, 2003 10:51pm Subject: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa, When you first referred StarKid Sandy to the websites below, I had no idea that they were ones you had formed. I understand this from your subsequent reply to Sandy, but would be glad if you would confirm and tell us anything else by way of an introduction. As Sandy said, they are very informative. They're also quick and user-friendly (a big plus for me;-)). I also saw (on a rather quick look) that there was an article on saddha too;-) You may wish to quote from it when you reply to me. I couldn't, however, find a picture of you amongst those there. This reminds me, can we persuade you and any of the others who've delayed or only recently joined DSG to add a pic to the photo album to be found on the DSG homepage?? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup We'd all be grateful and Christine and Kom are happy to give any assistance needed/cope with any excuses for further delay. Best wishes and appreciation again. I hope I haven't got mixed up. Metta, Sarah ====== Yasa wrote: Please have a quick look at the following two websites: It will answer your first question and others. http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI with metta, Yasalalaka 22186 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > When you first referred StarKid Sandy to the websites below, I had no idea > that they were ones you had formed. I understand this from your subsequent > reply to Sandy, but would be glad if you would confirm and tell us > anything else by way of an introduction. As Sandy said, they are very > informative. They're also quick and user-friendly (a big plus for me;-)). > I also saw (on a rather quick look) that there was an article on saddha > too;-) You may wish to quote from it when you reply to me. > > I couldn't, however, find a picture of you amongst those there. This > reminds me, can we persuade you and any of the others who've delayed or > only recently joined DSG to add a pic to the photo album to be found on > the DSG homepage?? > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup > We'd all be grateful and Christine and Kom are happy to give any > assistance needed/cope with any excuses for further delay. > > Best wishes and appreciation again. I hope I haven't got mixed up. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > Yasa wrote: > Please have a quick look at the following two websites: It will > answer your first question and others. > > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI > > with metta, > Yasalalaka > > _______________________Yasa replies___________________________ Dear Sarah, Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " (conventional reality): http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ My server allows space for small websites of 8 pages. I utilised that for two websites on Buddhism. The first one "Buddha": http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan , gives a short history of the ancient India when the Prince Siddhartha was born, up to his leaving the Palace to become an ascetic. I have included lots of Buddhist statues coming from almost all the Buddhist countries in Asia. I think, it is unique because you cannot get a whole collection of images of Buddha statues in one website, any where else in the web. The second one "Dhamma" http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI, is about the Enlightenment . There I have included some facts about his teachings. I have written the articles myself and I still haven't got down to re-reading them to edit. This second site needs a few more articles; one will be on Meditation, and perhaps a small introduction to Abhidhamma, when I have finished reading Nina's book ADL. Reading takes a lot of time as I am taking notes on every chapter, so that when I write I need not go back to the book. I have also included a glossary mainly related to words in use in Meditation. I am devoted to Satipatthana Sutta; which is my favourite. And do lot of Meditation. Of the other Buddhist traditions, I have a great attraction to Zen (under the sixth patriarch). As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! These websites are not very intellectual works, but simple straight forward facts, about Buddhism. I did them for English speaking French web-surfers as an introduction to Buddhism, and to make myself familiar with the teachings, and as a quick reference. I was happy that little Sandy found them interesting. With metta, Yasa. 22187 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Hi Yasa, When you put forward your question to Jon about his `practice', I thought that it would be difficult for him to answer. I thought that it would be easy for someone who consciously sets a program of practice to describe, but for someone who does not view `himself' as following any particular formal `practice', the question puts him in a difficult position. But then I thought about the Visuddhimagga, "There is a Path, but no one who walks it", so why not "There is a practice, but no one practicing"?! But even with this idea, I think it is still not easy to talk about practice. Even though this may turn out to be "nothing new" I hope you don't mind me expressing myself. :-) I think conditions leading to the goal are very, very complex. When I read about the accumulations of parami for example, I appreciate that the Buddha showed us so many important details and their relations. It is inspiring to read that each of these perfections help and support each other, more inspiring is that it shows that it *can* be developed and because the Buddha showed us the Path, we don't have to feel hopeless and despondent. But it also shows that it is *not* easy, and that it is not a matter of simple wishing or making a resolve to follow a particular practice. As we have seen that only a set of accumulations ripe in terms of formerly developed panna and other kusala, can make a firm resolve and follow it through. Anything less than this would not lead to the correct results, ie. becoming a Sammasambuddha. How can you and I for example, resolve to be always truthful to the arising dhamma and not end up breaking our resolve over and over again? And what happens when we do this? We create more and more akusala kamma!! Can we then reach the goal?! I appreciate being reminded about all kinds of kusala, and I trust that if there is any wise reflection even for a moment, it accumulates. I do not feel compelled to try to seek opportunities to `do good'. I feel that carrying along with me the burden of a `self' doing something, will cause the defilements to take over and distort my perception of whatever I do. The self will be more concerned about apparent results and I may end up suppressing akusala tendencies, but I may not come to understand them. It makes sense to infer that precisely because we are so ignorant of our akusala, that it ultimately gets the upper hand. You took the example of my daily life activities to highlight how lack of firm resolve to practice results in a chaotic day to day existence (forgive me if I interpret your meaning wrongly). Well, I know how much worse it was before I studied Dhamma. Anyway, I am not so concerned about results in my daily life which I know the particular conditions to be quite difficult as compared to most people. What I give most importance to is when I study Dhamma, I must get it right. In other words, I am primarily concerned about "Right View". I will live thousands of lifetimes more as a human being, and each lifetime I will be reaping different kammic fruits, the `stories' will all be very different. I don't care about getting good grades as far as social behavior is concerned, even though I see value in say developing metta, mudita and karuna, what I see as more important not so much as a goal, but as a leader wherever I be, is `right view'. What is the use of being a `Mother Teresa' if it means endlessly spinning in samsara? I know that you do not stress this, but `mindfulness'. What you call mindfulness however, in your examples, is not satipatthana as I know it. Sati of this level only understands "realities", and this is not "a sort of awakening" as you think Jon implies. We DO see, smell, touch, taste, hear and correspondingly the objects of visible object, odour, etc do appear. Only all this is hidden by the mind-door process of `thinking', or in other words Avijja, (aviddya). And it is this very process that you seem to be encouraging in others when you suggest, being mindful of `eating', `walking', `writing' and knowing that `one is angry' etc. This is the development of more ignorance in my view, and there is a danger that it will lead to the kind of outlook which I pointed to in the above paragraph. You talk about the preciousness of the Buddhadhamma, and the sense of urgency one should feel having received this great gift. I think so too. But the whole of the Tipitaka can be and remain just "words" if we don't understand it correctly. Today we feel secure and confident because we have the teachings with us. And we have a sense, rightly or wrongly of being put on track by the Teachings. Tomorrow we may be born an animal or a human being when the Sasana has died out. At that time it would *still* possible to know that "I" am walking, eating, feeling anger etc, but no will be there to tell us that hardness, sound, seeing, anger, jealousy, thinking etc, are only elements which arise and fall due to conditions!! This is the important message of the Buddha, I think. Like I said in an earlier letter, just because we do not have anatta sanna yet, it does not mean that we *have to* work from the standpoint of conventional realities. There is danger in thinking that you must understand conventional realities before you understand ultimate realities and in the process deal with Mr. Smith and Mr. Yasa as if they were real. This is the kind of thing Mr. Mara would suggest, there is so much food for so many other illusions to build upon. The knowledge of Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha would in the end be as Mara would have us believe. The teachings of Paramattha Dhammas are part of the Pariyatti which are the necessary conditions for patipatti and pativedha. "I" sitting, standing, walking, eating is inimical to this ultimate knowledge, I think. Today is Visakha Bucha, and I wish you and everyone well. But more important than this, whatever the correct interpretation of the Buddha's teachings is, I hope we will all get it right one day! :-) Metta, Sukin. ------------------------------------------------------- > Jon, > Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From both > Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of > Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some > thing else to support it. > > I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole > morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not > taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect > the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry 22188 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:33am Subject: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Friends, There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known by knowledge or wisdom. Most of us rely on English translations and in any case have limited knowledge of the terms and ideas being referred to. Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Many have referred to different suttas, but Swee Boon wrote a particularly clear post on this topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/21647 From previous detailed discussions on ayatana, I believe the equating of ayatanas with arammana (as elaborated in Swee Boon’s post) is incorrect, though very widely held by Pali scholars. I hope I can present the differences simply and clearly here. ============================================================ Arammana (object) ******** 1. visible object 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. body-impression 6. mind-object (dhammaaramma.na) ..... Note: Dhammarammana (mind-object) 1. nama, inc. nibbana 2. rupa 3. concept (pannatti) ..... Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e experienced by) of consciousness (citta/mano/vi~n~nana) ==================== Ayatana (bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (rupayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) ....... Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) 3. nibbana ....... Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and NOT to concepts. ================================================= Confusions arise from translated terms of dhamma, dhammarammana, mano, manayatana, dhammayatana etc . Furthemore, sometimes, dhammarammana refers to dhammayatana and we have to look at the context and commentary notes. ..... Note: dhamma can refer to paramattha dhammas only or to dhammarammana inc pannatti and has to be understood in context. ..... A rough guide: B.Bodhi:- ayatana -base mano (manayatana)- mind, mental dhamma (dhammayatana), dhammarammana- mental phenomenon, mental object, mind object B.Thanissaro:- mano (manayatana) - intellect dhamma (dhammayatana) - ideas ..... Examples from Salyatanasamyutta(Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya. As is apparent in the heading, ‘Salayatana’, it is the ayatanas being referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. I can’t find a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but still under Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the Sabba Sutta before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana. ..... Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta (see link) are therefore incorrect. These are not easy aspects to comprehend, but I hope these notes may help clarify a little other discussions about sutta passages being discussed where there is some controversy about whether paramattha dhammas or pannatti are being referred to by translation terms, such as mind, mind objects, intellect or ideas. Of course any comments are welcome. For more details on ayatanas, see posts under ‘ayatana’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 Sabba Sutta The All Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22189 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:03am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Yasa, > > When you put forward your question to Jon about his `practice', I > thought that it would be difficult for him to answer. I thought that it > would be easy for someone who consciously sets a program of practice > to describe, but for someone who does not view `himself' as following > any particular formal `practice', the question puts him in a difficult > position. But then I thought about the Visuddhimagga, "There is a Path, > but no one who walks it", so why not "There is a practice, but no one > practicing"?! But even with this idea, I think it is still not easy to talk > about practice. > Even though this may turn out to be "nothing new" I hope you don't mind > me expressing myself. :-) > I think conditions leading to the goal are very, very complex. When I > read about the accumulations of parami for example, I appreciate that > the Buddha showed us so many important details and their relations. It > is inspiring to read that each of these perfections help and support each > other, more inspiring is that it shows that it *can* be developed and > because the Buddha showed us the Path, we don't have to feel hopeless > and despondent. But it also shows that it is *not* easy, and that it is not > a matter of simple wishing or making a resolve to follow a particular > practice. > As we have seen that only a set of accumulations ripe in terms of > formerly developed panna and other kusala, can make a firm resolve > and follow it through. Anything less than this would not lead to the > correct results, ie. becoming a Sammasambuddha. How can you and I > for example, resolve to be always truthful to the arising dhamma and > not end up breaking our resolve over and over again? And what > happens when we do this? We create more and more akusala kamma!! > Can we then reach the goal?! > I appreciate being reminded about all kinds of kusala, and I trust that if > there is any wise reflection even for a moment, it accumulates. I do not > feel compelled to try to seek opportunities to `do good'. I feel that > carrying along with me the burden of a `self' doing something, will cause > the defilements to take over and distort my perception of whatever I do. > The self will be more concerned about apparent results and I may end > up suppressing akusala tendencies, but I may not come to understand > them. It makes sense to infer that precisely because we are so ignorant > of our akusala, that it ultimately gets the upper hand. > > You took the example of my daily life activities to highlight how lack of > firm resolve to practice results in a chaotic day to day existence (forgive > me if I interpret your meaning wrongly). Well, I know how much worse > it was before I studied Dhamma. Anyway, I am not so concerned about > results in my daily life which I know the particular conditions to be quite > difficult as compared to most people. What I give most importance to is > when I study Dhamma, I must get it right. In other words, I am primarily > concerned about "Right View". I will live thousands of lifetimes more as > a human being, and each lifetime I will be reaping different kammic > fruits, the `stories' will all be very different. I don't care about getting > good grades as far as social behavior is concerned, even though I see > value in say developing metta, mudita and karuna, what I see as more > important not so much as a goal, but as a leader wherever I be, is `right > view'. What is the use of being a `Mother Teresa' if it means endlessly > spinning in samsara? > I know that you do not stress this, but `mindfulness'. What you call > mindfulness however, in your examples, is not satipatthana as I know it. > Sati of this level only understands "realities", and this is not "a sort of > awakening" as you think Jon implies. We DO see, smell, touch, taste, > hear and correspondingly the objects of visible object, odour, etc do > appear. Only all this is hidden by the mind-door process of `thinking', or > in other words Avijja, (aviddya). And it is this very process that you > seem to be encouraging in others when you suggest, being mindful > of `eating', `walking', `writing' and knowing that `one is angry' etc. This > is the development of more ignorance in my view, and there is a danger > that it will lead to the kind of outlook which I pointed to in the above > paragraph. You talk about the preciousness of the Buddhadhamma, and > the sense of urgency one should feel having received this great gift. I > think so too. But the whole of the Tipitaka can be and remain > just "words" if we don't understand it correctly. Today we feel secure > and confident because we have the teachings with us. And we have a > sense, rightly or wrongly of being put on track by the Teachings. > Tomorrow we may be born an animal or a human being when the > Sasana has died out. At that time it would *still* possible to know > that "I" am walking, eating, feeling anger etc, but no will be there to tell > us that hardness, sound, seeing, anger, jealousy, thinking etc, are only > elements which arise and fall due to conditions!! This is the important > message of the Buddha, I think. > Like I said in an earlier letter, just because we do not have anatta sanna > yet, it does not mean that we *have to* work from the standpoint of > conventional realities. There is danger in thinking that you must > understand conventional realities before you understand ultimate > realities and in the process deal with Mr. Smith and Mr. Yasa as if they > were real. This is the kind of thing Mr. Mara would suggest, there is so > much food for so many other illusions to build upon. The knowledge of > Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha would in the end be as Mara would have us > believe. The teachings of Paramattha Dhammas are part of the Pariyatti > which are the necessary conditions for patipatti and pativedha. "I" > sitting, standing, walking, eating is inimical to this ultimate knowledge, I > think. > Today is Visakha Bucha, and I wish you and everyone well. But more > important than this, whatever the correct interpretation of the Buddha's > teachings is, I hope we will all get it right one day! :-) > > Metta, > Sukin. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Jon, > > Thank you for your attempt to answer the question I posed. From > both > > Azita's and your post I did not learn much of your "practice of > > Abhidhamma". Living the moment is very well, if there is some > > thing else to support it. > > > > I read a post by Sukin, where he tells about how he spent a whole > > morning. He attended a parent's day at his son's school. He had not > > taken money with him, and he had to go to his work place to collect > > the money and then went home very tired . He was very hungry ___________________________________yasa_________________________ Sukin, Thank you for your response. I can understand "non-conceptual" practice. "Neither the observer nor the observed" and so on "neither the practice nor the practitioner" with metta, Yasa 22190 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Rob M (Sukin & Num), Many thanks for your good wishes today and for Christine’s also. Writing about ayatanas reminded me of this post of yours to Nina which I hope she responds to on return. I also think, Sukin, that this one of Rob M’s (from 10th May, ‘Seeing only Sees’) and his other current one to Nina (22030) on kamma and seeds would be good to raise in your Sat discussion for Num to report back on in the meantime;-) Meanwhile, a few comments (hope it’s not just idle chatter, but could be): --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Nina, > > If I understand your points, you are saying: > - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible > object, not a mental image > - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- > door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image .... I understand the same. ..... > I have read these points before and the first point makes sense to > allow "synchronization" between the sense-door citta process and the > rupa that is its object. > > Nevertheless, I still have a problem in understanding this. > > Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and > the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of > the retina. .... I’m not sure it’s helpful to envision in this way.... ..... >At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the > eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and > vicara are not required in this citta. .... Can we say the eye-base (cakkhu pasada rupa) is the base and the door (dvara) at these moments - ie. the means by which the seeing experiences its object. It doesn’t need vitakka and vicara to experience the object because it ‘sees’, unlike the other cittas in the eye-door process. (note: I’m just repeating what I *think* I’ve heard/remembered.). ..... > Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, > the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still > impinging on the eye-base, ..... I’m not sure if we can put it like this. The cakkhu pasada rupa now only acts as the dvara through which the other cittas in the process experience the object. It is in not the physical base anymore.I have to say, though, that I still find it hard to understand what dvara really means and look forward to any further clarifications from others;-) ..... >but this citta arises at some other place > than the eye-base (the heart base). If I understand correctly, this > citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and > higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base > and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. ..... Right (I think)- I woudn’t say ‘through’ the heart base. The heart base (hadaya-vatthu) is now the physical base or place of origin. ADL ch17 adds more on bases and doors. ..... >This is where I am > confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other > cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- > base rather than heart base). ..... via the eye-door (cakkhu dvara). I don’t think we can say the (visible) object ‘exists’ there, but is experienced through the cakkhu dvara. Rob, as you’ll have already gathered, I’m quite out of my depth and hope that Nina, K.Sujin & Num or anyone else can clarify further. As for analogies, could we use falling dominoes or ‘Chinese whispers’ whereby the first domino struck or the first person to listen to the tale represents seeing consciousness directly ‘seeing’ the object which impacts and able to perform its function with the 7 ‘universals’, and the following dominoes or Chinese whisperers represent the following cittas in the process, using the same ‘door’ or channel to experience the object, but having a different base or position?? If I was out of my depth with the abhidhamma details, I’m probably even further out when I try to find analogies, but I think I’ve clarified a little to myself in the process and thank you for that;-)Look forward to any comments now or after Num or Nina (or anyone else) writes more. Love your questions to Nina and all. With metta, Sarah ===== 22191 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Htoo, It's good to see you back again - you were missed! I'll look forward to your 'new topics for lively discussion'. Nina's on holiday and without internet access until about the 24th May, but I'll draw her attention to any posts addressed to her that have come in since she left or which come in for her before she returns. I hope you're well. With metta and Vesak Greetings to you and all. Sarah ====== --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I > was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read > your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part > in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. 22192 From: nidive Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Sarah, > There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) > can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known > by knowledge or wisdom. > Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely > held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are > equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and > that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Thank you for your post on this topic. But I still think that "ideas" in Majjhima Nikaya 148, Chachakka Sutta, The Six Sextets includes concepts. When I think about the concept "my mother has cheated me", I feel angry. It is only being mindful of this feeling that anger simmers down more quickly and then disappears. I am not angry at rupas or namas or nibbana, but I am angry at the thought "my mother has cheated me". If "ideas" doesn't include concepts, there simply isn't any other way to put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now. "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person -- through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing -- would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html Swee Boon 22193 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:25am Subject: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, all - I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. It can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The second is the final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the following: > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It speaks of "the liberation of awareness." I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what we will. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22194 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Htoo Naing, Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a peaceful abiding here and now'. I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form of pa.n.natti'?) Saadhu, Mike p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Member, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > With Great Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & > ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), > Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > The Contemplation of Mental Objects > > The Five Hindrances > > 2. Anger continued, [the following is all subcommentary]: > > The thought of love [metta] is a sublime state of mind [brahmavihara]; > it is one's own state of freedom from hatred. A detailed description of > the way of developing love as a subject of meditation is given in the > Path of Purity. > > The following summary of hints gathered from different comments and the > Path of Purity will be helpful to a beginner: > > The love-thought of meditation is different from worldly attachment. It > is based on wishing well to all beings. The idea of possession of the > loved object is foreign to it. It is not a state of mind that encourages > exclusiveness. The aim of the meditation is finally to include in the > ambit of one's goodwill all beings equally, without distinction. "The > liberation of the mind through love" refers only to full concentration. > Without reaching full concentration there is no effective freedom from > anger. The beginner who works at this subject of meditation is not to > practice the thought of love at first: > > On a sensuously promising object of the opposite sex, as attachment > towards it might arise in the yogi's mind. > > On a dead person, as the practice would be futile. > > On an enemy, as anger might arise. > > On an indifferent person, as the practice might prove wearisome. > > On one who is very dear as the arousing of friendly thoughts without > attachment towards such a one would be tiring; and as mental agitation > might occur should even some slight trouble overtake that one. > > Taking up the practice of the love subject of meditation is the > generating, the bringing about of the characteristic, sign or mark, of > the love thought of meditation of him who through loving-kindness > gathers together all beings with goodwill. > > The reflection on the thought of love itself is the sign of the love > thought of meditation, because the reflection arisen first is the reason > of the later reflection. > > Spreading it particularly: Consecutively in the following order: to > oneself, to a friend, an indifferent person, and an enemy. Spreading it > generally: By breaking down all barriers, limits and reservations which > separate oneself from all others, and extending the same kind of > friendly thought to all. Directionally: Extending the thought of love > towards one point of the compass, for instance, the east. These three > kinds of spreading of the thought of love refer to the stage of > meditation of "taking up the practice of the thought of love" which > covers the training from the beginning to the attainment of partial > concentration (upacara samadhi). In regard to this state of meditation > the following is stated: Spreading the thought of love after > particularizing the direction by way of a monastery, a street, village > and so forth is one way and spreading the thought of love towards a > direction in space generally by way of the eastern direction and so > forth without specifying a monastery and so forth is another way of > practice > > The development of the jhana on the thought of love is the practice > again and again of the thought of love that has got partial > concentration. The development is done in three ways: (1) The spreading > of the love thought universally. This is done by wishing that all living > beings (satta), all breathing things (pana), all beings born (bhuta), > all persons (puggala), all who have reached a state of individuality > (attabhavapariyapanna), be without hatred, disease, and grief, and be > happy taking care of themselves (avera, abyapajjha, anigha hontu, suhki > attanam pariharantu). (2) Spreading the thought of love by way of a > restricted group of beings. This is done by wishing that all females, > all males, all purified ones, all non-purified ones, all divine beings, > all humans, all beings fallen to states of woe, be without hatred, > disease and grief and happy taking care of themselves. (3) Spreading the > thought of love directionally in space. This is done by restricting the > thought of love towards each of the ten directions in space: the > cardinal points, the intermediate points, and the zenith and nadir. And > it is also done by wishing that the beings in each of the directions > taken up, according to the divisions and groups given above, be without > hatred and so forth according to the formula already mentioned. > 22195 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:56am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard How are you? And joyous Vesak! You quoted the following. "Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness." Those verse lines are translation of the following Pali. "pajjotasseva nibbaanam, vimokkho cetaso ahuu"ti." Most people who read Pali do not translate the term "nibbaanam" as unbinding. The Pali phrase "pajjotasseva nibbaanam" should be translated as "Like a flame's extinguishment". To consult the meaning of nibbaanam in the Pali-English dictionary, please go to the following link, and type nibbana in the Search slot. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html Sorry to undermine the attachment to the non-existent consciousness / awareness after parinibbaana. With sympathy, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, all - I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. It can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The second is the final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the following: > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It speaks of "the liberation of awareness." I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what we will. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22196 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Dear NSB(Swee Boon), I am delighted to read this post and it clearly brings the message to me.Medium or shorter messages are more manageable rather than very very long message.Your message is good.Double or triple the size of this message will still be OK.I am longing for to read more of your posts. With Due Respect, Htoo Naing nidive wrote: Howard, > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > directly experience them. You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) There's no need for such an assertion. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html Swee Boon 22197 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Dear Connie, There is a Rupa called ''Pariccheda-rupa''.It is actually not a Paramattha Rupa.It is emptiness or space between or among Maha-Buta Rupas. Kaaya-Vinatti Rupa which lasts as long as its generating Citta exists.Its lifespan is one billionth of a blink.It appears along with Citta nad falls away at the same time with Citta.It is a live one and the moving pictures on film,movie,television,computer,internet and so on are not Vinatti. Vaci-Vinatti Rupa has nearly the same meaning as Kaaya-Vinatti Rupa.The difference is it is sound.Recorded sounds are not Vaci-Vinatti.Vaci-Vinatti is also Cittaja rupa and purely Cittaja one.Speech or sounds origionated from Sattas are Vaci-Vinatti.Both Vinatti are not real Rupa. There are three Lahutadhi-Rupa called Rupa-Lahuta(lightness or readiness or easiness of Rupas),Rupa-Muduta(tenderness or softness orwell-doing of Rupas) and Rupa-Kammannata(stability or unity or smartness of Rupas). Four Lakkhana Rupas are 1.Upacaya Rupa -initial formation of Rupa 2.Santati Rupa -developing Rupa to a mature one 3.Jarata Rupa -decaying or getting older or changing to bad state 4.Aniccata Rupa - Just disappearing or faint away or dying off of Rupas. Lakkhana Rupas are not real rupa and they are just marking of other Rupas or features of other Rupas. These matters were posted in my series ''(3)Rupa As A Ladder''.Type the heading including number in the search box and click search button.It will be brought to you.Any queries are welcome and thanks for your request. With Great Metta, Htoo Naing connie wrote: Hi, Htoo Naing ~ Could you please say something more about your added detail to Yasa where you wrote: 1.Rupakkhandha Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) Thank you, connie 22198 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Dear Moderators,Members and all Dhamma Friends, May I change this topic to ''Calm and Peace Wesak''. Today is the Birthday(also Enlightened Day and Parinibbana Day) of our great teacher The Buddha The Great.I myself have been keeping eight precepts. Worldly people would say ''Happy Birth Day..'' and so on.But Wesak should really be calm and peaceful. When we do meritorious deed there arise Kusala Cittas and along with Kusala Cittas,19 Sobana Cetasikas arise.These Cetasikas help calm and peaceful. May you all be calm and peaceful on Wesak Day. With Much Metta, Htoo Naing robmoult wrote: Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy Wesak! Metta, Rob M :-) 22199 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Hello Htoo Naing, and all, Thank you for this suggestion, 'calm and peace' is a great way of considering Vesak. This weekend some of us from dsg will be meeting, as we do a few times a year, at Andrew's property at Cooran in South East Queensland. Azita is coming down from Cairns, KenH, and Steve (Bodhi 2500), will also be there, plus some others who aren't (yet?) dsg members. I know that we all will have our usual lovely weekend of calm and peace, laughter and camaraderie, as we study the Dhamma and discuss our understandings. (Perhaps we will have some questions for the List when we return). metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Moderators,Members and all Dhamma Friends, > > May I change this topic to ''Calm and Peace Wesak''. > > Today is the Birthday(also Enlightened Day and Parinibbana Day) of our great teacher The Buddha The Great.I myself have been keeping eight precepts. > > Worldly people would say ''Happy Birth Day..'' and so on.But Wesak should really be calm and peaceful. > > When we do meritorious deed there arise Kusala Cittas and along with Kusala Cittas,19 Sobana Cetasikas arise.These Cetasikas help calm and peaceful. > > May you all be calm and peaceful on Wesak Day. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > robmoult wrote: > Just want to wish all DSGrs, especially our moderators, a very happy > Wesak! > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22200 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Sarah, Thanks for your wish.I am very well and doing well.I have kept eight precepts today.Kusala things make me calm and peaceful.As we are engaged in our daily routine it is a privilege to take a break in the middle of the weekdays.How peaceful it is to do meditation on Atthingha Sila.I practice even in between day to day work.I will post some topic soon.Thanks for your applause. May you be peacefully stay the day. Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, It's good to see you back again - you were missed! I'll look forward to your 'new topics for lively discussion'. Nina's on holiday and without internet access until about the 24th May, but I'll draw her attention to any posts addressed to her that have come in since she left or which come in for her before she returns. I hope you're well. With metta and Vesak Greetings to you and all. Sarah ====== --- htootintnaing wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Thanks for your mail directed to me and I have to say sorry that I > was not in contact with the group for a while.I am delighted to read > your explanation about eye-opener and messanger.I will soon take part > in discussion and will post new topics for lively discussion. 22201 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Mike, I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. May you be happy with this explanation. With Much Metta, Htoo Naing "m. nease" wrote: Dear Htoo Naing, Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a peaceful abiding here and now'. I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form of pa.n.natti'?) Saadhu, Mike p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Member, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly over all possible being. > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on the practice. > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > With Great Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & 22202 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu May 15, 2003 11:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Sarah, May I discuss something related to Aayatana. Aayatana is the thing that serves as Dvara(door) or Arammana(sense). Aayatana is dhamma that expands arising of Citta and Cetasikas. Aayatana is dhamma that is the cause of Citta and Cetasikas. If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more understandable. ==================================================== A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) =================================== Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are 1.Citta 2.Cetasikas 3. 5 Pasada Rupas 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa 5. Nibbana 6.Pannatta I hope these will work for more understanding. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Friends, There have been many discussions on whether concepts (pannatti) can be the objects of consciousness and whether they can be known by knowledge or wisdom. Most of us rely on English translations and in any case have limited knowledge of the terms and ideas being referred to. Some of the differences in understanding are related to the widely held understanding that all objects (arammana) of consciousness are equivalent to the internal and external sense fields (ayatana) and that the latter therefore include concepts (pannatti). Many have referred to different suttas, but Swee Boon wrote a particularly clear post on this topic: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/21647 From previous detailed discussions on ayatana, I believe the equating of ayatanas with arammana (as elaborated in Swee Boon’s post) is incorrect, though very widely held by Pali scholars. I hope I can present the differences simply and clearly here. ============================================================ Arammana (object) ******** 1. visible object 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. body-impression 6. mind-object (dhammaaramma.na) ..... Note: Dhammarammana (mind-object) 1. nama, inc. nibbana 2. rupa 3. concept (pannatti) ..... Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e experienced by) of consciousness (citta/mano/vi~n~nana) ==================== Ayatana (bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (rupayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) ....... Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) 3. nibbana ....... Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and NOT to concepts. ================================================= Confusions arise from translated terms of dhamma, dhammarammana, mano, manayatana, dhammayatana etc . Furthemore, sometimes, dhammarammana refers to dhammayatana and we have to look at the context and commentary notes. ..... Note: dhamma can refer to paramattha dhammas only or to dhammarammana inc pannatti and has to be understood in context. ..... A rough guide: B.Bodhi:- ayatana -base mano (manayatana)- mind, mental dhamma (dhammayatana), dhammarammana- mental phenomenon, mental object, mind object B.Thanissaro:- mano (manayatana) - intellect dhamma (dhammayatana) - ideas ..... Examples from Salyatanasamyutta(Connected Discourses on the Six Sense Bases), Samyutta Nikaya. As is apparent in the heading, ‘Salayatana’, it is the ayatanas being referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. I can’t find a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but still under Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the Sabba Sutta before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana. ..... Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta (see link) are therefore incorrect. These are not easy aspects to comprehend, but I hope these notes may help clarify a little other discussions about sutta passages being discussed where there is some controversy about whether paramattha dhammas or pannatti are being referred to by translation terms, such as mind, mind objects, intellect or ideas. Of course any comments are welcome. For more details on ayatanas, see posts under ‘ayatana’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 Sabba Sutta The All Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22203 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/15/03 12:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Howard > > How are you? And joyous Vesak! > > You quoted the following. > > "Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation of awareness." > > Those verse lines are translation of the following Pali. > > "pajjotasseva nibbaanam, vimokkho cetaso ahuu"ti." > > Most people who read Pali do not translate the term "nibbaanam" as > unbinding. > > The Pali phrase "pajjotasseva nibbaanam" should be translated > as "Like a flame's extinguishment". > ------------------------------------------ Howard: You are correct. The "unbinding" translation is idiosyncratic to Ven. Thanissaro. My point, however, was directed more towards 'vimokkho'. And would you describe that as extinction as well? I understand it to mean "liberation". ------------------------------------------- > > To consult the meaning of nibbaanam in the Pali-English dictionary, > please go to the following link, and type nibbana in the Search slot. > > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html > > Sorry to undermine the attachment to the non-existent consciousness / > awareness after parinibbaana. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: My, what kindness. That is the intent, yes? ------------------------------------------- > > With sympathy, > -------------------------------------------- Howard: And sarcasm? ------------------------------------------- > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > ========================= With metta, Howard > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > I just reread the beautiful Parinibbana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya. > It can be found at > HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-015.html > Two elements, in particular, struck me. One is that even at the > Buddha's death, there is such great emphasis on the jhanas. The > second is the > final line, attributed to Ven. Anuruddha, the arahant, which is the > following: > > >Like a flame's unbinding > > was the liberation > > of awareness. > > Note that this does not speak of the cessation, termination, > annihilation, or final and complete destruction of awareness. It > speaks of > "the liberation of awareness." > I would suppose we can, each of us, make of each of these points what > we will. > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22204 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi again, Suan - I merely raised a matter for thinking about. I didn't assert an unwavering belief of mine. You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant. This matter was discussed a couple years ago, at which time I wrote a post which points out that the matter is not entirely clear. I copy the post below for your perusal. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) ====================================== Re: [DhammaStudyGroup] Nibbana Date: 11/7/01 10:09:35 AM Eastern Standard Time From: upasaka@a... Reply-to: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent from the Internet (Details) Hi, Robert - In a message dated 11/7/01 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, robertkirkpatrick@r... writes: > Dear Howard and Jon, > From the Itivuttaka (no.38 PTS). > I use Nyanaponika's translation (wheel 251/253) > This was said by the Blessed one, sopken by the holy One , and > thus have I heard: > there are , o monks, two aspects of Nibbana; the Nibbana element > with the groups of existence still remainin > (saupadisesa-nibbanadhatu) and the Nibbana-element with no > groups remaining (anupadisesa -nibbana dhatu). > What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still > remaing? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is > taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the > five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through > which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as > well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred > and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the > groups of existence still remaining. > And what is the Nibbana-element with no groups remaining? In > that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer > relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. > This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence > remaining. endquote > robert > > ============================= Well, that certainly is somewhat clear. But it is said: "In that case a monk is an arahant..in him those feelings no longer relished , will even here (at his death) come to extinction. This is called the Nibbana-element with no groups of existence remaining." By itself, it is a minor point that it talks here only of the extinction of the no-longer-relished feelings instead of the extinction of every aspect of the khandhas. However, there is another point that may not be so minor, especially when taken together with the first. There is said, first, the following in talking about the living arahant: "What is the Nibbana element with groups of existence still remaining? in that case , o monks, a monk is an arahant; he is taint free..but there still remain with him(until death) the five sense organs that have not yet disappeared and through which he still experiences what is pleasant and unpleasant, as well as bodily ease and pain. The extinction of greed, hatred and delusion in him, this is called the nibbana element with the groups of existence still remaining." What I find interesting here is that there is discussed only the remaining of the *five* sense organs (until death) and the experience of what is pleasant and unpleasant and of bodily ease and pain coming through them. This pleasantness, unpleasantness, and bodily ease and pain experienced via the five senses constitutes the no-longer-relished feelings extinguished at the death of the arahant. Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death of the arahant. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22205 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 15, 2003 9:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Yasa, > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.We all well appreciate your post which contained extensive explanation regarding dhamma matter in detail.I would add something to your post. > 1.Rupakkhandha > Rupa + Khandha 18 Paramattha-Rupa( from 28, 10 are just ideas_1 space,2 Vinatti,3 Lahutadhi 4 Lakkhana) > > 2.Vedanakkhandha > Vedana + Khandha (Somanassa,Sukha,Domanassa,Dukkha and Upekkha) > > 3.Sannakkhandha > Sanna + Khandha (Sanna Cetasika or memory_which is brought along with each Citta through out Samsara) > > 4. Sankharakkhandha > Sankhara + Khandha (all Cetasikas except Vedana and Sanna) > > 5. Vinnana + Khandha (89 Cittas) > > With much respect, > > Htoo Naing >_______________________________Yasa replies______________________ Dear Htoo Naing, Thankyou very much for showing me the expansion of Khandhas. I am new to Abhidhamma, which I read to understand the citta,which is helpful, when it comes to dhamma-vicara in meditation. Looking forward for more words of dhamma from you. May you be happy, with metta Yasa 22206 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Howard ~ I believe Thannisaro (who else) talks about 'consciousness with no landing place' or an 'unbounded consciousness' in one of his dhamma lectures at http://66.220.26.3/adharma - sorry I don't remember which now. Also reading "The Patthanuddesa Dipani - The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations By Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw" and in the section on jhana paccaya he says: ....The seven constituents of jhana are the paccaya-Dhammas in the relation of jhana. They are: vitakka (initial application), vicara (sustained application), piti (pleasurable interest, somanassa (joy), domanassa (grief), upekkha (hedonic indifference) and ekaggata (concentration in the sense of capacity to individualize). All classes of consciousness (with the exception of the five senses), their concomitants and material qualities in coexistence with the seven constituents, are the paccayuppanna-Dhammas here. ....no deed, such as giving charity or taking life can be executed by a feeble mind lacking the necessary constituents of jhana. It is the same with all moral and immoral deeds ....Jhana is to be understood in the sense of closely viewing or actively looking at which (the no deed part) suggests that at least a feeble jhana predisposition is accumulating a great deal of the time. Just thought it was interesting and hadn't thought of it like that before. peace, connie 22207 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, One more point that is causing confusion, or debate, is what is a concept. Reading part way through A. Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" I discovered that form is considered to be a concept. Is that correct? Is it correct to say ultimately rupa is formless and any form or shape "apparently" experienced through the 5 senses is, in reality, a mind door conception of self. This would apply to all 5 rupa senses, not just "visual" form. Any form is an intimation of wholeness, and wholeness is considered to be a synonym for self. If I have this correctly, the main problem I see is that if rupa is in reality formless, how can it be kamma result? How can the formless be desirable or undesirable? This approach seems to lead to the view that kamma is not a paramatta dhamma, is not ultimately real. Is that how you see it? Larry here's the link: http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm 22208 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:14pm Subject: Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment Hi, RobM ~ I guess if you don't want the hard-drives set up-right, you wouldn't want the software de-bugged? (*-sorry, connie 22209 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Way 89, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 3. Sloth and Torpor Through wrong reflection on a state of boredom and the like, sloth and torpor come to be. Boredom is just dissatisfaction. Lassitude is bodily laziness. Languidity of body is the bending of the body torpidly in getting up and in similar actions. Lethargy after a meal is a dizziness or slight faint which is due to eating a principal meal. It is also called the discomfort which follows such a meal. The mind's sluggishness is the dullness of the mind. An abundance of wrong reflection on boredom and similar states of mind produces sloth and torpor. Therefore the Blessed One said that much wrong reflection on boredom, lassitude, languidity of body, lethargy after a meal, and the mind's sluggishness, is a condition for the production of fresh sloth and torpor and the increase and expansion of sloth and torpor already come into being. Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor. There are six things which lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor: The seeing of the reason of sloth and torpor in the fact of eating too much or gluttony; the changing of the postures completely; reflection on the perception of light; staying in the open; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists in dispelling sloth and torpor. There is the following explanation of these six things: The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously is assailed by sloth and torpor while doing his recluse duty of meditation in his day or night quarters as by a mighty elephant pressing down on him, but that one who practices moderation in food is not troubled thus with these hindrances. In one who thus sees the characteristic of sloth and torpor in gluttony there is the casting out of sloth and torpor. Sloth and torpor disappear in him who changes over from the posture which induces sloth and torpor to another; in him who reflects on the brightness or the light of the moon, a lamp or a torch by night, and on the light or brightness of the sun by day; in him who lives in the open; in him who associates with sympathetic and helpful companions, like the Elder Maha Kassapa, who have dispelled sloth and torpor; and by stimulating talk connected with a strict recluse-regimen. Therefore it is said: Six things lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor. The yogi understands thus: sloth and torpor cast out by these six things are stopped from arising forever in the future by the attainment of the path of arahantship. [Tika] The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously after the manner of the well-known types of Brahmanical gormandizers mentioned in ancient Indian books. There are five kinds of these greedy eaters: (1) He who eats until he has to be raised up by the hand from his seat. (2) He who lies rolling just where he has eaten and eats as long as he likes. (3) He who eats until he slips off his waist cloth. (4) He who fills himself with food in such a way that it seems as if a crow could peck at the food in him. (5) He who having filled his belly full and vomitted eats more food again, or he who eats until he vomits. [T] On the light or brightness of the sun by day: The meaning should be understood thus: Sloth and torpor vanish in him, too, who at night is reflecting on the image of the perception of the brightness of the sun he got by day. [T] Here it may be helpful to state the eight ways of dealing with torpor taught by the Master to the Elder Maha Moggallana: (1) One should neglect to mind the thought which says that drowsiness is descending on one, or (2) one should reflect on the Dhamma, or (3) repeat or recite the Dhamma, or (4) pull both earlobes and rub or massage the limbs with the hands, or (5) getting up from the sitting position, apply water on and rub the eyes, and look into the distance, at the constellations in the starry sky, or (6) reflect on the thought of light, or (7) fix the thought on the ambulatory, aware of the ends of it with the controlling faculties of sense turned inwards and the mind kept in, or (8) sleep conscious of the time of waking and on awaking get up quickly thinking that one will not give oneself to the comforts of lying down, reclining and languor, when all other seven ways fail. 22210 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 0:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Connie - In a message dated 5/15/03 6:27:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > > I believe Thannisaro (who else) talks about 'consciousness with no > landing place' or an 'unbounded consciousness' in one of his dhamma > lectures at http://66.220.26.3/adharma - sorry I don't remember which > now. > ====================== Thank you for this (and the rest of your post). For some reason, I can't seem to access this web site. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22211 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 1:20pm Subject: Regards from Robert Epstein Hi, all - I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm greetings! Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some point. He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22212 From: connie Date: Thu May 15, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Thank you, Htoo Naing ~ The vinatti rupas still seem pretty real, but I'll think about it. peace, connie 22213 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Mike, > > I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. > > Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. Indeed! > For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. The most important, of course. > Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. > > So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. > > Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. I think so too. Do you think vipassanaa may arise outside of jhaana? I've never been entirely happy with 'suppress'--and would welcome something better. Your mastery of English with regard to these topics is truly amazing. Do you disagree that the nivaara.nas don't remain latent during and after jhaana? > May you be happy with this explanation. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing With a little kusala chanda, I hope, Mike > "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, > > Fascinating and most impressive. You seem to be speaking from direct > experience of jhaanabhavana in terms understandable by way of abhidhamma. I > believe I should follow your example, as a way of kusala bhavana and 'a > peaceful abiding here and now'. > > I recognize the hindrances you say must be eradicated from the suttanta (as > well as the vinaya and the abhidhamma, of course). Rather than 'eradicated' > (since they must continue to exist latently until enlightenment), do you > mean 'suppressed' by jhaana? > > Finally, do I understand correctly that the aaramma.na, 'satta pa.n.natta', > is the idea of a living being (or living beings)? (Is 'pa.n.natta' a form > of pa.n.natti'?) > > Saadhu, > > Mike > > p.s. Thanks also, Larry, for this reference. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Htoo Naing > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:29 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > > > > Dear Member, > > > > Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu.Very nice piece of Metta-Bhavana. > > > > The Aramana of the Bhavana is just Pannatta.One needs to spread evenly > over all possible being. > > > > Meditating mind is homing on the Hadaya Vatthu of the particular Satta who > meditate Metta-Bhavana. > > > > When Citta is stick firmly to that Satta-Pannatta,one will become to be > aware of the existance of mental factors which are parts of Jhanacitta. > > > > Before this five hinderances have to be eradicated.They are sensual > thoughts,destructive anger-guided thoughts,spreading away of thoughts and > attention from the Satta-Panatta for Metta & repentence of not doing good > things and doing bad things,laziness sleepiness and suspicious thoughts on > the practice. > > > > If these five are cleared up and five parts of Jhanacittas are working > vividly then Jhanacitta is going to arise soon. > > > > With Great Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & 22214 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cessation, factoid To Connie: In a message dated 5/8/03 9:32:20 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Connie, for the thoughtful post. I guess "N is a negative particle. Vana means motion" is what Siddharta Guatoma meant by cessation. Best to you, layman Jeff 22215 From: Date: Thu May 15, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Gnosis, Long time, no see. To Peter and Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/9/03 8:19:07 AM, peterdac4298@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > While you were away, there were a few posts from "Jeff", who is a > student of anthropology studying gnosis in early cultures. You might > want to look at message 21250 for more details. Peter: Thanks Rob Most interesting. I was really thinking about how some of the meaning of the word 'sati' was to be found in theistic religions under the term 'gnosis'. It is only in very long term retrospect that I now realize I had my first encounter with the idea of a Koan when just five years old or so. The idea had gotten around "...if God created the Universe, then who created God?..." This variant on "...who was I before I was born...", back in the late 'forties, did not open our very young minds to the infinitude of the present moment, but merely closed it up for fear of shattering our embryonic 'faith'. I just thought that, in these more enlightened times, when engaged in interfaith dialogue with Theists, it might be of some value if this was brought up in any such discussion, together with 'not knowing' being responsible for the separation from the Unborn, Uncreated. If ever there was a bridge between Buddhism and the rest, this could form some part of it. However, let this line of enquiry continue off line, so as to not undermine the group focus. Cheers Peter >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Rob M :-) for the kind plug. Sorry all, I have had finals all this week, and last Friday my hard drive died as well, so I have not been able to keep up with the dialog, until now. I just finished the last final of my undergraduate career!!!!!!! As for concepts of Gnosis, I think it could be a very interesting discussion here if you don't mind. I do try to steer away from belief that state that only a single religion or prophet (enlightened one) figured it all out. The way we use the word 'Insight' does sound a lot like the way Christians have been known to use the word 'revelation.' There maybe more parallels than some of us are willing to accept between Christianity and Buddhism. best to all, layman Jeff 22216 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 15, 2003 10:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy Wesak Hi Christine, Azita, ken H, Andrew & Steve, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Htoo Naing, and all, > > Thank you for this suggestion, 'calm and peace' is a great way of > considering Vesak. This weekend some of us from dsg will be meeting, > as we do a few times a year, at Andrew's property at Cooran in South > East Queensland. Azita is coming down from Cairns, KenH, and Steve > (Bodhi 2500), will also be there, plus some others who aren't (yet?) > dsg members. ..... A quick note to wish you all a great and dhamma-packed weekend..... ..... I know that we all will have our usual lovely weekend > of calm and peace, laughter and camaraderie, as we study the Dhamma > and discuss our understandings. (Perhaps we will have some questions > for the List when we return). ..... That would be great (the questions and also any answers too;-)). Just remember not to leave the only copy of the minutes with KenH and remember to pack your Dhamma library for reference when the boys reach an impasse;-) Hope Smokey Joe and the silver-crested cockatoos behave and it’ll be great to have Azita’s cheer and good humour, as well as wisdom, to encourage the “aren’t yet” members to join the ranks;-) Best wishes and greatly look forward to the usual humourous and chatty summaries from you all;-) ;-) Metta Sarah p.s I was interested in the astrology thread you raised some time ago and also Rob M’s link. I understand the rules for monks in this regard (as in many others) to be quite different. As with many other kinds of livelihood/ways of life which tend to be conducted with wrong views about their inherent value and answer to suffering (eg psychology, yoga teaching, law, politics, science, business ethics(!), surfing (!!), hospital work....), I tend to think it is the wrong views rather than the livelihood in itself that are the root of the problems. What I’m trying clumsily to say to our friend(s)is, go ahead with the astrology readings (or yoga teaching......surfing, hospital work) and continue to develop understanding. Perhaps we can say that just as climate, good health and other factors were suitable conditions for the Kurus to hear the teachings from the Buddha, so being born in a Buddhist country, planetary influences and other factors can act as natural dependent support conditions for mental and physical good health. If, however, one were to then say that by being born in a Buddhist country, having a good climate, good medical care or being born under the right influences would necessarily bring these results, that would be wrong and a misunderstanding of the complexity of conditions. Perhaps I see the study of astrology or feng shui in a similar way to studying climate conditions or other subjects - of value and interest and better in the hands of a good Buddhist like our friend who will be more able to put its role in perspective and more likely to see the dangers of over-reaching in terms of potential benefits. Look forward to any further comments from you all and apologies for these belated ones in these after-thoughts. ================================================= 22217 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 15, 2003 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards from Robert Epstein Looking forward to hearing from RobEp again! Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:20 PM Subject: [dsg] Regards from Robert Epstein > Hi, all - > > I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm greetings! > Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some point. > He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. > > With metta, > Howard 22218 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri May 16, 2003 8:47am Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard and all How are you? I have read both your messages on this thread. You wrote: "You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant." The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." At the risk of repeating the well-known teachings, the five aggregates are the matter aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the memory aggregate, the activation aggregate (i.e the remaining mental associates), and the consciousness aggregate. Please note the Buddha's use of the term "the consciousness aggregate" or "the awareness aggregate". He used the term "aggregate" to include all, and every, types of consciousness that we are capable of having or attaining. As the Buddha taught that everything in the five aggregates is misery, we can conclude that any type of consciousness or any type of awareness is misery. Luckily, the Buddha also taught that we can end our misery. The end of our misery is called nirodha, which is commonly known as nibbaana. Thus, we can infer that nibbaana is something that is free from the five aggregates (equatable with misery). Therefore, we can conclude that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery). To my knowledge, there is no other form of consciousness or awareness outside the consciounsess aggregate which is one among the five aggregates. By the way, at the risk of showing off my scholarship, Abhidhamma Pi.taka is the only place where we can study all types of consciousness in details. Yet, all of them are subsumeable under the consciousness aggregate. Consciousness or awareness is something that can emerge only if there are conditions for that emergence on that particular occasion. Put it another way, consciousness is not an existent thing in isolation. Consciousness is an emergent time-bound phenomenon under conditions. But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times. Thus, equating consciousness or awareness with nibbaana is to unfairly reduce nibbaana to the level of a conditioned time-bound phenomenon, and is against the teachings of Gotama the Buddha and the Arahant commentators. Therefore, at the risk of disappointing you or other like-minded dhamma friends, my reading of Pali texts (canonical and commentarial) convinced me of the fact that all awareness ceases with the death of an Arahant as though all forms of fire have been extinguished. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi again, Suan - I merely raised a matter for thinking about. I didn't assert an unwavering belief of mine. You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all awareness ceases with the death of an arahant. This matter was discussed a couple years ago, at which time I wrote a post which points out that the matter is not entirely clear. I copy the post below for your perusal. With metta, Howard 22219 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/16/03 11:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard and all > > How are you? > > I have read both your messages on this thread. > > You wrote: > > "You, it seems, have an unwavering belief that all > awareness ceases with the death of an arahant." > > The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana > Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". > > "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. --------------------------------------------------- > > At the risk of repeating the well-known teachings, the five > aggregates are the matter aggregate, the feeling aggregate, the > memory aggregate, the activation aggregate (i.e the remaining mental > associates), and the consciousness aggregate. > > Please note the Buddha's use of the term "the consciousness > aggregate" or "the awareness aggregate". He used the term "aggregate" > to include all, and every, types of consciousness that we are capable > of having or attaining. > > As the Buddha taught that everything in the five aggregates is > misery, we can conclude that any type of consciousness or any type of > awareness is misery. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Everything afflicted by the three poisons is dukkha. With their removal, dukkha is removed. And nibbana is the end of dukkha. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Luckily, the Buddha also taught that we can end our misery. The end > of our misery is called nirodha, which is commonly known as nibbaana. > > Thus, we can infer that nibbaana is something that is free from the > five aggregates (equatable with misery). > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way of aversion. ----------------------------------------------------- Therefore, we can conclude > > that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of > consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Or it is awareness freed of defilement. When there is no desire, aversion clinging, or confusion, nothing more is required. ------------------------------------------------------ > > To my knowledge, there is no other form of consciousness or awareness > outside the consciounsess aggregate which is one among the five > aggregates. > > By the way, at the risk of showing off my scholarship, Abhidhamma > Pi.taka is the only place where we can study all types of > consciousness in details. Yet, all of them are subsumeable under the > consciousness aggregate. > > Consciousness or awareness is something that can emerge only if there > are conditions for that emergence on that particular occasion. Put it > another way, consciousness is not an existent thing in isolation. > Consciousness is an emergent time-bound phenomenon under conditions. > > But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions > at all times. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Parinibbana, as you understand it, seems to me to be equivalent to the state of cessation of perception and sensation, the so-called "ninth jhana" - basically the state of a log. ------------------------------------------------ > > Thus, equating consciousness or awareness with nibbaana is to > unfairly reduce nibbaana to the level of a conditioned time-bound > phenomenon, and is against the teachings of Gotama the Buddha and the > Arahant commentators. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Instead of seeing this as reducing nibbana, one could see it as liberating awareness, freeing it of defilements. ------------------------------------------------ > > Therefore, at the risk of disappointing you or other like-minded > dhamma friends, my reading of Pali texts (canonical and commentarial) > convinced me of the fact that all awareness ceases with the death of > an Arahant as though all forms of fire have been extinguished. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22220 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects "m. nease" wrote: Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 88, Mental Objects > Dear Mike, > > I referred five hinderances as I found the words ''Five hinderances''.There are six ''Nivarana''. > > Nivarana is things that hinder attainment of Jhana or Maggacitta.For Jhanacitta removal of five is sufficed. Indeed! > For Maggacitta one extra thing is called ''Avijja-Nivarana''. The most important, of course. > Your idea is right.It should be as you said.Even Sotapanna cannot eradicate Avijja.Avijja is still there as long as they are not Arahats. > > So these six Nivarana dhammas are removed at and around Maggacitta(Sotapatti,Sakadagami,Anagami).But when these Sikkha Puggala(practitioners still trying to attain Arahatta-Magga) are not in the state of Phala Samapatti,there possibly arises Avijja in their mind. > > Instead of the word ''eradicate'',''suppress'' MAY well be suitable but not a right one.Anyway you well understand Jhana and its parts.It may found basis for Vipassana. I think so too. Do you think vipassanaa may arise outside of jhaana? ================================ No.I stated ''may found basis''.These two ''Vipassana and Samatha'' are quite different.But it will be easy to understand if I childishly say ''Elephant-minded Citta is more in favour of arising Vipassana Cittas than monkey-minded Citta.''(Htoo Naing) ================================== I've never been entirely happy with 'suppress'--and would welcome something better. Your mastery of English with regard to these topics is truly amazing. Do you disagree that the nivaara.nas don't remain latent during and after jhaana? ================================= My English has arisen from reading other people's post in this group and other Buddhism discussion groups.I understand most dhamma in Myanmar along with a few Pali words.Thanks for your comments on my English. Your question is a bit twisted.I am afraid to say that sorry for my poor understanding. No Nivarana arise during Jhana-Javana series.(Htoo Naing) ============================= > May you be happy with this explanation. > > With Much Metta, > > Htoo Naing With a little kusala chanda, I hope, Mike ================================== You have a great deal of Kusala Chanda.(Htoo Naing) With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22221 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi Howard (and Suan), Pardon me for jumping in. This is how I see it: The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - [snip] > > The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and > clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a > craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. [snip] > The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way > of aversion. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22222 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri May 16, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] cessation, factoid Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu ! This is the most precise one I have ever read among the posts in most discussion groups. Htoo Naing macdocaz1@a... wrote: To Connie: In a message dated 5/8/03 9:32:20 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Also, a definition for Nibbana from Ven. Weragoda Sarada Thera that I haven't seen elsewhere yet: The Pali word Nibbana (Sanskrit - Nirvana) is composed of 'N' and 'Vana'. N is a negative particle. Vana means motion. "It is called Nibbana in that it is the absence (Ni) of that compulsive urge to move, which is the reaction of an organism to stimulation which is called Vana." As long as one is impelled by urge, one accumulates fresh Kammic activities which must continue in one form or other the perpetual cycle of birth and death. When all forms of this urge are eradicated, reproductive kammic forces cease to operate, and one attains Nibbana, stopping the cycle of birth and death. The Buddhist conception of deliverance is stopping the ever-recurring cycle of life and death. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thanks Connie, for the thoughtful post. I guess "N is a negative particle. Vana means motion" is what Siddharta Guatoma meant by cessation. Best to you, layman Jeff 22223 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment In a message dated 5/13/03 4:40:39 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Well, if you were to use a Mahayana allusion, the internet, an interconnection of nodes each reflecting what is at other nodes is reminiscent of Indra's net, which is usually used as a metaphor for the general sense of interdependent arising (and which I like to use as metaphor for my own personal intersubjective phenomenalism), but I don't think this will be very suitable for your purposes! ;-) With metta, Howard >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Oh I think that's a great idea. Jeff 22224 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment To Connie: In a message dated 5/13/03 12:42:21 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Bodhidharma's 'Platform Sutra', >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I beleive that's Huineng or probably more acurately Shenhui publishing the 'Platform Sutra', under the name of his teacher Huineng. Which is certainluy excellent literary sources to refelct upon for the reasons why an apocryphal publication can be called 'sutra' layman Jeff 22225 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites To Yasa: In a message dated 5/15/03 12:19:36 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: << Dear Sarah, Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " (conventional reality): http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Yasa, for your many excellent contributions to this list as well as your excellent websites. I quite enjoyed you photo album as well as your excellent art. I quite like your pallet, and only wish I could see the originals someday. Best to you, layman Jeff 22226 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutta - Please comment layman Jeffto Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/12/03 12:37:57 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Connie and Victor, I am not going to use the word Sutta. I will replace it with "sutra"; hopefully, using the Sanskrit instead of Pali, putting quotation marks around the word and not capitalizing the word will make the text seem less "blasphemous". Metta, Rob M :-) >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Hi Rob M :-) I thought you did a very excellent job and I appreciated you putting it into the context of a Buddha living today in our context. I enjoyed your humor and I was not offended at all. I think if one feels offended by your excellent writing, that is simply an opportunity to reflect on one's grasping. I believe we should all make efforts not to be too orthodox whenever possible. A little irreverent humor seems to go a long way to relieving the tension of excessive orthodoxy. Best to you, layman Jeff 22227 From: connie Date: Fri May 16, 2003 6:17pm Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Howard ~ Sorry, try http://www.audiodharma.org/ instead of http://66.220.26.3/adharma for Thannisaro's talks. About 90 minutes into the four hour one on the five aggregates is where he talks briefly about consciousness without feature or a surface (namely, the other aggregates) to land on... (not, as I said 'unbound', but) the consciousness of nibbana (the Pali's too fast for me... vinnana anidasanan??). By way of picturing it, he says suppose there is a roofed house or roofed hall with windows on the N, S and E sides. When the sun rises and the rays enter by way of the eastern window, it will land on the west wall unless there is no wall and then it will land on the ground; if there is no ground, it will land on the water (they had a view the earth was floating on water and if you don't believe it, go down and dig a well and the water comes up); if there is no water, it doesn't land. This doesn't say there's no consciousness, just that there's no place for it to land... you can't point to it. Sensory consciousness doesn't exist outside of the 6 senses, but the other does. He says it's only mentioned a couple times in the canon, but doesn't say where. Just before that he talks about the earth properties as the aggregates and consciousness as the seed... thought proliferations grow, etc. Kearney (a Kalupahana fan?) also mentions it in 'Freedom and Bondage' (from buddhanet.net): ....If a Bhikkhu abandons passion for the feeling-element ... perception-element ... creation-element ... consciousness-element, then because of the abandoning of passion its object is cut off; there is no support for consciousness. That unsupported consciousness does not grow, does not create creations and is liberated. Because of its liberation, it is stable; because of its stability, it is happy; because of its happiness, it is untroubled. One who is untroubled is completely freed in his own heart. He knows: birth is destroyed, the holy life is fulfilled, duty is done, there is no more of this. (Footnote here refers to Streng, Frederick. "Reflections on the attention given to mental construction in the Indian Buddhist analysis of causality", in Philosophy East and West 25 no. 1 (January 1975): 71-80.) He says more, but this is long enough. peace, connie 22228 From: Date: Fri May 16, 2003 5:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Thank you very much, Connie. this will be very good listening for me! With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/16/03 9:21:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > Hi, Howard ~ > > Sorry, try http://www.audiodharma.org/ instead of > http://66.220.26.3/adharma for Thannisaro's talks. About 90 minutes > into the four hour one on the five aggregates is where he talks briefly > about consciousness without feature or a surface (namely, the other > aggregates) to land on... (not, as I said 'unbound', but) the > consciousness of nibbana (the Pali's too fast for me... vinnana > anidasanan??). By way of picturing it, he says suppose there is a > roofed house or roofed hall with windows on the N, S and E sides. When > the sun rises and the rays enter by way of the eastern window, it will > land on the west wall unless there is no wall and then it will land on > the ground; if there is no ground, it will land on the water (they had a > view the earth was floating on water and if you don't believe it, go > down and dig a well and the water comes up); if there is no water, it > doesn't land. This doesn't say there's no consciousness, just that > there's no place for it to land... you can't point to it. Sensory > consciousness doesn't exist outside of the 6 senses, but the other does. > He says it's only mentioned a couple times in the canon, but doesn't say > where. > > Just before that he talks about the earth properties as the aggregates > and consciousness as the seed... thought proliferations grow, etc. > > Kearney (a Kalupahana fan?) also mentions it in 'Freedom and Bondage' > (from buddhanet.net): > ....If a Bhikkhu abandons passion for the feeling-element ... > perception-element ... creation-element ... consciousness-element, then > because of the abandoning of passion its object is cut off; there is no > support for consciousness. > > That unsupported consciousness does not grow, does not create creations > and is liberated. Because of its liberation, it is stable; because of > its stability, it is happy; because of its happiness, it is untroubled. > One who is untroubled is completely freed in his own heart. He knows: > birth is destroyed, the holy life is fulfilled, duty is done, there is > no more of this. (Footnote here refers to Streng, Frederick. > "Reflections on the attention given to mental construction in the Indian > Buddhist analysis of causality", in > Philosophy East and West 25 no. 1 (January 1975): 71-80.) > > He says more, but this is long enough. > peace, > connie > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22229 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Yu, You are quite right Victor.If it is not an accurate translation of ''Dukkha'' what is then the accurate one?I look forward to your reply. With best wishes, Htoo Naing yu_zhonghao wrote: Hi Howard (and Suan), Pardon me for jumping in. This is how I see it: The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - [snip] > > The five aggregates, clung to, are unsatisfactory. It is desire and > clinging that are the cause of unsatisfactoriness. Also, aversion to them, a > craving for absence, is a source of dukkha. [snip] > The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way > of aversion. [snip] > With metta, > Howard 22230 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:53am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To Yasa: > > In a message dated 5/15/03 12:19:36 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: > > << Dear Sarah, > > Thank you for looking at my websites. I wanted to do a proper site > including my activities and Buddhism, by way of keeping myself > occupied in my retirement. I do some paintings, in pastel mostly so > I did a website for that. It is rather a window to "myself " > (conventional reality): > > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charlesperera/ > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Thank-you Yasa, for your many excellent contributions to this list as well as > your excellent websites. I quite enjoyed you photo album as well as your > excellent art. I quite like your pallet, and only wish I could see the > originals someday. > > Best to you, > > layman Jeff Dear Jeff, Thank you for your kind words. All my pastels have been sold and what is left are the paintings in color pencils. If you happen to come to Paris I will show them to you ! with metta, Yasa 22231 From: connie Date: Sat May 17, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana p.s., Howard ~ Just now got around to looking, but for the study guide to go with Thannisaro's five aggregates talk, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html peace, connie 22232 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Thanks! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 9:44:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > p.s., Howard ~ > > Just now got around to looking, but for the study guide to go with > Thannisaro's five aggregates talk, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html > > peace, > connie > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22233 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma fundamentalism Yasa Thanks for sharing these thoughts. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the importance of the Satipatthana Sutta. Congratulations on your website. It's very nicely put together. Jon --- yasalalaka wrote: > > ___________________________Yasa > Replies_____________________________ > > > Jon, ... > Satipattahana Sutta, is a very important, if not the most > important > discourse of the Buddha. It is in fact called the Maha – > Satipatthana Sutta. All the rest of the discourse in the Sutta > Pitaka leads to this great discourse. It is the summum bonum of > the > Buddha's discourses, his teachings. It is the out come of five > hundred life times of accumulartion, and the fulfilment of the > paramis, to understand the cause of the suffering of the people and > be a Buddha, the Sublime, the All Knowing one, to show the beings > suffering in Samsara, the path to Nirvana, and the freedom from > the cycle of death and birth. ... > That is how, we may see the ultimate reality, being in the > conventional reality. The reality we understand is the > conventional > reality. The reality we do not understand is the ultimate reality. ... 22234 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:31am Subject: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggregates/Suan Hi, Suan - From Connie's kindly referenced article I found the following which makes a distinction between the 5 aggregates, and the 5 clinginging aggregates, the distinction being a psychological/phenomenological one, namely the presence of fementations: ***************************** § 6. At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. "Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. "Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. "These are called the five aggregates. "And what are the five clinging-aggregates? "Whatever form -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. "Whatever feeling -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever perception -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called perception as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrication as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever consciousness -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48] ********************************* With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for your succinct and pithy reply concerning the difference > between anatta and asabhava. Do you know where this highly > philosophical > practice of distinguishing between concept and reality originated? Here is what Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' has to say on the distinctin between ultimate and conventional truths (under the entry for 'paramattha'): "The two truths - ultimate and conventional - appear in that form only in the commentaries, but are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). "Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. "The term paramattha, in the sense here used, occurs in the first para. of the Kathávatthu, a work of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. "The commentarial discussions on these truths (Com. to D. 9 and M. 5) have not yet been translated in full. On these see K N. Jayatilleke, Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge (London, 1963), pp. 361ff. "In Maháyana, the Mádhyamika school has given a prominent place to the teaching of the two truths." > What > is your experience of anatta and how does it differ from your > experience > of asabhava? Is the one experience as effective as the other in > inducing relinquishment? My guess would be that there would be no such thing as an 'experience of asabhava', in the sense of a level of insight, mentioned in the texts. It seems to me that would contradict the distinction we have been discussing. As for 'experience of anatta', I understand that to be something that becomes apparent to direct experience only very gradually, through the development of insight into the true nature of fundamental phenomena. Jon 22236 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > Could we not equally > > say, The mind conceives of such things, and by that conceiving we > > fool ourselves into thinking we are looking at trees etc. > There's > > surely no need postulate the existence of something called > > concepts in order to explain how the world is (mis)perceived. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Disagreed! ;-) Thoughts come and go just as images and > sounds do. > --------------------------------------------------- Yes, that's the way it seems to all of us. But unlike the Buddha, we have only a superficial view of things and we don't see the conditioning factors that lie behind the world as it appears to us. The teachings reveal the ways in which reality is other than it seems, or to put it another way, the ways in which ignorance and wrong view cover up the reality of things. So it may not be safe to place too high a reliance on the way things appear to us, where this conflicts with an established tenet of the teachings. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same > reason as I > assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I directly > experience them. > --------------------------------------------- Well, it is of course the same for everyone -- both concepts and dhammas are experienced by (i.e., are the object of) consciousness. But that is not the issue here. The question is, whether there is a distinction to be drawn between the 2. One difference is that while the other objects have an existence outside that moment of being the object of consciousness, concepts do not. Concepts are wholly and completely the creation of that moment of consciousness itself. Jon 22237 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > With regard to our discussion of concepts, I have found the > following within the PTS dictionary's article on 'dhamma': > > ****************************************** > Applications and Meaning.--1. Psychologically; "mentality" as the > constitutive element of cognition & of its substratum, the world of > phenomena. It is that which is presented as "object" to the > imagination & as > such has an effect of its own:--a presentation (Vorstellung), or > idea, idea, or purely mental phenomenon as distinguished from a > psycho--physical > phenomenon, or sensation (re--action of sense--organ to > sensestimulus). ... Thanks for this reference. I have in fact mentioned in previous posts that the term 'dhamma' is sometimes used in the texts to include concepts, so this point is not in dispute. See also Sarah's recent post on ayatanas, where she points out that the expression 'dhammarammana' is sometimes used to include concepts. But that is a particular use of the term, and does not have any bearing on the question of ultimate vs. conventional. Jon 22238 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee To be honest, this is the first I've heard of this question of 'how concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality ascribed to the paramattha dhammas'. I'm not sure I really understand what this means. Would you mind elaborating a little, with an example or 2? Thanks. Sorry not to be able to make a useful comment at this stage. Jon --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Howard and Ron: ... > Most relevant to your discussion is the question how concepts can > be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied the reality > ascribed to > the paramatha dhammas. While I have read the debates on this point > - with each tradition thinking they have solved the problem - I > think Dreyfus sums up centuries of debate when he notes as follows: > > "Having understood Dharmakirti's system, which is based on the > difference between a reality definable in terms of essence and a > projected essenceless conceptual realm, the student is shown how > this > distinction leads to unsolvable difficulties. Those difficulties > do not > come from incidental limitations of the system but from its > assumption > that real things are defined by their essences. ... 22239 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the > distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it > makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, > no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we > deny > that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For > how > can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in > any normative sense? I'm not sure who would be arguing that concepts 'have any knowledge value'. Would you mind putting this in the context of some particular aspect of the teachings. Thanks. ... > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any > > bearing on the development of understanding? > > Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the > dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all > sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the > knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. Again, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by 'the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity'. I suspect it's related to the question raised in your previous post, but I'm not really sure. Could you restate it in more concrete terms? > And this is without even > raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, > perhaps, > just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical > cutting > up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can > we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to > describe > reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to > concepts? I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful support for finding out the answer. > But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic > approach are > wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and > Howard > are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers > east > and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the > debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the > issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not > to debate but to simply note my own confusion. As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not really a significant factor. While it's good to consider these issues, with assistence from those who have a better grasp of the teachings than ourselves, we shouldn't feel we have to get everything 'sorted out' before we begin to apply what we know to be correct dhamma. Jon 22240 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I would guess you are correct that this is the significance of the > distinction. The problem I have with this approach, however, is it > makes it difficult to argue that concepts have any knowledge value, > no matter how subordinate it may be to liberating knowledge, if we > deny > that concepts are real in the sense that the dhammas are real. For > how > can something that is unreal be true or the source of knowledge in > any normative sense? I'm not sure who would be arguing that concepts 'have any knowledge value'. Would you mind putting this in the context of some particular aspect of the teachings. Thanks. ... > > As a matter of interest, do you see this issue as having any > > bearing on the development of understanding? > > Yes, in the sense that the suggestion that direct perception of the > dhammas is the only true source of liberating knowledge creates all > sorts of epitemological problems with how we account for the > knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity. Again, I'm not sure I understand what is meant by 'the knowledge value we ascribe to conceptual activity'. I suspect it's related to the question raised in your previous post, but I'm not really sure. Could you restate it in more concrete terms? > And this is without even > raising the argument that the supposed "obective" dhammas are, > perhaps, > just a conceptual construction that arises from our analytical > cutting > up of what appears to us through our senses. In other words, can > we really use conceptual activity to go behind sensory input to > describe > reality as it is while at the same time denying reality to > concepts? I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful support for finding out the answer. > But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic > approach are > wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, you and > Howard > are simply touching upon a debate that has confounded philosophers > east > and west for centuries, and each time I try to orient myself in the > debate, I come away with even less confidence that I understand the > issues. So I throw out these somewhat ill-formed observations not > to debate but to simply note my own confusion. As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not really a significant factor. While it's good to consider these issues, with assistence from those who have a better grasp of the teachings than ourselves, we shouldn't feel we have to get everything 'sorted out' before we begin to apply what we know to be correct dhamma. Jon 22241 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon and Howard I hope you don't mind me coming in here. --- nidive wrote: > Howard, > > > I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > > as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > > directly experience them. > > You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) > There's no need for such an assertion. > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This > is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, > leads to mindfulness & alertness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight. The passage following the one you quote reads as follows: "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. According to a footnote in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of this sutta: "This is concentration associated with insight meditation directed to the rise and fall of the five aggregates. Perception of rise and fall brings to light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is impermanent is suffering and non-self." ['Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' p.291 n.28] Jon 22242 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > To be honest, this is the first I've heard of this question of 'how > concepts can be a normative source of knowledge if they are denied > the reality ascribed to the paramattha dhammas'. I'm not sure I > really understand what this means. Would you mind elaborating a > little, with an example or 2? Thanks. Hi Jon: I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the question comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our system of belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we define those terms), then (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of debate among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) details these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, has to confront these same type of issues in my view. Here is a passage you may find interesting: ------------ From Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” at 319-321 We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever? Although Dharmakirti's introduction of a causal link with reality is meant to account for the objectivity of our conceptual activities, it does not explain how conceptions operate non-randomly. We need something more that allows us to distinguish (a) from (b). We could look at the kind of relation involved in both cases. We could say that in case (a) the relation is adequate, whereas in (b) it is not. But what do we mean by adequate? This is where the normative must be introduced, for there is no way to specify the type of relation needed independent of intentionally determined norms. Those norms, however, do not exist in reality but derive from our conceptual framework. How can they help us to cope with reality? Dharmakirti's solution is to coordinate perception and conception. The former provides the contact with reality. The latter provides the norm. Together, they allow us to distinguish truth from falsity. In (a), the relation is adequate because there is a fit between the way things exist and our conceptual determination. In (b) such a fit is missing. This solution is, however, far from obvious, since they do not apprehend the same object. Dharmakirti explains: "All the cognitions generated from the sense bases have as their object individuations. It is impossible for words to relate to these individuations."l8 Language, and hence thought, can directly bear only on unreal conceptual contents. It does not apply directly to the reality given to sense perception. On the other hand, perception does not apprehend unreal universals. Hence, the epistemological gap between perception and conception is radical. How can they be coordinated? A possible answer could be to posit that an appropriate connection between the two takes place when they relate to an object of application common to both. Perception apprehends this real object and conception applies to it, although it does not apprehend it. In this way, perception and conception can be matched, since they relate to the same real object. This solution, however, just postpones the problem, for the supposedly common object is apprehended differently by perception and conception. Whereas the former apprehends the real object, the latter is limited to an unreal universal. What then guarantees that conceptions apply to real objects that they never grasp? We are caught in a vicious circle. A similar conclusion is reached upon investigating the nonmativity required for knowledge and truth. A normative dimension is not found in perception, which is without cognitive content, but in the concepts constructed by thought! Thought, however, is mistaken, since it apprehends unreal constructs. How can its norms be true? Dharmakirti answers through the example of the jewel. Though mistaken, thought is valid inasmuch as it leads to perception, which is mistaken. But perception does not provide much in terms of knowledge and truth. It is the foundation of knowledge but it is not cognitive in and of itself. It induces only conceptual categorization, which provides the cognitive dimension. Hence, we are back to the conceptual domain. This is what I perceive to be the greatest difficulty in Dharmakirti’s system. To answer the charge that the denial of real universals makes conceptuality arbitrary he needs to link concepts to reality. To do this he needs to stitch back to ether the two halves of his system, the real, perceptual, and the conceptual. He needs to coordinate perception and conception, providing a synthesis between the two types of knowledge. His system, however, seems to exclude such a possibility, since these two types of cognition are limited to radically different types of object. This is the problem described by Sapan through a pithy expression: how to coordinate blind conception and dumb perception. There is here an obvious parallel with Kant's statement that intuitions without concepts are blind and concepts without content (i.e., intuition) are empty. 19 For Kant, sensible intuition (Dharmakirti’s perception) does not provide any cognitive content. Hence, it is blind. Similarly, concepts divorced from the contact with reality provided by sensation are without cognitive content. Knowledge comes only through the synthesis of sensation and understanding (Dharmakirti’s inference). The parallel between Sa-pan’s formulation of Dharmakirti and Kant's formula must, however, be properly understood. The similarity between the two thinkers concerns the problem they face, not their solutions. They both understand that bare sensation does not provide any cognitive content, which comes from concepts. Their common problem is how to coordinate sensation and thought, which are powerless in isolation from each other. Kant solves the difficulty by providing a model of knowledge in which the two types of knowledge, sensation and understanding, are coordinated to synthesize increasingly abstract objects of knowledge. Senses provide the material that is integrated in ever more abstract cognitive schemes by the understanding. In the process, we come to grasp an already categorically articulated phenomenal reality. In contrast, Dharmakirti does not find it possible to synthesize perception and conception. By virtue of his typology of valid cognition, Dharmakirti refuses to conflate the two types of valid cognition and their objects. He is committed to limiting conception to unreal universals and perception to real individuals. Hence, conceptions cannot organize the sensory material delivered by the senses. They are limited to conceptual constructs that are induced by perception but remain separate from it. This is well captured by Sa-pan's description of dumb perception and blind conception. But here I am running ahead of myself, for to tackle this problem we will need to examine Dharmakirti's theory of perception. For the time being, let me sketch out another response to this problem, that of the Buddhist realist. To account for the necessity to link thought and reality and justify a normative dimension, Buddhist realists offer their often tortuous reinterpretations of Dharmakirti. This realism finds its epistemological expression in two important moves that transform the basic terms of the system: 1. One way to justify conceptuality and its relation to perception is to break the isolation of thought and assert that conceptions relate to reality, albeit differently from perception. 2. The second way is to transform the meaning of perception, so that it can provide an articulation of reality grasped and elaborated by conceptions. These two moves constitute what I describe as a new epistemology, which I see beginning in India with thinkers such as Dharmottara and Moksakaragupta and continuing in Tibet with the tradition of Ngok and Cha-ba. Although these two moves go in the same direction, they do not entail each other logically. Thus, Dharmottara seems to adopt the second without the first. Moreover, despite these two views being consequences of a realism regarding universals, they do not necessarily entail such an ontology. MokSakaragupta argues for the latter move when he asserts that universals are indirectly perceived by perception, without drawing the realist consequences of his assertion. Nevertheless, both historically and philosophically, these two epistemological moves often have been associated with a realist ontology. In Tibet, Cha-ba and his followers assert the reality of universals as a basis for their new epistemology. Within the Ge-Iuk tradition, both points have been defended in relation to a realist ontology. When Dzong-ka-ba discusses this crucial point in Dharmakirti's thought, he raises two sets of questions, which he polemically designates the qualms raised by "those with searching minds" (rtog ldan) and those raised by "unsubtle minds" (blo mi zhi ba).21 The first group notices the major problem created by Dharmakirti's description of conceptuality, without interpreting Dharmakirti as an antirealist. The second group raises similar questions, but rushes to adopt the antirealist interpretation that Dzong-ka-ba finds objectionable. The problems raised by Dzong-ka-ba have occupied us throughout this work: Dharmakirti's thought seems to deny the reality of universals, making it impossible to establish a viable epistemology. In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how reality can be understood by thought. If, on the other hand, one holds that the objects of thought are real, then how can one avoid falling into the reification of abstract entities? ----------------- -- Lee 22243 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I think what you are questioning here, in effect, is whether dhammas > can be known by panna (apologies if I'm mistaken in this). There is > a limit to which intellectualising this question will provide useful > support for finding out the answer. Hi Jon: Yes, I agree, but rightly or wrongly it is an intellectualising that has occupied Buddhists for centuries. >> But don't see my words as suggesting you or the Abhidhammic >> approach are wrong in any sense. As I note in my other post today, >> you and Howard are simply touching upon a debate that has >> confounded philosophers east and west for centuries, and each time >> I try to orient myself in the debate, I come away with even less >> confidence that I understand the issues. So I throw out these >> somewhat ill-formed observations not to debate but to simply note >> my own confusion. > > As a general observation, I would suggest that resolving these sorts > of issues (of which there are any number that get thrown up from > time to time) should not become such a focus that they impede our > development of understanding of the reality appearing at the present > moment. At the moment of grappling with an issue, there are various > fundamental phenomena (dhammas) presenting themselves and these are > all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > appropriate conditions have been developed. Interestingly, those > fundamental phenomena will be mostly the same whether our thinking on > the issue is 'right' or 'wrong', so getting the matter solved is not > really a significant factor. But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such questions? Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and these are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the appropriate conditions have been developed"? -- Lee 22244 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:54am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Dear Howard How are you? You wrote: "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the way of aversion." But, I quoted Gotama the Buddha as follows. The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." So, it now seems that you cannot accept even the Buddha's statement, and began to accuse him of having "the way of aversion". In response to my conclusion that nibbaana is something that is free from any type of consciousness or any type of awareness (equatable with misery), you also wrote: "Or it is awareness freed of defilement. When there is no desire, aversion clinging, or confusion, nothing more is required." My conclusion was made in the context of nibbana that exists without conditions independently of Ariyas (Awakeners) at all times. Your reply was in the context of the awareness of an Arahant before total extinguishment (paranibbana) (it should not be translated as "Total Unbinding"). We have Fire Extinguisher in natural English. We do not call a Fire Extinguisher a Fire Unbinder, do we?. :) Please note that timeless nibbana taught by the Buddha is not a person or a being. It is devoid of any thing to do with sentient beings such as consciousness or awareness. It is also called "Asa`nkhatadhaatu" (the unconditioned element). You also wrote: "Parinibbana, as you understand it, seems to me to be equivalent to the state of cessation of perception and sensation, the so- called "ninth jhana" - basically the state of a log." And you also wrote: "Instead of seeing this as reducing nibbana, one could see it as liberating awareness, freeing it of defilements." No, we could not see nibbana as liberating awareness. My explanations follw. The cessation of memory and feeling (Saññaavedayitanirodha) is a controlled exercise of foretaste of extinguishment of the five aggregates which can be performed only by the Non-returners and Arahants who have expertise in all the eight worldly jhaanas. You may liken it to the state of log. But, what I wrote was about nibbana as follows. "But, nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times." As you can see, what I worte about was not about parinibbana. Parinibbana is a temporal phenomenon because it signifies the final extinguishment of the five aggregates (including THE CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS AGGREGATE) of an Arahant at a pariticular moment. In a sense, parinibbana does not exist outside the context of the death of an Arahant. It merely happens to an Arahant in the sense of his five psychosomatic aggregates gone extinguished. Nibbana, on the other hand, exists timelessly. It is something to be experienced by Awakeners from the level of a Stream-insider (Sotaapanna) through to that of an Arahant. REMEMBER: NIBBANA IS SOMETHING TO BE EXPERIENCED. As the Buddha put it, Nibbanassa sacchikiriyaaya, "In order to realize and experience nibbana." Section 373, Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Suttam, Mahaavagga Pali, Diighanikaaya. Therefore, according to the Buddha, nibbana is NOT something that is aware. Temporally speaking, nibbana exists before the moment of parinibbana (total extinguishment of the five aggregates) of an Arahant. And, of course, nibbana exists after the moment of the total extinguishment of the five aggregates (including the CONSCIOUSNESS AGGREGATE) of an Arahant because "nibbaana is an existent thing independently without conditions at all times." With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Suan - > > In a message dated 5/16/03 11:51:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > suanluzaw@b... writes: > > > > > Dear Howard and all > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > =========================== > With metta, > Howard > 22245 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon (and Swee Boon) - I don't understand how you reach the conclusion "I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight." The sutta talks about a process leading to the ending of the effluents. (Also, B. Bodhi's footnote refers to insight meditation, but that is a secondary matter.) In any case, the sutta includes "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? (I agree that the imagined referents of most concepts are nonexistent, but that isn't the issue here.) Your post follows below. BTW, you are NOT, as you put it, "coming in here". This thread involves you essentially - and even if it didn't, your input is always very much welcomed. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 11:14:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Swee Boon and Howard > > I hope you don't mind me coming in here. > > --- nidive wrote: >Howard, > > > >>I assert the (passing) existence of thoughts for the same reason > >>as I assert the (passing) existence of sights and sounds - I > >>directly experience them. > > > >You, I and the Buddha cannot be all wrong. :-) > >There's no need for such an assertion. > > > >"And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > >& > >pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness? There is the case where > >feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > >persist, > >known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > >known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > >him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > >This > >is the development of concentration that, when developed &pursued, > >leads to mindfulness &alertness. > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the > development of understanding of a level other than the level of > insight. The passage following the one you quote reads as follows: > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case > where a monk remains focused on arising &falling away with reference > to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, > such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such > its passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its > passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such > their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such > its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, > when developed &pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. > > According to a footnote in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of this sutta: > "This is concentration associated with insight meditation directed to > the rise and fall of the five aggregates. Perception of rise and > fall brings to light the characteristic of impermanence, and on the > basis of this the meditator discerns that whatever is impermanent is > suffering and non-self." ['Numerical Discourses of the Buddha' p.291 > n.28] > > Jon > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22246 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 5/17/03 12:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the > way of aversion." > > But, I quoted Gotama the Buddha as follows. > > The Buddha taught, in his very first Discourse, "Dhammacakkapavattana > Suttam", that "Samkhitena pa`ncupaadaanakkhandaa dukkhaa". > "In short, the five aggregates for obsession are miseries." > > So, it now seems that you cannot accept even the Buddha's statement, > and began to accuse him of having "the way of aversion". > > ============================= I have stopped reading at this point. You know that I distinguish the 5 aggregates from the 5 aggregates afflicted by clinging. You twist my words here, apparently because you dearly wish to be "right" and do not care what you say in the process. You slander me by claiming that I would ever *consider* implying such a thing of the Buddha. If you detect annoyance in this post from me, you are in error, because 'annoyance' is too weak of a word. The discussion is now concluded. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22247 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee Boon. It was a reply to Suan. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:18:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > > Hi, Swee Boon - > > In a message dated 5/17/03 12:01:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > suanluzaw@b... writes: > > >> >> Dear Howard >> >> How are you? >> >> You wrote: >> >> "The five aggregates are not to be equated with misery. That is the >> way of aversion." 22248 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:32am Subject: Salvaging Something Worthwhile Hi, Suan and all - Observe the negative effect of anger. First I addressed a post to the wrong person. Then, as seen below, I misspelled. Anger agitates the mind, stirs it up, makes it muddy, and leads to mistakes. Calm has the opposite effect. The anger was there. I cannot take that back. But I apologize for it, and I shall attempt to more closely guard the senses in the future. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - > > Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee > Boon. It was a reply to Suan. > > With metta, > Howard > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22249 From: nidive Date: Sat May 17, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Howard, > Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death > of the arahant. My opinion is that an arahant cannot have passion, aversion & delusion with regard to mind/mental objects. The mind sense of an arahant cannot be disturbed by the five physical senses nor by itself (mental proliferation). Therefore, the Buddha excluded the mind sense in this discourse. I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana. "Fuel" can mean past kamma. As we know, the five sense faculties are the result of past kamma. But the mind sense is the creator of new kamma. The mind sense of an arahant, being free of the 3 poisons, can no longer create new fuel. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. Swee Boon 22250 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi, Swee Boon - This is quite good, as I see it. I especially like "I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana." Typically, 'dukkha' relates to mental dissatisfaction and discomfort. But it is certainly true that without the five physical sense gateways available, there will be no resultant vedana of any sort, including dukkha vedana. So physical dukkha would cease at parinibbana as well. Good point, I think. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 1:31:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Howard, > > >Nowhere is anything said of mental function ceasing upon the death > >of the arahant. > > My opinion is that an arahant cannot have passion, aversion &delusion > with regard to mind/mental objects. The mind sense of an arahant > cannot be disturbed by the five physical senses nor by itself (mental > proliferation). Therefore, the Buddha excluded the mind sense in this > discourse. > > I believe that mental dukkha is eliminated at the time of arahantship > and physical dukkha is eliminated at the time of parinibbana. > > "Fuel" can mean past kamma. As we know, the five sense faculties are > the result of past kamma. But the mind sense is the creator of new > kamma. The mind sense of an arahant, being free of the 3 poisons, can > no longer create new fuel. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html > > Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? > The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property > with no fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the > case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has > attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained > the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released > through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and > owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant &the > unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure &pain. That which is the > passing away of passion, aversion, &delusion in him is termed the > nibbana property with fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the > case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. > For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right > here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. > > Swee Boon > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22251 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I don't remember what my point was so I will just answer my own questions. So far, my experience of anatta is limited to the experience of a whole and its parts. I experience this only when regarding other people and it amounts to an experience of space and disappointment that there is no "wholeness" there. I don't experience other objects, such as myself or mechanical objects, in this way, unfortunately. Of course the conceptual understanding "there is no self" isn't nothing. At some point one is bound to get it. My experience of asabhava amounts to a disconnect between an object and its name. Both these experiences are liberating; maybe that was my point. In any case, I need further research in order to discriminate between the two in detail. As to the source of this philosophical understanding of concept and reality, I am starting to suspect either the Abhidhammatta Sangaha or its commentary. In the Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas "pannatti" is translated as "name" or "description" and nothing is made of it in terms of philosophy. Unfortunately Nyanatiloka doesn't define either "pannatti" or "sabhava" and he has little to say about "lakkhana". Buddhagosa doesn't make anything of this distinction in the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary but he does draw a clear line between concept and what arguably could be called reality in the discussion of jhana in "The Path of Purification". For example: Vism IV, 29 [regarding development of concentration on the Earth Kasina] The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be given attention. But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention should be given by settling the mind on the [name] concept as the most outstanding mental datum, relegating the colour to the position of a property of its physical support. That [conceptual state] can be called by any one he likes among names for earth, such as 'earth', 'the Great One', 'the Friendly One', 'ground', 'The Provider of Wealth', 'the Bearer of Wealth', etc., whichever suits his manner of perception... Larry 22252 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 1:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, I have this book "Recognizing Reality" and I'm glad to finally meet someone who understands it. Maybe you can provide some 'translations'. I think the abhidhamma answer to the question how to coordinate concept with reality is panna. Did any of these guys offer that as a solution? Larry 22253 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as > they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and > subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that > concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? _______________- Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught this letter and thought I could add something. You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara Nikaya 4) Specifically this paragraph: Idha bhikkhave bhikkhuno viditaa VEDANAuppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa SANNA uppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa VITAKKA uppajjanti viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Aya.m bhikkhave samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati. "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. " This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing understanding of these factors. Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect of the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the thinking process consists of different cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. let us consider a couple of thinking. 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas, paramattha dhammas. The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not real. 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours are real, the sounds are real,the thinking process including vitakka and sanna is real, but mother and father is concept. Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. Whatever thinking is thinking of there can be awareness of the thinking process - paramattha dhammas - during this time. There can also be awareness of the feelings arsing at the same time. Or any of the objects that appear through the 6 doors. Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. > > "Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. RobertK 22254 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sat May 17, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > I have this book "Recognizing Reality" and I'm glad to finally meet > someone who understands it. Maybe you can provide some 'translations'. > > I think the abhidhamma answer to the question how to coordinate concept > with reality is panna. Did any of these guys offer that as a solution? Hi Larry: I don't really understand all that this dense (but very well written) book has to offer. I can follow some of the arguments and debates better than others - and I have yet to make sense of many others. As far as panna as a solution - no, I didn't see it referenced, but that doesn't really surprise me as I see panna as more of a description of the result of a path of practice and not a philosophical term designed to answer the ontological and epistemological issues detailed in the book. My own rather mundane practice renders many of these types of questions irrelevant, but I do enjoy the challenge of understanding the questions others ask and how they answer them. -- Lee Dillion 22255 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 17, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 44-48 for comment Unwholesome Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all bad cittas * Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness - Shamelessness / No Conscience - Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread - Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering In some bad cittas * Greed / Attachment / Sensuous Desire - Wrong View / Evil Opinion - Conceit / Pride * Aversion / Hatred / Anger - Envy / Jealousy - Selfishness / Avarice / Stinginess - Remorse / Worry / Regret / Brooding - Sloth - Torpor - Doubt * 3 Evil Roots Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors. The first four arise in all unwholesome states and the remaining ten only arise in some unwholesome states. Unwholesome Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== What happens to us (Result of Past Kamma) -> Like --> Lobha (Bad Kamma) -> Indifference --> Moha (Bad Kamma) -> Dislike --> Dosa (Bad Kamma) -> Seeing things as they truly are (wise attention) Kusala (Good Kamma) In reality, "choice" is conditioned by accumulations (habits). "Free Will" is one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. Speaker Notes ============= There is a natural reaction to what happens to us. If we like it, mind states rooted in attachment (lobha-mula) arise. If we dislike it, mind states rooted in aversion (dosa-mula) arise. If we ignore it, mind states rooted in delusion (moha-mula) arise. Liking, disliking and ignoring all give rise to bad kamma. To get good kamma, we must see things as they truly are. This is called wise attention – Yoniso Maniskara in Pali. For example, when we practice dana, there is no lobha, no dosa, no moha – this creates good kamma. It is clear that there are four options instantly arising from what happens to us: (Like / Dislike / Indifference / Wise Attention). There is no "self" pushing for any of these options. The arising of one of these options will arise naturally from our habits. This is a very important point. If every morning we get up and practice a short sitting doing metta meditation, then after a while, metta will develop into a habit. With this as a foundation, our mind will naturally react with metta. This brings up the issue of "free will" in Buddhism. Since the reaction to what happens to us is conditioned by our habits, there is no "free will" in play. This is a difficult concept for some people to accept. However we must consider the following: - If there is no "self", what is it that exercises this "free will"? - Is there "free will" involved in the arising of confusion or restlessness? - Knowing how damaging anger can be, why would anybody freely choose for anger to arise? "Free Will" is a concept that can be useful as we begin on the path. However, at some point along the path, we must give it up. In the Simile of the Snake Sutta (Mn 22), the Buddha said, "… my Teaching is comparable to a raft for the purpose of crossing over and not for getting hold of." 22256 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 0:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/17/03 5:34:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >"Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, > known as > >they subside." If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, > persist, and > >subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you > make, that > >concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? > _______________- > > Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. > I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught this > letter and thought I could add something. > You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara > Nikaya 4) > Specifically this paragraph: > Idha bhikkhave bhikkhuno viditaa VEDANAuppajjanti. Viditaa > upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. Viditaa SANNA > uppajjanti. Viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa abbhattha.m gacchanti. > Viditaa VITAKKA uppajjanti viditaa upa.t.thahanti. Viditaa > abbhattha.m gacchanti. > Aya.m bhikkhave samaadhibhaavanaa bhaavitaa bahuliikataa > satisampaja~n~naaya sa.mvattati. > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness &alertness. " > > This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing > understanding of these factors. > > Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect of > the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. > I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the > thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing away > rapidly. These > are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. > let us consider a couple of thinking. > 1. Think of a flying purple elephant. The process of thinking > that imagines this, whether a graphic visualisation or your > no-frills, idea only version, consists of cittas and cetasikas, > paramattha dhammas. > The object of this thinking is a concept, not real. > 2. Think of your mother or father (whether alive or not). Again > same process - the cittas and cetasikas of the thinking process > are real but the object, mother and father, is concept- not > real. > 3. If your mother and father were right in front of you now > (talking to you) and you think of them, again the object is > concept, not real; but the thinking process is real. The colours > are real, the sounds are real,the thinking process including vitakka > and sanna is real, but mother and father is concept. > Obviously example 1 is easily understood. It is number 2 and > especially number 3 that in daily life we get confused by. > > Whatever thinking is thinking of there can be awareness of the > thinking process - paramattha dhammas - during this time. There can > also be awareness of the feelings arsing at the same time. Or any > of the objects that appear through the 6 doors. > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > concepts for objects. > > > > > >"Ultimate realities are impermanent, they arise and > >fall away. Concepts of people and things do not arise > >and fall away [they don't?!]; they are objects of > >thinking, not real in the ultimate sense." > > Yes they are simply concepts, not real. Only realities have > actual characteristics and functions and arise and pass away. > RobertK > > > ========================== Thank you for this.With regard to the "flying, purple elephant" we think of, what is the categorical status of the image which is brought to mind and recognized (by sa~n~na) as an image of such a critter? It is not an eye-door object. Is it a mind-door object? If yes, is it not a thought? Do we not have thoughts? Actually, with regard to thoughts, they are among the things I seem to most easily be mindful of. I see thoughts of certain types recurring again and again. I become aware of habituated thought patterns. Am I imagining that, according to Abhidhamma? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22257 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 17, 2003 8:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I would say that your paraphrase > "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being'" > or > "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called > 'a being'" > distorts the original passage > > So, when the aggregates are present, > There's the convention 'a being.' > > > I would say that your paraphrase is an inaccurate restatement of > the original passage above. > > Why? Your paraphrase begs the question: What is conventionally > called 'a being'? Or, what is it that we call a 'living being'? > whereas in the original passage Sister Vajira simply stated that > there's the convention 'a being'. She did not claim that the five > aggregates are conventionally called 'a being'. Thanks for these comments on the passage and my paraphrase of it. Would you care to share with us your understanding of intended meaning of this passage, particularly the connection between the five aggregates and the convention 'a being' that is being described here (or in whatever terms you see it)? Thanks again. Looking forward to your further comments. Jon 22258 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat May 17, 2003 9:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - > > ========================== > Thank you for this.With regard to the "flying, purple elephant" we > think of, what is the categorical status of the image which is brought to > mind and recognized (by sa~n~na) as an image of such a critter? It is not an > eye-door object. Is it a mind-door object? If yes, is it not a thought? Do we > not have thoughts? > Actually, with regard to thoughts, they are among the things I seem to > most easily be mindful of. I see thoughts of certain types recurring again > and again. I become aware of habituated thought patterns. Am I imagining > that, according to Abhidhamma? > __________ Dear Howard, All very good questions, and which, I believe, the Abhidhamma does explain. The conceptual world is the shadow world of what is really here - evanescent elements. Thus the concepts we think about can be accurate representations of the elements; the supreme example of this is the Buddha's teaching. Or anything close or far from this - including flying purple elephants. In the Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination), there is the link called avijja paccaya sankhara (ignorance conditions formations) and ayuhana (accumulations) is a major aspect of cetana - the main aspect of sanhara. I was discussing this with Larry and RobM but never got around to replying fully. During the javana process - which is essentially that aspect of the three rounds called kamma vattha and kilesa vatthu - there is continual accumulation. There is the accumulation of ignorance or wisdom or desire or aversion; and too of habituated thought patterns rooted in wisdom or desire or aversion.... So we are continually evolving and yet still conditioned by the past accumulations. Anything can happen, anything can be developed, gross or sublime. All of us should never be surprised that we feel desire or have ignorance of realities; because the process of accumulation of these factors has been going on since time began. I think it is more amazing that there can be wisdom glinting through at times - and this is primarily because of the power of the Buddha's teaching. That teaching conditions, little by little, the antidote to ignorance. In the case of thinking that you mention above; if there is awareness at the level of satipatthana then the object while thinking may be feeling, or it could be lobha (desire) or aversion (dosa) or even ignorance. Or it could be some awareness just of thinking as thinking - it doesn't have to be named: this is vitakka, that is sanna, that is phassa, that is ...- and yet there is awareness. If there is awareness of thinking, (and which is habituated through ayuhana to some degree whether we know it or not) then more and more we will come to know that our problems are simply thinking, and so the concepts we think about lose much of their power to unbalance. The thinking process is very real it is not imagination. Good to be aware of thinking, I think!:) Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. Robertk 22259 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites In a message dated 5/17/03 4:10:05 AM, charlesperera@h... writes: << Dear Jeff, Thank you for your kind words. All my pastels have been sold and what is left are the paintings in color pencils. If you happen to come to Paris I will show them to you ! with metta, Yasa >> Perhaps someday then. Best to you, Jeff 22260 From: Date: Sat May 17, 2003 7:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi again, Robert - In a message dated 5/18/03 12:26:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > All very good questions, and which, I believe, the Abhidhamma does > explain. The conceptual world is the shadow world of what is really > here - evanescent elements. Thus the concepts we think about can be > accurate representations of the elements; the supreme example of > this is the Buddha's teaching. Or anything close or far from this - > including flying purple elephants. > In the Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination), there is the link > called avijja paccaya sankhara (ignorance conditions formations) and > ayuhana (accumulations) is a major aspect of cetana - the main > aspect of sanhara. I was discussing this with Larry and RobM but > never got around to replying fully. > During the javana process - which is essentially that aspect of the > three rounds called kamma vattha and kilesa vatthu - there is > continual accumulation. There is the accumulation of ignorance or > wisdom or desire or aversion; and too of habituated thought patterns > rooted in wisdom or desire or aversion.... So we are continually > evolving and yet still conditioned by the past accumulations. > Anything can happen, anything can be developed, gross or sublime. > > All of us should never be surprised that we feel desire or have > ignorance of realities; because the process of accumulation of these > factors has been going on since time began. I think it is more > amazing that there can be wisdom glinting through at times - and > this is primarily because of the power of the Buddha's teaching. > That teaching conditions, little by little, the antidote to > ignorance. > > In the case of thinking that you mention above; if there is > awareness at the level of satipatthana then the object while > thinking may be feeling, or it could be lobha (desire) or aversion > (dosa) or even ignorance. Or it could be some awareness just of > thinking as thinking - it doesn't have to be named: this is vitakka, > that is sanna, that is phassa, that is ...- and yet there is > awareness. If there is awareness of thinking, (and which is > habituated through ayuhana to some degree whether we know it or not) > then more and more we will come to know that our problems are simply > thinking, and so the concepts we think about lose much of their > power to unbalance. > The thinking process is very real it is not imagination. Good to be > aware of thinking, I think!:) > > Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not > paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of > flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > =========================== Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is likely not atually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. But, and here is what I maintain, these are complex, interrelated groups of individual thoughts (and other mental phenomena), with *the mental image* referred to as being "of" a purple, flying elephant being one of these thoughts. The basic thoughts, themselves, however, are actual mental occurrences. Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need to be clearly seen. To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and empty. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22261 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:09am Subject: Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi All, I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": === Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the software applications that you use on your computer?" Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I know how the software functions." Buddha: "Exactly." === Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 22262 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun May 18, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Robert - > > In a message dated 5/18/03 12:26:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rjkjp1@y... writes: ... > > Flying elephant is a concept through the minddoor, it is not > > paramattha dhammas but it is object of thought. While thinking of > > flying elephant different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > > While not thinking different paramattha dhammas arise and pass away. > > > =========================== > Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand > that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the > mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. ... You do say "Good > to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too > much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only > possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our > world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our > concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and > empty. > > With metta, > Howard > ______________________________Yasa _________________________ Dear All, Every thing around us, which we call the conventional reality, is a concept. We see the exterior world through our sense doors and recognise them from our past sensory experiences. And that recognition, and naming the experience is a concept. The concepts disappear only when we step into the ultimate realities. The effort to understand ultimate realities, in the conventional existence is the application of the knowledge of paramatta dhamma that we have gained through reading and listening . That does not give us the insight to paramatta dhamma. We will merely "parrot", the words without having a glimpse into the world of paramatta dhamma. To understand the ultimate realities, we have to use our conventional reality. Because conventionally," you" and "I "and "a self" exist. If we were to start by saying," how can I do some thing, when I do not exist ". Or ask the question, "who is seeing the arising and falling away ?" , it would stop further investigations. We have to go beyond mere knowledge, to understand paramatta dhamma, and that understanding comes through the wisdom gained in the right effort."bhavanamaya panna". Until then, it is just a "guessing game". The Buddha when he was asked , what is the world, said so far as it disintegrates it is the world. To understand the sense of it we have to listen to the Buddha: "Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world (loka),'[] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply? "Insofar as it disintegrates (lujjati), monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate... "The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate... "The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate... "The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate... "The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither- pleasure-nor-pain -- that too disintegrates. "Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'" with metta, Yasa 22263 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:16am Subject: [dsg] Re:discussions and disagreements. Dear Nina and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Smallchap (& Nina), > > --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear smallchap, > > I like this quote of the padhana sutta, and also I like discussions with > > you. You should not think that you can be a source of akusala, why? > > Those > > are needless fears, this is a discussion forum, and w ecannot all agree. > > Besides, we can learn from other view points, it causes us to think more > > carefully about what we said and how we said it, > ..... > > I'd just like to second all Nina's comments here and encourage you to > share your comments even when they are in disagreement. We all appreciate > your conributions and you do others a favour by raising the points they > have in mind as well but possibly cannot articulate as well as you do;-) > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== smallchap: Thank you both for your kind words. I realise that I talked too much. It's time to observe cyber-silence. Take care! smallchap 22264 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggregates/Suan Dear Howard Thank you for the Suttam quote which showed the Buddha teaching the five aggregates and the five aggregates for obsession. Yes, we can distinguish between pañcakkhandhaa and pañcupaadanakkhandhaa. This type of differentiation is als done and explained with psychological details in Abhidhamma commentaries. In some Suttams, though, the Buddha treated both versions the same way. For example, in Bhaara Suttam, he first defined pañcupaadanakkhandhaa to be the burden. Then, he also declared pañcakkhandhaa to be the burden as well. "katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhaaro? pañcupaadaanakkhandhaa tissa vacaniiyam." "And, Monks, what is the burden? It should be said that the five aggregates for obsession are the burden." Then, in the verse at the end of the Suttam, the Buddha said the following. "Bhaaraa have pañcakkhandhaa," "The Five Aggregates are indeed the burden" Section 22, Bhaara Suttam, Khandhavagga Pali, Samyuttanikaaya. I hope the above serves as food for thought. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan - From Connie's kindly referenced article I found the following which makes a distinction between the 5 aggregates, and the 5 clinginging aggregates, the distinction being a psychological/phenomenological one, namely the presence of fementations: ***************************** § 6. At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, I will teach you the five aggregates & the five clinging-aggregates. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates? "Whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. "Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. "Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. "Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. "These are called the five aggregates. "And what are the five clinging- aggregates? "Whatever form -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as clinging-aggregate. "Whatever feeling -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever perception - - past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called perception as a clinging- aggregate. "Whatever (mental) fabrications -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrication as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever consciousness -- past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near -- is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48] ********************************* With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22265 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > I replied to the rest of this post, but not your PS. > > --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > smallchap > > > > ps. During "insight meditation", with the arising of insight > > knowledge, one can "see" or "feel" (not thinking! Because it is > > impossible to think when samadhi is strong) the arising and falling > > of the khandhas and directly know them as anicca, dukkha and > > anatta. > > Jon: > >I agree that it is understanding of the level of insight that sees > dhammas as they truly are, including their universal characteristics > of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > To my reading of the texts, however, the seeing of those > characteristics with distinction would be a highly developed level of > insight, and must have been preceded by insight of many lesser > levels, beginning with the insight that knows nama as nama and rupa > as rupa. > > Is there understanding right now of nama as nama and rupa as rupa? > If not, then it means that this is the level we are still at. smallchap: If one knows now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows nama as nama, rupa as rupa. If one does not know now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows not nama as nama, rupa as rupa. This is irregardless of whether attained the higher insight previously (except an arahant). (Sorry! Can't quote any texts here to support my statements.) > > Jon: >You mention 'insight meditation' and then 'the arising of insight' as > something that occurs during insight meditation. I don't think the > texts make this distinction. As far as the texts are concerned, the > *development of insight* and a *moment of insight* are one and the > same thing. As for how insight is developed (i.e., what conditions > its arising), this is the general subject matter of the texts as a > whole, and is what we are trying to elucidate through these > discussions. But there's no specific 'practice' that can bring this > on, as I understand. smallchap: Insight meditation is a way to cultivate continuous chain of mements of insight, until one reaches the final goal (I am not sure if I make myself clear here). Again, don't ask me for the supporting texts as I can find none so for. smallchap another ps. I will reply your next post and thereafter I wish to observe cyber silence. So I will not discuss further on this subject. My sincere apology. 22266 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Distinguishing the Five Aggregates from the Five Clinging Aggre... Hi, Suan - In a message dated 5/18/03 11:36:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > > Dear Howard > > Thank you for the Suttam quote which showed the Buddha teaching the > five aggregates and the five aggregates for obsession. > > Yes, we can distinguish between pañcakkhandhaa and > pañcupaadanakkhandhaa. This type of differentiation is als done and > explained with psychological details in Abhidhamma commentaries. > > In some Suttams, though, the Buddha treated both versions the same > way. For example, in Bhaara Suttam, he first defined > pañcupaadanakkhandhaa to be the burden. Then, he also declared > pañcakkhandhaa to be the burden as well. > > "katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhaaro? pañcupaadaanakkhandhaa tissa > vacaniiyam." > > "And, Monks, what is the burden? It should be said that the five > aggregates for obsession are the burden." > > Then, in the verse at the end of the Suttam, the Buddha said the > following. > > "Bhaaraa have pañcakkhandhaa," > > "The Five Aggregates are indeed the burden" > > Section 22, Bhaara Suttam, Khandhavagga Pali, Samyuttanikaaya. > > I hope the above serves as food for thought. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > ============================ Thank you for the friendly Dhamma-centric post. Yes, there are indeed places where the Buddha speaks only of the 5 khandhas, not using the "afflicted by clinging" terminology. I don't think the significance of this is entirely clear. No doubt, we have different inclinations with regard to it. ;-) With metta and pleasure in friendship, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22267 From: smallchap Date: Sun May 18, 2003 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conventional right view vs. Noble right view Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > > PS A follow-up question for you, Smallchap. In this thread > > > we have > > > been talking about the sense in which it can be said that a > > > computer > > > is conditioned. Would you say that the knowledge that a > > > computer is > > > built from parts and did not spontaneously come into existence > > > as an > > > assembled whole, or knowledge of the need for parts, skill and > > > effort > > > as a condition for the coming into existence of a computer, is > > > conventional right view? (Not a trick question, I promise > > > ;-)) > > > > S: Since it has not been included in MN 117 as right view, we > > need not speculate on whether it is conventional right view, > > else we risk falling into false views as described by the Buddha > > in MN 72. > > Jon: This is perhaps a similar answer to the one I had in mind, namely > that such a thought could arise either with or without right view, > and only the person in whom the thought arose could know which was > the case in a given instance, and even then, only if there was a > level of awareness in relation to that mindstate. > > > smallchap: Here is a small section copied from Vism. Ch XX 73. It descibes > > how one should discern with reagrds to inanimate things. I am > > sure you will find it interesting (and please don't throw away > > your copy of Visudhimagga ;-)). > > Jon: Thanks for the interesting passage from Visuddhi-Magga that follows. > > I think you're drawing my attention to the fact that, on the face of > it, the passage seems to be advocating the choosing of a conventional > object as an object of 'practice', and then 'applying' awareness to > it (I see what you mean about throwing my copy of Visuddhi-Magga > away!). > > This passage is by no means unique in its style of presentation. In > fact, a large part of the Visuddhi-Magga, including the rest of Ch > XX, reads superficially in the manner of a 'do this next' manual. > > In my view, however, it is clear from many detailed references in the > Visuddhi-Magga itself that no such literal interpretation is > intended. smallchap: Only Ven. Buddhaghosa can answer this question. What I am trying to say is that my range knowledge is limited. I don't speculate either. > Ch XX of Visuddhi-Magga deals with 'knowledge and vision of what is > and what is not the path'. To be capable of this level of > understanding, a person must have already developed the understanding > that knows nama as nama and rupa as rupa (nama-rupa-pariccheda nana, > the first of the 16 stages of 'vipassana-nana' (insight) leading to > the first stage of enlightenment), and that discerns the conditions > of nama and rupa (paccaya-pariggha nana, the second of the 16 > stages). smallchap: I think more like at the third level, knowledge of comtemplation of rise and fall, that imperfections of insight arise. > For such a person awareness arises frequently and has become > habitual; there would be the firm realisation based on direct > experience that awareness arises from its own conditions and not > because of any intention for there to be awareness of a particular > kind in relation to a particular object. smallchap: The habitual arsing of awareness comes about after one attained the knowledge of comtemplation of dissolution, not at any of the lower insight knowledge. Take care! smallchap 22268 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun May 18, 2003 1:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Yes, I think I get much of what you are saying here. I do understand > that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the > mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and > not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is > likely not atually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a > sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some > involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts > (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, > etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great > package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. But, and here is > what I maintain, these are complex, interrelated groups of individual > thoughts (and other mental phenomena), with *the mental image* referred to as > being "of" a purple, flying elephant being one of these thoughts. ____________ Dear Howard, It is, I believe, so useful to distinguish between the asabhava (non- existant) and sabhava(existant) during a thinking process. Any concepts thought about are asabhava - elephants, trees, people, ourself, .... The cittas and cetasikas arsing during the process - including sanna, vitakka, vedana (feeling) lobha (desire) or aversion and so on are sabhava - very real but so evanescent. There are different aspects to understanding Dhamma. Take the example of regularly becoming irritated over an issue or with a person. This is a habitual pattern which may arise due to taking the concept of the person or issue (war/peace for example). At one level we can reason and think about it and learn something of how it works and if done wisely this leads to less obsession about the issue. There is another, different type of insight, that comes to understand the difference between paramattha and concept . In the example above one will know as soon as any aversion arises that this is due to misperceiving - one is taking a concept (war/peace or person etc) as having some existence. Wisdom will see that these are merely concepts produced during the thinking process. Irritation dissolves spontaneously. This type of insight leads aways from belief in a world of existing concepts. It sees that this is the shadow world while the real world is continually crumbling. There is nothing to hold onto, no security, not even a foothold. There is only the understanding that detaches , lets go, that is of value. RobertK _______________ The basic > thoughts, themselves, however, are actual mental occurrences. Moreover, it is > *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts > of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps > our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts > and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which > they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal > identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they > need to be clearly seen. To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss > them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. You do say "Good > to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too > much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only > possible, but quite necessary. In the process we will see how we create "our > world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our > concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and > empty. > ______________ 22269 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 2:51pm Subject: Way 90, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 4. Agitation and Worry Wrong reflection on mental agitation brings about flurry and worry. Mental agitation is inner turbulence. Actually it is flurry and worry, only. Intense wrong reflection on that mental agitation produces flurry and worry. Therefore the Blessed One said that wrong reflection on mental agitation when plentifully done produces fresh flurry and worry and increases and expands flurry and worry already in existence. The casting out of agitation and worry occurs through right reflection on mental tranquillity called concentration and an abundance of right reflection on mental tranquillity, says the Blessed One, is a condition for the keeping out of fresh mental agitation and worry and the dispelling of agitation and worry already in the mind. Six things are conducive to the casting out of agitation and worry: Knowledge; questioning; understanding of disciplinary rules; association with those more experienced and older than oneself in the practice of things like virtue; sympathetic and helpful companionship and stimulating talk that helps the rejection of mental agitation and worry. In explanation it is said as follows: Agitation and worry disappear in him who learns in the spirit and in the letter one, two, three, four or five collections of Scripture. This is how one gets over agitation and worry by knowledge. Questioning means: inquiring much about what is befitting and not, according to the practice of the Sangha. In him who does this, too, agitation and worry disappear. Then these twin evils disappear in him who has got the mastery of the Discipline due to practical application of and conversance with the nature of the Rule of the Sangha. This is the understanding of the disciplinary rules. Association with those more experienced and so forth; the going to the presence of and the conversing with virtuous elders in the Sangha. By such visits mental agitation and worry disappear in one. Sympathetic and helpful companionship: association with experts of the Disciplinary Rules like the Elder Upali, the first of the great masters of the Discipline in the Sangha. In such company mental agitation and worry disappear. Stimulating talk in this connection refers particularly to matters of disciplinary practice by which one comes to know what is befitting and what is not. By this agitation and worry vanish in one. Therefore, is it said that six things lead to the rejection of agitation and worry, but the agitation cast out by these things finally ceases to arise in the future through the attainment of the path of Arahantship, and the worry cast out by these things finally ceases to arise in the future through the attainment of the path of the Non-returner. [Tika] In their own state or actually as they are individually, mental agitation and worry are two different things. Still, as worry in the form of repentance or remorse for ill done and good undone is similar to agitation which is characterized by distraction and disquiet of mind, mental agitation is called flurry and worry. [T] Mental agitation does not overtake the intelligent well-read man who probes into things by way of what is written in books and by way of the significance and import of the things themselves. Therefore, it is said that by way of knowledge not merely of the Disciplinary Rules, but by way of knowledge of the ninefold Buddha-word, beginning with the Discourses, according to the principles of the method already stated, and by the application of the proper remedies mentioned by way of questioning and so forth, remorse and regret for ill done and good undone do not take place. [T] By associating with elders who are older than oneself in the practice of the precepts of virtue and similar good things, who are restrained, aged, matured seniors, there is brought to one a measure of restraint, matured bearing, dignity and calm, and mental agitation and worry are cast out. [T] Good companionship refers to association with those versed in the Discipline who are able to dispel worry as regards any doubt concerning what is proper and improper practice. 22270 From: connie Date: Sun May 18, 2003 6:36pm Subject: Re: 'Regulation for all Buddhas but not shared by others' Hi, Sarah and All ~ I hope someone might comment on a few of the Regulations for all Buddhas that Sarah had shared. I can only guess that '30)the final nibbana after having attained the twenty-four hundred thousand crores of attainments' has something to do with '21) constantly attaining the attainments of the fruits'. In '16) on the full-moon day of Magha the recital of the Patimokkha in an assembly having the four factors', would the four factors be the four kinds of believers? And in '18) the performance of the Marvel of the Double at the gateway to the city of Savatthi' is that where fire and water come out of his body? I don't know what it means to 'make a stumbling block', either. ..... "These, thirty exactly, are regulation for all Buddhas. In respect of all Buddhas, no one is able to make a stumbling-block to the four requisites presented specially (to any one of them.) No one is able to make a stumbling-block to the life-span. Accordingly it is said: "It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that one should deprive a Tathagata of life by aggression". No one is able to make a stumbling-block to the thirty-two Marks of a Great Man (or) to the eighty minor characteristics. No one is able to make a stmbling-block to the Buddha rays. These are called the four things not causing stumbling-blocks." Thank you, connie 22271 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Regulation for all Buddhas but not shared by others' Hi Connie, Thanks for your interest and I can’t resist adding a few comments before I look at some other posts for reply. Pls note these are just my guesses as no further notes are given (I’ll be glad for any corrections from anyone): --- connie wrote: > I can only guess that '30)the final nibbana after having attained the > twenty-four hundred thousand crores of attainments' has something to do > with '21) constantly attaining the attainments of the fruits'. ..... I understand them as being quite distinct - 30) I understand to refer to the parinibbana of all Buddhas, having attained omniscience and all attainments. 21) I understand to refer to abiding in phala samapatti (fruition attainment), sometimes translated in the texts as ‘Signless Concentration of Mind’ etc. ..... > In '16) on the full-moon day of Magha the recital of the Patimokkha in > an assembly having the four factors', would the four factors be the four > kinds of believers? ..... I understood it to refer to the four factors would refer to the abhinnas (the 6 ‘higher’ powers or supernomal knowledges). I believe the last 3 often appear under one heading of threefold higher knowledge. The assembly must have attained all jhanas for the abhinnas. ...... > And in '18) the performance of the Marvel of the Double at the gateway > to the city of Savatthi' is that where fire and water come out of his > body? ..... Yes, I believe so. ..... > I don't know what it means to 'make a stumbling block', either. ..... No one can - 1) prevent the presentation of the 4 requisites 2) cut short the life of the Buddha, i.e kill him 3) destroy or affect the 32 marks 4) or the rays Also, note given here by Horner after passage below, to see Miln (Qu of K. Milinda)157 where the 4 stumbling-blocks that cannot be made are to the Lord’s receiving a gift made specially for him, to his rays, omniscience, and life-principle, jiivita. ...... Metta and thanks again, Sarah ====== > "These, thirty exactly, are regulation for all Buddhas. In respect of > all Buddhas, no one is able to make a stumbling-block to > the four requisites presented specially (to any one of them.) No one is > able to make a stumbling-block to the life-span. Accordingly it is said: > "It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that one should deprive a > Tathagata of life by aggression". No one is able to make a > stumbling-block to the thirty-two Marks of a Great Man (or) to the > eighty minor characteristics. No one is able to make a stmbling-block to > the Buddha rays. These are called the four things not causing > stumbling-blocks." 22272 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Intermediate States (Bardo) Hi Connie, We were discussing ‘intermediate states’ after death and I promised to get back to you. (sorry, I’ve lost your post): Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy), Bk V111,2,”Of an Intermediate State’, discusses in detail why the proposition “that there is an intermdiate state of existence” is not valid. In summary from the commentary: “Some (as, for instance, the Pubbaseliyas and Sammitiyas), by a careless acceptation of the Sutta-phrase - ‘completed existence within the interval’ - held that there is an interm stage where a being awaits reconception for a week or longer. The counter-argument is based on the Exalted One’s dictum that there are three states of becoming only - the Kama-, the Rupa-, and the Arupa-worlds . And it is because of that dictum that the opponent (in so far as he is orthodox) has to deny so many of the questions.” Also from the commentary: “.........Here the sense is this: If there be such a state as an intermediate state of becoming, then it must be a ‘five-mode becoming’ etc., such as Kama-life, and so forth. Let us then ask you: “Do you identify the intermediate state with either the Kama-life, or Rupa-life, or Arupa-life?” All these the opponent denies, because he would not admit such things. “The expressions “either of the Kama-life” and so forth have been brought forth in order that, if there be an intermediate state, it must be between these states of becoming, like an interval between two boundaries. The opponent who would not admit such things, denies all these questions. Thus he refuses the Sakavadin’s “indeed” simply for his view, but not in accordance with the doctrine.” Hope that helps. Let me know if you need anymore;-) With metta, Sarah ===== 22273 From: robmoult Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:29pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 49-58 for comment Wholesome Cetasikas Slide Contents ============== In all good cittas: - Faith / Confidence / Conviction / Trust - Mindfulness / Attentiveness - Moral Shame / Conscience / Scruples / Modesty - Fear of Blame / Moral Dread - Non-attachment / Unselfishness / No Greed / Generosity - Non-Hate / Goodwill / Non-aversion - Equanimity / Mental Balance - Tranquility, Agility / Lightness / Buoyancy, Pliancy / Elasticity, Wieldiness / Adaptability / Workableness, Proficiency, Uprightness / Rectitude In some good cittas: - Abstinence from Wrong Speech / Action / Livelihood - Compassion - Sympathetic Joy / Appreciative Joy - Wisdom / Understanding Speaker Notes ============= This is the list of all wholesome mental states. We will examine the first factor on the list, faith, in more detail. Faith, Saddha in Pali, is a different from what other religions call faith. Imagine you are standing next to a stream, wondering how to get across. You see a person come up beside you, takes a running leap and jumps over the stream. Having witnessed this, you have faith, confidence, conviction and trust that it is possible to get across the stream. Faith in Buddhism is not blind faith, it is faith rooted in experience. Once you yourself have jumped over the stream, following the example of the other person, you can look back with an even stronger "pure faith" that it is possible to get across; you have faith that it is possible to get across the stream because you have done it yourself. Wholesome Cetasikas in Daily Life Slide Contents ============== The next series of drawings show some misunderstandings about faith in Buddhism. Manussa is unhappy. (Manussa is a Pali word for mankind. Dukkha means unsatisfactoriness, suffering or stress.) - Manussa: "Dukkha." He is unhappy because he is in jail. His crime? Craving. His sentence? Life imprisonment. The prison? Samsāra. (Samsāra is the= continuous cycle of endless rebirths.) He had just finished a life term for the crime of craving and as soon as he was released, he was thrown back into the prison of Samsāra for the same crime. (Craving binds us to samsāra.) One day, the Buddha appeared. - Buddha: "Like you, I used to be a prisoner in Samsāra. I escaped and I showed my friends, the Ariyas, how to escape as well." The Buddha gave Manussa a key. (The Buddha left behind the Dhamma.) - Buddha: "This key opens the door to the prison of Samsāra. To use it, you must walk to the door, put the key in the keyhole, turn the key and open the door." The Buddha disappeared leaving the key behind. Unfortunately, Manussa lacked wisdom (paññā) and wasn't sure what to do with the key. - Manussa: "?" Manussa decided to put the key on the wall. He worshiped the key, hoping that it would release him from Samsāra. (Rites and rituals, without proper understanding, do not help.) - Manussa: "This key is from the Buddha!" Manussa needed faith to believe that there was a door and that the key could work. However, to get out of Samsāra, effort is needed. Without right effort, the key is useless! (We study the Dhamma to get faith; we "see how the Buddha jumped over the stream". However, nothing will happen without we ourselves making the right effort.) Slide Contents ============== Faith must be balanced with the other wholesome cetasikas - Faith without wisdom -> blind faith - Wisdom without faith -> cunning - Faith without energy -> no exertion - Energy without faith -> no resolve - Faith without concentration -> easily distracted - Concentration without faith -> no absorption - Faith without mindfulness -> no foundation - Mindfulness without faith -> no comprehension Speaker Notes ============= Faith is one of the five spiritual faculties or powers. The other four spiritual faculties or powers are wisdom, energy, concentration and mindfulness. Faith must be balanced with the other four spiritual faculties or powers. For example, too much faith with not enough wisdom leads to blind faith which is bad. On the other hand, too much wisdom with not enough faith leads to cunning, which is also bad. 22274 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusa grass (was: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken H, I hope you all had a good weekend of discussion and comraderie. Look forward to your reports;-) Sorry, I got held up..... --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hello Sarah, > So again, even without right view, we can be liberated [to an extent] > by all kinds of kusala. ..... momentarily;-) ..... > In my post to Christine, I did warn that there would be a lot of mere > speculation. I think the only value in it, was that it revealed > black holes in my own understanding (to which you have so helpfully > pointed :-) ) ..... we’re all here to poke away at the black holes and hopefully gain some insight about them :-) ..... ..... > So the panna of jhana, just like the panna of vipassana, cannot be > developed in a mind-without-panna. I tend to forget that. ..... Exactly so. The panna is not the same, of course, in that the object of wisdom/knowledge is different in the development of samatha and vipassana. Still, it is essential as I see it. I liked these two quotes from the latest installment Larry posted from The Satipatthana Sutta comy on ‘Agitation and Worry’: “Six things are conducive to the casting out of agitation and worry: Knowledge; questioning; understanding of disciplinary rules; association with those more experienced and older than oneself in the practice of things like virtue; sympathetic and helpful companionship and stimulating talk that helps the rejection of mental agitation and worry.” “[T] Mental agitation does not overtake the intelligent well-read man who probes into things by way of what is written in books and by way of the significance and import of the things themselves. Therefore, it is said that by way of knowledge not merely of the Disciplinary Rules, but by way of knowledge of the ninefold Buddha-word, beginning with the Discourses, according to the principles of the method already stated, and by the application of the proper remedies mentioned by way of questioning and so forth, remorse and regret for ill done and good undone do not take place.” Also at the very end of the section, the Tika adds: “Good companionship refers to association with those versed in the Discipline who are able to dispel worry as regards any doubt concerning what is proper and improper practice.” I’m sure you’ll all have spent the weekend dispelling worries an doubts;-) ..... > > No self, no beings - developed or otherwise;-) > -------------- > > Again, very true. And no need for me to add anything beginning with > "Yes, but . . ." > > ------------------- ..... ;-) ..... > I have spent several hours theorising on how a concept of one's own > self can be the object of akusala citta only. (except for a concept > of a self who is a bhikkhu.) I know it is a doomed theory, but at > least it has made me aware of some things I need to learn. For > example, you referred me to a post of Smallchap's in which he quoted > conceptual thinking that was, apparently, recommended by the > Buddha: > > I need to know more about the definition of pannatti. Take, for > example, "Just as I fear pain and death, so too do others so I > shouldn't hurt them;" could that be a single concept (cognized by a > single citta), ..... no.... ..... >or is it necessarily a series of concepts, cognized by > a series of cittas? Could it be described as a concept of others > (possibly accompanied by metta)? Or is a concept of self -- or of > both, or neither? .... Many series of cittas (I think like Howard explains rather well). At moments of wishing others well there may be metta. At these moments there’s no thought of oneself, even if it were prompted by a ‘talk-through’ reflecting on how no one likes pain and death. ..... > Can I just say that I didn't think the quoted concepts entirely > disproved my theory. I was able to interpret them, either > as 'concepts of others' or as conventional descriptions of paramattha > dhammas. ..... I think the truth, as you’ve said, is that usually when there’s thinking of oneself (or even of others) it is akusala, but there may be kind wishes and thoughts for others and moments of kusala with oneself as object. Only panna can know;-) In other words, it’s not the concepts that make the difference, but the mental states accompanying the cittas. ..... > I'm being stubborn, but I really can't see how the conception of > one's own suffering and death, could be accompanied by wholesome > mental states. ..... Unlikely, I agree, but there can be moments of wise reflection with detachment in between, I think. ..... >We need to be aware that it is only namas and rupas > that are anicca dukkha and anatta. Conventional thoughts of our own > vulnerability and mortality, would seem to be fraught with fear -- > or, at least, with selfishness. ..... I agree. Usually, but not necessarily. I’m sure Mike or others could add some helpful comments to this thread too. I appreciate your comments very much - the honesty (sacca) is an integral part of developing panna as we’ve been discussing. With metta, Sarah ===== 22275 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 11:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Mike & Kom, I appreciated Kom’s helpful comments. --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Kom, > > QUOTE from 'The Perfections': > > > ... > > > By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the > > aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by > > explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his > > truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by > > explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered > > important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the > complete > > relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), > > namely, the defilements. > > My understanding of the abhisankhaaras is that they include not only the > defilements but all kamma, good, bad and imperturbable (of the > immaterial > sphere). This wording could suggest that 'one' (rather than pa~n~naa) > could > relinquish (gain, honour and praise, or anything else); and that only > the > defilements, rather than all kamma, lead to rebirth. Both of these > potential readings seem misleading to me. ..... I understand your point and Nina may like to see it as well. I don’t read any suggestion of ‘one’ but I’m also unsure that abhisankharas can be ‘equated’ with defilements as suggested. I think as Kom explained well, the meaning is that when the defilements are eradicated (‘relinquished’), ‘kusala and akusala are abandoned automatically’. ..... > Better to cling to gain, honour and praise, and to understand, after the > fact, that the clinging (and conceit etc.) is akusala, than to > consciously > relinquish them, imagine 'I have relinquished them' and to mistake the > attending conceit etc. as a kind of purity (the latter is fairly > commonplace, I believe--it feels great, by the way...!). ..... Yes, I understand what you’re saying. That’s why wrong view is most dangerous and the first fetter that has to be eradicated. Again, like we’ve discussed with regard to reading the suttas, the understanding is very important and how we say or write things can always be misinterpreted as RobM pointed out to me the other day;-) In the end, just as Kom pointed out, “this is why it is so important to have the understanding that there is really nothig beyond the 4 paramattha dhammas. Once we understand this, then there is no question about who is doing what, regardless of what we read, as there is no who to be spoken of, only cittas and cetasikas.” Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to express what we say as clearly and with as little room for misunderstanding as possible;-) ..... >Even if they > are > truly relinquished for the moment, the accumulated latent tendency to > grasp > at them again remains unabated. ..... Still I wouldn’t like to underestimate the value of moments of kusala or the tendency to give up grasping just for an instant.... ..... > > In the verse, > > "Gain/loss, > status/disgrace, > censure/praise, > pleasure/pain: > the 'wise person's (the arahant's, in this case) > > "...welcoming > & rebelling are scattered, > gone to their end, > do not exist." > > They don't exist at all, even as latent tendencies. Until some stage of > enlightenment (I forget!), they continue to exist if only latently, and > continue to condition rebirth and all kinds of akusala. It can be quite > dangerous, I think, to mistake this kind of conscious relinquishing as > the > accomplishment of some kind of right effort. > Sorry if I'm belaboring the obvious... ..... I think you’re making very good points which I agree with. No belaboring of anything obvious as far as I’m concerned. I didn’t understand or requote the passage having any idea of it being about ‘conscious relinquishing’ but quite see how it can be interpreted in this way. As Rob M pointed out, with self-view, any refrain to ‘do good’, the 4 exertions and so on can be understood wrongly. Thanks for the comments and Kom’s as well. With metta, Sarah ===== 22276 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 18, 2003 11:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa, --- yasalalaka wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you for looking at my websites. ..... Thank you do much for introducing your Buddhist websites and also for ‘sharing’ your personal window with us. It sounds like a wonderful way to spend your retirement and I appreciate that you’re able to share some of it with us here;-) ..... >The first one "Buddha": > http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan , gives a short history of the > ancient India when the Prince Siddhartha was born, up to his leaving > the Palace to become an ascetic. I have included lots of Buddhist > statues coming from almost all the Buddhist countries in Asia. I > think, it is unique because you cannot get a whole collection of > images of Buddha statues in one website, any where else in the web. .... It is a fine collection of statue images and as Sandy said, the kids found the history very clear. ..... > The second one "Dhamma" http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI, is about > the Enlightenment . There I have included some facts about his > teachings. I have written the articles myself and I still haven't > got down to re-reading them to edit. This second site needs a few > more articles; one will be on Meditation, and perhaps a small > introduction to Abhidhamma, when I have finished reading Nina's book > ADL. Reading takes a lot of time as I am taking notes on every > chapter, so that when I write I need not go back to the book. ..... Before ‘Way’, we went through ADL together here. If you’d like to share any of your notes or have any questions/comments, there should be many members to respond;-) ..... > ......... As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! ..... Ah, but all these paramattha dhammas love looking at the other paramattha dhammas they’re talking to;-) If you can select one reasonably up-to-date pic from your many albums to put in our member album here, then you might just encourage a few others to follow your example (Htoo?, Swee Boon?, Suan?, KKT?, Rahula?, Lee?, Smallchap?, Connie?.......???) ..... > These websites are not very intellectual works, but simple straight > forward facts, about Buddhism. I did them for English speaking > French web-surfers as an introduction to Buddhism, and to make myself > familiar with the teachings, and as a quick reference. ..... I’m impressed at your linguistic skills. Like Rob M, we can all learn a little more about the teachings by sharing and helping each other as best we can;-) Anumodana. ..... > I was happy that little Sandy found them interesting. .... I did too. With metta, Sarah p.s we also share your love of hiking in areas like Mt Blanc region. Unless SARS flares up again here, we plan to be back Switzerland end of June. Perhaps we’ll see you! ================= 22277 From: Date: Sun May 18, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment To Rob M :-) In a message dated 5/18/03 5:10:09 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi All, I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": === Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the software applications that you use on your computer?" Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I know how the software functions." Buddha: "Exactly." === Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I hope you don't mind if I butt in here. I like your idea, it sounds good. But, how about questioning who is the programmer and who is the program. That might reveal some pretty cool non-dualist ideas along the way. good work, Jeff 22278 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 19, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Swee Boon, Thanks for your perceptive comments. Sorry for the delay. --- nidive wrote: > Sarah, > Thank you for your post on this topic. > > But I still think that "ideas" in Majjhima Nikaya 148, Chachakka > Sutta, The Six Sextets includes concepts. > > When I think about the concept "my mother has cheated me", I feel > angry. It is only being mindful of this feeling that anger simmers > down more quickly and then disappears. I am not angry at rupas or > namas or nibbana, but I am angry at the thought "my mother has cheated > me". If "ideas" doesn't include concepts, there simply isn't any other > way to put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now. ..... This is a very good point. Just as you say, anger can take anything as object, even one of RobK’s flying purple elephants! In other words, anything - concept or reality can be the object of consciousness. This is why dhammarammana includes concepts as well. In my post on ayatanas, I wrote: “Note: any arammana, including concepts can be the object (i.e. experienced by) consciousness (citta/mano/vin~n~nana)” Let me just add a quote from Way87 on this very point of anger which you’ll agree with;-): “Wrong reflection has just the same character everywhere, and when it occurs much in the resentment-object or the resentment-sign, anger arises. Therefore the Blessed One said that intense wrong reflection on an object of resentment is the cause of fresh anger and of the increase and expansion of anger already existing.” So true! However, satipatthana can only have paramattha dhammas as object. Whilst there can be anger at “my mother has cheated me” or a flying purple elephant, there can only be right understanding at those moments of the thinking itself, the feeling, the anger or other phenomena with characteristics which can be known, i.e namas or rupas. ..... Whenever we read about the six internal and external bases in the suttas, it is a reference, as I understand, to the 12 ayatanas. At the beginning of the Chachakka Sutta (The Six Sets of Six), MN, Nanamoli/Bodhi transl, we read: “(Synopsis) “3. “The six internal bases should be understood. the six external bases should be understood. The six classes of consciousness should be understood. The six classes of contact should be understood. The six classes of feeling should be understood. The six classes of craving should be understood.” “ It continues to enumerate the internal and external ayatanas as I set out in my other post, I believe as the first two sets of six. > "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the > intellect. ..... or in the Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: “dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind consciousness arises...” This comes under the third set of six on the 6 classes of consciousness. As I mentioned, I understand these to be referring to the ayatanas of mind-base (mano/citta/manayatana) and mind-objects (dhammayatana = subtle rupas, cetasikas, nibbana). ..... “Seeing this, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the eye...etc”. In other words, as I understand, seeing these paramattha dhammas, leads to disenchantment. Seeing or knowing flying purple elephants or long trains of other pannatti will never lead to liberation or detachment from the idea of self. So I believe it is important to understand the distinction between dhammarammanas (which we both agree about) and ayatanas. I believe that at least we now understand better why we may understand some details in the suttas a little differently. Thank you again for your comments. These are quite subtle points. I’ll be glad of any further feedback. With metta, Sarah ==== 22279 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:08am Subject: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi all, The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently being made internet-savvy by Christine. In spite of this injection of talent, there were some discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To begin with, there was the story of how Christine had recently come home from work to find her storeroom had been broken into and some quite valuable equipment stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome vipaka? Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) objects to begin with. What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma but what paramattha dhammas are involved? Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered here already and that if we don't understand it by now . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more time? Kind regards, Ken H 22280 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo, Thank you for adding your helpful comments here and on other threads. We can all benefit a lot from your familiarity with Pali and all parts of the Tipitaka - --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more > understandable. ..... Yes, I understand aayatana and dhatu to refer to different ways of classifying the same realities (paramatha dhammas) and I agree that it’s useful to look at them together. I intended to do this initially, but feared my post was already too long and complicated;-) I found these definitions helpful, so would like to add them for other members: From Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii, ch 7,comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha: AYATANAS “They are the spheres (aayatana) in that they are where consciousnesses and mentalities, which take objects through the various doors, exert themselves (aayatananti), struggle, endeavour, in their different functions; or in that they spread (tanonti), extend, the dhammas that come to the entrance (aaya); or in that they make (nayanti) the suffering of sa.msaara, cause it to be, long (aayata); or in that they are the causes of eye-consciousness, etc. Places of dwelling, distribution, meeting, and production are also commonly called ‘spheres’.” DHATUS “The elements (dhaatu) are the things that bear (dhaarenti) their own particular nature. Alternatively, they are elements in that they distribute (vidahanti), according to circumstance, the various forms of the suffering of sa.msaara; they are placed (dhiiyanti) with beings, borne by them, like a burden by a labourer. Not acting under any authority, they alone are what regulate (vidhaana) suffering. By their menas the sufering of sa.msaara is created (anuvidhiyati) by beings. The suffering that has been thus created is played (dhiiyati), is established, on these very (elements)” ..... I find the way you have presented them below to be very helpful, but I don’t understand some terms to be synonymous as I believe you may be suggesting: H:> ==================================================== > > A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana > > 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana > 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana > 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana > 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana > 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana > 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana ..... As I understand: dhamma dhatu and dhaamayatana = cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana BUT dhammarammana = CITTAS, cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana, PANNATTI ..... H:> B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara > > 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara > 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara > 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara > 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara > 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara > 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara ..... Again, the last terms are not synonymous, I believe and even more complicated: Mano dhatu (mind-element) = panca-dvaravajjana-citta (5 sense door adverting consciousness), sampaticchana citta x2 (receiving consciousness) Manaytana (mind-base) = all kinds of consciousness not included in dvi panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness), inc bhavanga cittas ..... H: > C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana > > 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) > 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) > 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) > 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) > 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) > 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) ..... and manovinnana dhatu (mind-consciousness element) = all cittas not included in dvi-panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness) OR in mano-dhatu (mind-element), eg includes javana cittas, santirana citta, mano-dvaravajjana citta (mind-door adverting consciousness). ??bhavanga cittas > =================================== > H: > Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are > > 1.Citta > 2.Cetasikas > 3. 5 Pasada Rupas > 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa > 5. Nibbana > 6.Pannatta ..... Agreed. However, I don’t understand pannatti to be included in dhammayatana (or dhammadhatu) and it was this distinction between dhammarammana and dhammayatana that prompted my first post. From B.Bodhi’s CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: “the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends ONLY to ULTIMATE REALITIES, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana.” This conforms with what we read in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhanga and Sammohavinodani. ..... > I hope these will work for more understanding. ..... Your comments and stress on the importance of looking at elements as well are much appreciated. Please let me know if I’ve made any errors or your understanding of any points is different. I greatly respect and admire your obvious familiarity with all the Pali Abhidhamma and apologise for being slow to respond. With metta and thanks for your help, Sarah ===== 22281 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Rob K Thanks for clarifying this reference to 'thoughts' in A. IV, 41. Very helpful. Yes, I remember now your earlier post. Looks like I was on the wrong track with my assumption, which was based on the footnote to the succeeding passage in the sutta. Apologies to all for any confusion. Jon PS I saw from an earlier note that you're not back in Japan yet. Are you still in NZ, and what are you up to these days? --- rjkjp1 wrote: ... > Dear Howard, Swee boon , Jon,. > I haven't been following all the posts on this topic but caught > this letter and thought I could add something. > You were discuuing the Samdhi sutta (Rohitissa vagga Anguttara > Nikaya 4) > Specifically this paragraph: > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed > & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where > feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they > persist, > known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, > known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to > him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. > This is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. " > > This is an aspect of satipatthana. There has to be developing > understanding of these factors. > > Vitakka is translated as thoughts and is referring to that aspect > of the thinking process – which is paramattha dhamma. > I explain further from a post I wrote a couple of years ago: the > thinking process consists of different > cittas and cetasikas(including vitakka) all arising and passing > away rapidly. These are paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities. 22282 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jon: > > I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the > question > comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and > conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our > system of > belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that > which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we > define those terms), then > > (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are > deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and > > (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they > do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? > > These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of > debate > among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and > Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) > details > these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if > it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, hasto > confront these same type of issues in my view. I'm not sure that I agree with this last observation, in the sense that these discussions seem to take place within the framework of an ongoing discourse that has its own vocabulary, assumptions and conventions, if you see what i mean. Thanks for the passage from Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” which I've had a quick look at. I'm afraid there are problems with his interpretation of the teachings that make it difficult for me to comment on the overall argument. For example, in the first paragraph the author says: "We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever?" (This last question is the theme of the whole piece.) It's apparent that the author regards the statement at (a) to be one of the truths asserted in the teachings and the statement at (b) as an example of an assertion that is inconsistent with the teachings. I think he is mistaken in this. Both assertions are assertions at a purely conventional level, and as such have nothing to do with insight. The impermanence discussed in the teachings is impermanence as a characteristic of fundamental phenomena (dhammas), not of conventional objects such as mountains. Again, in the final paragraph the author says: "In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how reality can be understood by thought." The teachings do not hold that 'reality can be understood by thought', if that is what is being suggested. The unique characteristic of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the time, but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. Every moment of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing the dhamma that is visible object. I hope I've not misread the author, and that my comments are to the point of the question you have raised. Jon > Here is a passage you may find interesting: > > ------------ > > From Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” at 319-321 > > We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From > this > experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it > changes > and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed for the > most > part. Both cognitions (the second is not called inference in Indian > epistemology since it is faulty) are caused equally by valid > experience. > Both may lead to further valid perceptions. How can we distinguish > the first valid inference from the latter conception, which from a > Buddhist point of view has no validity whatsoever? 22283 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:23am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Ken, We haven't chatted in a while! My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post 19983 on sanna. However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class called simply "the undesireable". According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants." I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from CMA? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi all, > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > objects to begin with. > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > time? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22284 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jon: > > Yes, I agree, but rightly or wrongly it is an intellectualising > that has occupied Buddhists for centuries. The Buddha makes it clear that the truths he teaches cannot be appreciated by reasoning or discussion alone. Although insight requires correct intellectual understanding as a basis, it needs in addition the concurrent reflection on and appraisal of that intellectual understanding by reference to the present moment in order to develop. I see a distinction between the intellectual understanding that is a necessary basis for the development of insight and intellectualising about some aspect of the teachings. I do not see any particular relevance, or merit, in the latter (although we are all prone to it to a greater or lesser degree -- it is not necessarily harmful, but can become a distraction for some). ... > But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality > appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such > questions? > Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that > "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and > these > are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > appropriate conditions have been developed"? There is no need to make any a priori assumptiona. Indeed, the Buddha cautioned against such. There is only a need to have heard enough of the teachings to have the confidence that they are the words of someone who very likely knew what he was talking about, and not of someone who had it all wrong (some people seem more ready to give credence to modern-day commentators than to the ancients ;-)). There are aspects of the teachings that can be the 'investigated' at any time, without having to make any assumptions about their validity. For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated without the need for any a priori assumptions. Jon 22285 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Swee Boon) - ... H: I don't understand how you reach the conclusion "I believe the passage you quote here is a reference to the development of understanding of a level other than the level of insight." J: That was an assumption I made, based on based on the footnote relating to the passage that followed that one. It turns out that assumption was incorrect, and my apologies to all for any confusion. However, the important thing is that the sutta is referring to the arising, persisting and subsiding of paramattha dhammas, not of concepts. H: The sutta talks about a process leading to the ending of the effluents. (Also, B. Bodhi's footnote refers to insight meditation, but that is a secondary matter.) In any case, the sutta includes "Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside." J: Rob K's post clarifies that what is translated as 'thoughts' here is in fact 'vitakka' in the original Pali. Vitakka is a mental factor that arises with the citta that conceives of an object, and hence is part of the act of thinking (and not the thought that is object of that consciousness). It is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. H: If thoughts are non-existent, they don't arise, persist, and subside, and they are not known. Isn't that the claim that you make, that concepts are not impermanent due to not existing? (I agree that the imagined referents of most concepts are nonexistent, but that isn't the issue here.) J: According to the Abhidhamma and commentaries, concepts do not manifest the 3 characteristics that are attributed to all conditioned phenomena. They are not 'things having sabhava' and, accordingly, do not manifest characteristics. They are not 'things' of any kind whatsoever, simply names and other mental images. H: Your post follows below. BTW, you are NOT, as you put it, "coming in here". This thread involves you essentially - and even if it didn't, your input is always very much welcomed. J: Thanks for this, Howard. Much appreciated ;-)) Jon 22286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > So far, my experience of anatta is limited to the experience of a > whole > and its parts. I experience this only when regarding other people > and it > amounts to an experience of space and disappointment that there is > no > "wholeness" there. I don't experience other objects, such as myself > or mechanical objects, in this way, unfortunately. Of course the > conceptual > understanding "there is no self" isn't nothing. At some point one > is bound to get it. Would you say your experience of anatta is of anatta as a characteristic of a paramattha dhamma, or of the 'anattaness' of conventional objects? I believe there would be a significant difference in terms of insight. > My experience of asabhava amounts to a disconnect between an object > and > its name. Both these experiences are liberating; maybe that was my > point. In any case, I need further research in order to > discriminate between the two in detail. Not all experiences that are subjectively 'liberating' experiences are necessarily kusala moments. For example, the experience of 'disconnect between an object and its name' is something that could happen under the influence of a hallucinogen (not that I'm imputing anything about you, Larry ;-)). This is why we need to have a firm basis in the theoretical understanding of the teachings as to how understanding is to be developed. Regarding the textual references, I'll comment on these separately. Would you mind giving me the references you have for "pannatti" in the Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas; I'd like to check them out. Thanks. Jon > As to the source of this philosophical understanding of concept and > reality, I am starting to suspect either the Abhidhammatta Sangaha > or > its commentary. ... 22287 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Lee > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > ... > >>Hi Jon: >> >>I don't think I can do full to the question, but in short, the >>question >>comes down to how we ascribe knowledge value to perceptions and >>conceptions given how we define what is real or unreal in our >>system of >>belief. For example, if only perception has direct access to that >>which we define as "real" or "ultimate" in some fashion (however we >>define those terms), then >> >>(a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are >>deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and >> >>(b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they >>do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? >> >>These type of questions have formed the basis for centurioes of >>debate >>among the various Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions of India and >>Tibet, and the book I referenced (Dreyfus' Recognizing Reality) >>details >>these debates. The Abhidhamma style of analysis and synthesis, if >>it is going to assert a systematic ontology and epistemology, hasto >>confront these same type of issues in my view. > > > I'm not sure that I agree with this last observation, in the sense > that these discussions seem to take place within the framework of an > ongoing discourse that has its own vocabulary, assumptions and > conventions, if you see what i mean. > > Thanks for the passage from Dreyfus, “Recognizing Reality” which I've > had a quick look at. I'm afraid there are problems with his > interpretation of the teachings that make it difficult for me to > comment on the overall argument. For example, in the first paragraph > the author says: > "We may see a mountain several times and notice minute changes. From > this experience we may infer (a) the mountain is impermanent since it > changes and (b) the mountain is permanent since it has not changed > for the most part. Both cognitions (the second is not called > inference in Indian epistemology since it is faulty) are caused > equally by valid experience. Both may lead to further valid > perceptions. How can we distinguish the first valid inference from > the latter conception, which from a Buddhist point of view has no > validity whatsoever?" > > (This last question is the theme of the whole piece.) > > It's apparent that the author regards the statement at (a) to be one > of the truths asserted in the teachings and the statement at (b) as > an example of an assertion that is inconsistent with the teachings. > I think he is mistaken in this. Both assertions are assertions at a > purely conventional level, and as such have nothing to do with > insight. The impermanence discussed in the teachings is impermanence > as a characteristic of fundamental phenomena (dhammas), not of > conventional objects such as mountains. Hi Jonothan: I am not sure I understand your comments. In particular, I don't see how the distinction between ultimate and conventional truths helps you out of the problems posed by the author - such as, how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. > Again, in the final paragraph the author says: > "In particular, if one holds that universals, which are the contents > of thought, are unreal, then it becomes difficult to explain how > reality can be understood by thought." > > The teachings do not hold that 'reality can be understood by > thought', if that is what is being suggested. The unique > characteristic of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain > level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, > dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the time, > but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. Every moment > of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing the > dhamma that is visible object. Yes, I understand that is what the Abhidhamma approach asserts, but, to me, it still does not answer the question of how to bridge the gap between perception and conception. I think Larry also suggested the idea of panna as a solution to the problem, but frankly, I don't understand how either of you intend it as a solution. I believe I have a rudimentary understanding of panna's positioning within the Abhidhamma system of thought, but don't see how it works as a solution within the context Dreyfus is discussing. I would be interested in hearing the reasoning of either you or Larry on this point. -- Lee Dillion 22288 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 19, 2003 6:47am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites Hi Yasa (and Sarah), Thank your for the links to your websites. I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self-view. Thank you again for the links. Regards, Victor > Dear Sarah, > [snip] As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! > [snip] > > With metta, > Yasa. 22289 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 19, 2003 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi Jeff (and all); I have been reconsidering using this last piece in the analogy. "Nama" is influenced by and adapts to its environment. The traditional type of software that people are used to doesn't work this way. If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets too complicated for the average reader. I think I will leave this part out. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To Rob M :-) > > In a message dated 5/18/03 5:10:09 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: > > << Hi All, > > I am considering adding the following idea into the Internet "sutra": > > === > > Engineer Rob: "The analogy of the mind being the software makes me > wonder who was the programmer who wrote the software." > > Buddha: "Do you know the names of the programmers who developed the > software applications that you use on your computer?" > > Engineer Rob: "No, I don't. It really doesn't matter, as long as I > know how the software functions." > > Buddha: "Exactly." > > === > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) >> > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > I hope you don't mind if I butt in here. I like your idea, it sounds good. > But, how about questioning who is the programmer and who is the program. > That might reveal some pretty cool non-dualist ideas along the way. > > good work, > > Jeff 22290 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon May 19, 2003 8:39am Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Howard Dear Howard and all How are you? You wrote in your message 22246 as follows. "You know that I distinguish the 5 aggregates from the 5 aggregates afflicted by clinging." When I was about to compose, and while composing, a reply to your message 22219, you have not had posted your post "Distinguishing ..". Only after I have posted my message in reply to your post 22219, I saw your post "Distinguishing ..". By then it was very late and I was sleepy in Canberra, so I did not even have a chance to read that post. Only the next very late night, I had a chance to read and replied to it. I reply to the messages on a thread on the "First Come, First Serve" basis, usually the ones directly responding to my posts. It is true that ideally I should read all the relevant posts on a thread first before I reply to a key post. But, I now have less and less time to do so. On the day of Vesak, Dr Des from Los Angeles has enlisted me to become a moderator for his large Mahayana group despite my exuses of scarce time. Imagine the scenario of me, a Theravada specialist, moderating a Mahayana group with nearly 1000 list members. As it is a Mahayana group, Vedantists also come along! :) Only last night, I had to reassure a list member who began to question if he had joined the wrong non-Buddhist group, i.e a Vedantist group. Now, returning to the episode under question. Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of oppression" The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, Majjhimanikaaya. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan and all - Observe the negative effect of anger. First I addressed a post to the wrong person. Then, as seen below, I misspelled. Anger agitates the mind, stirs it up, makes it muddy, and leads to mistakes. Calm has the opposite effect. The anger was there. I cannot take that back. But I apologize for it, and I shall attempt to more closely guard the senses in the future. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/17/03 12:26:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, all (especially Swee Boon) - > > Apologies. This should ceratinly not have had the salutation to Swee > Boon. It was a reply to Suan. > > With metta, > Howard > > 22291 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jonothan: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > The Buddha makes it clear that the truths he teaches cannot be > appreciated by reasoning or discussion alone. Although insight > requires correct intellectual understanding as a basis, it needs in > addition the concurrent reflection on and appraisal of that > intellectual understanding by reference to the present moment in > order to develop. I agree. > I see a distinction between the intellectual understanding that is a > necessary basis for the development of insight and intellectualising > about some aspect of the teachings. I do not see any particular > relevance, or merit, in the latter (although we are all prone to it > to a greater or lesser degree -- it is not necessarily harmful, but > can become a distraction for some). Again, we agree. > > But how does a person come to the "understanding of the reality > > appearing at the present moment" without grappling with such > > questions? > > Unless of course, the person accepts a priori the claim that > > "fundamental phenomena (dhammas) [are] presenting themselves and > > these > > are all potentially the object of awareness for one in whom the > > appropriate conditions have been developed"? > > There is no need to make any a priori assumptiona. Indeed, the > Buddha cautioned against such. There is only a need to have heard > enough of the teachings to have the confidence that they are the > words of someone who very likely knew what he was talking about, and > not of someone who had it all wrong (some people seem more ready to > give credence to modern-day commentators than to the ancients ;-)). And again, we agree. :) > There are aspects of the teachings that can be the 'investigated' at > any time, without having to make any assumptions about their > validity. Yes, that is one of the attractions of Buddhism for me and, I suspect, many others. This attitude of "come and see" grounds the practice in experience and not mere intellectualizing. > For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is > correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences > other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't > experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the > different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are > very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated > without the need for any a priori assumptions. This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the experiential process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily intended as a description that serves ontological rather than purely salvational needs. In saying this, I don't mean to denigrate the value or wisdom of the Abhidhamma approach. Rather, I am simply describing where I am in my own thought process at this particular time. The approach that you and others follow on DSG is fascinating and, consistent with the call to come and see, I have much to learn about your approach. 22292 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards to Robert Epstein Dear Rob Ep, I was just going to tell you that I miss you. I understand that you cannot read all mails and that you need time for inspiration to write and think about your work re theater. I had asked Sarah for your personal address and shall fwd this to it, in case you overlook me. What a conceit, fear to be overlooked. Best regards, Nina. op 18-05-2003 15:29 schreef Howard: >> >> I have been e-mailing a bit with Robert, and he sends warm >> greetings! >> Rob is very busy at the moment, but hopes to"drop in" on DSG at some >> point. >> He has very fond feelings for the group, its leaders, and its members. 22293 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: no cyber silence. Hi smallchap, You made me laugh. Please, no cyber silence, you never talk enough!!! Nina. op 18-05-2003 17:16 schreef smallchap op smallchap@y...: > smallchap: Dear Nina and Sarah, > > Thank you both for your kind words. > > I realise that I talked too much. It's time to observe cyber-silence. > > Take care! 22294 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: responses to mails Dear Yasa and Rob Moult, Your good questions deserve more attention and I take some time, being just back from a vacation, Nina. 22295 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Dhamma discussions in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 1. Chapter 2 The Conditions for Direct Understanding We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (Khandha vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101, Adze-handle) that the Buddha used similes in order to explain that freedom from defilements cannot be attained by mere wishing, but only by cultivating the right cause. We read: Just as if, brethren, some eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs are not fully sat upon, not fully warmed, not fully brooded over by the hen. Then suppose that in that hen there arise such a wish as this: ²O that my chicks with foot and claw or mouth and beak might break through the eggshells and so be safely hatched.² Yet for all that those chicks are not made fit to break up the eggshells with foot and claw or mouth and beak, and so be safely hatched. What is the cause of that? It is because those eight or ten or dozen hen¹s eggs, brethren, have not been fully sat upon, fully warmed, fully brooded over by the hen. Even so, brethren, if in a brother who lives neglectful of self-training there should arise this wish: ³O that my heart were freed from the Åsavas without grasping², yet is his heart not freed thereby from them. What is the cause of that? It must be said: ³It is his lack of self-training.² Training in what? In the four Earnest Contemplations...in the Ariyan Eightfold Path...² We then read that just as when the eggs are fully brooded and the chicks are safely hatched, the monk who is not neglectful in self-training reaches arahatship. The Commentary to this Sutta, the ³Såratthappakåsiní² elaborates on this simile: Just as the eggs do not rot, so does the bhikkhu¹s insight not decrease, because he has undertaken the threefold contemplation (of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå). Just as the moisture within the eggshell dries up, so the bhikkhu¹s attachment to the threefold existence (in the sensuous planes, fine material planes and immaterial planes) is abandoned. Just as the eggshells become thinner, so the shell of ignorance becomes thinner. Just as the chick¹s feet, nails and beak have become hard and sharp, so has the bhikkhu¹s insight becomes keen and pure, it is developed with courage. Just as for the chicks the moment of hatching comes, so for the bhikkhu when insight has been developed, the time of its maturity arrives. Just as the chicks, after they have split the eggshell with nails, beak and feet, merge safely, so for the bhikkhu insight knowledge matures, when he has acquired the right conditions of climate, food, people (he associates with), and listening to the Dhamma. By the gradual attainment of insight that is developed he penetrates the shell of ignorance and reaches safety by arahatship. This reminds us of the right conditions for the development of insight. Association with the right friend in Dhamma and listening are essential conditions for the development of right understanding that will lead to enlightenment. Acharn Sujin frequently reminded us of this sutta: ³Does one know that one is in the shell of ignorance and clinging? Clinging is very strong.² Just as the chicks needed energy and courage to split the eggshell, we need energy and courage for awareness of the reality that appears now. In this way, keen understanding can be developed so that the shell of ignorance can be penetrated. If we remember this we shall not be neglectful of the development of understanding. 22296 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- Dear Robm, I wrote about this before. Just a quick note as I am going out. I'll add more later. I don't have Bodhi's work with me but the sammohvinodani explains this about average people so that it can be roughly judged )i . The sammohavinodnai then goes on to explain that in the ultimate sense it only depends on the kamma - not on anyones judgement, (not even accountants!) RobK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken, > > We haven't chatted in a while! > > My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta > process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door > citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the > mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather > detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post > 19983 on sanna. > > However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to > figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the > shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time > (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). > > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? > > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > > vipaka? > > > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > > objects to begin with. > > > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > > time? > > > > Kind regards, > > Ken H 22297 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:24am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 8. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 8. When someone maintains truthfulness in speech, speech that does not deviate from the truth, he will continue to be steadfast in every respect, even when he is in danger of life. This is the resolve for truthfulness, saccaditthåna. We should be firmly established in truthfulness so that we shall reach the further shore, nibbåna. The second foundation dhamma is the determination for relinquishment, cåga, the relinquishment of defilements. Relinquishment is not only the giving away of material things for the benefit and happiness of others, such as acts of generosity, dåna. But it is also the relinquishment of defilements, and this is to the benefit of oneself. When we give away material things to others, we should also be intent on the relinquishment of our defilements. We should consider whether our action and speech are motivated by kusala cittas, we should not give with the expectation to receive something in return. Clinging, lobha, is the opposite, the enemy, of each one of the perfections. When we have lobha, when we desire to gain something, or when we expect something in returnfor our good deed, this is opposed to the development of the perfections. Therefore, we should consider in which way we shall give so that there is determination for relinquishment and defilements can be eradicated. When we give, we should not expect anything in return, and moreover, we should not think of giving as being tedious, we should not give without cheerfulness and generosity, we should give wholeheartedly. We need to have a subtle and detailed knowledge of our cittas so that defilements can be eliminated. When we see someone else¹s generosity, we can rejoice in his good deed, we can feel enthusiasm about it. We should remember that also forgiving is a kind of dåna, because we wish someone else to be free from any adversity or danger. Thus, generosity is not merely the giving of material gifts. There can be purity of citta when, by our acts of generosity, we are intent on giving support to the other person so that he is free from harm. We may be able to rejoice in giving and also abandon our own defilements at such moments. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² that the Bodhisatta needed to have a strong wish, a strong yearning, to become the Sammåsambuddha. We read in the ³Miscellaneous Sayings²: Strong desire (chandatå): wholesome desire, the wish for accomplishment. One possessed of the aforesaid qualities must have strong desire, yearning, and longing to practise the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Only then does his aspiration succeed, not otherwise. The following similes illustrate the magnitude of the desire required. If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can tread across a whole world-system filled with flameless, smokeless redhot coals, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... 22298 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon May 19, 2003 3:03pm Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Yasa (and Sarah), > > Thank your for the links to your websites. > > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- view. > > Thank you again for the links. > > Regards, > Victor > > > Dear Sarah, > > > [snip] > As far as photos are concerned I am an Abhidhammist and > > don't believe in a self - I am a paramatta dhamma !! > > > [snip] > > > > With metta, > > Yasa. Victor, I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I am", that is the self view. with metta, Yasa 22299 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 4:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, You wrote: (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? L: First, let me say that everyone in this group has a different understanding of what is a concept. At this point, my understanding is that a concept is little more than a name. In that light, I would rephrase the above questions and ask how do we determine which CONCEPTIONS are true and which are deceptive without using PERCEPTION? In abhidhamma there are three kinds of "perception": perception (sanna), consciousness (citta), and wisdom (panna). Consciousness and wisdom are always 100% true, according to abhidhamma. I have my doubts about sanna being 100% true as I think it is recognition and recogition is subject to error. Also, some of the functions of consciousness in citta process may be subject to error. I don't understand this very well. Wisdom is, I suppose, always true and profound but there are levels of wisdom: mundane and supramundane, and there are levels within these categories as well. I don't know if Abhidhamma goes into the details of panna's accuracy. In any case, according to this theory, a true conception is simply a naming or description of one of these "viewings". Someone else may have a better understanding of the accuracy levels of sanna, citta, and panna. Also there is bewilderment/ignorance (moha) which is a root (causal) consciousness. This consciousness may or may not manifest AS concept, depending on what you think a concept is (just a thought). Larry 22300 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:06pm Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Howard --- Dear Suan, Thnaks for this excellent quote from the Pali. If you have more it would be great. In the Channovada sutta http://www.vipassana.info/144-channovada-e.htm I thought the commentary mentions that channa believed he was an arahant because of his good insight into the teachings but upon cutting his throat realises that he isn't. He insights the pain and becomes an arahant at the moment of death. Perhaps someone could check. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Now, returning to the episode under question. > > Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is > outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not > equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned > phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three > Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the > Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe > sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. > > The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section > 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. > > "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" > > "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of > oppression" > > The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment > of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. > Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed > suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, > Majjhimanikaaya. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, 22301 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 1:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment In a message dated 5/19/03 8:09:39 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Jeff (and all); I have been reconsidering using this last piece in the analogy. "Nama" is influenced by and adapts to its environment. The traditional type of software that people are used to doesn't work this way. If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets too complicated for the average reader. I think I will leave this part out. Metta, Rob M :-) >> Yes, I would agree, but what about the hardware being rupa and the software being nama. Or, maybe nama-rupa being brand identification. "Is it true, computer geek, sir, that one kind of computer does pretty much the same as another, or is Dell really superior to HP?" Something like that. This project just reminded me of an old Doonsberry in which the priest goes into buy a computer and after getting a long string of jargon from one of the sales reps asks if they have any "user friendly sales reps." The computer sales rep. says, "No, our enduser compatible live-ware is off today." Keep up this noble work, I am sure some computer geeks will get a kick out of it. Jeff 22302 From: Date: Mon May 19, 2003 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasa - two websites Hi, Yasa (and Victor) - In a message dated 5/19/03 6:15:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you quote Victor saying: > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- > view. and you reply as follows: > Victor, > > I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I > am", that is the self view. > > with metta, > Yasa > > ============================== Yasa, this is one of those rare and happy moments at which I both understand Victor and agree with him. To say "I am a paramatta dhamma" is both to assume that there *is* an "I" and to say what it allegedly is. That certainly is a self view. Moreover, and this I am adding, myself, and not attributing to Victor - as a conventional statement it is actually *false*. Whatever an alleged "I" might be [I say it is concept-only], it certainly is *not* a paramattha dhamma; it is not a direct, irreducible, element of experience. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22303 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 19, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Larry: Thanks for your thoughts on this. As you note, everyone seems to have "a different understanding of what is a concept." That was one of the distinct problem I had with Dreyfus' book since it describes debates that have raged for centuries among so many different Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups, each one using their own definitions of reality, perception, concepts, etc., and each seeing their understanding of reality as the correct one. --- Lee LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > You wrote: > > (a) how do we determine which perceptions are true and which are > deceptive without using conceptions and inference? and > > (b) how do we account for useful conceptions and inference if they do > not have direct access to what is real or ultimate? > > L: First, let me say that everyone in this group has a different > understanding of what is a concept. At this point, my understanding is > that a concept is little more than a name. In that light, I would > rephrase the above questions and ask how do we determine which > CONCEPTIONS are true and which are deceptive without using PERCEPTION? > > In abhidhamma there are three kinds of "perception": perception (sanna), > consciousness (citta), and wisdom (panna). Consciousness and wisdom are > always 100% true, according to abhidhamma. I have my doubts about sanna > being 100% true as I think it is recognition and recogition is subject > to error. Also, some of the functions of consciousness in citta process > may be subject to error. I don't understand this very well. Wisdom is, I > suppose, always true and profound but there are levels of wisdom: > mundane and supramundane, and there are levels within these categories > as well. I don't know if Abhidhamma goes into the details of panna's > accuracy. In any case, according to this theory, a true conception is > simply a naming or description of one of these "viewings". > > Someone else may have a better understanding of the accuracy levels of > sanna, citta, and panna. > > Also there is bewilderment/ignorance (moha) which is a root (causal) > consciousness. This consciousness may or may not manifest AS concept, > depending on what you think a concept is (just a thought). > 22304 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon May 19, 2003 7:56pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Dear ken, Wish I could have made it to your discussions. I think you've reflected well on it already but I try to add more. The Dhamma about kamma and vipaka is complex as we all know. Sometimes the Buddha put it in fairly simple terms. SO: 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'... [AN V.57] And illustrated it with stories. One related to theft, in the commentaries, is about a rich man in the time of the Buddha (forget his name). He had given to a past Buddha or Pacceka Buddha and made other good kamma in past lives. One of the results of this was that he was rich now, another was that he could never have anything stolen. King Ajatasattu hearing of his wealth decided to claim some and took his men to get it. But nothing they did resulted in the man losing any of his possesions. These stories help us to get the general idea of how kamma/vipaka work. I love them and trust in them so that I rarely lock my house or car. (However, this also depends on the neighbourhood as I know other factors support receiving result of kamma.) Last month I was ripped off on an internet auction for about US $250 -but honestly I never minded as I just think of it as the result of past kamma. It makes life easier to think in this way. When we know about paramattha dhamma it becomes even clearer and better. In Christine's case we can understand that the loss of vaulable equipment means that perhaps in the future weeks there is less experience of some kusala vipaka. Say it was a latest movie projector and she can't enjoy such high quality images, so just a tad less kusala vipaka (on occasion)than before. Or maybe she has to do extra overtime to get the money to replace it ..and this extra work conditions some unpleasant feeling through the bodysense. These are just rough examples to help to see. Sometimes it can be quite different from the story: We have to stay in hospital. We might think "Bad ": that is the story. However,I stayed in a hospital in thailand where they had service equal to a fivestar hotel! I was experiencing a few pains in the stomach area (partly conditioned by akusala kamma) but the surroundings (attractive decor, nice bed, pretty nurses) were possibly kusala vipaka through the eyesense. It is really all changing so quickly . RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi all, > > The latest meeting of the Dhammadinna House Group (known > to some as the South East Queensland Branch of DSG), was > a big success. This was due, in no small part, to two > new members. Our good friend Azita was one of them; the > other, also well known to some dsg members, is currently > being made internet-savvy by Christine. > > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? > > Of course, the unpleasant mental sensations were due to > Christine's akusala (but entirely understandable), > reactions :-) However, in the absence of any injury or > signs of vandalism, it was beginning to look that as > though there had been no unwholesome sense (vipaka) > objects to begin with. > > What if it was later revealed that there hadn't been a > burglary at all, but that a friend had borrowed the > appliances in order to recondition them free of charge? > Would those same visible objects have been intrinsically > pleasant -- the results of kusala kamma? > > In some cases, eg., of embezzlement, we might never know > that we have been robbed. Would it then be a matter of, > 'what you don't know hasn't hurt you?' > > The victim of theft (even an unknowing one), is not as > wealthy as she would otherwise be, so perhaps that is how > the akusala vipaka might manifest(?) Steve began to > explain phala (fruit), and the understanding that the > rupas of the body are conditioned by kamma. Likewise, > poverty and wealth are (or can be), conditioned by kamma > but what paramattha dhammas are involved? > > Having been delegated to put these questions to dsg, I > did suggest that this topic has been pretty well covered > here already and that if we don't understand it by now > . . etc., etc., but that got me nowhere. So, if someone > wouldn't mind, could we please hear the answers one more > time? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22305 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 19, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi RobM Thanks for answering. -------------- > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 > on sanna help? -------------------- It was good to read but, actually, you may have missed the point of my question. So I'll put it another way: The conventional understanding of kamma/vipaka is that what happens to us is due to our past actions. So, if someone steals my car, then it is only because I have been a thief (or something like that), in a past life. Now, can we describe that in terms namas and rupas? When I step outside in the morning, what sense object/s tells me that my car has been stolen? Where is the moment of vipaka conditioned by my past criminal actions? Is it the visible object that arises when, conventionally speaking, I look at the empty space in my driveway? The answer to this question may well be in the explanation of citta processes as you have suggested. But I, and the Cooran group as a whole, had a mental block. Were we thinking wrongly -- asking the wrong questions? We suspect it is only a matter of hearing again, certain explanations already given here on dsg. Such as, for example, when Eric ran into terrible trouble with bureaucratic red tape or when Christine was kept awake on a plane by crying babies. ----------- > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above > extract from CMA? ----------- I'd like to have a go. To reiterate: All experiences of sense objects are caused by our kusala and akusala actions in the past. Kusala actions cause us to experience pleasant (desirable), objects; akusala actions cause us to experience unpleasant (undesirable), objects. The general problem people have in understanding this, lies in the idea of intrinsic quality. Desirability and undesirability are not normally seen as intrinsic. Conventionally, it is extrinsic, subjective judgement that decides what is desirable and what is undesirable -- 'one man's meat is another man's poison.' Even so, the Dhamma definitely states that sense objects are intrinsically desirable or undesirable and it is only a perversion of perception that confuses the two. When we wonder how this could be, there is bound to be a degree of wounded pride: "What seems obvious to my precious intellect, is being flatly denied by the Dhamma!" So we assume that this intrinsic nature must be something esoteric -- totally foreign to anything in the known, conventional world. (Otherwise, it would have been obvious to us.) But the answer is no, it is very much the same sort of desirability and undesirability that is known to ordinary men and women of average intelligence. A merchant knows "This is desirable merchandise, that is not so desirable, that is undesirable merchandise," or an accountant knows, "This is a desirable set of figures, this is a not so desirable set of figures, etc., etc.," In this same, quite straightforward way, sense objects can be rightly perceived as; "This is desirable visible object, that is not so desirable visible object . . etc." Am I on the right track? Kind regards, Ken H > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > Question 1: Does my initial comment and my post 19983 on sanna help? > > Question 2: Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? 22306 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken, > > We haven't chatted in a while! > > My preferred answer to your question is that the sense door citta > process is followed by thousands (perhaps millions) of mind door > citta processes and it is in these mind door processes that the > mental proliferation (value judgement takes place). I gave a rather > detailed explanation of my understanding of this process in my post > 19983 on sanna. > > However, there is a possibly relevant point that I was trying to > figure out a few months ago. I got confused and "put it on the > shelf" to be thought about later. Maybe I will be luckier this time > (with the help of some wise friends from the DSG). > > Here is the section of the Abhidhammatha sangaha that confuses me > (IV, 17, Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in CMA): > > Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesireable > (anittha), the moderately desireable (ittha, also called > itthamajjhatta, desireable-neutral), and the extremely desireable > (ati-ittha). While the desireable object is thus subdivided into > two, all undesireable objects are comprised within a single class > called simply "the undesireable". > > According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the > quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object > itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual > temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, > the commentary to the Vibanga, contents that when a person considers > a desireable object to be undesireable, or an undesireable object to > be desireable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however remains inherently > desireable or undesireable independently of the perciever's personal > preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between > the intrinsicaly desireable and undesireable obtains by way of the > average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to > what is foudn desireable at one time and undesireable at another > time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, > burgesses, land owners and merchants." > > > > I have a serious problem with basing a foundation of ethical > judgement on the opinions of average accountants, government > officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants! > > > Question : Can you (or anybody else) explain the above extract from > CMA? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) _______________ Dear RobM, Firstly I add what Ken H wrote: kenhowardau" wrote: > To reiterate: All experiences of sense objects are > caused by our kusala and akusala actions in the past. > Kusala actions cause us to experience pleasant > (desirable), objects; akusala actions cause us to > experience unpleasant (undesirable), objects. > > The general problem people have in understanding this, > lies in the idea of intrinsic quality. Desirability and > undesirability are not normally seen as intrinsic. > Conventionally, it is extrinsic, subjective judgement > that decides what is desirable and what is undesirable -- > 'one man's meat is another man's poison.' > > Even so, the Dhamma definitely states that sense objects > are intrinsically desirable or undesirable and it is only > a perversion of perception that confuses the two. > > When we wonder how this could be, there is bound to be a > degree of wounded pride: "What seems obvious to my > precious intellect, is being flatly denied by the > Dhamma!" > > So we assume that this intrinsic nature must be something > esoteric -- totally foreign to anything in the known, > conventional world. (Otherwise, it would have been > obvious to us.) > > But the answer is no, it is very much the same sort of > desirability and undesirability that is known to ordinary > men and women of average intelligence. > > A merchant knows "This is desirable merchandise, that is > not so desirable, that is undesirable merchandise," > > In this same, quite straightforward way, sense objects > can be rightly perceived as; "This is desirable visible > object, that is not so desirable visible object . . etc." ---------------- Now I add some more. I don't have CMA with me but it is important to understand the whole passage ?hat Ven. Bodhi is citing from. The next paragraph (same page) explains that in the ultimate sense only by kamma result can it truly be distinguished. Sometimes we might all see a scene (like looking out over Bangkok- remember Azita) and not be fully sure whether it is kusala vipaka or very mild akusala vipaka. And it doesn't especially matter except that we should realise that in the ultimate sense it is one or the other. Here is the next paragraph: """The elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to vipaka (kamma result) only, not according to javana (impulsion that follows the vipaka). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sannavipallasa)only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable; that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same agreeable. Only by way of vipaka however is it rightly distinguishable. For resultant consciousness (vipaka citta) cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen. Although those of wrong view on seeing such exalted objects as the enlightened one(buddha) shut their eyes and feel domanassa (unpleasant feeling)[arising during the javana stage]and on hearing the Dhamma they stop their ears nevertheless their eye-consciouness, ear-consciousness , etc are only profitable kamma result (vipaka). Although dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result."" ENDQUOTE RobertK 22307 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 20, 2003 1:07am Subject: Re: Yasa - two websites --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Yasa (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 5/19/03 6:15:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, you quote Victor > saying: > > > I would say that the view "I am a paramatta dhamma" is a self- > > view. > > and you reply as follows: > > > Victor, > > > > I noticed it, but the form is real-it is a paramatta dhamma; it is "I > > am", that is the self view. > > > > with metta, > > Yasa > > > > > ============================== > Yasa, this is one of those rare and happy moments at which I both > understand Victor and agree with him. To say "I am a paramatta dhamma" is > both to assume that there *is* an "I" and to say what it allegedly is. That > certainly is a self view. Moreover, and this I am adding, myself, and not > attributing to Victor - as a conventional statement it is actually *false*. > Whatever an alleged "I" might be [I say it is concept-only], it certainly is > *not* a paramattha dhamma; it is not a direct, irreducible, element of > experience. > > With metta, > Howard > > ____________________________Yasa replies_____________________ Dear Howard, But I am in agreement with Victor, when he takes the whole sentence " I am a paramatta dhamma" and says, that it is a self-view. But, may be I am splitting hair, but I see the sentence having two parts, "I am", qualifies the other," a paramatta dhamma". I tend to think, the prefix "I am" is a concept, therefore a self view of that, which is a "paramatta dhamma". I am using a conventional term " I am". I will see the reality of it only when there is no more "moha" in me. Until then I will be qualifying paramatta dhamma , in conventional terms. Please see what, Nina Van Gorkom, says in Chapter 7 –Ignorance. Abhidhamma in Daily life" "The world experienced through the six doors is real but it does not last; it is impermanent. When we see, there is the world of the visible, but it falls away immediately. When we hear, there is the world of sound, but it does not last either. It is the same with the world of smell, the world of flavour, the world of impressions through the body-sense and the world of objects experienced through the mind-door. However, we only seem to know the world of conventional terms, because ignorance and wrong view have been accumulated for so long. Ignorance of paramattha dhammas is the kind of ignorance which should be eradicated; it brings sorrow." With metta, Yasa 22308 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Sarah, I think you do have a good references and a great deal of knowledge than me.I just put the information to think about six-senses.But there are disagreeable things especially in case of the sixth sense.I will probably try to post a separate topic ''The sixth consideration and its essence'' in a series which might stretch to 30 posts(probably?). First I will re-state five senses.I think I have posted the same things a couple of months ago.For example,sight(Rupa)_eye(Cekkhu)_light_cognition causing Vinnana that is Cekkhuvinnana in this example.All five senses have these components. But,the sixth sense behaves differently. (1).Dhamma-Arammana is the same as you said. 5 Pasada Rupa(because they are not the senses of Panca-Arammana) 16 Sukhuma Rupas 89 Cittas 52 Cetasikas 1 Nibbana 1 Pannatta (2).Manodvara This is a bit different from Pancadvara.19 Bhavangacitta beyond Manodvaraavajjanacitta may be assumed as Manodvara.In the series of Vithicittas,before Manodvaraavajjanacitta(Vutthabbanacitta) there are Pancadvaraavajjanacitta,Panca-Vinnanacittas,Sampaticchanacitta and Santiranacitta.All these Cittas home on Pancavatthus(that is Pancadvara).After Manodvaraavajjanacitta,Javanacittas come in both Pancadvara-Javana and Manodvara-Javana.So,it is preferable that The Bhavanguppacchedacitta beyond Manodvaraavajjanacitta is assumed as Manodvara. This is a bit different from Pancadvaras. (3).Hadaya-Vatthu Panca-Vatthus function as Pancadvaras.But Hadayavatthu does not function as Manodvara.But it is the seat of all Cittas when a Satta is in Pancalokara-Bhumis. (4). Manovinnana There are 89 Cittas.10 Cittas are Panca-Vinnanacittas.So there left 79 Cittas.All these 79 Cittas are Manovinnanacittas.They include 3 Manodhatu namely Pancdvaraavajjanacitta and 2 Sampaticchanacittas. (5). Dhamma-aayatana These constitute 16 Sukhuma Rupa,52 Cetasikas and 1 Nibbana.5 Pasadas in Dhamma-arammana become Panca-aayatanas.Cittas are not in group of Dhamma-aayatana.Pannatta is not a Paramattha-dhamma as you said. (6).Mana-aayatana These have separate entity unlike other Aayatanas which cause and expand Cittas and Cetasikas as they function as Arammanas and Dvaras. (7).Dhamma-Dhatu These are Sukhuma Rupa 16,52 Cetasikas and Nibbana. (8).Mano-Dhatu Three Cittas,Pancadvaraavajjana,2 Sampatcchanas, are not assigned as Manovinnana-Dhatu but as Mano-Dhatu.This is because they just only sense and cannot fully sense. (9).Manovinnana-Dhatu There are 89 Cittas.10 are Panca-Vinnanacittas and they are under the heading of Panca-Dhatu(Cekkhu,..etc).79 Cittas left.As 3 described above are Mano-Dhatu the remaining 76 Cittas are called Manovinnana-Dhatu. I hope this will clear up nearly all the queries.I apologise for my allegation.I happened to do so just to equate with Panca-Arammana,Vatthu,Dvara and Vinnana with the sixth sense. Thank you very much for your encouragement all the time. With best regards, Htoo Naing Sarah wrote: Dear Htoo, Thank you for adding your helpful comments here and on other threads. We can all benefit a lot from your familiarity with Pali and all parts of the Tipitaka - --- Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Sarah, > If Aayatana is discussed along with Dhatu,it will be more > understandable. ..... Yes, I understand aayatana and dhatu to refer to different ways of classifying the same realities (paramatha dhammas) and I agree that it’s useful to look at them together. I intended to do this initially, but feared my post was already too long and complicated;-) I found these definitions helpful, so would like to add them for other members: From Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii, ch 7,comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha: AYATANAS “They are the spheres (aayatana) in that they are where consciousnesses and mentalities, which take objects through the various doors, exert themselves (aayatananti), struggle, endeavour, in their different functions; or in that they spread (tanonti), extend, the dhammas that come to the entrance (aaya); or in that they make (nayanti) the suffering of sa.msaara, cause it to be, long (aayata); or in that they are the causes of eye-consciousness, etc. Places of dwelling, distribution, meeting, and production are also commonly called ‘spheres’.” DHATUS “The elements (dhaatu) are the things that bear (dhaarenti) their own particular nature. Alternatively, they are elements in that they distribute (vidahanti), according to circumstance, the various forms of the suffering of sa.msaara; they are placed (dhiiyanti) with beings, borne by them, like a burden by a labourer. Not acting under any authority, they alone are what regulate (vidhaana) suffering. By their menas the sufering of sa.msaara is created (anuvidhiyati) by beings. The suffering that has been thus created is played (dhiiyati), is established, on these very (elements)” ..... I find the way you have presented them below to be very helpful, but I don’t understand some terms to be synonymous as I believe you may be suggesting: H:> ==================================================== > > A.Strikers/ external objects/ Arammana > > 1.Rupa Dhatu (Rupaayatana)/Ruparammana > 2.Sadda Dhatu(Saddaayatana)/Saddarammana > 3.Ghanda Dhatu(Ghandaayatana)/Ghandarammana > 4.Rasa Dhutu (Rasaayatana)/Rasarammana > 5.Photthabba Dhatu (Photthabbaayatana)/Photthabbarammana > 6.Dhamma Dhatu (Dhammaayatana)/Dhammarammana ..... As I understand: dhamma dhatu and dhaamayatana = cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana BUT dhammarammana = CITTAS, cetasikas, subtle rupas, nibbana, PANNATTI ..... H:> B. Receptors /internal objects /Dvara > > 1.Cekkhu Dhatu (Cekkhaayatana)/Cekkhu Dvara > 2.Sota Dhatu ( Sotaayatana )/Sota Dvara > 3.Ghana Dhatu (Ghanaayatana)/Ghana Dvara > 4.Jivha Dhatu (Jivhaayatana)/Jivha Dvara > 5.Kaya Dhatu (Kayaayatana)/Kaya Dvara > 6.Mano Dhatu (Manaayatana)/Mano Dvara ..... Again, the last terms are not synonymous, I believe and even more complicated: Mano dhatu (mind-element) = panca-dvaravajjana-citta (5 sense door adverting consciousness), sampaticchana citta x2 (receiving consciousness) Manaytana (mind-base) = all kinds of consciousness not included in dvi panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness), inc bhavanga cittas ..... H: > C.Sparks / Resultant Cittas / Vinnana > > 1.Cekkhuvinnana Dhatu (Cekkhuvinnana) > 2.Sotavinnana Dhatu (Sotavinnana) > 3.Ghanavinnana Dhatu (Ghanavinnana) > 4.Jivhavinnana Dhatu (Jivhavinnana) > 5.Kayavinnana Dhatu (Kayavinnana) > 6.Manovinnana Dhatu (Manovinnana) ..... and manovinnana dhatu (mind-consciousness element) = all cittas not included in dvi-panca vinnanas (5 prs of sense-door consciousness) OR in mano-dhatu (mind-element), eg includes javana cittas, santirana citta, mano-dvaravajjana citta (mind-door adverting consciousness). ??bhavanga cittas > =================================== > H: > Pannatta is one of Dhammarammana.Dhammarammana are > > 1.Citta > 2.Cetasikas > 3. 5 Pasada Rupas > 4. 16 Sukhuma Rupa > 5. Nibbana > 6.Pannatta ..... Agreed. However, I don’t understand pannatti to be included in dhammayatana (or dhammadhatu) and it was this distinction between dhammarammana and dhammayatana that prompted my first post. From B.Bodhi’s CMA ch V11, Guide to #36 on Ayatanas: “the mental-object base does not completely coincide with mental object (dhammaaramma.na), but includes only those entities not found among the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pa~n~natti), since the notion of base (aayatana) extends ONLY to ULTIMATE REALITIES, i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhaava), and does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and nibbana.” This conforms with what we read in Abhidhamma texts such as the Vibhanga and Sammohavinodani. ..... > I hope these will work for more understanding. ..... Your comments and stress on the importance of looking at elements as well are much appreciated. Please let me know if I’ve made any errors or your understanding of any points is different. I greatly respect and admire your obvious familiarity with all the Pali Abhidhamma and apologise for being slow to respond. With metta and thanks for your help, Sarah ===== 22309 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:23am Subject: Trim reminder time again Dear All Recently there have been quite a few messages that have contained long passages of untrimmed material from an earlier post or posts. Members are asked to kindly trim out all material from earlier posts that is not necessary for an understanding of their own comments. (If the post you are replying to is a recent one, you can assume that other members will have seen it.) Thanks for your cooperation Jon and Sarah PS Any comments off-list, please. 22310 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To lary, Lee and others: In a message dated 5/19/03 7:08:58 PM, leedillion@c... writes: << Hi Larry: Thanks for your thoughts on this. As you note, everyone seems to have "a different understanding of what is a concept." That was one of the distinct problem I had with Dreyfus' book since it describes debates that have raged for centuries among so many different Buddhist and non-Buddhist groups, each one using their own definitions of reality, perception, concepts, etc., and each seeing their understanding of reality as the correct one. >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more illusions of the mind. Don't you think? Best to you, layman Jeff Weight Age Gender Female Male 22311 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:13am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 We have heard the word vipassanå, insight, many times, but we should know what it is and how it is developed. Vipassanå is paññå that clearly knows the characteristics of the realities that appear through the six doorways. It is gradually developed, stage by stage, so that enlightenment can be attained. We should remember that there is dhamma, reality, at this very moment. If understanding of the dhamma of this moment is not developed we shall continue to merely think about the texts of the Tipiìaka we read and studied instead of realizing the characteristics of the dhammas that are appearing. The Buddha spoke time and again about the objects experienced through the senses and through the mind-door. He spoke about seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and other realities. These are conditioned dhammas appearing now, one at a time. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 64, Migajåla) that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, said to Migajåla: There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye, desirable, pleasant, delightful and dear, passion-fraught, inciting to lust. If a brother be enamoured of them, welcome them, persist in clinging to them, so enamoured, so welcoming, so persisting in clinging, there comes a lure upon him. The arising of the lure, Migajåla, is the arising of Ill (dukkha), so I declare... We read that the Buddha said the same about the other objects experienced through the appropriate doorways. The Buddha then said: There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye... savours cognizable by the tongue... Mindstates cognisable by the mind... inciting to lust. If a brother be not enamoured of them... the lure fades away. The fading away of the lure, Migajåla, is the fading away of Ill, so I declare. We then read that Migajåla, dwelling solitary, secluded, zealous, ardent and aspiring, attained arahatship. This sutta demonstrates the danger of forgetfulness of realities and the benefit of right understanding. We are reminded that right understanding of nåma and rúpa should be developed with zeal and ardour, that is, with courage and energy. We should not think of a self who is zealous or who makes an effort, zeal and effort are cetasikas accompanying the citta. When sati-sampajañña arises, there is already energy, viriya cetasika. When right understanding of nåma and rúpa is being developed we may cling to having more moments of awareness, but that is not the right way of development. Acharn Sujin asked us: ²Would you like to have more awareness?² If that is the case, there is clinging. We should know whether we wish to develop right understanding in order to gain something for ourselves. Do we develop it for our own sake? Acharn Sujin stressed that right understanding is to be developed with detachment and that it leads to more detachment. In our life there are moments of forgetfulness and sometimes moments of sati. We should learn the difference between such moments, so that we come to know the characteristic of sati. 22312 From: Lee Dillion Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities macdocaz1@a... wrote: > I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have > hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions > and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would > answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more > illusions of the mind. Don't you think? Hi Jeff: Well, that is the question, I suppose - whether concepts "are just more illusions of the mind" or whether some concepts are something more real, more existent, or more efficacious than the non-existent pink elephant I imagine dancing on the piano. Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. But in the end, I wonder whether these attempts to articulate a comprehensive approach aren't misguided if taken too seriously and whether the answer might really be found in the experiential. 22313 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 6:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 Hi, Nina - I like the following very much. It makes it clear, I think, that there is much to do - carefully attending to what arises and ceases, distinguishing the knowing from the known (and noting their interdependence I would add), and exercising zeal, aspiration, and effort, but it also makes it clear at the same time that there is truly no "one" at all to be doing it. There is just the doing. As I see it, to do nothing will be to get nowhere, but to seriously think there is someone to do something is to sabotage the project at the outset. Of course, we all somewhat think there is someone doing things. If we had no sense of this at all we would be arahants. So, though thinking that "Someone is on the path of practice", while sabotaging the effort, doesn't fatally compromise it. We begin where we are, not where we'd hope to be. With metta, Howard In a message dated 5/20/03 1:14:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2 > > We have heard the word vipassanå, insight, many times, but we should know > what it is and how it is developed. Vipassanå is paññå that clearly knows > the characteristics of the realities that appear through the six doorways. > It is gradually developed, stage by stage, so that enlightenment can be > attained. We should remember that there is dhamma, reality, at this very > moment. If understanding of the dhamma of this moment is not developed we > shall continue to merely think about the texts of the Tipiìaka we read and > studied instead of realizing the characteristics of the dhammas that are > appearing. > The Buddha spoke time and again about the objects experienced through the > senses and through the mind-door. He spoke about seeing, visible object, > hearing, sound and other realities. These are conditioned dhammas appearing > now, one at a time. > We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 64, Migajåla) > that the Buddha, while he was staying at Såvatthí, said to Migajåla: > > There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye, desirable, pleasant, > delightful and dear, passion-fraught, inciting to lust. If a brother be > enamoured of them, welcome them, persist in clinging to them, so enamoured, > so welcoming, so persisting in clinging, there comes a lure upon him. The > arising of the lure, Migajåla, is the arising of Ill (dukkha), so I > declare... > > We read that the Buddha said the same about the other objects experienced > through the appropriate doorways. The Buddha then said: > > There are objects, Migajåla, cognizable by the eye... savours cognizable by > the tongue... Mindstates cognisable by the mind... inciting to lust. If a > brother be not enamoured of them... the lure fades away. The fading away of > the lure, Migajåla, is the fading away of Ill, so I declare. > > We then read that Migajåla, dwelling solitary, secluded, zealous, ardent > and > aspiring, attained arahatship. > This sutta demonstrates the danger of forgetfulness of realities and the > benefit of right understanding. We are reminded that right understanding of > nåma and rúpa should be developed with zeal and ardour, that is, with > courage and energy. We should not think of a self who is zealous or who > makes an effort, zeal and effort are cetasikas accompanying the citta. When > sati-sampajañña arises, there is already energy, viriya cetasika. > When right understanding of nåma and rúpa is being developed we may cling > to > having more moments of awareness, but that is not the right way of > development. Acharn Sujin asked us: ²Would you like to have more > awareness?² > If that is the case, there is clinging. We should know whether we wish to > develop right understanding in order to gain something for ourselves. Do we > develop it for our own sake? Acharn Sujin stressed that right understanding > is to be developed with detachment and that it leads to more detachment. In > our life there are moments of forgetfulness and sometimes moments of sati. > We should learn the difference between such moments, so that we come to > know > the characteristic of sati. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22314 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Rob M, op 10-05-2003 12:30 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > If I understand your points, you are saying: > - All cittas in the eye-door citta-process experience the visible > object, not a mental image > - All cittas in the mind-door process immediately following the eye- > door process also experience the visible object, not a mental image... > Consider a eye-consciousness citta. The object is visible object and > the base is eye-base. I envision this citta arising at the back of > the retina. At this moment, the visible object is impinging on the > eye-base and I believe that this is the reason that vitakka and > vicara are not required in this citta. N: I understand your point of view, you want to explain Abhidhamma to people who know about science, and think in terms of retina, coloured dots. But science is another point of view, and it may be confusing to combine Abhidhamma and science. We think of the back of the retina, but we do not have to think of it, because we cannot experience this directly. Visible object is impinging on the eyedoor, not on the eyebase, because the base is only the place where the citta arises. In this case it is the same kind of rupa, but we have to discern the different functions. It is better to be very precise, otherwise we may become confused. R: Now let us consider the next citta in the eye-door citta process, > the receiving citta. At this moment, the visible object is still > impinging on the eye-base, but this citta arises at some other place > than the eye-base (the heart base). Nina: It does not matter, the eyesense is, apart from being base for seeing, also the eyedoor and keeps this function for the whole process. Eyesense does not fall away yet. Receiving-consciousness receives the object immediately after seeing has fallen away, it is all in a flash, so very fast. R: If I understand correctly, this > citta (and all other cittas, except sense-consciousness cittas and > higer-level jhana cittas) accesses its object through the heart base > and this is why it needs vitakka and vicara. N: We better not say: citta accesses its object through the heart base. Because the heartbase is only the place where citta arises. To be more precise: citta experiences its object through a doorway. The doorway is the means through which citta experiences an object. Citta accesses? I would rather say: citta experiences. Citta experiences visible object which has not yet fallen away. Seeing only sees, but the other cittas of that process also experience visible object, although they do not see, they have other functions and they need vitakka and vicara. As to the succeeding mind-door process, these cittas still experience visible object which has just fallen away. It is all very fast, we cannot count cittas or processes. R: This is where I am > confused. Can you give me an analogy to explain how these other > cittas can access an object that exists somewhere else (i.e. eye- > base rather than heart base). N: The object does not exist somewhere else, it is still the same object that keeps on impinging, on the same doorway. The object is not staying at a base. Again, thinking of retina may be confusing. I think we have to be precise in distinguishing the functions of doorway and base. I hope this clarifies somewhat, but if not, please let us discuss this more. Nina. 22315 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 4:05pm Subject: Way 91, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Five Hindrances 5. Doubt Wrong reflection on things which are founded on doubt brings about the arising of doubt. Things which are founded on doubt are known as just doubt owing to the state of being the reason of doubt again and again. Therefore the Blessed One said that wrong reflection on things founded on doubt is the condition for fresh doubt and for the increase and expansion of doubt already arisen. By right reflection on wholesome things, karmically and the like, there is the casting out of doubt. Therefore, the Blessed One said that right reflection on things which are karmically wholesome and not, things blameful and blameless, things to be practiced and not to be practiced, things of low and high value, things dark and fair, the counterparts of bad and good, done intensely, keeps out fresh doubt and casts out doubt that has already come into existence. There are these six things which help to throw out doubt: The state of being learned in the Buddha's teaching; of inquiring about the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; of understanding thoroughly the nature of the Discipline; of being decided about the truth of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt. The first has been explained earlier. It is the knowledge of the Suttas generally both in the letter and the spirit. The second is obvious. The third indicates a state of mastery of the Discipline through practical application and great conversance with it at first hand. The fourth is the strong inclination towards or reliance on the Triple Gem called the faith that is capable of settling in the object of the virtues of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. The fifth is association with good companions like the Elder Vakkali, bent, inclined, sliding towards faith, mentally. The sixth is stimulating talk on the Triple Gem at all times possible in every state of behavior. One can cast away doubt by means of these six things, but the doubt cast out by these six things does not ever arise in the future only when it is destroyed by the attainment of the first stage of the Arahant. [Tika] Things which are founded on doubt are things which stand or proceed on doubt. Taking doubt itself one sees that the doubt arisen first is the particular reason by way of a common cause of the doubt arisen afterwards. [T] Surely by the knowledge of the Dhamma and by inquiry all doubts are cast out. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects, by laying hold of the five hindrances amongst the mental objects of his own mind or amongst the mental objects in another's mind or at one time amongst the mental objects of his own mind, and at another time amongst the mental objects of another's mind. Here origination and dissolution, only refer to the origination of the five hindrances by way of wrong reflection on sensuously attractive or beautiful objects etc., and the dissolution of the five hindrances by wise reflection on the impurity of the sensuous objects etc. Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the hindrances is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of deliverance of the bhikkhu who lays hold of the hindrances should be understood. 22316 From: Bonnie Chong Date: Tue May 20, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] trip to Burma Dear Betty, please email me the ininery of the trip. Thank You & Regards, BonnieCHong "Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala" wrote: Dear Dhamma friends, The Dhamma Study and Support Foundation, where Tan Achaan Sujin teaches, is organizing a trip to Burma in January, to include Rangoon, Mandalay and Pagan, among others. The exact dates are yet to be announced. We hope that by that time the SARS threat will have abated somewhat to allow any of you who might wish to join us to do so. I have a preliminary itinerary and an estimated cost of Bt 28,000 (US$650), from Bangkok and return. If you would be interested in joining us, please e-mail me at the address below and I will send you a translation of the itinerary. metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22317 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 20, 2003 7:05pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka RobertK, Thanks for your reply; all Cooranites should be over their mental block by now. We may have been experiencing one of those occasions when we know the answers but lack confidence in them and get stuck in our old ways of thinking. Matching paramattha dhammas with their conventional counterparts is a complicated business. If we want a description, in absolute terms, of the theft of our property, then we have to be prepared to think. Recently, Sarah (or it may have been Nina), recalled asking K Sujin if she was tired. The reply was, "It's only a moment." Wouldn't it be good if we could remember that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of nama and rupa. I also appreciated what you added to RobM's discussion about sense objects but I haven't fully cottoned on. As I understand it, a perversion of perception takes place at the vipaka citta. Does this perversion then become irrelevant? In other words, can we have detachment for an unpleasant object that we have mistaken for a pleasant object (and vice versa)? Thanks again for your help, Ken H 22318 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 8:19pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > RobertK, > > > Recently, Sarah (or it may have been Nina), recalled > asking K Sujin if she was tired. The reply was, "It's > only a moment." ____________________- Dear Ken, This is a very typical reply from Sujin. The thing is it is true. The present moment - as in paramattha - is a refuge that can never be taken away by anything or anyone. I told the story of a King in sri lanka who was deposed by one of his ministers. He was placed in a wall alive and was getting covered up. He reflected wisely that his enemey had caused his downfall in this life and if he became agitated is might cause his loss in the new life soon to come. he met his death fearlessly. __________ Wouldn't it be good if we could remember > that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? ________ _ Sure, why not. It is nothing compared to the loss when we die - as we will one day. _________ > Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if > we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of > nama and rupa. > ____ This is when it is harder for me. The good times I like to wallow in. __________ > I also appreciated what you added to RobM's discussion > about sense objects but I haven't fully cottoned on. As > I understand it, a perversion of perception takes place > at the vipaka citta. Does this perversion then become > irrelevant? In other words, can we have detachment for an > unpleasant object that we have mistaken for a pleasant > object (and vice versa)? _____________ The vipaka citta happens very fast, as you know. There is no perversion during vipaka but immediately after there can be as dosa mula citta (citta rooted in dosa, aversion) or moha mula citta (rooted in ignorance) or lobha mula citta (rooted in desire). And in fact these perversions come in different ways and degrees. A pig might see disgusting offal (definitely akusla vipaka ) but then have lobha afterwards. If the sight or sound or taste is genuinely kusala vipaka and we have lobha mula citta then it is still vipallasa (perversion). So it is not critical to know whether each vipaka is the result of kusala or akusala kamma. It is why the jatis are only 4, not 5. It is critical to know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta. Anoter wayto understand this is via the three rounds of the Paticcasamuppada - vipaka-vatthu, kilesa-vatthu and kamma-vatthu. Robertk T > > Thanks again for your help, > Ken H 22319 From: dharmabook2003 Date: Tue May 20, 2003 8:21pm Subject: need bodhi advice for new site.. Good morning friends Recently I created a new website to host free dharma books for international readers. (real bookstore located in Singapore) http://www.dharma.cn Appreciate everybody Bodhi insight & advice to improve this site. Please feedback (positive or negative things) so that I know what should or should not be included in my website (eg. ethics, contents etcs). Do not wish to be disrespectful to anybody /organisation, via my website. Though I'm already running a real bookstore in Singapore, I still lack experience onlne and hope some kind-hearted webmasters can give advise on the site improvement and their various methods in exposing it - in the cheapest way - being mindful that my site do not generate any income at all! Thank you in advance for your help. "Peace to all" Wu Ming Shen ps: If you wish to email me personally, I can be contacted at dharma@s... 22320 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Lee, Robert's note to Ken reminded me that a good way to look at perception and truth issues is by means of the 4 perversions (vipallasa). There are 4 perversions of perception, of consciousness, and of views (opinions or beliefs). The four are: seeing the impermanent as permanent, seeing pain as pleasure, seeing not self as self, and seeing the foul as beautiful. I find all of these to be extremely challenging to my inclinations but the only tricky one conceptually is seeing not self as self. I think this is a matter of seeing a whole as a sum of its parts and no more. I don't think it is necessary to see all the parts; two is probably enough. Usually we see objects with a conceptual overlay, like a symbol, or else we lock onto one part and fail to see the whole, or we say a whole is more than the sum of its parts. I think not-self and wholes (compounds) are interdependent. You can't have one without the other. If you are interested in reading more on vipallasa, here is an article by Ledi Sayadaw: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html Larry 22321 From: Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Ken, Robert's answer of living in the moment is the best practical answer to your puzzle, but here is a conceptual one. Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a confabulation of accumulations and not a true kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are a kind of kamma result. There are several interesting differences between kamma vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that accumulations don't get used up. They just keep accumulating. Larry 22322 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 20, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Cooran and after Dear Group, Just a quick note to say the weekend at Cooran exceeded expectations. Much gratitude to Andrew and Sandra for enabling us to meet in such lovely surroundings and for taking such good care of our comfort. As you know, KenH has been delegated to raise the questions on list. I'm glad he put up the vipaka question first - I'm was trying to clarify what was vipaka in the events of the 'break-and- enter' of my garage. I've now read the Useful Posts of RobM and Sarah plus the current postings by KenH RobM and RobK - they are a great help. During the lovely warm autumn weekend, questions, articles, suttas, and papers were robustly discussed (and I'm sure more questions will appear on dsg for comment) - the formal meditators meditated - the others didn't - some of the blokes cooked, the rest of us lent a hand cleaning up - and talking (often loudly and all at the same time). Then there was eating, drinking, contending with other sentient beings - the midges, the mossies, and the "rat" Andrew ambushed in the toilet, walking, talking and gazing into the camp-fire on Saturday night and Sunday morning. And, as always, we teased each other and laughed a lot. I believe I have a photo of Smokey Joe 'King Cat of Cooran' as well. :-) [he hasn't lost any rupa]. Azita came to stay for a couple more days with me - today we went to Univ. of Queensland for a lecture by Professor Bhikkhu Dhammavihari (formerly Professor Jotiya Dhirasekera) from Sri Lanka. http://www.metta.lk/authors/dhamvi.html http://www.metta.lk/english/index_author.htm#dhammavihari He was available at very short notice to speak to Primoz Pecenko's Sanskrit, Pali and Meditation students. I am so happy that I was on leave from work, and that Azita was here as well, to be able to hear him. He is a very warm, friendly, scholarly person, who confidently spoke for an hour without notes on the topic of 'Bhakti and the Buddhist tradition'. metta, Christine 22323 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, You wrote some excellent questions. I didn’t forget but apologise for being so slow: L: >One more point that is causing confusion, or debate, is what is a concept. Reading part way through A. Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" I discovered that form is considered to be a concept. Is that correct? ..... S:Let me add this link to the book you mention and a few quotes from what you’ve been reading so that hopefully we're on the same track: http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm R&C (Sujin): “If one does not know the characteristics of citta, cetasika, and rupa, paramattha dhammas, which arise and fall away and succeed one another very rapidly, one knows just concepts. One takes rupa and nama,3 which arise and fall away in succession, for things which are lasting. Thus, one lives in the world of conventional truth, sammutti sacca. When realities appear one clings to shape and form, to a "whole", one takes fleeting realities for things that exist.” S: Let’s say we’re talking about visible object which is being seen at this moment. As soon as there’s any idea or impression of shape or form or detail, then it’s a concept that is being experienced. Visible object is just that which appears to seeing when the eyes are opened...no ‘thing’ in it. ..... L: >Is it correct to say ultimately rupa is formless and any form or shape "apparently" experienced through the 5 senses is, in reality, a mind door conception of self. This would apply to all 5 rupa senses, not just "visual" form. Any form is an intimation of wholeness, and wholeness is considered to be a synonym for self. ..... R&C: “Ignorance is deeply rooted and very persistent. It conditions us to cling to conventional truth and to take realities for things, beings, and people.” ..... R&C: “We cling to a concept of things as a mass, a conglomeration or whole (gana pannatti). We may do this even when we don't know yet the conventional terms of things. Even small children, who cannot talk yet and do not know the meanings of things as expressed in language, and also animals, know concepts of a "whole".” ..... S: As you say, Larry. Of course, there are bound to be many, many (zillions is popular here) cittas accompanied by moha (ignorance)only. But when there is the (wrong) idea that forms and wholeness and things are actually seen or heard, then it’s likely to be with wrong view and an aspect of sakkaya ditthi at these times, I believe. ..... L: >If I have this correctly, the main problem I see is that if rupa is in reality formless, how can it be kamma result? ..... S: Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of them is always kamma result. How can elements (dhatus) be formless, you ask? How can they be a form? Isn’t it like the parts of the chariot question again? How can we say the parts are the chariot? This doesn’t mean that when we look at what is taken for hair or rock or chariot with sati(awareness) panna(understanding)that anything different is seen from usual. Just that there is no ignorance or wrong view or illusion at that instant. Also see the extract from the Satipatthana Sutta at the end of the post*. Just as you wrote in a neat post to KKT on 'feelings' L: "One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self")." S: Of course you are referring to panna(wisdom) here when you write 'you'. ..... L: >How can the formless be desirable or undesirable? ..... S: This reminds me of Dan’s question about how visible objects can be inherently desirable/undesirable. To take a simpler example, which I think I gave before, hearing the sound of what we refer to as a waterfall and what we refer to as thunder, is quite different. One is inherently desirable and the other isn’t (these sounds are conditioned by temperature, not kamma). If someone is deaf or not in the vicinity, there is no vipaka citta to hear them. They are elements with characteristics which can be experienced. The reason we read about classifications of dhatus, ayatanas and so forth is to help break down any idea of form, shape, thing or self in reality. ..... L: >This approach seems to lead to the view that kamma is not a paramatta dhamma, is not ultimately real. Is that how you see it? ..... S: I think kamma tends to have a very general meaning as we use it conventionally. When we say that getting robbed is the result of kamma, we understand it as a shorthand for many factors and concepts too. Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces results in the javana process. The results are vipaka cittas and various rupas in what we take for our bodies. All of these, the cetana, the vipaka cittas and the rupas are paramattha dhammas. Larry, I think these are very helpful questions to pursue. I apologise again for the delay (and I know you prefer quick sharp responses;-)). ‘Realities and Concepts’ would be a good booklet to go through slowly sometime, given the interest in this subject. Let me know if I've missed your point or if anything is not clear (or you still have a different understanding of the concepts;-)). With metta, Sarah ...... *From Way 76http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21291 Therefore, the Blessed One declared: "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions should be sitting at the junction of a cross-road, in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects... thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity... And the mode of oscillation.' = Imameva kayam yatha thitam yatha panihitam dhatuso paccavekkhati: atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatuti. Seyyathapi bhikkhave dakkho goghatako va goghatakantevasi va gavim vadhitva catummahapathe bilaso pativibhajitva nissinno assa evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kayam... paccavekkhati atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu... vayodhatuti.” ============== 22324 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Larry, > > You wrote some excellent questions. I didn't forget but apologise for > being so slow: > Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces results in > the javana process. The results are vipaka cittas and various rupas in > what we take for our bodies. All of these, the cetana, the vipaka cittas > and the rupas are paramattha dhammas. =================================== Dear Sara, Just a minor correction.Kamma is Cetana Cetasika which arose along with Cittas in Javana processes of the past events. With Metta, Htoo Naing ================================== > Larry, I think these are very helpful questions to pursue. > With metta, > Sarah > *From Way 76http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21291 > Therefore, the Blessed One declared: > > "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or > disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in > this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of > caloricity, and the mode of oscillation. 22325 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi again Robert, I was talking about you on the weekend. In fact, I read out two of your posts (20953 and 20923). (I did this without asking your permission but I knew you wouldn't mind.) I said you were a person who could always put his finger on an appropriate quote from the texts. So, I'm sorry to drag our discussion down to my level, which is more along the lines of; "I think I've read something, somewhere . ." :-) But, I think I've read something on dsg, to the effect that perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa), DOES take place in the ahetu, sense consciousness. The point being made, was that our accumulations can condition faulty perception even before hetu (motivation), comes into the picture. This highlights the lack of any control over dhammas.(It also means that worldlings don't see the way arahants see.) That's what I seem to remember reading but, chances are, I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick. :-) Kind regards, Ken H > > There is no perversion during vipaka but 22326 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Larry, You wrote: > Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a > confabulation of accumulations and not a true > kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are > accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are > a kind of kamma result.. That makes sense. I don't know if concepts are accumulated but dhammas are marked for all time, and recalling those dhammas can give rise to concepts. Thus, some beings can remember (conceptually), "In a former life I was a carpenter. " Similarly, in this lifetime we can remember, "I was robbed." > There are several interesting differences between kamma > vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that > accumulations don't get used up. They just keep > accumulating. I agree that is interesting. Potentially, we can recall any dhamma from any moment over the past infinity of aeons (potentially). Thanks Larry, Ken 22327 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo & All, Thank you very much for all the additional details and kind comments. I assure you that without texts and references to check I would be making lots of mistakes and I retain very little knowledge about the details, lists and numbers. However, I have learnt a considerable amount from our friends on DSG, especially on the various topics which I might never have considered carefully or realised to be so relevant to the understanding of suttas and daily life. The ayatanas is one such topic which has been discussed before in great detail here by Num, Nina and others with reference to the Abhidhamma texts. Your comments help me to understand just a little more. I found that even Nyantiloka writes an error in the dictionary under aayatana. It says: “...Mind-object-base’ (dhammaayatana) is identical with ‘mind-object-element’ (dhamma-dhatu and dhammaarammana). It may be physical or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary.” As you confirm in great detail, this is not correct according to the texts and shows how careful one has to be, even whilst reading a really excellent resource as this dictionary certainly is. (I was expecting someone to quote it back to me...). Thank you for all the additional details which I need to study more carefully. I look forward to any of your series as I can learn a lot from them and I find the way you count out loud is a practical way of helping to see how the numbers add up. I need this help! H: >''The sixth consideration and its > essence'' in a series which might stretch to 30 posts(probably?). ..... Sounds a great stretch;-). I think it’ll have to be in small ‘bites’ for most of us here, like you did so well in the rupa and cetasika segments. ***** Some other friends here may wonder what the relevance of these details we’re discussing is to the understanding of the suttas and direct experience. To recap, the question arose because of repeated differences in the reading and understanding of terms in translation such as mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas when reading well-known and apparently simple suttas such at the ‘Sabba Sutta’ (The All) or the ‘Chachakka Sutta’ (The Six Sets of Six). Even the Pali scholars who don’t need to rely on translations are reading the Pali terms such as dhamma, dhamma-arammana, mano, dhamma-dhatu etc according to different understandings of the terms in context. The only way to break this impasse, as I understand, is to refer to the ancient commentaries and to the Tipitaka as a whole which is entirely consistent, I believe, when it comes to the Truths. Surely the ancient commentaries and Abhidhamma pitaka should be relied on in precedence to modern commentaries for an interpretation of any disputes? Furthermore, I believe it can be tested out and confirmed at this moment that whilst the cittas and cetasikas that are ‘thinking’ can be known, concepts (pannatti) can only ever be conceived or thought about, but being without characteristics (lakhana) can never be ‘known’ by panna (wisdom). For myself, I’ve always appreciated particular suttas, such as these ones or the Mighajala sutta just quoted again by Nina more than anything else I read in the Tipitaka. What I would add, though, is that the more I delve into the details of the Abhidhamma, the more I appreciate the depth in these same suttas and even now I feel I’m just scratching the surface. Many thanks again, Htoo, for your help and I look forward to learning more from you. With metta, Sarah ====== 22328 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 1:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Dear Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > S:> > Specifically, kamma is cetana cetasika which sometimes produces > results in > > the javana process. > H:> Just a minor correction.Kamma is Cetana Cetasika which arose along > with Cittas in Javana processes of the past events. ***** Thank you for this. I see your point. Pls check any messages I write carefully;-) I agree that what I wrote was clumsy and misleading - I should have put (and meant): "Kamma is cetana cetasika in the javana process which sometimes produces results...." Many thanks and look forward to more of your comments and corrections. Metta, Sarah ======= 22329 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] trip to Burma Hi Bonnie, --- Bonnie Chong wrote: > Dear Betty, please email me the ininery of the trip. .... I'm not sure if the itinerary has been finalised/translated yet - at least we haven't received a copy yet, but I'm sure Betty will be glad to email it to you as she gets it and I'll also make sure of this. I understand that the trip is now planned for October this year and Jon and I hope to go if possible. It would be great if other friends and DSG members are able to join. May I also use this chance to welcome you to DSG. Have you been reading mail for sometime and do you live in England? We'd be glad to hear anything else you'd care to share with us about your interest in dhamma too. Perhaps we'll meet in Thailand or Burma. Please let me know off-list if I can help with and details/arrangements too. With metta, Sarah ======= 22330 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:26am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > > > But, I think I've read something on dsg, to the effect > that perversion of perception (sanna-vipallasa), DOES > take place in the ahetu, sense consciousness. The point > being made, was that our accumulations can condition > faulty perception even before hetu (motivation), comes > into the picture. This highlights the lack of any control > over dhammas.(It also means that worldlings don't see the > way arahants see.) > >____ Dear Ken, Quote my letters anytime, no need to ask. There are a couple of aspects to this. Firstly for a wordling akusala is latent and ready to break out at any time. It is latent even during moments of kusala, what to mention of kiriya or vipaka. However what you might be thinking of is the difference betwen sense door and minddoor processes. Many minddoor proccesses arise after each sense door process. It is when concepts are known and vipallasa becomes strong. However even during the very brief initial sense door process there are seven javana cittas and these can also be akusala and hence vipallasa - this is even before the object can be known (as this or that). These javana cittas arise after the vipaka citta and we cannot say there is any vipallasa at the moment of vipaka(except that they lie latent). So in fact I think arahants do see just as we see - I mean the moment of cakkhu vinnana. It is simply that after there is no possibility of vipallasa arising that misunderstands what was seen as lasting, beuatiful, plesant or self. It is all so conditioned. No arahant controlling the process but the causes for misperceiving are gone. here is an url about the sense door process. http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3a.htm Sense-door process and mind-door process of cittas: When a sense object, which is rupa, impinges on one of the sensedoors, it is experienced by several cittas arising in a sense- door process. Counting from the "past bhavanga", there are seventeen moments of citta if the sense-door process of cittas runs its full course. Rupa lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, and thus it falls away when that process is over. The seventeen moments of citta are as follows: 1. atita-bhavanga (past bhavanga). 2. bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga). 3. bhavangupaccheda (arrest bhavanga), the last bhavanga arising before the object is experienced through the sense-door. 4. five-sense-door-adverting-consciousness (pancadvaravajjana-citta), which is a kiriyacitta. 5. sense-cognition (dvi-pancavinnana, seeing-consciousness, etc.), which is vipakacitta. 6. receiving-consciousness (sampaticchana-citta), which is vipakacitta. 7. investigating-consciousness (santirana-citta) which is vipakacitta. 8. determining-consciousness (votthapana-citta) which is kiriyacitta. 9-15. seven javana-cittas ("impulsion", kusala citta or akusala citta in the case of non-arahats). 16. registering-consciousness (tadarammana-citta) which may or may not arise, and which is vipaka citta. 17. registering-consciousness. After a sense object has been experienced through a sense-door it is experienced through the mind-door, and then that object has just fallen away. Before the mind-door process begins there are bhavanga-cittas and the last two of these are specifically designated by a name. There are the following cittas: bhavanga calana (vibrating bhavanga) bhavangupaccheda (which is, in this case, the mind-door through which the cittas of the mind-door process will experience the object) mind-door-adverting-consciousness (mano-dvaravajjana-citta) which is kiriyacitta Seven javana-cittas Two tadarammana-cittas (which may or may not arise). After the mind-door process has been completed there are bhavanga-cittas again 22331 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 21, 2003 3:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran and after Dear Christine, Ken H and Cooranites, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick note to say the weekend at Cooran exceeded > expectations. ...... Sounds like a great set-up and between you, there is a lot of knowledge and expertise......Anumodana to Andrew and Sandra from me too! >...As you know, KenH has been delegated to raise the questions > on list. I'm glad he put up the vipaka question first - I'm was > trying to clarify what was vipaka in the events of the 'break-and- > enter' of my garage. ..... From the way he raised the questions and his subsequent well-written posts to Robs M & K, it’s hard for me to see where any ‘blocks’ are. I think there’s a lot of modesty in the group;-) Ken H, I thought your comments on the CMA passage were spot on. I’ve looked at the commentary to the Abh. Sangaha which have been well ‘reflected’ in B.Bodhi’s Guide. “The resultants, which occur by the power of kamma, acquire a feeling appropriate to the object not because of the existence of choice, but by automatic production, like the reflection of a face in a mirror.”(Abbhidhammatthavibhavini, ch1V). This text also gives its own summary of the passage RobK just quoted from the Sammohavinodani: “For it is thus that the unfaithful have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with the very desirable objects, such as the Buddha, and the followers of other religions impulsions accompanied by unhappiness; and (thus that) those of profound sensibilities have impulsions accompanied by equanimity with an unpleasant object, and dogs, etc, impulsions accompanied by happiness; but the initial and subsequent resultants are of exactly the same nature, it is only that dogs, etc, take pleasure in the sight of filth....”(ch1V) ***** It’s a very good point and question you all raised about the burglary. We may look at the empty shelves or garage after the robbery and there may not be any akusala vipaka at all at that time. In other words, at such times, we may do the opposite of the dogs in the passage and in effect take misery in the pleasant sights....hmm...Conditioned by the trains of thought and papanca, the kilesa run wild. When Jon had a tumour on his leg a few years back, similarly there was no physical pain, not necessarily any akusala vipaka (to repeat an old example). The sound of the doctor’s voice was not harsh and it’s difficult to say there was anything intrinsically unpleasant about the pieces of paper with test results. Within a very short time, however, on account of the proliferations, our lives had been turned upside down. I liked RobK's hospital story and usually it's like this.....ever changing phenomena, kusala and akusala phenomena all the time. On the otherhand, when there are crying babies on the plane, to most ‘average’ people (I’ll check in with my co-resident ‘average ..government official’), there most likely is some akusala vipaka through the ear-sense. Still, these are just brief moments followed by the usual disturbed thinking patterns. Like RobK said, there's no need to speculate about which moments are kusala or akusala vipaka (impossible to tell anyway), but it does help to undestand where the problems are and to see there's no guarding of the senses most the time or ‘living alone’ with the dhammas experienced through the sense doors. Anticipating another question, we might ask in this case, why there should be any sympathy for the lack of apparent akusala vipaka or brief momentary experiences at most. I think the answer is that knowing that certain concepts or conventional truths such as ‘robberies’, ‘noisy aeroplane babies’, ‘SARS’ and so forth are likely to be a condition for a lot of aversion and papanca for most of us, given our accumulated kilesa, and understanding how destructive and unpleasant these kilesa are, we can have metta and compassion for each other whilst helping to clarify if appropriate. Any more comments? ..... > During the lovely warm autumn weekend, questions, articles, suttas, > and papers were robustly discussed (and I'm sure more questions will > appear on dsg for comment) - the formal meditators meditated - the > others didn't - ..... Different views and practices always lead to better discussions too;-) I’m sure it was very beneficial for all. Perhaps another friend and ex-bhikkhu whom Azita (and our other mutual friend)are also in touch with might be invited in future..... ..... > ...... And, as always, we teased each > other and laughed a lot. ..... It sounds like you’ve become one of the blokes, Chris;-) ..... >I believe I have a photo of Smokey Joe 'King > Cat of Cooran' as well. :-) [he hasn't lost any rupa]. .... Maybe Sandra and Smokey Joe could be placed in ‘Significant Others’...any ‘member’ update pix?? ..... > Azita came to stay for a couple more days with me ...... Glad to hear this.....I’m looking forward to her witty report as well. Thanks for the update. Metta, Sarah ===== 22332 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 3:56am Subject: Pain As A Signal (01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In simple term,pain is nothing but a signal that reminds individual's body is in danger of derangement and starts to depart from its normality(as defined by Samuti Sacca).If neglected there might or might not be problems of ceasation of all bodily functions. Pain is one of the daily life problems.It happens nearly all the time.There are many different types of pains and even under one category there are many subdivisions with regard to its degree. Someone may think that the nastiest and naggiest pain ever exists is the pain that he or she has just suffered.This thought may be right for those who experienced the pains. But there is difference in type of pains.Actually these pains cannot be comparable to each other. Once a woman was asked which pain is the worst ever since.And she answered ''Oh! what will be worse than our labour pain.''It may be right.Pains in childbearing is not to compare with others. Another woman would answer that ''Oh! menstrual pains are not like other pains.Who can bear that pains.'' When a man was asked,he would answer ''Have you ever been kicked your testicles?No pain will match that sort of pain.I believe that pain will be the worst of all pains.'' Other people would say ''Stop.No pain like tooth-ache will disturb our daily routine.I had to be sacked for a day for my pains of tooth-ache.How piti I am!'' Still there left many people who had had bad pains in their lives.Once a man had very bad head-ache.He was sick and could not withstand that pain so that he wished to kill himself. Many types of pains are there.But in terms of Abhidhamma it is just ''Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta''.This is not the view of reductionists.We need to review Pains in detail.Because we all are escapable from pains.So we need to prepare to withstand that and peacefully accept that. May you all be able to withstand Pains,see it as it is and feel peace. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing P.S : This series will come in succession.Reply posts and discussions posts should all be headed as '' Signalling pains and discussions / Series No...'' If you want to reply or query or add or amend or support to a particular post or series number,heading should be replace with ''Signalling pains and ....'' If not,just reply with ''Signalling pains and discussions''. Leaving the topic as it is will help in following the whole thread. With Metta, Htoo Naing 22333 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Thanks for the reference to the article Larry. I will read it this weekend. Lee LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Lee, > > Robert's note to Ken reminded me that a good way to look at perception > and truth issues is by means of the 4 perversions (vipallasa). > If you are interested in reading more on vipallasa, here is an article > by Ledi Sayadaw: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html 22334 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 21, 2003 6:15am Subject: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Dear Ken and Larry, A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:27 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka > Hi Larry, > > You wrote: > > Maybe we could say "that something was stolen" is a > > confabulation of accumulations and not a true > > kamma vipaka, but insofar as accumulations are > > accumulations of javana citta and its object, they are > > a kind of kamma result.. > > That makes sense. I don't know if concepts are > accumulated but dhammas are marked for all time, and > recalling those dhammas can give rise to concepts. Thus, > some beings can remember (conceptually), "In a former > life I was a carpenter. " Similarly, in this lifetime we > can remember, "I was robbed." > > > There are several interesting differences between kamma > > vipaka and accumulations. Not least of which is that > > accumulations don't get used up. They just keep > > accumulating. Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. > I agree that is interesting. Potentially, we can recall > any dhamma from any moment over the past infinity of > aeons (potentially). > > Thanks Larry, > Ken Thanks (all) for your patience. mike 22335 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 21, 2003 6:39am Subject: Signalling pains and discussions Dear Htoo Naing, ----- Original Message ----- From: Htoo Naing To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:56 AM Subject: [dsg] Pain As A Signal (01 ) > Dear Dhamma Friends, >... > Many types of pains are there.But in terms of Abhidhamma it is just ''Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta''.This is not the view of reductionists.We need to review Pains in detail.Because we all are escapable from pains.So we need to prepare to withstand that and peacefully accept that. While reading your post, my back was quite painful (a little work strain yesterday). Still, I was quite happy while reading your message. Actually, these happy moments were, I'd guess, somanassasahagata.m, ~naa.navippayutta.m, sasankhaarikam ekam (accompanied by joy, dissociated from knowledge, prompted), interspersed between moments of Dukkha Sahagatam Kayavinnana Citta. Does this sound about right? I certainly agree that these are not the views of reductionists. As understanding of these moments develops, so does detachment from them. >... > P.S : This series will come in succession.Reply posts and discussions posts should all be headed as '' Signalling pains and discussions / Series No...'' If you want to reply or query or add or amend or support to a particular post or series number,heading should be replace with ''Signalling pains and ....'' If not,just reply with ''Signalling pains and discussions''. Sorry, don't know the 'Series No' as these don't appear in emails from dsg. Thanks in advance, mike 22336 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 21, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; vipaka Ken H Thanks for the informative report on the Cooran weekend. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but 'loss' is given as 1 of the 8 worldly conditions (loka-dhamma), as I'm sure you know. While the loka-dhammas are all conditioned by previous deeds, good or bad accordingly, they do not represent any particular underlying paramattha dhammas at the time of being experienced. A moment of being praised, for example, is not necessarily a moment of kusala vipaka, since the vipaka has to do with the sound being expereinced through the ear-door and not the meaning of the words being spoken, and so on. Do you remember the sutta where Queen Mallika asked the Buddha what were the causes for people having different 'lots' in life (beauty, obedience from others, social standing etc)? If I remember correctly, the answers all had to do with one's past deeds. But there's no correlation between the 'experiencing' of 1 of the 8 worldly conditions, and the specific kind of vipaka citta occurring at the time. Enjoying your posts lately. Jon "Eight things are called worldly conditions, since they arise in connection with worldly life, namely: gain and loss, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery, praise and blame" (Vis.M. XXII). (Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary) --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi all, ... > In spite of this injection of talent, there were some > discussion topics that seemed to have us stumped. To > begin with, there was the story of how Christine had > recently come home from work to find her storeroom had > been broken into and some quite valuable equipment > stolen. We all agreed that the burglary had been the > result (vipaka), of Christine's akusala kamma -- probably > from many lifetimes ago -- and we tried to analyse the > traumatic event into moments of kamma and vipaka. > > What realities had come and gone at the time of seeing > the clean, empty shelves and realising there had been a > burglary? There was seeing and there was visible object > but were any of those moments necessarily unwholesome > vipaka? 22337 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To Lee: In a message dated 5/20/03 10:38:59 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << Hi Jeff: Well, that is the question, I suppose - whether concepts "are just more illusions of the mind" or whether some concepts are something more real, more existent, or more efficacious than the non-existent pink elephant I imagine dancing on the piano. Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: That's good Lee, that was the best laugh I have had all day. The answer of course, is there is no way to communicate the knowledge of non-conceptual reality with any confidence. But, we can examine the literature of gnosis and pretty much come to the conclusion that most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment, and that is that it is about emptying or cessation, not about concepts and ideas. Emptiness and cessation are of course concepts, so you are quite right that we may need to accept a few basic concepts, like emptiness, or cessation, and how to get there. We know of course when we are at emptiness, or cessation, when we are empty, empty. When there is no volition, no ripples on the mind stuff; when there is equanimity, no reactions to the objects of the sense gates. %%%%%%%%%%%% Lee: Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. But in the end, I wonder whether these attempts to articulate a comprehensive approach aren't misguided if taken too seriously and whether the answer might really be found in the experiential.>> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, I think that is the point, it is a subjective experience, therefore talking about it is just conception upon conception. To get the subjective experience one has to undergo the training and the practice to have, as you say, the experiential. best to you, layman Jeff 22338 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 21, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities macdocaz1@a... wrote: > That's good Lee, that was the best laugh I have had all day. Hi Jeff: Always happy to make another laugh! > The answer of course, is there is no way to communicate the knowledge > of non-conceptual reality with any confidence. But, we can examine > the literature of gnosis and pretty much come to the conclusion that > most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about > enlightenment, and that is that it is about emptying or cessation, > not about concepts and ideas. Emptiness and cessation are of course > concepts, so you are quite right that we may need to accept a few > basic concepts, like emptiness, or cessation, and how to get there. The suggestion that "most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment" isn't clear to me if we are talking about the content of that experience. For example, within the Buddhist tradition, is the Udana's "Unborn" simply a state of mind experiencable by the living or an ineffable dimension experienced in some fashion by those awakened who are deceased? And outside the Buddhist tradition, there is substantial disagreement about the gnostic/mystical content of the experience. James, one of mysticisms more sympathetic observers, in Lectures XVI and XVII of The Varieties of Religious Experience, noted as follows: "this presumption from the unanimity of mystics is far from being strong. In characterizing mystic states as pantheistic, optimistic, etc., I am afraid I over-simplified the truth. I did so for expository reasons, and to keep the closer to the classic mystical tradition. The classic religious mysticism, it now must be confessed, is only a 'privileged case.' It is an extract, kept true to type by the selection of the fittest specimens and their preservation in 'schools.' It is carved out from a much larger mass; and if we take the larger mass as seriously as religious mysticism has historically taken itself, we find that the supposed unanimity largely disappears. To begin with, even religious mysticism itself, the kind that accumulates traditions and makes schools, is much less unanimous than I have allowed. It has been both ascetic and antinomianly self-indulgent within the Christian church. * It is dualistic in Sankhya, and monistic in Vedanta philosophy, I called it pantheistic; but the great Spanish mystics are anything but pantheists. They are with few exceptions non-metaphysical minds, for whom 'the category of personality' is absolute. The 'union' of man with God is for them much more like an occasional miracle than like an original identity. *(2) How different again, apart from the happiness common to all, is the mysticism of Walt Whitman, Edward Carpenter, Richard Jefferies, and other naturalistic pantheists, from the more distinctively Christian sort. " See also "The Yoga-Sutras of Patanjali and The Cloud of Unknowing: A Preliminary Step in Assessing the Ontological Accuracy of the Mystical Experience (1996)" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/myst.html > We know of course when we are at emptiness, or cessation, when we are > empty, empty. When there is no volition, no ripples on the mind > stuff; when there is equanimity, no reactions to the objects of the > sense gates. Hmm. What I personally know (versus what I can recite about the tradition) is that, as I calm my mind and pay attention to how sense data can give rise to a variety of emotions and concepts, I have gained a greater awareness as to how my own cravings, conceit, and views can magnify and distort this data into intentions and behaviors that I later see as unskillful both in their immediate impact and in their longer term consequences. Having gained this awareness over time and having practiced calming techniques as I confront situations that in the past could give birth to unskillful intentions, I have experienced a greater sense of quietude and satisfaction. What I am getting at, I suppose, is that the test of awakening may be less a matter of "what" a person thinks and more a matter of "how" they think and live. > Well, I think that is the point, it is a subjective experience, > therefore talking about it is just conception upon conception. To > get the subjective experience one has to undergo the training and the > practice to have, as you say, the experiential. I agree. Take care. Lee 22339 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: Signalling pains and discussions/ Series No (01) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Htoo Naing > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:56 AM > Subject: [dsg] Pain As A Signal (01 ) ===================================== > Sorry, don't know the 'Series No' as these don't appear in emails from dsg. > Thanks in advance, > mike ==================================== Dear Mike, What I meant was ''Signalling pains and discussions/Series No (01)''. This indicates reply letter is for discussion of contents of the topic '' Pain As A Signal (01). When ''Pain As A Signal (03)'' is posted for example,then reply letter should be headed as ''Signalling pains and discussions/Series No (03). One thing I missed to edit is ''escapable'' which should be ''inescapable''. Thanks for your comments and response.I am also in pain at the time of typing these words.But,as you said,feeling of pains is intervalled by feeling of peace and joy as I am trying to part the message which brings a good essence(I think)to the group. With best regards, Htoo Naing 22340 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 2, beginning where we are. Dear Howard, thank you for your input, very useful as always. You remind me again of some very important principles. op 20-05-2003 19:45 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > I like the following very much. It makes it clear, I think, that there > is much to do - carefully attending to what arises and ceases, > distinguishing the knowing from the known (and noting their interdependence I > would add), and exercising zeal, aspiration, and effort, but it also makes it > clear at the same time that there is truly no "one" at all to be doing it. > There is just the doing. N: As you say, we begin where we are, not where we'd hope to be. It is fortunate that the Abhidhamma explains that zeal and effort are cetasikas, and although we are still full of self, intellectual understanding helps, it is the foundation of the practice. If we would not know that they are cetasikas, we would be lost. I would like to quote again from the Way and what I wrote before about this quote: The way: <(There is no ego that > experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare > process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is > impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a > conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. > It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the > objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. > N: The cittas that arise in processes proceed according to conditions and arise in a specific order. The cetasikas that accompany cittas each perform their own function. Sati of satipatthana is mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Understanding realities as elements each performing their own function, as taught in detail in the Abhidhamma, can be our guiding principle in the development of vipassana. Sati of satipatthana has the function of being mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Right from the beginning we should see them as elements performing their own functions. This leads to abandoning of the idea of "I am practising, I am developing vipassana". Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. Thank you again for your post, Nina. 22341 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9. He does not become disheartened, he does not show dislike, not even slightly, when he hears, ³He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms". This is an occasion for joy and for endeavour to attain Buddhahood. He has to cross a whole world-system. There is not only this world, he has to cross a whole worldsystem. We read: If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cut through a whole world-system that has become a jungle of thorny creepers covered by a solid thicket of bamboo, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... If he were to hear: "Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. Such is the magnitude of the desire required. The Bodhisatta thought that he could achieve this, but his determination was not yet firm enough; he had to continue to accumulate keen and refined paññå so that his noble qualities could reach accomplishment. When he had visited the Sammasambuddha and his excellent qualities had become firmly established, he could begin to make the resolution to accumulate the perfections. We can see that it is extremely difficult to accumulate the perfections which lead to the attainment of the incomparable awakening wisdom of the Buddha. He penetrated the truth of the realities that are arising and falling away at the present moment, so that akusala could be completely eradicated and he could attain Buddhahood. The person who has the supreme aspiration to become a Sammasambuddha, should have eight qualifications: the human state, the male sex, the cause (which are the necessary supporting conditions), the sight of the Teacher, the going forth, the achievement of noble qualities, extreme dedication and strong desire. As regards the first qualification, the human state, if he is not a human, his aspiration will not succeed. As to the second qualification, the male sex, a woman cannot become a Buddha. The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking. 22342 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:32:28 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaada Sutta, Part I. On Vesak, when we were away for a vacation, Lodewijk, my husband, wanted to know more about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. I gave him an introduction to this Sutta and its Commentary. We are translating this sutta section by section with pauses in between, but we should not lose sight of the Sutta as a whole. After my introduction we had a discussion about the application of the Sutta. We read in the Sutta that the Buddha taught Rahula: "Rahula, whatever materiality, - past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, base or exalted, whether it is far or near, - all form should be seen as it really is with right wisdom in such a way: "This is not mine, I am not this, this is not me". "Materiality only, Blessed One? materiality only, Well-gone?² ³Also Materiality, feeling, recognbition (sa~n~naa), the activities (sa²nkhaarakkhandha) and consciousness, Rahula.² Nina: The same is true for the four nama khandhas. The five khandhas are past, future or present, they arise and fall away. Each moment the khandhas change. When seeing, the khandhas are completely different from the moment of hearing or thinking. Rahula had to develop understanding not only of rupa, also of nama, of all khandhas. When we take them all as a whole, there is the idea of a person. We read in the Commentary that Rahula thought: The Commentary states: < Although the Blessed One saw that Rahula had returned he did not say to him:" Do not return, because it is the time for you to receive almsfood ." Why? It is explained thus: It occurred to the Buddha : "Today Rahula will eat the food of Deathlessness²> N:This is nibbaana. We read in the Commentary: ,When the Blessed One had gone, Sariputta who came afterwards saw him. Then, why did he exhort him to develop Mindfulness of Breathing? Because it is suitable for sitting. It is said that the Thera had not observed that the Buddha had spoken about the meditation subject of matter (ruupakamma.t.thaana.m) to Rahula. As regards the word, aanaapaanasati, mindfulness of breathing, he explained: "After you have grasped inbreathing and outbreathing, and attained the fourth or the fifth stage of jhana, and you have developed vipassana, insight, reach arahatship." Rahula thought: ³Since my preceptor has told me to develop mindfulness of breathing I shall be obedient . If I don¹t follow what my teachers and preceptors say, I am indeed obstinate ( dubbaco, difficult to speak to).> We read in the Sutta: We read that the Buddha then taught him as follows: Nina: Rahula was attached to the body but he had to see it as only elements devoid of self. He had to know ultimate realities, namely the five khandhas, nama and rupa, different from conventional truth, such as tree, bowl, food. Rahula had not eaten, but he did not think of food, his bowl, his body, he was only intent on developing vipassana, understanding of nama and rupa. The Buddha taught him about the four Great Elements of earth, water, fire and wind, and also about space. After that he taught him to apply himself to the mental development similar to earth, and similar to the other great Elements and space. We can admire the structure of the sutta here: after the explanation about the Elements the Buddha taught the application of this knowledge in daily life. The Buddha said: <³Apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, For when you apply yourself to the mental development that is like the earth, Rahula, agreeable and disagreeable impressions that have arisen, impinging on the mind will not persist.²> He taught the same about mental development like water, fire, wind and space. (to be continued) 22343 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Jatakas Jatakas. Fwd from Pali Yahoo. Dear Yong Peng, Cheango and all, people may have doubts about the stories of the Jatakas. I think it is helpful to know the difference between the teaching of ultimate truth, paramattha desanaa and the teaching of conventional truth, vohaara desanaa. The Buddha used these two kinds of teaching. If we remember this we can profit from the lessons in the Jatakas, they are, as Yong Peng says, like a mirror for us personally. We can then understand the essence of the story taught by way of ultimate truth. Ultimate truth: kamma, and its result, vipaaka, the Dependant Origination, kusala, akusala. All those qualities of the Bodhisatta which are valuable at all times, for all people, such as his unlimited mettaa, his patience, his determination to attain Buddhahood. As to the teaching of conventional truth: those are the stories, the circumstances, the people, the animals. I am not sure whether experts always understand the difference between these two kinds of teaching and hence reject important parts of the teachings, or make issues out of what is not an issue. In olden times people had already doubt about the Vessantara Jataka. We find this discussed in the Questions of King Milinda: Dilemmas VIII, 1: Do all Bodhisattas give away their wife and children? It is explained that he knew that his grandfather could not keep his children as slaves. We also read that Sakka wanted to test the Bodhisatta. We have to understand all this in the right way, not as a dogma you have to believe. It depends on the individual to believe it or not believe it. What is the essence: his unlimited compassion to become the sammasambuddha and help all beings to find the way out of the cycle. It is not said in this Jataka that we have to do likewise. Was the Buddha also a wise animal in some lives? This is not an issue. You may believe it or not. I am inclined to think, why not, we also were animals in past lives, since we have had countless lives. Animals which talk, why not? But I like to believe this, since I have a lot of affinity with animals. That is personal. These are not real issues, they are not dogmas. Nina. 22344 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 / Prior Discussions Dear Sarah, Kom, and Mike,Thank you for your input, and I always welcome remarks about the perfections. I shall try to make an addition or footnote. Especially about the abhisankharas. As to a self relinquishing, I think this may be clearer after Perfections Ch 9, no 8. Nina. op 19-05-2003 08:27 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Dear Mike & Kom, > > I appreciated Kom’s helpful comments. > > --- "m. nease" wrote: 22345 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 3. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 3. The Buddha taught to Migajåla that the fading away of the lure is the fading away of dukkha. All realities that arise because of their appropriate conditions have to fall away, they do not last. Seeing arises and falls away, it is impermanent. Whatever is impermanent is dukkha, it is no refuge, unsatisfactory, not worth clinging to. The impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized only through the development of the stages of insight knowledge. When paññå has directly understood the impermanence of the dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways, the truth of dukkha can be seen more clearly. Craving is the second noble Truth, the cause of dukkha. The Buddha taught Migajåla the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. Thus, in this Sutta the four noble Truths are taught: the Truth of dukkha, of the cause of dukkha which is craving, of the end of dukkha which is nibbåna, and of the way leading to the end of dukkha, the eightfold Path. When craving, the cause of dukkha, is eradicated there is the cessation of dukkha. Hardness appears all the time in daily life, but we are still ignorant of it. Paññå has not been developed to the degree that its true nature can be known. When hardness appears there is also the experience of hardness, the citta which experiences hardness. At that moment seeing or hearing do not occur, there is nothing else but the experience of hardness. There are many kinds of rúpa and each kind can appear through the appropriate doorway. The rúpas of the body have the characteristics of cold, heat, softness, hardness, motion or pressure. If one clings to a concept of a whole, such as the whole body, the idea of self cannot be abandoned. In the ³Migajåla sutta², and in many suttas, the Buddha spoke about the realities appearing through the six doors. What we take for the whole world consists actually of six separate worlds, experienced through the six doors. The idea of a person is the result of thinking of different sense objects as they appear separately through the different doorways. In the ultimate sense a person does not exist. We think of concepts instead of being aware of realities. A moment of awareness is so short, and then we may think of realities with doubt. I asked Acharn Sujin how we can study thinking when awareness is so short. Thinking of concepts is so prominent all the time. She answered: ³Not at once, you have to learn. As a child, you had to learn reading and in the beginning you could not recognize all the different letters.² She explained that it takes time to know the difference between the moments with awareness and those without awareness. When thinking arises it can remind us that there is no awareness. However, the characteristic of thinking is real and it can also be an object of insight. A friend who is one of the teachers at the Foundation, Khun Anop, said to me: ²There is an idea of ŒI think¹, but in reality it is citta that thinks: ¹It is me who is thinking¹.² If there were no citta we would not have any idea of ³I am thinking². We take thinking for self, but when we consider the reality of thinking when it appears, we shall come to know it as a conditioned nåma which does not last. 22346 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 21, 2003 2:28pm Subject: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene people -- at least according to their brain scans. Using latest scanning techniques, neuroscientists have discovered that certain areas of the brain light up constantly in Buddhists, and not just when they are meditating, which indicates positive emotions and good mood. "We can now hypothesise with some confidence that those apparently happy, calm Buddhist souls one regularly comes across in places such as Dharamsala, India, really are happy," Professor Owen Flanagan, of Duke University in North Carolina, said on Wednesday. Dharamsala is the home base of exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama. The scanning studies by scientists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison showed activity in the left prefrontal lobes of experienced Buddhist practitioners. The area is linked to positive emotions, self-control and temperament. Other research by Paul Ekman, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Centre, suggests that meditation and mindfulness can tame the amygdala, an area of the brain which is the hub of fear memory. Ekman discovered that experienced Buddhists were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry as other people. Flanagan believes that if the findings of the studies can be confirmed they could be of major importance. "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek," Flanagan said in a report in New Scientist magazine. 22347 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Thanks for your thorough and informative reply. Unfortunately, it still bothers me that the result of kamma is literally insignificant (without a sign [nimitta]) on the level of citta process. But I guess there is no way around it. It seems to me this comes very close to being a nihilistic extreme. See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.' "Now, householders, of those recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given...no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world,' it is to be expected that they will avoid these three wholesome states, namely, good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct,and good mental conduct, and that they will undertake and practise these three uwholesome states, namely, bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. Why is that? Because those good recluses and brahmins do not see in unwholesome states the danger, degradaion, and defilement, nor do they see in wholesome states the blessing of renunciation, the aspect of cleansing..." Larry ps: any ideas on what is the "other world"? 22348 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more." I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Larry 22349 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Wed May 21, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Burma trip Dear Sarah, Azita, Christine, Bonnie, and anyone else interested, The proposed trip to Burma is, at this writing, to take place during the last week in October and the first week in November, over 6 days. I have not yet received the exact itinerary and dates, but when I do I shall pass them on immediately to dsg. It will be wonderful if as many of you as possible will be able to join us, despite SARS and terrorism (concepts-pannatti-only, but of which "we" must be aware since we do have to live in the conventional world. But that is for discussion on another post). metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22350 From: Date: Wed May 21, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities To Lee: In a message dated 5/21/03 9:55:53 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << The suggestion that "most of these realized beings seem to be saying the same thing about enlightenment" isn't clear to me if we are talking about the content of that experience. For example, within the Buddhist tradition, is the Udana's "Unborn" simply a state of mind experiencable by the living or an ineffable dimension experienced in some fashion by those awakened who are deceased? And outside the Buddhist tradition, there is substantial disagreement about the gnostic/mystical content of the experience. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Lee for the thought provoking discussion. I am aware of James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, although I regret I am not sure if I have read it. I will of course acquaint myself with his work in the next few years of study. I also skimmed the article by Mark I. Vuletic for which you kindly provided the URL. I can only speak from my own scholarship which has ranged widely including the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, portion of the Pali canon, a semester of Mahayana studies, and a semester of Sufi studies, as well as a semester of Kabballah studies; I have also studied a fair number of Christian contemplatives, such as St. John of the Cross, his teacher, Theresa of Avila, St. Bernard and St. Francis of Assisi, to mention a few; various Native American spiritual and shamanistic traditions, most notably Plains Indian and the Northern and Southern Pueblos, as well as Pheronic period Egyptian mysticism, most notably the Hermetic tradition; and last but not least, my own personal inquiry and contemplation covering 30 years. While I would agree that the variety of religious experience is as varied as the variety of the human experience itself, I have noticed there are certain patterns of experience that conform to a range and domain of experiences that I believe can be classified. For instance the out-of-body experience is not unique to North American New Agers, but has been articulated by both Pheronic period mystics as well as contemporary Egyptian Sufis. The out-of-body experience is reported in a number of traditions, and while the details of each of these experiences are unique, they all carry the characteristics of sensations of flight and an a-corporeal reality. So, should we say that out-of-body experiences don't exist, because the details are different, or should we at least give provisional acceptance to the idea when peoples as different as Plains Indians to Tibetans report a similar experience of being out-of-the-body? The same is true for the description of Nirvikalpa Samadhi, which is not too unlike the description of jhana 8 in the Pottopada Sutta. Also, what is essential to the Theravadan experience of Nirvana is cessation. In Chan the concept of emptiness is used. Since both traditions are Buddhist, and they both use the word Nirvana for the experience, we might be willing to give provisional acceptance to Huineng for using 'emptiness' instead of the word 'cessation.' Now, if we were to extend our domain of provisional acceptance even further to the Sufi concept of 'fana' (annihilation), perhaps the Sufis were trying to get at the idea of annata (no-self) and cessation, when they used the word 'fana' (annihilation) to describe their highest experience, which to me is at least marginally like the concept of jhana 8 (universal being) to at least give them provisional acceptance into the domain of the concept of enlightenment. Therefore, should we at least be willing to acknowledge validity to these above mentioned experiences as being a pan-human experience for which cultures have been trying to find a way to describe subjective experiences that defy description? Additionally, I just received a degree in Anthropology, to get there I had to take the foundation courses which included Cultural and Physical Anthropology and Archeology. What we covered in these courses, among other things, was the unhappy origins of Anthropology, which were an endeavor to articulate the concept of race, and to quantify it. After a century of research it was concluded by 1900 by cultural anthropologists, like Boaz, that the variation within any given culture is greater than the differences between cultures. Physical Anthropologists at about the same time also rejected race as a means to describe humans, because they found the variation of physical traits within any given culture are greater than the differences between cultures. And, most recently the Genome Project has found the genetic variation within any ethnic community is greater than the difference between ethnic communities. The point in all of this research is that humans are remarkably homogeneous when it comes to cultural, physical and genetic traits. My research model for an examination of the contemplative traditions of the world is to argue that the variations within any given religion, such as Buddhism, are greater than its differences from any religion such as Christianity. Additionally, another Anthropological concept is diffusionism, put forth by WHR Rivers in the late 1800s. The concept of diffusionism is that goods, materials, resources and genes have been moving across the face of the earth through ethnic communities for the duration of the 100,000 to 200,000 years of the presents of anatomically modern humans on this planet. This not only explains the narrow range of variation among humans, culturally, physically and genetically, but also in the case of religious ideology. And, finally I will argue that the subjective experiences typical of the religious experience have a common range and domain, because there is a neurophysiological reason for it. Therefore when I examine a mystic's record of experience, if that record does not match the "range and domain" of experiences that I have read about, and my own subjective experiences as well then, like any researcher, I reject the record as anomalous. Therefore I am not interested in the uniqueness of any given religion, nor am I interested in proving that any religion or teacher is greater than any other. I do happen to like the Pali canon as a unique and articulate record of the range, domain and practice of the religious experience, but considering that Christians were burning libraries since the Library of Alexandria and the School of Athens, until 1492 when they burned the library of Cordoba, the Pali canon may not have been the most articulate record of the religious experience, but we will never know. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: Hmm. What I personally know (versus what I can recite about the tradition) is that, as I calm my mind and pay attention to how sense data can give rise to a variety of emotions and concepts, I have gained a greater awareness as to how my own cravings, conceit, and views can magnify and distort this data into intentions and behaviors that I later see as unskillful both in their immediate impact and in their longer term consequences. Having gained this awareness over time and having practiced calming techniques as I confront situations that in the past could give birth to unskillful intentions, I have experienced a greater sense of quietude and satisfaction. What I am getting at, I suppose, is that the test of awakening may be less a matter of "what" a person thinks and more a matter of "how" they think and live. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Oh I would completely agree. I think you have put it most excellently. I don't believe thinking has much to do with it, and when I read about 'no-thought' or 'no-mind,' I begin to get the idea that suspending the mental processes of thinking and conception is the direction for my personal practice to direct me. Thank-you once again Lee for the thought provoking discussion. Best to you, layman Jeff 22351 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:14am Subject: Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Ken and Larry, > > A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- > > > Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which > does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other > hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, > the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. > 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. Hi Mike, For a moment, I thought this was an easy question but, while formulating my reply, I was reminded that nothing about the Dhamma is easy. All sankhara khandhas are volitional activities, aren't they? Some generate speech and action, others don't. . . . I'm sorry, but I'm sure I know a lot less about this than you do; I'll follow the thread with interest :-) I think it's safe to say; 'anusaya' refers to just the unwholesome accumulated tendencies. Ken 22352 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka RobertK > However what you might be thinking of is the difference betwen sense > door and minddoor processes. Yes, I see my mistake. Thanks for the further clarification, it inspires me to take another look at the Mulapariyaya-sutta. As you know, that sutta has commentarial explanation to the effect that, even when the worldling "perceives [earth] as [earth]," he does so with a perversion of perception. I might be able to follow it better now. Ken H 22353 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, (briefly, Lee and Jeff in passing), --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > Thanks for your thorough and informative reply. Unfortunately, it still > bothers me that the result of kamma is literally insignificant (without > a sign [nimitta]) on the level of citta process. ..... I’m sorry, but I’m not with you here..... What has been said that makes the result of kamma ‘literally insignificant’ on any level?. For example, seeing consciousness now is certainly not insignificant at all - quite the contrary. It is on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched that all the concepts and proliferations take place. Hence the reminders to guard the sense doors. I also don’t understand your reference to nimitta here. Kamma-nimitta (sign of previous kamma) and gati-nimitta(sign of future destiny) only arise as mental objects just before death. In the development of satipatthana (as opposed to samatha) I understand the nimitta to be the object of the citta known. ..... >But I guess there is no > way around it. It seems to me this comes very close to being a > nihilistic extreme. ..... Hope you can explain more.....I think I’m being dense, but I don’t recall anything in my last post to you which would lead to these conclusions. .... > See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and > brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, > nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad > actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings > who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins > in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and > declare this world and the other world.' ..... In other words, these recluses don’t accept the development of satipatthana, the distinction between kusala and akusala, kamma and results and rebirth. There is no point in developing wholesome states and they see no danger in accumulating unwholesomeness. ..... > ps: any ideas on what is the "other world"? .... rebirths, i.e other lives.”No mother, no father” - no fruit of wholesome and unwholesome conduct to parents. These recluses don’t accept Buddhas or arahants. The Brahmajala sutta and commentaries elaborate on annihilationist views -- showing them to be rooted in self-view-- and B.Bodhi also gives some helpful comments in his introduction. Two or three brief ones: BB: “From the conjunction of these two errors (‘method of diversity’ and ‘method of unity’ see p30)arises the view that it is a self-identical being who comes into existence out of nothing at birth, endures the same throughout life, and is annihilated at death. Correct application of the two complimentary methods whould show that it is not a being who endures, but a succession of dhammas linked together by bonds of conditioning, and that so long as the defilements remain intact in the continuum, the succession will pass on through the event of death into a new birth and a consequent existence.” Tika (sub-Cy) to sutta, annihilationism (Ucchedavaada), view 51-57(p182): “For the assumption of a being arises when the compact of aggregates occurring in the form of a continuum is not dissected (into its components). And since it is held that “the self exists so long as it is not annihilated,” the assumption of annihilationism is based on the assumption of the existence of a being.” In his introduction, B.Bodhi also gives some comments on annihilationism and mystical theologies which Lee, Jeff and others may find of interest (p30). I’ll just add a few of his comments (with none of mine;-)): “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.” .... Larry, back to your comments - I think that the ‘dissecting’ into elements through satipatthana, as shown above, leads to detachment from the idea of self and the destruction of all wrong views such as the ones you quoted from MN, rather than the contrary. Hope to hear back from you. With metta, Sarah p.s. Larry - BB's Brahmajala sutta and comy would also be good to go through in parts;-) I'm just raising alternatives for you consideration of when we get to that time. ===== 22354 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu May 22, 2003 0:53am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" < Thanks for the further > clarification, it inspires me to take another look at the > Mulapariyaya-sutta. > > As you know, that sutta has commentarial > explanation to the effect that, even when the worldling > "perceives [earth] as [earth]," he does so with a > perversion of perception. I might be able to follow it > better now. > Dear Ken, Yes . Do you have the translation by Bhikhu Bodhi that has the commentary and Tika with it. A book to read a dozen times or more. http://www.allbookstores.com/book/compare/9552400643 Robertk 22355 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:30am Subject: Concepts, Realizations and Doubts Hi Lee , Jeff, Nina & All. macdocaz1@a... wrote: > I have been watching this interesting dialog for a while. I think you have > hit onto something quite interesting. It is really comical how the religions > and traditions of the world argue over concepts, when realization would > answer the question. Thinking just makes for concept, which are just more > illusions of the mind. Don't you think? .... S: I think this is just the point some of us have been trying to make;-) i.e. that concepts can’t be ‘realized’. ..... Lee: >Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual. ... Lee: >Quite a few knotty issues, as I see it, for those trying to articulate a comprehensive foundation for reality and knowledge. ..... S: Exactly so and certainly the Buddha and his disciples were not at any loss of words to communicate to others with confidence and conceptually what is ‘ultimate’ or ‘non-conceptual’, i.e. paramattha. They may be ‘subjective’ experiences as Jeff writes later, but the Truths are universal. ***** Nina, I’m greatly appreciating your return from holiday and especially the Kaeng Kajang and other series. You wrote about the Jatakas which some people find hard to accept and I think it’s relevant to these issues. You wrote: N: >“As to the teaching of conventional truth: those are the stories, the circumstances, the people, the animals. I am not sure whether experts always understand the difference between these two kinds of teaching and hence reject important parts of the teachings, or make issues out of what is not an issue. In olden times people had already doubt about the Vessantara Jataka. We find this discussed in the Questions of King Milinda: Dilemmas VIII, 1: Do all Bodhisattas give away their wife and children? ......” There are bound to be doubts about the Buddha’s Teachings while we just reflect conceptually. As you implied in a comment in the KK extract, when there is awareness of thinking or any other reality, there is no doubt. I thought there were some very helpful comments in the recent extract from the Satipatthana Sutta Comy on Doubt (Way 91): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 5. Doubt “Wrong reflection on things which are founded on doubt brings about the arising of doubt.” .... “There are these six things which help to throw out doubt: The state of being learned in the Buddha's teaching; of inquiring about the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; of understanding thoroughly the nature of the Discipline*; of being decided about the truth of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha; sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt.” ..... “[T] Surely by the knowledge of the Dhamma and by inquiry all doubts are cast out.” ***** Another note on the meaning of ‘reflects’ as used from Way 76 that I thought was helpful too: “ Reflects (paccavekkhati) = Considers again and again, sees analytically, part by part, separately after sifting thoroughly with the eye of wisdom (pati pati avekkhati ~nanacakkhuna vinibhujjitva visum visum passati).” Wishing everyone wise reflection,“sympathetic and helpful companionship; and stimulating talk that helps to dispel doubt” and the other conditions mentioned. With metta, Sarah *p.s Nina, do you take ‘Discipline’ in the 6 things to just refer to the Vinaya or to the Dhamma-Vinaya (i.e Tipitaka)? ============================================================= 22356 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Regards to Robert Epstein Hi Nina, Howard, Mike and other Rob Ep fans, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ep, > I was just going to tell you that I miss you. I understand that you > cannot > read all mails and that you need time for inspiration to write and think > about your work re theater. .... I'm not so forgiving;-) I think Rob Ep needs to spend more time talking to us and hearing about metta and compassion - he obviously doesn't fully appreciate the suffering that goes with the attachment we all have to his presence;-( ..... > shall fwd this to it, in case you overlook me. What a conceit, fear to > be > overlooked. ..... ;-) What I hear from him (off-list) is promises, promises and I don't even mind if it is a little guilt which prompts him not to overlook all us mere worldlings:-/ Thanks, Howard for keeping us posted and for any further nudges you give;-) With metta, Sarah ====== 22357 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: >If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural > networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets > too complicated for the average reader. .... you could have a point here:-/ (not that I'd even aspire to being an 'average reader' when it comes to computer technology) .... > I think I will leave this part out. ..... Could be a smart move.... Metta, Sarah ====== 22358 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi RobK, Always good to see your input - --- rjkjp1 wrote: > R:> The present moment - as in paramattha - is a refuge that can never > be taken away by anything or anyone...... .... K:> Wouldn't it be good if we could remember > > that when someone drives off with our new Toyota? > ________ > _ R:> Sure, why not. It is nothing compared to the loss when we die - as > we will one day. > _________ ... S:I've been reflecting on this good reminder all day.... Thank you! Nina once wrote something to the effect about how what seemed like a big loss or difficulty at the time when we were children or ten years, five years, even one year ago now seems so inconsequential....So too our present losses or hardships. ..... K:> > Of course, the time to remember it is right now. Even if > > we're doing something we enjoy, it's only a moment of > > nama and rupa. > > ____ > R:> This is when it is harder for me. The good times I like to wallow in. > __________ .... S: And isn't this the very root of the problem ...the wallowing with pleasant feelings and ignorance;-) Look forward to more pithy reminders, Metta, Sarah ======= 22359 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:56am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Dear Member, A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? With thanks, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22360 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:04am Subject: Re: Jatakas Hi Nina and All, I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel a little less dosa about them. Maybe in some cultures, or in some time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would think right now in western cultures some of the stories would probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). I don't find the Tales a source of moral training, or particularly useful in understanding the two kinds of teaching. I think the initial negative impact is too great to encourage continued reflection. The Jataka Tales don't mirror the understanding I have of worthwhile moral values from a cultural point of view or from the precepts or from the Suttas. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom 22361 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:19am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Htoo Naing, This was in today's newspaper, so I assume that it will be the next issue. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Member, > > A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? > > With thanks, > > Htoo Naing > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22362 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:14am Subject: Pain As A Signal (02) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is a part of daily routine.There are many societies which deal with people with pains.Pain is an every day problem.So,we need to deal with it sensibly. Even though there are many different types of pain exist,it may be assumed that there are physical pain and mental pain.Mental pain may cover all the terms that describe emotional pain,emotional trauma,mental trauma or any sufferings link with mind. When pain is obvious it is no need to say that it is pain.This may be referred to pains of physical nature.But still there are many pains so subtle that they may not be assumed as pain at all. Pain is pain.There are many different degrees of pain.When it is too subtle to feel as a pain,sufferers will totally neglect it.That kind of pain may be called as negligence pain (Upekkha Vedana). When pain dips down to the negative side,the sufferers may accept it as pleasant feelings (Sukha Vedana).This is the main source of causation of all things. When accept as good things,sufferers attach to it and try and continue to try to commit actions that probably bring these sorts of good things(as he assumed as good things). Some pains occur in the domain of mind.When it is inconspicuous sufferers hardly ever notice it.But when pains in mind become obvious they will notice that it is unacceptable things in their mind even though they do not try to drive out for some time (may be Samsara long).Dosa(angry) is a painful one,for an example. When pains in mind go deep into the negative side sufferers find them as sensual one and they firmly grasp it not to lose it at all.This sort of pain also comes along with physical ones. Pain,pain,pain.How pain behaves,how pain effects the sufferers and how pain does rotate the wheel of life actually does worth exploring deep into all domain of pains. May you all see pains with a bright light of wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing P.S -When reply this post please CHANGE the heading as ''Signalling pains and discussion / Series No (02)''. Thanks in advance who pay attention to this topic. Htoo Naing 22363 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Dear Ken and Larry, I've appended Ken's response below Larry's in order to try to address them both. I have several ideas about this topic all of which are probably wildly off-base. I'll try to articulate a couple of them partly as a way of straightening out my own thoughts on the subject and partly in hopes of correction. This will be a somewhat lengthy, personal post with apologies and thanks in advance for your patience. I'll start with accumulated kamma as related in stories in the Suttanta and the Jatakas. In this example from Samyutta Nikaya III.19 Aputtaka Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-019.html and Samyutta Nikaya III.20 Aputtaka Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-020.html both versions include near the beginning, "Just now, lord, a money-lending householder died in Savatthi. I have come from conveying his heirless fortune to the royal palace: eight million in silver, to say nothing of the gold. But even though he was a money-lending householder, his enjoyment of food was like this: he ate broken rice & pickle brine. His enjoyment of clothing was like this: he wore three lengths of hempen cloth. His enjoyment of a vehicle was like this: he rode in a dilapidated little cart with an awning of leaves." In the first version, the Buddha tells the story, then talks about what happens when a person of integrity vs. a person of no integrity acquires wealth, and illustrates this with the simile of a 'pond in a place haunted by non-human beings'. In the second, he illustrates the same story without the 'person of integrity vs. a person of no integrity' but with an account of that money-lender's actions (kamma) in past lives and the results (vipakka) of those actions in following lives. Unfortunately I've run out of time--I'd like to go ahead and post this as a basis for further discussion and hope to pick up the thread later. Thanks again for your patience, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 12:14 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > wrote: > > Dear Ken and Larry, > > > > A question that may relate to this issue (maybe not)-- > > > > > > > Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated > kamma, which > > does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On > the other > > hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by > pa~n~naa, > > the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the > terms 'aayuuhana' vs. > > 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more. > > Hi Mike, > > For a moment, I thought this was an easy question but, > while formulating my reply, I was reminded that nothing > about the Dhamma is easy. All sankhara khandhas are > volitional activities, aren't they? Some generate speech > and action, others don't. . . . I'm sorry, but I'm > sure I know a lot less about this than you do; I'll > follow the thread with interest :-) > > I think it's safe to say; 'anusaya' refers to just the > unwholesome accumulated tendencies. > > Ken Hi Mike, You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are not(Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' are pertinent but would like to know more." I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Larry 22364 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Rob, Haven't been able to find this on-line this AM--please let us know if you can find the original Reuters article anywhere. Thanks, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:19 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists > Hi Htoo Naing, > > This was in today's newspaper, so I assume that it will be the next > issue. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear Member, > > > > A good news.Could you tell me which issue of Newscientist? > > > > With thanks, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > wrote: > > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > > > people -- at least according to their brain scans. > 22365 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities] macdocaz1@a... wrote: > While I would agree that the variety of religious experience is as > varied as the variety of the human experience itself, I have noticed > there are certain patterns of experience that conform to a range and > domain of experiences that I believe can be classified. Hi Jeff: I agree that many of the gnostic/mystical experiences seem to follow some broad outlines or patterns. In his essay, James describes these commonalities as ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity. An online version of his essay can be found at http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james12.htm But even James admits later, as noted in my prior quote from his essay, that this apparent unanimity largely disappears under examination. Recognizing that I am in danger of veering off-topic for this group, I try below to look at several of these commonalities with respect to early Buddhism. James' first commonality - ineffability - is described as follows: "1. Ineffability.- The handiest of the marks by which I classify a state of mind as mystical is negative. The subject of it immediately says that it defies expression, that no adequate report of its contents can be given in words. It follows from this that its quality must be directly experienced; it cannot be imparted or transferred to others. In this peculiarity mystical states are more like states of feeling than like states of intellect. No one can make clear to another who has never had a certain feeling, in what the quality or worth of it consists. One must have musical ears to know the value of a symphony; one must have been in love one's self to understand a lover's state of mind. Lacking the heart or ear, we cannot interpret the musician or the lover justly, and are even likely to consider him weak-minded or absurd. The mystic finds that most of us accord to his experiences an equally incompetent treatment." The first question for me is what is meant or implied by the word "ineffable." For many mystics, the implication is that they have experienced a transcendent state, a feeling of grace in the presence of a higher power that simply cannot be communicated by words. It is a type of ineffability born of the sheer inadequacy of the mundane to describe the transcendent sphere - that unbridgeable gap between the profane and the divine. I would guess that some Buddhist traditions could be squeezed into this version of ineffability, especially those traditions that understand Nirvana as not simply a state of mind but as an actual transcendent sphere. A weaker form of ineffability - the one I think some forms of early Buddhism ascribe to - is where words aren't so much as inadequate but may be seen as misleading or inappropriate under the circumstances. Bhikkhu Nanananda, in his "Mind Stilled" sermons on Nibbana at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm begins each sermon with the following passage from the Pali canon: "This is peaceful, this is excellent, namely the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all assets, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction". For me, this verbal description of Nibbana is pointing to a state of mind free of verbal formulations, where our "preparations" are stilled and we have let go of "all assets." In sermon 8, he quotes a further portion of the Pali canon, then adds his own commentary: ----- "Consciousness which makes nothing manifest, infinite and all lustrous. It does not partake of the earthiness of earth, the wateriness of water, the fieriness of fire, the airiness of air, the creature-hood of creatures, the deva-hood of devas, the Pajàpati-hood of Pajàpati, the Brahma-hood of Brahma, the radiance of the Radiant Ones, the Subhakiõha-hood of the Subhakiõha Brahmas, the Vehapphala-hood of the Vehapphala Brahmas, the overlord-ship of the overlord, and the all-ness of the all." The gist of this paragraph is that the non-manifestative consciousness which is infinite and all lustrous, is free from the qualities associated with any of the concepts in the list, such as the earthiness of earth and the wateriness of water. That is to say it is not under their influence, it does not partake of them, ananubhåtaü. Whatever nature the world attributes to these concepts, whatever reality they invest it with, that is not registered in this non-manifestative consciousness. That is why this consciousness is said to be uninfluenced by them. ----- I read these passage to mean, not that the state itself cannot be described by words, but that within this state verbal formulations and the conceptual activities of a worldling are to be trivialised and not partaken of. This, to me, is a very different understanding of "ineffability" than that reported by the Christian mystic, for example. I think there are distinctions that can be made as to the other commonalities listed by James, but I should probably close for now. --- Lee 22366 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:43am Subject: Re: Salvaging Something Worthwhile: To Robert K Dear Robert and all How are you? Thank you, Robert, for reminding me to check the Commentary. Yes, you are right. What an embarrasing episode for me to write the post without checking the Commentary again! I now rememebred that I have read what the commentary reported in the past- as your post mentioned. When I wrote this reply to Howard, though, I forgot to check the Commentary, partly because it was rather late and I was sleepy. So, I request Howard and other dhamma friends to include Robert's additional information regarding Channa's suicide. ____________________ By the way, I could have replied to your post sooner, but I was not able to connect to the Internet for 3 days due to unfair phone-line interference by Telstra. Only tonight, I was able to log on to the Internet. Phone-line problems have now been resolved. ____________________________ With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: --- Dear Suan, Thnaks for this excellent quote from the Pali. If you have more it would be great. In the Channovada sutta http://www.vipassana.info/144-channovada-e.htm I thought the commentary mentions that channa believed he was an arahant because of his good insight into the teachings but upon cutting his throat realises that he isn't. He insights the pain and becomes an arahant at the moment of death. Perhaps someone could check. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Now, returning to the episode under question. > > Although the Arahant's fruit consciousness (arahattaphalacitta) is > outside the set of the Four Noble Truths, and therefore, is not > equatable with the Noble Truth of Dukkha, it is a conditioned > phenomenon (sa`nkhaaradhamma). As such, it is within the Three > Characteristics, and carries the characteristic of dukkha because the > Buddha declared that all conditioned phenomena are dukkhaa, (Sabbe > sa`nkhaaraa dukkhaa) according to Section 278, Dhammapada. > > The following statement of the Buddha is also reported in Section > 278, Dhammapada A.t.thakathaa. > > "Bhikkhave, sabbepi khandhaa pa.tipii.lana.t.thena dukkhaaeva" > > "Monks, all aggregates are also only dukkha in the sense of > oppression" > > The consciousness aggregate of an Arahant who is outside the moment > of the Arahant's fruit consciousness can be oppressing in a sense. > Otherwise, Some Arahants such as Channa would not have committed > suicide as in Section 394, Channovaada Suttam, Uparipa.n.naasaPali, > Majjhimanikaaya. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, 22367 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:02am Subject: Abh in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 4 Abh in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 4 We need to have a firm foundation knowledge of citta: the reality that experiences an object. When the characteristic of aversion appears, we are inclined to think, this is aversion, instead of being aware of its characteristic without thinking about it or naming it. It passes away so quickly. Even a slight yearning for more understanding hinders its development. Khun Anop also said, ³Satipatthåna is developed so that we can know what naturally appears at this moment, through one of the six doors. If we do not understand what naturally appears, we behave in an unnatural way.² Acharn Sujin, Acharn Supee, Khun Anop and others spoke for two hours in the Parliament building about the difference between sense-cognitions such as seeing or hearing, and all the other cittas which are not sense-cognitions. Cittas are accompanied by cetasikas, mental factors, which each perform their own function when they assist the citta in cognizing an object. Each citta is accompanied by at least seven cetasikas. The sense-cognitions are accompanied by seven cetasikas, and all the other cittas are accompanied by more than seven cetasikas. We may learn this in theory, but we should carefully consider what we learn, and in that way it can be a condition for understanding that the sense-cognitions are entirely different from all the other cittas. This understanding can be a firm foundation for discerning the difference between seeing and thinking, hearing and thinking. The sense-cognitions have the sense organs as their physical base of origin, whereas all the other cittas have the ³heartbase² [1] as their physical base of origin. The seven cetasikas which accompany every citta are called the ³universals² (sabbacitta-sådhåranå), and these are: contact (phassa), feeling (vedanå), remembrance (saññå), volition (cetanå), concentration (ekaggatå), vitality (jívitindriya) and attention (manasikåra). When seeing arises, each of the ³universals² performs its own function. Contact, phassa, contacts visible object. Feeling, which is in this case indifferent feeling, experiences the ³taste² of visible object. Remembrance, saññå, ³marks² and remembers visible object. Volition, cetanå, coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas. When it accompanies kusala citta or akusala citta, it has a double task: it coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas and it ³wills² kusala or akusala. Since seeing is vipåkacitta, the result of kamma, volition only coordinates the tasks of the accompanying dhammas. Concentration focusses on visible object. Vitality sustains the life of citta and the accompanying cetasikas until they fall away. Attention, manasikåra, ³drives² citta and the accompanying cetasikas to visible object. Seeing could not cognize visible object without the assistance of these seven accompaying cetasikas. Seeing, hearing and the other sense-cognitions are only accompanied by the seven universals. All the other citttas are accompanied by more than seven cetasikas. We may learn this in theory, but when we deeply consider this it will help us to discern the difference between the sense-cognitions and the cittas which are not sense-cognitions, such as thinking. Footnote: 1. The heart base, hadaya-vatthu, is the physical base for the cittas other than the sense-cognitions. According to the commentaries it is located near the heart. In the Abhidhamma it is defined as ³that rúpa². 22368 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:02am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 2. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:28:40 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 2. Vesak Discussion on the Mahaaraahulovaada sutta Part 2. Rahula had to apply himself to mental development similar to the elements. We read in another Sutta that Sariputta, who was Rahula's preceptor, said that he was like the elements, unshakable by undesirable objects. We read in the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Nines, Ch II, § 1 (IV, 373) that Sariputta was falsely accused by another monk, but that he had no ill-will.. We read that he said: ³Lord, just as on the earth they cast things, clean and foul, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the earth is not filled with horror, loathing, or disgust; even so, lord, like the earth I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will. ³ We then read that he was like the elements of water, fire and wind. After that Sariputta compared himself with a duster: ³Lord, just as a duster wipes up things, clean and foul, dung, urine, spittle, pus and blood, yet for all that the duster is not filled with horror, loathing, or disgust; even so, lord, like the duster I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will. ³ Sariputta had no conceit and could forgive whomever offended him. As we read in the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, The Subcommentary explains that through vipassana desirable and undesirable impressions do not persist. This causes me to think of another sutta. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (IV, Kindred Sayings on SEnse, Fourth Fifty, ch V, § 202, Lustful) that Mahaamoggallaana spoke to the monks about a monk who has unwise attention to the objects impinging on the senses and the mind. Objects overcome a monk, he does not overcome objects. We read about the monk who is free from lust: ³Herein, friends, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, is not attached to objects that charm, nor averse from objects that displease...² The same is said about the objects experienced through the other doorways. We read: ³With mind cognizing a mind-state, he is not attached to mind-states that charm, nor averse from mind-states that displease, but dwells, having established mindfulness of the body and his thought is boundless, so that he realizes in its true nature that emancipation of heart, that emancipation of wisdom, wherein those evil unprofitable states that have arisen come to cease without remainder. This monks, friends, is called Œnot lustful after objects cognizable by the eye... not lust ful after objects cognizable by the mind.¹ Thus dwelling, friends, if Mara come upon him by way of the eye, of the tongue, of the mind... Mara gets no access, gets no opportunity... Moreover, friends, so dwelling a monk conquers objects, objects do not conquer him. He conquers sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states. They do not conquer him. Such a monk, friends, is called Œconqueror of objects, sounds, scents savours, tangibles, mind-states.¹ He is conqueror, not conquered. He conquers those evil, unprofitable states, passion-fraught, inciting to lust, leading to rebirth, states unhappy, whose fruit is pain, rebirth, decay and death. Thus, friends, is one free from lust.² (to be continued). Nina. 22369 From: connie Date: Thu May 22, 2003 11:16am Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi, Mike ~ This off the top of another friend's email to me... hope it helps. peace, connie Meditation Shown to Light Up Brains of Buddhists Wed May 21, 2:48 PM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo! LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22370 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of them is always kamma result." L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you say? Larry 22371 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Cooran - detachment/compassion Dear Group, As I've just heard the surf is up and 'Someone' has to catch the low tide. So, I feel quite within my rights to usurp (very temporarily) 'The Delegated Ones' position while he has gone surfin', and post a question from the weekend at Cooran. :-) There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' T.V. soapie. We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be practised together? 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? metta, Christine 22372 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; vipaka Hi Jon, Anumodana on bringing in a new (to me) dhamma term, "loka dhamma". ""Eight things are called worldly conditions, since they arise in connection with worldly life, namely: gain and loss, honour and dishonour, happiness and misery, praise and blame" (Vis.M. XXII). (Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary)" Certainly owning property is a worldly convention. Given that, I would say the acquiring of propert requires a volitional activity, even if only the accepting of a gift. Additionally stealing the property was done with volitional activity. And clearly the loss is the result of the theft. Would you agree that any result of a volitional activity is a kamma result, recognizing that kamma result is more than kamma vipaka citta? Larry 22373 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: In the news today - Meditation shown to light up brains of Buddhists Hi Mike / Connie, You can try this link: http://asia.news.yahoo.com/030521/3/y09h.html Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Mike ~ > This off the top of another friend's email to me... hope it helps. > peace, > connie > > Meditation Shown to Light Up Brains of Buddhists > Wed May 21, 2:48 PM ET Add Science - Reuters to My Yahoo! > > LONDON (Reuters) - Buddhists really are happy, calm and serene > people -- at least according to their brain scans. 22374 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine, 1. Like a doctor. 2. No. Larry 22375 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Way 92, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Aggregates Having expounded the contemplation of mental objects by way of the five hindrances, the Master said, "And, further, o bhikkhus," in order to explain the contemplation of mental objects by way of the fivefold aggregation. Pañcasu upadanakkhandhesu = "In (the mental objects of) the five aggregates of clinging." The five aggregates of clinging are the groups that grasp life. The congeries of mental objects become the condition of clinging, is the meaning. This is a brief indication of these aggregates. For the statement about the aggregates at length the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity should be read. Iti rupam = "Thus is material form." So far is there material form and no further. In this way the bhikkhu perceives material form according to nature. In regard to feeling and the things that come afterwards the same is the method of exegesis. This is the brief indication of meaning of the matters referred to here. For the lengthy explanation on these things one should read the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity. Iti rupassa samudayo = "Thus is the arising of material form." The arising of material form and the other aggregates should be known according to the fivefold way (mentioned in the Section on the Modes of Deportment) through the arising of ignorance and so forth. Iti rupassa atthangamo = "Thus is the disappearance of material form." The disappearance of material form and the other aggregates should be known according to the fivefold way (mentioned in the Section on the Modes of Deportment) through the passing away of ignorance and so forth. One should read the talk on the aggregates in the Path of Purity for further explanation. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." In this way the bhikkhu lives contemplating mental objects by laying hold of the fivefold aggregation of clinging amongst his own mental objects or amongst the mental objects of another or at one time in his own and at another time in another's mental objects. The origination and dissolution of the fivefold aggregate should be brought forward and connected by way of the fifty characteristics of the five groups, with the extended application of the words: "From the arising of ignorance the arising of material form comes to be." From here on according to the method already stated by the commentator should the exposition be. [Tika] According to nature means: according to the nature of breaking-up, according to the nature of the eye, color and the like in regard to material form, and according to the nature of experiencing, the nature of pleasure and the like in regard to feeling. In this way all other connected things should be interpreted. 22376 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 22, 2003 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Larry, I assume you hold a stereotype of a doctor who has both detachment and compassion? Why so? And how does it manifest? You are talking to someone who works with at least ten doctors each day - observing indifference, arrogance, discourtesy, greed, anger, self centredness as well as kindness, gentleness, sensitivity, and competence - often all in the same doctor in the same day. In their work, Doctors do not display any different behaviours or feelings than you and I. There is no special class of human being who has the corner on compassion. Compassion and detachment in a Buddhist sense can be displayed in an orderly setting like a hospital, but most of life doesn't happen there. Most of life happens in the chaotic unregulated everyday world. How do we have any detachment and compassion when there is a violent person shouting abuse and running towards us in the carpark? Or how do you have any detachment and compassion for the man who has just killed your cat with a ground glass bait? Or the woman who belts her screaming child across the head with her hand bag? I am sure there are small and great examples in everyone's daily life. Compassion, as an intellectual exercise, is easy after the fact. But how to have it arise as it is needed? I think it is important to be able to deal with, or not have arise, the emotional reaction that usually overwhelms any other states. In order to do this, I think we need to cultivate detachment. But what is detachment, and how do you get it? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > 1. Like a doctor. > > 2. No. > > Larry 22377 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 4:44:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: > > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. > > Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness > (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as > visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or > nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible > objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of > them is always kamma result." > > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? > > Larry > ========================== If I may butt in: I don't think that concept is used to see objects "as they are". I think it is used to see objects *as they are characterized*. Sa~n~na recognizes patterns within objects [for example, shapes within images], and concept enlarges and embellishes these, creatively combining what is actually observed, with relations as the "glue," constructing an apparent world of things. Wisdom, not the conceptual faculty, sees through the concepts, deconstructs (but doesn't utterly destroy) the mind-made world, and enables us to have our cake and eat it too - to use concepts as mental short-hand for the recognition of relations among phenomena without being fooled by the concepts. At least this is how I see it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22378 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, Would you say there is no panna without concept? Strictly speaking, in citta process, I don't think there is even a recognizable object without concept. 5-sense consciousness, by itself, is without concept and it is said to be formless, I think. Larry 22379 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine, Name it. Larry 22380 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 2:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 8:34:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Would you say there is no panna without concept? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I would not say that. I think of pa~n~na as non-conceptual. But conceptual understanding/characterization can follow pa~n~na and can be "informed" by it. ------------------------------------------------- Strictly speaking, in> > citta process, I don't think there is even a recognizable object without > concept. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think we can and do recognize things, hardness, for example, by an act of sa~n~na, without the involvement of concept. (Of course, as soon as we apply a word, concept is on the move.) ------------------------------------------------ 5-sense consciousness, by itself, is without concept and it is> > said to be formless, I think. > > Larry > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22381 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? to Sarah, Larry, Lee and others: In a message dated 5/22/03 12:46:30 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << ..... I’m sorry, but I’m not with you here..... What has been said that makes the result of kamma ‘literally insignificant’ on any level?. For example, seeing consciousness now is certainly not insignificant at all - quite the contrary. It is on account of what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted, touched that all the concepts and proliferations take place. Hence the reminders to guard the sense doors. ..... > See MN 60.5 for example: "Householders, there are some recluses and > brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: 'There is nothing given, > nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad > actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings > who are reborn spontaneosly; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins > in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and > declare this world and the other world.' ..... In other words, these recluses don’t accept the development of satipatthana, the distinction between kusala and akusala, kamma and results and rebirth. There is no point in developing wholesome states and they see no danger in accumulating unwholesomeness. ..... rebirths, i.e other lives.â€?No mother, no fatherâ€? - no fruit of wholesome and unwholesome conduct to parents. These recluses don’t accept Buddhas or arahants. “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.â€? .... Larry, back to your comments - I think that the ‘dissecting’ into elements through satipatthana, as shown above, leads to detachment from the idea of self and the destruction of all wrong views such as the ones you quoted from MN, rather than the contrary. Hope to hear back from you. With metta, Sarah >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Please excuse me not giving people credit for their posts. I couldn't keep track this time who contributed what. I copied what I thought were the core concepts. I believe some of these concepts can come from or lead to nihilism, and some of this is antinomium, and still other portions are non-dualist. I will see if I can sort through it for you. All of your comments are quite good, and I think Sarah's final comment is excellent. I believe at the center of this question lies the question of what the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has completely erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, because there is no self to act or react. There is no reaction, because there is no self to react. But, one who is free of a self, is not likely to be compelled to act harmfully or selfishly, because there is no self present to be selfish. On the other hand, if there is a self present, and the practitioner only believes there is no self, then they are acting from self, whether they believe it or not, and their actions are therefore self motivated. Consequently there is karma. So, in the case of no self present, then it is non-dualism, in the all other cases, it is either nihilism or antinomiumism which require a self to maintain a belief, but no belief will save one from karma. Only not having a self for karma to cling to will releive one of karma. I feel complete here, I hope I have expressed myself adequately. If not I am sure someone here will let me know. Please excuse me if I misspelled 'antinomium' or 'antinomiumism.' I am actual a terrible speller, but thanks to spell-check I am freed of much humiliation. Unfortunately, my dead hard drive has my good dictionary on it. Best to all, layman Jeff 22382 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. Correct? I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is just sense consciousness, not understanding. We don't have a recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. Larry 22383 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 7:16pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I think you got it right. The only thing I would add is that not-self doesn't mean no objects. Larry 22384 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/22/03 10:09:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At > the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. > Correct? > > I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is > just sense consciousness, not understanding. We don't have a > recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think > any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand > in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. > > ========================= I think that the tilakkhana can be known conceptually and can also be known directly. When we *see* the simplest of phenomena disappear, when we *see* them devoid of any characteristic of being personal or substantial, and when we *see* them without any (consequent) sense of worthiness added on, that is the direct apprehension of the tilakkhana, and that is freeing. We don't need the concepts (or terminology) of anicca, anatta, and dukkha to see something disappear or to see its impersonality, insubstantiality, emptiness, and unworthiness. When wisdom is operative, this fundamental nature of conditioned dhammas is directly, wordlessly, and thoughtlessly laid bare. Our concepts will then be transformed along with every other aspect of our mental functioning. But I believe that it is the direct apprehension of these three characteristics by pa~n~na, not their conceptual grasping, that is the key to the doorway to liberation. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22385 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Addition to the Internet "sutra" for comment << Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: >If I have to explain the concept of adaptive neural > networks alogirthms (closest analogy that I can think of), it gets > too complicated for the average reader. >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, how about something like. "Oh computer geek, is this one's memory nonlinear, holographic? "Yes, oh great one, its memory is holographic, it functions on three dimensional algorithms." "Well, then is must deal with space/time domains. The past the present and the future are one and the same to it. Just so is the yogi who is free of self." I don't know, sorry you're better at this than I am, but I like your idea of adding neuralnets, even though none of us have a PC with such technology that I know of. Best, Jeff 22386 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities] To Lee: In a message dated 5/22/03 8:19:05 AM, leedillion@c... writes: << The first question for me is what is meant or implied by the word "ineffable." For many mystics, the implication is that they have experienced a transcendent state, a feeling of grace in the presence of a higher power that simply cannot be communicated by words. It is a type of ineffability born of the sheer inadequacy of the mundane to describe the transcendent sphere - that unbridgeable gap between the profane and the divine. I would guess that some Buddhist traditions could be squeezed into this version of ineffability, especially those traditions that understand Nirvana as not simply a state of mind but as an actual transcendent sphere.>> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I believe we have to accept that the subjective experience is going to be difficult to articulate because it isn't a physical world phenomena. There are however some 5 sense corollaries that can be drawn upon for limit description, but it is still limited. I have the same problem on the Jhana Support Group where we are trying to understand jhana, in part, by describing our own personal experiences. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: "This is peaceful, this is excellent, namely the stilling of all prepa-rations, the relinquishment of all assets, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction". %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I don't believe James' psychics were anywhere near these experiences. But from the amount of debate that goes on hear and other lists, not to mention what has gone on for the last two and a half millennia, it isn't surprising that the experience is ineffable, or at least difficult to describe. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: For me, this verbal description of Nibbana is pointing to a state of mind free of verbal formulations, where our "preparations" are stilled and we have let go of "all assets." In sermon 8, he quotes a further portion of the Pali canon, then adds his own commentary: %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, verbal, as well as volition in the other sense gates as well. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: The gist of this paragraph is that the non-manifestative con-scious-ness which is infinite and all lustrous, is free from the qualities asso-ciated with any of the concepts in the list, such as the earthiness of earth and the wateriness of water. That is to say it is not under their influence, it does not partake of them, an-anubhåtaü. Whatever na-ture the world attributes to these concepts, whatever reality they in-vest it with, that is not regis-tered in this non-manifestative con-scious-ness. That is why this consciousness is said to be uninfluenced by them. I read these passage to mean, not that the state itself cannot be described by words, but that within this state verbal formulations and the conceptual activities of a worldling are to be trivialised and not partaken of. This, to me, is a very different understanding of "ineffability" than that reported by the Christian mystic, for example. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: And, that would explain why it is pretty hard to describe it. But, remember it is more than preverbal, it also pre-auditory, pre-visual etc. %%%%%%%%%%% Lee: I think there are distinctions that can be made as to the other commonalities listed by James, but I should probably close for now. %%%%%%%%%%% I feel compelled to point out that James' subjects were clearly trance mediums, not mystics seeking the Gnostic experience. Therefore I believe there is some problem with bridging this gap, which to me is a chasm. But, the message still comes off as useable. Best to you, layman Jeff 22387 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts, Realizations and Doubts to Lee, Nina, Sarah and others In a message dated 5/22/03 1:32:19 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Lee: >Even more to the point is whether the "realization" you speak of is possible without conception, and, if you know this to be the case, how do you know it and how is that non-conceptual knowledge communicated to others with any confidence that you can conceptually communicate what you see as non-conceptual.>> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Good point Lee, I think Bodhidarma was pretty close to someone who attempted to get across the concept of cessation, which he called no-mind, without offering any concepts up, or at least very few. The Bodhidarma anthology is tiny, and most of it is commentary, and writing from his students. I suppose one could argue that there are a few concepts that have to be put forth, like the 4 noble truths and 8 fold bath for instance. So, sure some concepts are useful, that I think is why we have "right thoughts," in the 8 fold path. But I think once you get the message across that a sense of self is useless and cessation, or emptiness is the "way to go," then it is just a matter of emptying and relinquishing. %%%%%%%%%%% ..... S: Exactly so and certainly the Buddha and his disciples were not at any loss of words to communicate to others with confidence and conceptually what is ‘ultimate’ or ‘non-conceptual’, i.e. paramattha. They may be ‘subjective’ experiences as Jeff writes later, but the Truths are universal. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the self. Best to all, layman Jeff 22388 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, Sense impingements may be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, regardless of (or prior to) concept. Concepts can also be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral regardless of the original (related) sense impingement. That's how I see it, anyway--please excuse my butting in! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Sarah, > > First some housekeeping, then on to a new idea: > > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. > > Now, previously you wrote: "Just to clarify, the seeing consciousness > (and a few other cittas) are vipaka, result of kamma. The rupas, such as > visible object, may be a result of kamma, citta, temperature or > nutrition. If we look at a rock and if we look at our hair, the visible > objects have been conditioned by different factors, but the seeing of > them is always kamma result." > > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? > > Larry 22389 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hiya Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 2:49 PM Subject: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion > Dear Group, > > As I've just heard the surf is up and 'Someone' has to catch the low > tide. So, I feel quite within my rights to usurp (very > temporarily) 'The Delegated Ones' position while he has gone surfin', > and post a question from the weekend at Cooran. :-) Onya... > There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) > loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into > a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we > moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing > something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or > compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on > whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As > usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do > fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very > good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' > T.V. soapie. > We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. > > So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: > > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? Karu.naa (compassion) doesn't mean 'to relieve suffering in a positive way'. It is a mental factor, and one that's difficult to understand, not the 'feeling bad for someone' it's usually taken to mean, in my opinion--feeling bad must always be akusala, I think. > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? As you know, I'm not a Buddhist and have no interest in religion. That said, in my opinion again (of course!), detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level. That's what I reckon, anyhow... mike 22390 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, I agree. Sense impingements arise with a feeling. Do you think that affects the argument? Larry 22391 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts, Realizations and Doubts Dear Sarah, thank you for your helpful comments, I liked to be reminded of paccavekkhati. op 22-05-2003 10:30 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > *p.s Nina, do you take Discipline’ in the 6 things to just refer to the > Vinaya or to the Dhamma-Vinaya (i.e Tipitaka)? N: I think just the Vinaya. But Vinaya can have a wider meaning, good conduct: samvara vinaya, pahana vinaya (PED). In this way it can also pertain to laypeople. Nina. 22392 From: Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I agree there is a big difference between directly experiencing something and thinking about experience. However, I would say direct experience is conceptual using the criterion that even a shape is a concept. Larry 22393 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ME again-- ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Howard, > > The main wisdom of panna is recognizing anicca, dukkha, and anatta. At > the bare minimum, these are at least patterns. Patterns are concepts. > Correct? I don't think so--pa~n~naa 'sees through'--no concept or pattern necessary. No main wisdom, either--it just penetrates whatever's there. > I would agree we can experience rupa without concept but I think this is > just sense consciousness, not understanding. Understanding can definitely see through ruupa. It is 'experiential', not conceptual. This is different from dvipa~ncavi~n~naa.na. This can definitely be known (sorry if my Pali's bad!). > We don't have a > recognizable object until our experience is informed by concept. I think > any form of identity is conceptual and identity and recognition go hand > in glove. "Correct" identity is the key. It IS the key to 'correct' conceptualization, which is very important in my opinion. It is not insight, though, except on an intellectual level (not vipassanaa)--not the insight that chips away at sa.msaara. That's how I conceptualize it, anyway... mike 22394 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 22, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Of course, Nina, thanks--the process cittas are so academic to me, I don't think in this way at all. So when I think of citta, I always just think of vi~n~naa.na. Thanks again for the elucidation (and sorry for the late reply-trying to catch up on my old, 'flagged' messages). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Sir Mike, op 27-04-2003 02:24 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > >> Nina: >> Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging >> on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the >> object. > > Understood. > >> The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase >> as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and >> vicara in order to experience visible object. > > I don't understand this. When you say, "other cittas of the sense-door > process", are you referring to vi~n~naa.nas other than seeing-consciousness? > Why would they 'need...to experience visible object'? In the eye-door process there are other cittas that also experience visible object, but they do not see. I am going to write more in my eries on Kreang Kacang. Seeing is accompanbied by just the seven universals, but the other cittas in taht process are accompanied by more than these seven. Just a quote now: Nina. 22395 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri May 23, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; vipaka Dear Sarah and Jon, Thanks for your replies. There is one of Sarah's from last week that I also want to respond to but it will have to wait. As delegated chief question asker for the Cooran group, I have my work cut out for me.* Jon wrote: ------------- I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but 'loss' is given as 1 of the 8 worldly conditions (loka- dhamma), as I'm sure you know. -------------- Now that you mention it, Azita and Christine *did* introduce the 8 worldly conditions into the discussion. (The group could only remember 6 of the 8 without looking them up.) Their relevance was lost on me at the time; I should have listened more carefully. Jon continued: ----------- > While the loka-dhammas are all conditioned by previous deeds, good or bad accordingly, they do not represent any particular underlying paramattha dhammas at the time of being experienced. A moment of being praised, for example, is not necessarily a moment of kusala vipaka, since the vipaka has to do with the sound being experienced through the ear-door and not the meaning of the words being spoken, and so on. > ---------------- Thanks for pointing that out. This topic is being touched on in several dsg threads at the moment; ie., that the paramattha object on its own, doesn't have much impact or [conventional] significance. However, in the Buddha's Dhamma, the paramattha object is paramount. It has to be seen as anicca, dukkha and anatta. Where it fits in with our conventional world is neither here nor there as far as satipatthana is concerned. Sarah said: -------------- > Anticipating another question, we might ask in this case, why there should be any sympathy for the lack of apparent akusala vipaka or brief momentary experiences at most. I think the answer is that knowing that certain concepts or conventional truths such as 'robberies', 'noisy aeroplane babies,' SARS and so forth are likely to be a condition for a lot of aversion and papanca for most of us, given our accumulated kilesa, and understanding how destructive and unpleasant these kilesa are, we can have metta and compassion for each other whilst helping to clarify if appropriate. > -------------- Yes, the complexity of kamma/vipaka might be a bit daunting, but we are immensely fortunate to have even a little understanding of the realities involved. They are such a long way from the conventional understanding we would otherwise be limited to. It might be a little out of context, but I'd like to quote what Nina has just been saying to Howard: "If we would not know that they are cetasikas, we would be lost." Kind regards, Ken H * Just as I am about to post this message, I notice from #22371 that I may have been demoted :-) :-( 22396 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 23, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Larry, In case you wonder, the trim reminders are not addressed to you and other minimalist posters;-) --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Name it. > > Larry .... I just went back and counted 8 questions in Christine's post. maybe you could at least put Q1, 2....or 8 so we know what you're referring to:-/ I'll get back to our thread after my busy weekend of teaching....in the meantime in reply to your last post: No No Yes Yes & No & No to last Qu I see Howard, Mike and others are doing a great job discussing and explaining further in the meantime;-) ;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 22397 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 1:38am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Larry: In a message dated 5/22/03 7:16:54 PM, LBIDD@w... writes: << Hi Jeff, I think you got it right. The only thing I would add is that not-self doesn't mean no objects. Larry >> “It is revealing that of the seven forms of annihilationism mentioned in the sutta, only one identifies with the physical body and proclaims annihilation to follow upon the body’s dissolution. the other six identify the self with inner principles ..........They may be formulations of those mystical theologies which speak of the ‘annihilation of the soul in God’, the ‘descent into the divine abyss’. the ‘merging of the drop into the divine ocean’, etc as the supreme goal of their contemplative disciplines..........It may be significant in this respect that four of the seven annihilationist doctrines arise out of the experience of the immaterial jhanas; descriptions of the annihilationist-type mystical experience often indicate that it is the immaterial attainments that serve as the basis for their corresponding mystical theologies.â€? %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? Anyway, in the case of the arupa jhanas there are no sense objects, especially jhana 8. Best to you, Jeff 22398 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? ... just to butt in quickly - I posted the quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's (from his introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta). Sorry for any confusion in my last post. One other quote was from the same source and one was from the commentary to the sutta itself. Hope this clarifies. I may add more later. Metta, Sarah ====== 22399 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri May 23, 2003 7:57am Subject: Pain As A Signal (03) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is actually a signal that something is happening.Its effects are many and effects also depend on the viewers. When a pain comes,some respond with fury and anger.Some deal with the pain frightened.Some abnormally respond as a taste which can be called as ''Masochism''. Some do want to relieve from that naggy pain.Some wish to avoid the pains entirely.Some never want to face with any pains.All these phenomena are related to their attachment to sensual things. If they are attached to sensual things then they all start to cling on unreal things.This leads to craving and they hold firmly the wrong view and will do anything that will lead to achievement of the things they want. May you all be able to avoid that clinging. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22400 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion To Chris, Mike, Larry, Sarah and others: In a message dated 5/22/03 9:02:03 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << > There was a discussion of detachment and compassion, (extremely) > loosely based on an article I brought along. It somehow evolved into > a discussion of the Iraq war and peace marches. I'm not sure we > moved past talking about the relative merits of "no-self", "doing > something" vs."just sitting on the cushion and pervading loving or > compassionate thoughts" - and there was a slight disagreement on > whether peace marches are full of dosa and righteous anger or not. As > usual, it was stated, 'these are just stories anyway.' - I never do > fully grasp this, 'my stories' are riveting :-) and either feel very > good or very bad. I can't just brush them aside like last weeks' > T.V. soapie. > We didn't seem to find an answer to the question about "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent. > > So ... what do you all reckon? The original questions were: > > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? Karu.naa (compassion) doesn't mean 'to relieve suffering in a positive way'. It is a mental factor, and one that's difficult to understand, not the 'feeling bad for someone' it's usually taken to mean, in my opinion--feeling bad must always be akusala, I think. > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? As you know, I'm not a Buddhist and have no interest in religion. That said, in my opinion again (of course!), detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level. That's what I reckon, anyhow... mike >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This has been an interesting dialog to follow, all good thoughts, and please excuse me now putting in just a few pennies in the dhana jar. In the Satipatthana Sutta, MN 10, the historic Buddha describes a training program, that leads ultimately to enlightenment. MN 10.2 "The direct path for the purification of beings..." for the relief of suffering "...for the attainment of the true way, for the realization of Nibbana – namely, the four foundations of mindfulness" The first stage is developing concentration and calm abiding through anapana, breath observation MN 10.4. In MN 10.5 the yogi is instructed to contemplate the body as a body, what has become known as the Vipassana meditation technique, and not to have any clinging in this world. It is through the avoidance of clinging that dispassion emerges. As we read through the Satipatthana Sutta we find a progressive practice that leads the yogi from suffering to Nibbana through the various stages which lead from dispassion, or detachment, through the arising of equanimity and the other 6 enlightenment factors MN 10.42. The arising of equanimity and the other 6 enlightenment factors occurs in jhana 3 and above which lead to the arising of the Brahmavihara, which are Karruna (compassion), Metta (loving kindness), Upekkha (equanimity) and sympathetic joy. Since the yogi has developed first dispassion (detachment) then he or she does not suffer for humanity, because they have relieved their own suffering. So, far from being stoic and disinterested, ultimately, the yogi cultivates compassion, loving kindness, and sympathetic joy, or a loving positive regard for all beings. The yogi, though, in their daily life can either choose to sit on the cushion and "radiate" loving kindness, or to become a peace activist. Either path I believe is valid, but for one who seeks enlightenment, or has attained it, I believe the peace activism must not have any element of an attachment to the outcome, or there can be no compassion in their actions, only attachment. Best to all, layman Jeff 22401 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:34:19 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. After my explanation of the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta Lodewijk and I had the following discussion: Nina: Rahula had to apply himself to development of the mind like the earth, he had to be steadfast and unshakable. He had to be unmoved by pleasant or unpleasant objects. When we experience a pleasant object we are bound to like it and when we experience an unpleasant object we are bound to dislike it. The Commentary explains about the cittas rooted in attachment (lobha) and the cittas rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise. Rahula had to learn not to be overcome by objects. This is like a test we have to pass. Lodewijk: Do I have to pass this test? N: We all have. L: This is very difficult, I cannot do it. N: Rahula was ripe for arahatship, the arahat is steady and unshakable when facing pleasant and unpleasant objects. We have to develop understanding of the objects that present themselves through the senses and the mind-door. It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa pa~n~naa. He had to develop understanding of ultimate realityies, of nama and rupa. L: We have to pass tests in daily life all the time. Daily life is social, we meet other people whether we like it or not. We have to develop metta. N: We have to develop all four brahma viharas: metta, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity. We have serious problems in our family and we have to face controversial behaviour of others. The citta may be completely overcome by situations, but we have to remember that the Buddha said: It is important to remember that in the ultimate sense our difficult situations, our unsurmountable problems, are only different experiences through the six doors, pleasant or unpleasant, and that they are conditioned. We cannot change the objects we have to experience. We have to remember that kamma brings its appropriate result. This can be the condition for equanimity when facing problems. Rahula had to become like the earth when facing pleasant and unpleasant impressions. We have to develop patience with regard to what is desirable and what is undesirable. Just now I failed the test. When we were talking about the Sutta at the dining table of the hotel, we were all the time interrupted by people who served food and wine and by a talkative fellow guest, sitting at a table next to us, who started a conversation. I had to stop my explanation and therefore I had aversion, dosa. Dosa is often conditioned by conceit. We think, ³How can he do this to me² and then we cling to the importance of self. We need to remember the dustrag mentality of Sariputta. L: I would like you to repeat all that you said about Rahula tomorrow, since we were interrupted in our conversation. I fail all the time, I cannot pass the test. N: If we say all the time that we cannot do it, is there not an idea of self who cannot pass the test? It depends on conditions whether we can pass the test, and the condition is the development of right understanding. The Commentary to the Mahaaraahulovadasutta refers several times to the ³Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint" (M 28, translation of Wheel 101). We read : The same is said about feeling, perception (sa~n~naa), san"khaarakkhandha (the activities) and consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). We then read: ³And his mind enters into that very object (taking it just as an impersonal) element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein)². It is very helpful to see that our life is in the ultimate sense only one moment of experiencing an object. Seeing is completely different from hearing or thinking, these are only cittas dependent on different contacts, experiencing different objects. I quote from my ³Abhidhamma in Daily Life²: When we see our life as conditioned namas and rupas we shall be less taken in by difficult circumstances. When someone scolds us, it does not matter, there is only the experience of sound and this is dependent on contact. Intellectual understanding, pariyatti, is only a beginning. Intellectual understanding can help us to a certain extent and it is a foundation of patipatti, the practice, vipassanaa, which is awareness and direct understanding of naama and ruupa. Patipatti will lead to the realization of the truth, pativedha. We need many reminders to begin being aware of naama and ruupa. The texts can be a real support. Jim suggested to me that I do research on the passage He provided me with a long list of textual references of a passage similar to this. I find that this research useful, not only from the point of grammatical knowledge, but that it is above all a reminder of the truth which is stated again and again. Several of these passages are in the ³Kindred Sayings²(II, ch XVII, §1) in the Suttas about gains, favours and flattery. The Buddha said: ³Wherefore, brethren, thus should you train yourselves:- ŒWhen gains, favours and flattery come to us, we will put them aside, nor when they come shall they take lasting hold on our hearts.¹ ² These are among the worldly conditions which are gain and loss, honour and dishonour, praise and blame, bodily wellbeing and pain. They change all the time. L: We are facing problems in our family which cannot be solved, and I cannot help being overcome by them, being worried about them day and night. N: It is helpful to remember that in the midst of trying circumstances there are also ultimate realities such as seeing, thinking or aversion. There are pleasant and unpleasant impressions assailing us all the time and they are bound to persist, unless understanding of them is developed. **** Nina. 22402 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: Questions from Jetty. Dear friends, A friend, Jetty, who lives in Bogor sent me some questions. Question1. I have the impression that kamma rules everything in our life. How is it possible that people can use parittas which can help them to overcome their misery, provided they have confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Nina: Kamma, good and bad deeds bring their appropriate results, vipaka. The result can take place at rebirth and throughout life in the form of pleasant or unpleasant experiences through the senses. We cannot say that whatever happens is due to kamma, because there are many different conditions which play their part in our life. There are factors which prevent kusala kamma or akusala kamma from producing results, there is counteractive kamma which prevents another kamma from producing result, it is all very complex. How do we react towards the different vipakas we receive? With kusala citta or with akusala citta? We can have wise attention or unwise attention to the pleasant or unpleasant object that is experienced. In Sri Lanka, in other Buddhist countries and also in Indonesia, parittas, certain texts, are recited to help people to have kusala citta and to overcome unhappiness. Paritta means protection. However, in how far people benefit from these depends on the citta. When people have confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, they have kusala citta instead of akusala citta with aversion about their misery. Best of all is the development of right understanding: in the ultimate sense there are only conditioned phenomena in our life: mental phenomena and physical phenomena. They arise because of their own conditions and they are beyond control, anatta. Q. 2. Anatta means that one has no power over oneself. Thus, when someone is on the right Path he does not have to strive to improve himself, he has the right conditions for obtaining happiness. Is the consequence of such a view not that one becomes passive? One leaves everything to conditions. N: At this moment we are full of the idea of self, only the person who has attained enlightenment has eradicated the wrong view of self. Therefore, it is natural that we are wondering whether we should strive for wholesomeness. We can begin to see that life is only in a moment, that when we see, our life is seeing, when we think, our life is thinking. These moments arise because of their own conditions and they change very rapidly. Actually, there is no time to think, what do I have to do, or to wonder, do I have to strive for wholesomeness? each moment of citta passes away immediately. It is most difficult to really understand the truth of anatta, it requires the development of right understanding of all realities of our life, on and on. We cannot understand anatta just by reasoning about it. As we begin to develop understanding of realities doubts about anatta will gradually disappear. Your questions are very much to the point and do continue asking. Nina. 22403 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri May 23, 2003 11:28am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 5. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 5. Two cetasikas, ³applied thinking², vitakka, and ³sustained thinking², vicåra, accompany all cittas of the sense-sphere other than the sense-cognitions. Vitakka and vicåra arise in sense-door processes of cittas and in mind-door processes of cittas. Thus we see that thinking as used in conventional language is different from the cetasika vitakka arising at the moments other than the sense-cognitions. Vitakka hits or strikes the object so that citta can cognize it and vicåra, sustained thinking, keeps the accompanying dhammas occupied with the object. We may have theoretical understanding of the difference between the sense-cognitions and the other types of citta which are accompanied by vitakka and vicåra, but it is important to consider more thoroughly the difference between them when they occur now, in daily life. Seeing just sees, it arises on the eyebase, it does not need vitakka. The other cittas in that process need vitakka, they do not see, they do not arise at the eyebase. We can begin to understand that seeing which experiences colour, is different from the cittas accompanied by vitakka which ³strikes² the object that is experienced. There are many moments of thinking after seeing or hearing. Vitakka strikes the object we are thinking of again and again. Then there may be hearing which just experiences sound. After hearing many moments of thinking arise: we think of the origin of the sound and its meaning, the meaning of words. Cittas are diverse because of the accompanying cetasikas, and also because cittas belong to different jåtis. All cittas can be classified as four jåtis (jåti means nature or birth). They can be classified as: kusala (wholesome), akusala (unwholesome), vipåka (result of kamma) and kiriya (inoperative: neither cause nor result). The sense-cognitions are vipåka, result of kamma. Depending on the kamma that produces them, seeing can be kusala vipåkacitta, experiencing a pleasant object, or akusala vipåkacitta, experiencing an unpleasant object. There are five pairs of sense-cognitions that experience a sense object through each of the five sense-doors. It seems that seeing lasts for a while, but this is not so, it is immediately succeeded by other types of citta within the eye-door process. All the other cittas of the process are accompanied by more than the seven cetasikas which are the ³universals². The citta that precedes seeing-consciousness is a kiriyacitta (inoperative consciousness) which has the function of adverting to the object through the eye-door. It is the first citta of that process and it is accompanied by the universals and in addition by applied thinking, sustained thinking and determination (adhimokkha). Determination is manifested as decisiveness with regard to the object, it assists the citta in cognizing the object. Decisiveness is the opposite of doubt, it cannot arise together with doubt. There must be determination with regard to the object that impinges on one of the senses so that the sense-door process can begin and one of the sense-cognitions can arise. 22404 From: Date: Fri May 23, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? In a message dated 5/23/03 7:26:08 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > %%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Yes, well said, but if we go back to this excellent quote, is it yours? ... just to butt in quickly - I posted the quote of Bhikkhu Bodhi's (from his introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta). Sorry for any confusion in my last post. One other quote was from the same source and one was from the commentary to the sutta itself. Hope this clarifies. I may add more later. Metta, Sarah >> Thanks, Sarah for the excellent quotes. Jeff 22405 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, I think you might find this discourse helpful. Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > ... > > I would say that your paraphrase > > "When all five aggregates exist, we call it a 'living being'" > > or > > "When the 5 aggregates are present, this is conventionally called > > 'a being'" > > distorts the original passage > > > > So, when the aggregates are present, > > There's the convention 'a being.' > > > > > > I would say that your paraphrase is an inaccurate restatement of > > the original passage above. > > > > Why? Your paraphrase begs the question: What is conventionally > > called 'a being'? Or, what is it that we call a 'living being'? > > whereas in the original passage Sister Vajira simply stated that > > there's the convention 'a being'. She did not claim that the five > > aggregates are conventionally called 'a being'. > > Thanks for these comments on the passage and my paraphrase of it. > > Would you care to share with us your understanding of intended > meaning of this passage, particularly the connection between the five > aggregates and the convention 'a being' that is being described here > (or in whatever terms you see it)? > > Thanks again. Looking forward to your further comments. > > Jon 22406 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 23, 2003 6:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: At Vesak, Thoughts of Parinibbana Hi Htoo Naing, Thank you for your response. I think the comment in the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dukkha.html might be of some interest to you. I often use the term "dukkha" untranslated in writing. However, when I did translate it to English, I often used the words "unsatisfactory"/"unsatisfactoriness" in place of the pali original. Your feedback is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Htoo Naing wrote: > Dear Yu, > > You are quite right Victor.If it is not an accurate translation of ''Dukkha'' what is then the accurate one?I look forward to your reply. > > With best wishes, > > Htoo Naing > > yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard (and Suan), > > Pardon me for jumping in. > > This is how I see it: > The five aggregates are unsatisfactory, whether one clings to them > or not. Seeing that the five aggregates are unsatisfactory does not > mean aversion toward them. I would say that the term "misery" is > not an accurate translation of the term "dukkha". > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor [snip] 22407 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 23, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Conditioned Reality Hello All, I hope you are all doing fine. I haven't been participating in a while, I have been on a bit of a spiritual quest I guess you could say. I have a series of questions for you all to consider, call it my thinking out loud: Is it possible that everything is conditioned, including the dhamma? Is one person's dhamma is necessarily another person's dhamma? Could it be that some entities are reborn countless times and that some have a soul that goes to "Heaven" to reside with "God" when they die…simply because that is how they view reality? If there is intelligent life on other planets in the universe, are they subject to the same dhamma as us or a different type of dhamma, conditioned by their particular set of beliefs? I bring up these questions, in part, because they relate to current studies in quantum physics. It seems that, under controlled conditions, matter will act in ways that the observer `wishes' it to act. In other words, perception of reality is what determines the reality. Is this a possibility? How does it fit/not fit within the teachings of Lord Buddha? Metta, James 22408 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 2:24am Subject: Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment According to the Abhidhamma, four mental factors (cetasikas) accompany all unwholesome (akusala) states of mind: - Moha (Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness / Mental Blindness) - Ahirika (Shamelessness / Lack of Moral Shame / Impudence / Immodesty / Lack of Conscience) - Anottappa (Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread / Disregard of Blame) - Uddhacca (Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering) Moha (Delusion / Ignorance / Dullness / Mental Blindness) ========================================================= Moha is the root of all immoralities. It is like the director of a film; it directs everything that is unwholesome but we do not see moha directly. Moha arises when there is no right understanding. Moha is not the same as lack of worldly or scientific knowledge. Moha is the mental blindness which conceals the true nature of things: - Mental blindness to nama and rupa as they truly are - Mental blindness to anicca, dukkha and anatta - Mental blindness to the four noble truths There are two kinds of moha: - Latent moha: Just as there is poison in a tree that bears poisonous fruit, latent moha is the element that conceals the Dhamma. Even at moments of performing good deeds, latent moha still exists. Latent moha is not a cetasika; it is an accumulation. Only an Arahant has uprooted latent moha. - Rising-up moha: All unwholesome states of mind include rising-up moha. Because of the concealing nature of rising-up moha, the unwholesome nature of the current state of mind is not understood and the future consequences of one's actions are not understood. Rising-up moha is a cetasika that only arises in unwholesome states of mind. Moha is also known as avijja, the first link in the chain of dependent origination. Though avijja is the first link in the chain, it is not a "causeless first cause". Moha cannot be eradicated merely by thinking about realities; it can eventually be eradicated by the wisdom that knows the true nature of realities (Study -> Practice -> Realization). Ahirika (Shamelessness / Lack of Moral Shame / Impudence / Immodesty / Lack of Conscience) and Anottappa (Recklessness / Lack of Moral Dread / Disregard of Blame) ==================================== Ahirika inhibits the shame and disgust that should arise with unwholesome actions, speech or thought. Ahirika is internally focused; it comes from a lack of respect for self. Just as a pig is not ashamed to roll in sewage, ahirika is not ashamed of committing immoral actions, speeches and thoughts. The Buddha said to his son, "Of anyone for whom there is no shame at intentional lying; of him I say that there is no evil he cannot do. 'I will not speak a lie, even for fun' - this is how you must train yourself, Rahula." (i.e. there is no room for "white lies") Ahirika is often a factor in rationalizing repeat offences, "I've already spoiled my diet, so I might as well have one more helping..." Ironically, our legal system treats repeat offences more seriously than the first. Anottapa inhibits the fear that should arise with unwholesome actions, speech or thought. Anottapa is externally focused; it comes from a lack of respect for others. Just as a moth, unaware of the consequences, gets attracted by fire and is burned - anottappa is unaware of the consequences, gets attracted by evil and plunges into unwholesome deeds. The opposites of Ahirika and Anottappa are Hiri and Ottappa. Hiri and Ottappa are present in all wholesome states of mind and are called the "Guardians of the World" because they protect society. In a Jataka tale, the Buddha interpreted the sixteen dreams of King Pasendai to foretell what would happen when society decayed. 1. Four wild bulls entered a courtyard to fight. They roared and bellowed but did not fight. Then they left the courtyard. -> When society decays... clouds will gather as if to rain. There will be thunder and lightning, but no rain. There will be famine. The seasons, conditioned by unnatural energies, become unbalanced. 2. Trees and shrubs sprouted from the earth. Almost immediately they flowered and bore fruit. -> When society decays... lifetimes will be short, passions will be strong and very young women will have children. 3. Cows drank milk from their own newly born calves. -> When society decays... parents will depend on children while children do not respect elders. 4. Men untied sturdy oxen from a cart, replacing them with young steers. The steers are not strong enough to move the cart. -> When society decays... important positions will be entrusted to the inexperienced. When they fail, the wise will refuse to help because they had been passed over. 5. A horse eating from two mouths, on either side of its head. -> When society decays... judges give themselves up to corruption and taking bribes. 6. People with gold bowls ask an old jackal to urinate in the bowl. - > When society decays... low-born will be powerful so noble maidens will marry upstarts. 7. A she-jackal hungrily eats a rope as a man weaves it. -> When society decays... women will behave badly using their husband's money. 8. People keep pouring water into a big pitcher that is already overflowing. Smaller pitchers surround, all remain empty. -> When society decays... common people are poor because they must contribute all they earn to the government, who mishandles the funds. 9. Animals drink out of a pool which is muddy in the centre but clear at the edges. -> When society decays... to escape the government, people will move away from the cities and take refuge in the frontier. 10. Rice cooking in a pot, not cooking evenly; part of the rice is sodden, part is raw and part is well cooked. -> When society decays... even guardian deities will be caught up in evil ways, the weather will turn unpredictable causing some areas to be rich, some to be poor. 11. Men bartering butter milk for precious sandal wood. -> When society decays... the Dhamma will decay as monks and teachers seek money and gifts. 12. Empty pumpkins sinking in the water. -> When society decays... low-born will become great lords while the noble sink into poverty. 13. Solid blocks of rock floated in the water. -> When society decays... nobles and wise men are scorned while upstarts shall thrive. 14. Tiny frogs pursuing and eating huge black snakes. -> When society decays... because of lust, men chase after young women who take advantage. 15. A wicked village crow attended by regal-looking ducks. -> When society decays... the wicked will wield power and the wise will have to attend on them. 16. Goats chased panthers, devouring them. -> When society decays... the low-born will usurp power and the ancestral rights of the nobles. Uddhacca (Restlessness / Distraction / Wavering) ================================================ Uddhacca is sometimes translated as confusion or mental distraction over an object of excitement; it is the opposite of steadiness or calm. Uddhacca makes the mind unsteady and results in unsystematic thought due to mental excitement. Uddhacca is not the same as the conventional term "restlessness" or "agitation"; these are unpleasant mental states. Uddhacca is the factor that inhibits us from applying ourselves to wholesome mental states. Just as we cannot see a reflection in a pot of boiling water, the restless mind cannot see the consequences of evil deeds. Conclusion ========== Greed, wrong view, conceit, hatred, envy, selfishness, remorse or doubt cannot arise without delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness at their core. Delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness can be suppressed during moments of wholesome mental states, but they remain dormant in the mind, always ready to condition the arising of unwholesome mental states until they are uprooted when one becomes an Arahant. 22409 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 2:45am Subject: Re: Conditioned Reality Hi James, I missed having you around. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > I have a series of questions for you all to consider, call it my > thinking out loud: Is it possible that everything is conditioned, > including the dhamma? Is one person's dhamma is necessarily another > person's dhamma? Could it be that some entities are reborn countless > times and that some have a soul that goes to "Heaven" to reside > with "God" when they die…simply because that is how they view > reality? If there is intelligent life on other planets in the > universe, are they subject to the same dhamma as us or a different > type of dhamma, conditioned by their particular set of beliefs? ===== I remember a talk by Ajahn Brahm, where he talked about a major study done in the US on near-death experiences. A doctor conducted a survey of a large number of patients who had been clinically dead but had come back to life. The subjects came from a cross-section of cultures and religions. There was surprising consistency in the experiences; a feeling of lightness, floating away from the body, going toward a light, passing through the centre of the light, meeting somebody, being told that it was not their time yet, going through the process in reverse ending up back in their own body. Because of the consistency, the study concluded that the patients had a common experience. What was interesting in the study was that the "person" that they met after going through the centre of the light depended on the person's religion; Catholics met Jesus or Mary, Hindus met Vishnu or Krishna, Buddhists met Kuan Yin or the Buddha, aethists met dead relatives. Ajahn Brahm's conclusion was that there was a consistent experience at the core, but layer upon layer of "conceptual proliferation" was added. In the patient's mind, they were all convinced that they had met Mary, Vishnu, Kuan Yin, etc. James, I beleive that it is extremely easy to put our own belief systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody that their own belief system is "wrong". > > I bring up these questions, in part, because they relate to current > studies in quantum physics. It seems that, under controlled > conditions, matter will act in ways that the observer `wishes' it to > act. In other words, perception of reality is what determines the > reality. Is this a possibility? How does it fit/not fit within the > teachings of Lord Buddha? ===== I would like to know more about these current studies in quantum physics. It is clear that the design of the experiment will determine the type of outcome. However, the same experiment will consistently deliver the same type of outcome, irrespective of the "wishes" of the observer. When Heisenberg said, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it.", he was saying that the act of observing forces the system to a fixed state, but we cannot infer that this state was uniquely defined before the observation (i.e. an extention of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.). In other words, the "wish" of the observer does not enter into the equation, but the action of observation does. You have suggested that perception of reality is what determines the reality. My understanding is that conceptual proliferation creates a perceived realtity that, through "wrong understanding", we take as real. I would be interested in hearing your comments. Metta, Rob M :-) 22410 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment > Conclusion > ========== > Greed, wrong view, conceit, hatred, envy, selfishness, remorse or > doubt cannot arise without delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and > restlessness ...to be sure... > at their core. ...not sure about the 'core' (hair-splitting, perhaps)... > Delusion, shamelessness, recklessness and restlessness can be > suppressed during moments of wholesome mental states, but they > remain dormant in the mind, always ready to condition the arising of > unwholesome mental states until they are uprooted when one becomes > an Arahant. ...of paramount importance in my opinion, and one of the most valuable (and conventional) lessons of all three pitakas. mike p.s. Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising of unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just always arise with them? 22411 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11:28 AM Subject: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. > It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa pa~n~naa. He > had to develop understanding of ultimate realities, of nama and rupa. If you haven't already done so, could you please post this particular passage from the Commentary (in English!)? Thanks, mike 22412 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 24, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality Hi Again, RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 2:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality > ...I believe that it is extremely easy to put our own belief > systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we > are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this > tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody > that their own belief system is "wrong". Unfortunately, I think it's far (almost infinitely) easier to 'put our own belief systems around a "FALSE" reality'. For us poor, unenlightened beings, this occurs every moment of every day, I think. (Sorry if I've missed the significance of the quotation marks surrounding 'true' and 'wrong'). mike 22413 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi Mike, Thanks for your quick response. I agree with both of the points that you raised and have changed the text accordingly. Much appreciated. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > at their core. > > ...not sure about the 'core' (hair-splitting, perhaps)... ===== I agree with you. I have changed "... at their core." to "... as a base." ===== > Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising > of > unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just always > arise with them? ===== Technically, "arising with" (co-nascent) is one of the 24 conditions. However, I agree that it is better to say "... always ready to accompany the arising...". Metta, Rob M :-) 22414 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 24, 2003 3:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Conditioned Reality Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > ...I believe that it is extremely easy to put our own belief > > systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we > > are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this > > tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody > > that their own belief system is "wrong". > > Unfortunately, I think it's far (almost infinitely) easier to 'put our own > belief > systems around a "FALSE" reality'. For us poor, unenlightened beings, this > occurs every moment of every day, I think. > > (Sorry if I've missed the significance of the quotation marks surrounding > 'true' and 'wrong'). The significance of the quotation marks around "true" is to emphasize that there is a true, unalterable reality (paramattha dhammas). I have a hard time with "false reality"; I prefer "perceived reality", perhaps just an issue of semantics. The significance of the quotation marks around "wrong" is that belief systems, by definition, are "true" from their own frame of reference. As one changes one's frame of reference, one's belief system automatically adapts. The implication of this point is that one cannot change our own (or another's) belief system directly. One can, however, change our own (or another's) frame of reference by considering our own experiences from a different perspective. Metta, Rob M :-) 22415 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 24, 2003 5:14pm Subject: Re: Conditioned Reality --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi Rob M, I missed having you around. (James: Thanks. It is kind of you to say so.) I remember a talk by Ajahn Brahm, where he talked about a major study done in the US on near-death experiences. A doctor conducted a survey of a large number of patients who had been clinically dead but had come back to life. The subjects came from a cross-section of cultures and religions. There was surprising consistency in the experiences; a feeling of lightness, floating away from the body, going toward a light, passing through the centre of the light, meeting somebody, being told that it was not their time yet, going through the process in reverse ending up back in their own body. Because of the consistency, the study concluded that the patients had a common experience. What was interesting in the study was that the "person" that they met after going through the centre of the light depended on the person's religion; Catholics met Jesus or Mary, Hindus met Vishnu or Krishna, Buddhists met Kuan Yin or the Buddha, aethists met dead relatives. Ajahn Brahm's conclusion was that there was a consistent experience at the core, but layer upon layer of "conceptual proliferation" was added. In the patient's mind, they were all convinced that they had met Mary, Vishnu, Kuan Yin, etc. (James: Thank you for this information. I hadn't currently heard of this study and it is good to know. What I am suggesting/or wondering is that it is quite possible that each of these occurrences are as `real' as anything is `real'.) James, I beleive that it is extremely easy to put our own belief systems around a "true" reality and convince ourselves that what we are experiencing is in line with our own belifs. I believe that this tendency is deeply ingrained and there is no way to convince anybody that their own belief system is "wrong". (James: That isn't what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that they are each correct. What they believe is what there is. Maybe it is quite possible that Jesus (As Son of God), God, Satan, Angels, Vishnu, Krishna, and Nibbana all exist because people believe they exist. Perhaps the Lord Buddha found enlightenment because he believed that he could and that it existed. Nibbana may not exist separate from the belief that creates it. Are you now following me?) I would like to know more about these current studies in quantum physics. It is clear that the design of the experiment will determine the type of outcome. However, the same experiment will consistently deliver the same type of outcome, irrespective of the "wishes" of the observer. (James: Rob, I am afraid that this declarative statement doesn't bear itself out with some quantum experiments. Results are not consistent, even when all other factors are consistent, and results will vary depending on the influence of the observer. It would take a lengthy explanation of this, and would veer off-topic for this group (or would appear to at least), so you can check out the information about this at this link: http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/quantum.htm ) You have suggested that perception of reality is what determines the reality. My understanding is that conceptual proliferation creates a perceived realtity that, through "wrong understanding", we take as real. (James: I am not sure of the difference in these two descriptions. They seem to be different wording for the same description, but I may misunderstand your meaning. The Abhidhamma states that there is a reality that exists which is irrespective of the observer and is `real' and consistent…and is ultimate. I do not agree with that. But what I would like to know is if the Buddha, in the suttas, stated that his perception of reality, after enlightenment, was no longer conditioned and was 'ultimate'; that he got a 'backstage look' at things, at all things, so to speak. After all, I feel that he was very guarded and selective in how he described his teachings; he wanted them to be understood by his audience. By his admission, there were many things that he knew that he did not tell. It is interesting to consider what those things were.) I would be interested in hearing your comments. (James: Well, here they are. I am not sure if they do either one of us a bit of good! ;-) Metta, Rob M :-) Metta, James 22416 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun May 25, 2003 0:02am Subject: Additions to Photo Albums Dear Group, Just to let you know that a few new photos have been added to the albums: --One to the Members Album which now has 54 photos --Two to the Significant Others and Family Album which now has 8 photos. (Doesn't anyone have a few more Significant Others or Family members they'd like us to admire? :-)) --Two to the Meetings Album which now has 14 photos As well, there are 11 in the Others Album and 2 in the Buddha statues Album They can be viewed by going to: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst and clicking on each album. May I encourage any and all who do not yet grace the pages of our Photo Albums to take the plunge. Don''t be shy. We'd love to see you there - I think it is much more interesting to talk to other members when you know what they look like. Don't wait for the 'perfect shot' - no-one else has. :-) Anyone needing help can send their photos to Kom or I, and we'd be glad to settle you in. metta and peace, Christine 22417 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Robert - H: I do understand that the notion of "purple, flying elephant" is a concept concocted by the mind, and, in fact, not a single thought. In fact, the very "thought" (and not the obviously nonexistent referent) of a 'purple, flying elephant' is likely not actually a separate, individual thought. There is more likely a sequence of mental occurrences (mostly thoughts), some involving shapes, some involving colors, some involving "stories" of elephants and their parts (trunks, tails, etc), memories of "Dumbo, the Flying Elephant", etc, etc, etc, and with each of these not a single mental event either, but a great package of mental phenomena! It is all extremely complex. J: Yes, this is more or less how I conceive it to be, also. H: ... Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need to be clearly seen. J: I am wondering if you are not overlooking the distinction between thinking and thoughts here. As you know, thinking is the consciousness that experiences (= conceives of) a thought; the thought is the object of that moment of consciousness (this can be likened to the distinction between, say, seeing consciousness and visible object). What characterises any thinking moment are the mental factors that accompany the moment of consciousness, rather than thought that is the object of the thinking. For example, the difference between thinking of oneself with wrong view of self and thinking of oneself without wrong view of self lies not in the thought itself but in the mental factor of wrong view that accompanies the moment of thinking. So when you mention 'thoughts of personal identity' as an instance of something that needs to be clearly seen, could this perhaps be better expressed by saying that it is 'thinking accompanied by the idea of personal identity' that needs to be clearly seen as it is? In this instance, the thinking would of course be akusala rather than kusala. A thought itself can have no characteristic of kusala or akusala, since these are attributes of consciousness and mental factors only. H: To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to skip over a matter of great importance I think. J: The question I think we need to consider is whether, according to the teachings, concepts are included among the fundamental phenomena of which the aggregates, ayatanas, elements etc are comprised. If the answer is that they are not, this doesn't mean they are being dismissed, merely that they are being distinguished. H: You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. J: Again, the difference between thinking and thoughts needs to be kept in mind. H: In the process we will see how we create "our world" through mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, and empty. J: But all the creating is done by the mind, by thinking (i.e., not by the thoughts). I think. ;-)) Jon 22418 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > smallchap: If one knows now nama as nama, rupa as rupa, he knows > nama > as nama, rupa as rupa. If one does not know now nama as nama, rupa > as rupa, he knows not nama as nama, rupa as rupa. This is > irregardless > of whether attained the higher insight previously (except an > arahant). (Sorry! Can't quote any texts here to support my > statements.) I agree with this (if I have understood you correctly). But my point was that there cannot be the higher stages without first developing the lower stages. One cannot have gained insight into the characteristic of anicca/dukkha/anatta without having developed insight into the distinction between namas and rupas. > Insight meditation is a way to cultivate continuous chain of > mements > of insight, until one reaches the final goal (I am not sure if I > make > myself clear here). Again, don't ask me for the supporting texts as > I can find none so for. To talk of insight meditation as a way of achieving continuous insight may give the idea that insight is simply a matter of getting the hang of the right 'practice' (technique); I don't believe that would be correct. > another ps. I will reply your next post and thereafter I wish to > observe cyber silence. So I will not discuss further on this > subject. My sincere apology. We look forward to hearing from you again when your period of cyber-silence is over ;-)) Jon 22419 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... L: I am not sure I understand your comments. J: Don't worry. I probably haven't understood the passage I'm trying to comment on ;-)). Fortunately, you have clarified it for me (below), so I hope I can do better this time. L: In particular, I don't see how the distinction between ultimate and conventional truths helps you out of the problems posed by the author - such as, how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. J: Thanks for this restatement of the problem posed by the author, namely, 'how to account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception'. What I was trying to say was that the instances of valid inference and faulty conception cited by the author, namely - the assertion 'a mountain is impermanent' as an instance of a valid inference, and - the assertion 'a mountain is impermanent' as an instance of a faulty conception, do not in fact correctly represent the teachings (as found in the tipitaka, including the sutta pitaka). To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. Accordingly, I think the author is in error in his 'valid inference/faulty conception' distinction, and I don't think the ensuing discussion can meaningfully be commented on. > The unique characteristic > of insight is the mental factor of panna of a certain > level that accompanies that moment of consciousness. Otherwise, > dhammas are being directly experienced by consciousness all the > time, but not by consciousness that is accompanied by panna. > Every moment > of seeing, for example, is a moment of consciousness experiencing > the dhamma that is visible object. L: Yes, I understand that is what the Abhidhamma approach asserts, ... J: In fact I was not putting this forward as an example of the Abhidhamma approach (I happen not to think in terms of and Abhidhamma approach vs. a suttanta approach), but as something found throughout the pitaka. Regarding the 2 statements: - panna is the unique characteristic of insight; - the object of a moment of seeing is is visible object, one of the 'dhammas', you seem to be suggesting these are specific to the Abhidhamma. I don't think that's so. As an instance of the latter, consider the many suttas on the senes-bases (ayatanas). L: ... but, to me, it still does not answer the question of how to bridge the gap between perception and conception. I think Larry also suggested the idea of panna as a solution to the problem, but frankly, I don't understand how either of you intend it as a solution. I believe I have a rudimentary understanding of panna's positioning within the Abhidhamma system of thought, but don't see how it works as a solution within the context Dreyfus is discussing. I would be interested in hearing the reasoning of either you or Larry on this point. J: As I've said, to my thinking the author has misconceived the teachings in stating his problem. My guess is that what he is meaning to describe is the difference between ultimate truths (his 'valid inference', e.g., 'mountain is impermanent') and conventional truths (his 'faulty conception' e.g., 'mountain is permanent'), but I couldn’t be sure on this. Sorry that I can't say anything more constructive a this stage. Please feel free to say if I've misunderstood the author. Jon 22420 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 25, 2003 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jonothan: ... > > For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is > > correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that > experiences > > other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that > doesn't > > experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the > > different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These > are > > very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated > > without the need for any a priori assumptions. > > This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it > is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the > experiential > process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily > intended as a description that serves ontological rather than > purely salvational needs. I think it's clear from the suttas dealing with the sense-bases (ayatanas) that the realisation of the different nature of the consciousness and the objects experienced through the 6 doors is essential for enlightenment. See for example the Chachakka Sutta ('Six sets of six') M 148, especially the second set of 6 (visible object, sound, etc) and third set of 6 (seeing consciousness, hearing consciousness, etc) referred to there (I have pasted below an extract from the ATI translation) These are clearly stated to be things that 'should be known'. I take this to mean that they are capable of being known at the present moment as and when they arise. Perhaps this is the point of our difference. Do you read this as a 'conceptual description of the experiential process'? > In saying this, I don't mean to denigrate the value or wisdom of > the > Abhidhamma approach. Rather, I am simply describing where I am in > my > own thought process at this particular time. The approach that you > and others follow on DSG is fascinating and, consistent with the > call to come and see, I have much to learn about your approach. Actually, I don't see it as a matter of an Abhidhamma approach vs. a suttanta approach. All 3 baskets talk about the same truths and the same path to enlightenment. The difference is in the way the material is laid out. There is much in the suttas that is way over our heads and accordingly has to be 'figured out'. It's a question of whether we do the figuring out on the basis of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma, or on some other basis. Jon http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known. "'The six internal media should be known.' .... This is the first sextet. "'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium , the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet. "'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet. 22421 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment Hi RobM, ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Universal Unwholesome Mental Factors - Please Comment > ===== > > > Do they (the unwholesome universals) actually 'condition the arising > > of unwholesome mental states' (I'd ascribe this more to moha) or just > > always arise with them? > > ===== > > Technically, "arising with" (co-nascent) is one of the 24 > conditions. True and you're right of course. When I think of the 24 paccaya I think of them as 'arising with and conditioning' rather 'conditioning' in the sense of 'causing' (which was the way I took your 'condition the arising'). > However, I agree that it is better to say "... always ready to accompany the arising...". Anyway, I wasn't suggesting you change anything--I'm sure you know all of this much better than I do. I'm really just trying to clarify my own views. Keep up the good work... mike 22422 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > > Accordingly, I think the author is in error in his 'valid > inference/faulty conception' distinction, and I don't think the > ensuing discussion can meaningfully be commented on. Hi Jonothan: You raise an interesting issue, for what is or isn't understod as impermanent in the Buddhist tradition seems to be the subject of some fascinating discussion about anicca and dukkha being descriptive of sabbe sankhárá and anatta being descriptive of sabbe dhamma. But Dreyfus is talking not solely within a particular tradition (Theravada or otherwise) but from the perspective where select terms and definitions were ascribed some common or conventional understanding or meaning among a range of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions simply to facillitate discussion and debate and not to suggest that these defintions were ultimately correct from *within* each tradition entering the discussion. In any event, Dreyfus' example seems to be a stumbling block for you as you filter the discussion through your perspective (which, of course, we all tend to do) and that is understandable if the example does not speak to you. If viewed as ultimate language, it would also be unlikely to speak to a tradition that sees all as mere illusion as they await unity with their god. I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you as a way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. -- Lee Dillion 22423 From: Lee Dillion Date: Sun May 25, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: > --- Lee Dillion wrote: >>>For example, we can check for ourselves whether it is >>>correct that there is one kind of phenomenon (nama)that experiences >>>other phenomena, and another kind of phenomenon (rupa) that doesn't >>>experience other phenomena; or that the experiences through the >>>different doorways are separate and discrete experiences. These are >>>very relevant 'issues' that can be considered and investigated >>>without the need for any a priori assumptions. >> >>This is probably where we part company for the time being, for it >>is not clear to me that this conceptual description of the >>experiential process is necessary for awakening or that it is necessarily >>intended as a description that serves ontological rather than >>purely salvational needs. > I think it's clear from the suttas dealing with the sense-bases > (ayatanas) that the realisation of the different nature of the > consciousness and the objects experienced through the 6 doors is > essential for enlightenment. Hi Jonothan: Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of passages regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to the Chachakka Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of the discourse and experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas as another example of the regularity we call dependent arising. I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of a deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes this latter approach as follows: --- Such a conception of the nature of the real seems to be already implicit in the Sutta Pitaka, particularly in the Buddha's disquisitions on the aggregates, sense bases, elements, dependent arising, etc., but it remains there tacitly in the background as the underpinning to the more pragmatically formulated teachings of the Suttas. Even in the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself the dhamma theory is not yet expressed as an explicit philosophical tenet; this comes only later, in the Commentaries. Nevertheless, though as yet implicit, the theory still comes into focus in its role as the regulating principle behind the Abhidhamma's more evident task, the project of systemization. This project starts from the premise that to attain the wisdom that knows things "as they really are," a sharp wedge must be driven between those types of entities that possess ontological ultimacy, that is, the dhammas, and those types of entities that exist only as conceptual constructs but are mistakenly grasped as ultimately real. Proceeding from this distinction, the Abhidhamma posits a fixed number of dhammas as the building blocks of actuality, most of which are drawn from the Suttas. It then sets out to define all the doctrinal terms used in the Suttas in ways that reveal their identity with the ontological ultimates recognized by the system. On the basis of these definitions, it exhaustively classifies the dhammas into a net of pre-determined categories and modes of relatedness which highlight their place within the system's structure. And since the system is held to be a true reflection of actuality, this means that the classification pinpoints the place of each dhamma within the overall structure of actuality. From "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" ----- I may get there at some point. Who knows? -- Lee Dillion 22424 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - I reply to the 2nd half of your post. In a message dated 5/25/03 7:18:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > H: ... Moreover, it is *important* to clearly see the patterns of > thought, the clusters of thoughts of certain types, recurring again > and again, because many of these are traps our ignorant minds set for > ourselves. Not only are the individual thoughts and other mental > phenomena kamma vipaka, but so are the patterns in which they occur, > the interrelationships among them. Our thoughts of personal identity, > for example, are among these complex thought clusters, and they need > to be clearly seen. > > J: I am wondering if you are not overlooking the distinction between > thinking and thoughts here. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. -------------------------------------------------------- > > As you know, thinking is the consciousness that experiences (= > conceives of) a thought; the thought is the object of that moment of > consciousness (this can be likened to the distinction between, say, > seeing consciousness and visible object). > ----------------------------------------------- Okay. That's one way of parsing it. The awareness of the thought is the thinking of it. (I tend to parse it as the thinking of the thought involving both the thought and the awareness, as one does not occur without the other.) ------------------------------------------------ > > What characterises any thinking moment are the mental factors that > accompany the moment of consciousness, rather than thought that is > the object of the thinking. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Says who? The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, and has different effect. ------------------------------------------------- > > For example, the difference between thinking of oneself with wrong > view of self and thinking of oneself without wrong view of self lies > not in the thought itself but in the mental factor of wrong view that > accompanies the moment of thinking. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: You believe there is some single concrete thing that goes by the name of 'wrong view'? I certainly do not. -------------------------------------------------- > > So when you mention 'thoughts of personal identity' as an instance of > something that needs to be clearly seen, could this perhaps be better > expressed by saying that it is 'thinking accompanied by the idea of > personal identity' that needs to be clearly seen as it is? In this > instance, the thinking would of course be akusala rather than kusala. > A thought itself can have no characteristic of kusala or akusala, > since these are attributes of consciousness and mental factors only. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, you are asserting right here that the thinking is characterized in part by the nature of its object, which seems to contradict your previous assertion to the contrary. That aside: Seeing the occurrence of a thought of personal identity, and seeing that that moment of awareness is accompanied by the idea of personal identity are not separable. The thought of personal identity and the thinking of that thought co-occur; as soon as one realizes the occurrence of one of these, one also realizes the occurrence of the other. When I think of red, I am aware of both the thought of red and of the thinking of it. (I do not think for a second that I am *seeing* redness. I know that the redness is a thought.) --------------------------------------------------------- > > H: To simply say "They're only concepts" and dismiss them, is to > skip over a matter of great importance I think. > > J: The question I think we need to consider is whether, according to > the teachings, concepts are included among the fundamental phenomena > of which the aggregates, ayatanas, elements etc are comprised. If > the answer is that they are not, this doesn't mean they are being > dismissed, merely that they are being distinguished. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness is to the body door? I certainly take exception to such a claim. If the Abhidhamma asserts that, it becomes of less interest to me. ----------------------------------------------------- > > H: You do say "Good to be aware of thinking, I think!". I think this > can't be emphasized too much. To apply mindfulness to our thoughts, > as I see it, is not only possible, but quite necessary. > > J: Again, the difference between thinking and thoughts needs to be > kept in mind. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I see this issue as a red herring. Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in ordered for us to become free. ------------------------------------------------------- > > H: In the process we will see how we create "our world" through > mental projection, and we will come to see through our concepts to > the direct phenomena that compose them and learn that these, > themselves, are ephemeral will-o'-the-wisps, conditioned, fleeting, > and empty. > > J: But all the creating is done by the mind, by thinking (i.e., not > by the thoughts). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's a red herring, Jon. There's no thinking that is not thinking of thoughts, and there are no unthought thoughts. We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of thoughts and co-occuring awareness of them, but we need to see the nature of the thoughts, the presumptions they carry, the belief we invest in them, and the repeated patterns of thought. One disclaimer, though. For me, attending to thoughts is most important with regard to guarding the senses. We need to see the reactive thinking following in the wake of pleasant and unpleasant contacts, catching the reaction as soon as possible. But I don't consider mindfulness of thought/thinking to be a primary practice, for me at least. I think that we are so committed to various patterns of thinking and so fooled by concepts of ours, that it is hard, except for the very advanced practitioner, for wisdom to fully arise using mindfulness of thinking as a primary practice. I think it is far more effective and safer as well to take mindfulness of the body, of bodily sensation, as the *primary* foundation of mindfulness for most of us. ------------------------------------------------------ > > I think. ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22425 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where the > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional objects > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, the > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in the > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements etc, > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > ============================= How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the Gela~n~na Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn36-007a.html - 7KB - 10 Sep 2001 Also,with regard to the body Bhikkhu Bodhi writes the following accessible at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/cgi-bin/search/proxy.pl?terms=impermanent& url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Flib%2Fbps%2Fmisc%2Fwaytoend.html << The last exercise in mindfulness of the body is a series of "cemetery meditations," contemplations of the body's disintegration after death, which may be performed either imaginatively, with the aid of pictures, or through direct confrontation with a corpse. By any of these means one obtains a clear mental image of a decomposing body, then applies the process to one's own body, considering: "This body, now so full of life, has the same nature and is subject to the same fate. It cannot escape death, cannot escape disintegration, but must eventually die and decompose." Again, the purpose of this meditation should not be misunderstood. The aim is not to indulge in a morbid fascination with death and corpses, but to sunder our egoistic clinging to existence with a contemplation sufficiently powerful to break its hold. The clinging to existence subsists through the implicit assumption of permanence. In the sight of a corpse we meet the teacher who proclaims unambiguously: "Everything formed is impermanent." >> Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the body, to be found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/cgi-bin/search/proxy.pl?terms=impermanent& url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accesstoinsight.org%2Fcanon%2Fkhuddaka%2Fiti%2Fiti2.html
are" (probably a moha-mula citta rooted in restlessness). There is > no way that this could be completed kamma (akusala kamma patha), so > the kamma created is not strong enough to send us to a woeful state > at time of rebirth. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a very > weak kammic potential (seed?) created. The arising of this moha-mula > citta reinforces an accumulation of not seeing things as they truly > are. To me, this is more worrisome than the kammic impact of being > distracted N: As you say: are">. But when is there seeing things as they are? That is the result of a long, long development of understanding during many lives, understanding which gradually grows in the course of the stages of insight. How could we expect this to happen soon? It is natural we have moha-mula citta accompanied by restlessness. You say, moha-mula citta rooted in restlessness, but uddhacca is not a root like lobha, dosa and moha. When there is mohamulacitta accompanied by uddhacca, certainly we accumulate moha. We accumulate so many defilements, not only moha. You find, this is more worrisome than the kammic impact of being distracted. It is as it is, but we should not find it worrysome. If we think in this way, could it not lead to ideas of improving ourselves, wondering how the self can prevent this, how we can find ways to counteract akusala? I just looked at some notes of our discussions in Kraeng Kacang: A. Sujin said: Thus, akusala cetana cetasika accompanying akusala citta is kamma; kamma is another word for cetana; but, when it is not intense there is merely the accumulation of akusala. When we commit a serious akusala kamma, there are also mohamulacittas accompanied by uddhacca in between which support it and these can bring result, but only in the course of life, not in the form of rebirth-consciousness. R: ... the accumulation to get distracted again in the future > gives rise to the possibility of a more serious lobha-mula or dosa- > mula citta to arise (as we know, lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas > both have moha). N: I am inclined to think that all defilements, not just distraction, also former lobha, dosa and other defilements, can give rise to lobha-mula or dosa-mula citta. R: If I take the opposing view (i.e. not every akusala citta creates > akusala kamma), I now have to have a rule to determine what > qualifies an akusala citta as "kamma-creating". I recently had a > discussion with Jon on this and I believe, at the end, we agreed > that "completed kamma" relates to rebirth-potential only (at least > that's what I remember). N: I am inclined to think that it also leads to akusala vipaka during life. My conclusion is that only a Buddha knows exactly kamma and vipaka. We cannot, but for us, best of all is the development of right understanding of all realities, akusala included, in our daily life. We should not worry about forgetfulness, that is again dosa. Such worry can also be conditioned by conceit: clinging to the importance of self who has so much distraction. I had a note on janaka kamma. During the last javanacittas in a life (thus, not, as some people think at the moment of dying-consciousness which is just a moment of vipaka) the object can be kamma (that one has performed) kamma nimitta (symbol or sign of kamma) or gati nimitta (image of one's future destiny). Now, on the radio I heard: when we hear sound now and after that it is time for our death, the sound can be kamma nimitta, thus, it is very daily. It reminds us that cuti-citta can come any time. (In Topics of Abhidhamma: p. 106 and following). Best wishes and with appreciation, Nina. 22428 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 25, 2003 11:39am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 9 He does not become disheartened, he does not show dislike, not even slightly, when he hears, ³He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cross a whole world-system filled with water and reach the further shore by the bare strength of his arms". This is an occasion for joy and for endeavour to attain Buddhahood. He has to cross a whole world-system. There is not only this world, he has to cross a whole worldsystem. We read: If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can cut through a whole world-system that has become a jungle of thorny creepers covered by a solid thicket of bamboo, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... If he were to hear: "Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away. Such is the magnitude of the desire required. The Bodhisatta thought that he could achieve this, but his determination was not yet firm enough; he had to continue to accumulate keen and refined paññå so that his noble qualities could reach accomplishment. When he had visited the Sammasambuddha and his excellent qualities had become firmly established, he could begin to make the resolution to accumulate the perfections. We can see that it is extremely difficult to accumulate the perfections which lead to the attainment of the incomparable awakening wisdom of the Buddha. He penetrated the truth of the realities that are arising and falling away at the present moment, so that akusala could be completely eradicated and he could attain Buddhahood. The person who has the supreme aspiration to become a Sammasambuddha, should have eight qualifications: the human state, the male sex, the cause (which are the necessary supporting conditions), the sight of the Teacher, the going forth, the achievement of noble qualities, extreme dedication and strong desire. As regards the first qualification, the human state, if he is not a human, his aspiration will not succeed. As to the second qualification, the male sex, a woman cannot become a Buddha. The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking. 22429 From: Date: Sun May 25, 2003 4:35pm Subject: Way 93, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Sense-bases After explaining the contemplation of mental objects by way of the aggregates the Master said: "And, further, o bhikkhus," in order to explain the contemplation of mental objects by way of the sense-bases. Chasu ajjhattika bahiresu ayatanesu = "In (the mental objects of) the six internal and the six external sense-bases." The eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind are the six internal sense-bases, and material form, mind, smell, tastes, tactual object, and mental object are the six external sense-bases. Cakkhum pajanati = "(He) understands the eye." He understands the sensory apparatus of the eye, by way of its own distinct function and salient characteristic. Rupe pajanati = "(He) understands material form (objects) that are visible." He understands material form arising from the four producers of corporeality, namely, karma, consciousness, climate and nutriment [kamma citta utu ahara], by way of their own distinctive function and salient characteristic. Yam tadubhayam paticcca uppajjati samyojanam = "The fetter that arises dependent on both (eye and forms)." He understands according to distinct function and characteristic the tenfold fetter that arises dependent on both eye and forms -- the tenfold fetter of sense-desire, resentment, pride, speculative theory, doubt, belief in rites and ceremonies, the desire to go on existing, envy, avarice and ignorance. "How does this tenfold fettering arise?" asks one. The fetter of sensuality arises for him who by way of sensuous enjoyment takes delight in a pleasant sense-object become visible at the eye-door. For him who is annoyed or angry at the sight of an unpleasant object, the fetter of resentment arises, and the fetter of pride arises in him who thinks: No one but me is able to consider the object wisely. The fetter of speculative theory comes to be in him who takes material form to be permanent and everlasting. The fetter of doubt arises in him who thinks in this way: Is the material form a being or a being's? The fetter of the desire to go on existing arises in him who wishes thus: To be sure, in a favorable state of existence this material form will become easy of access. The fetter of rites and ceremonies arises in him who undertakes to perform rites and ceremonies thinking: In the future it will be possible to obtain such an object as this by taking up the observance of rites and ceremonies. The fetter of envy arises in him who contemplates grudgingly: Should no others get this material form, it would be good, indeed. The fetter of avarice arises in one who stints for another the material form belonging to one. The fetter of ignorance arises (with all the previously mentioned fetters), with all sensuous passion and the like, by way of the relation of conascent nescience. Yathaca anupannassa samyojanassa uppado hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the arising of the non-arisen (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands that the (tenfold) fetter had not arisen earlier owing to some cause of non-occurrence. Yatha ca uppannassa samyojanassa pahanam hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the abandoning of the arisen (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands the reason for the abandoning of just the (tenfold) fetter arisen through previous non-abandoning or through occurrence. Yatha ca pahinassa samojanassa ayatim anuppado hoti tañca pajanati = "He understands how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned (tenfold) fetter comes to be." He understands the reason for the non-arising in the future of even the (tenfold) fetter abandoned by way of rejection of separate factors through right reflection [tadangavasena] and through absorption [vikkhambhana vasena]. Owing to what reason does the tenfold fettering cease to arise in the future finally? The path of stream-winning or the first stage of awakening is the reason for final cessation of the five fetters of speculative theory, doubt, rites and ceremonies, envy, and avarice. The path of once-returning or the second stage of awakening is the reason for the final cessation of sensuality and resentment of a gross kind and the residuum of these two fetters finally ceases by reason of the statement of the path of never-returning, the third stage of awakening. The fact which makes the fetter of pride, of the desire to go on existing, and of ignorance to cease finally in the future is the path of final purification, arahantship, the fourth state of awakening. The same is the method of exegesis in sotañca pajanati sadde ca pajanati = "He understands the ear and sounds." Further, in this connection, the talk on the sense-bases in full should be understood as stated by the commentator in the Path of Purity. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." The bhikkhu lives contemplating the mental objects by laying hold of the internal sense-bases in his own mental objects or in another's or laying hold of the external sense-bases in another's mental objects or in his own or at one time in his own and at another time in another's mental objects. Origination and dissolution should be brought forward and connected here by the extended application of the method indicated by the words: "From the origin of ignorance the origin of the eye" to the sense-bases of material form in the aggregate of materiality, to the mental sense-base in the aggregate of consciousness, and to the sense-base of the mental object in the other non-material aggregates, according to the method of exegesis already stated by the commentator. The supramundane states should not be taken. From here onward the exposition is according to the method already shown by the commentator. [Tika] The two groups of six sense-bases are stated by way of determining the sense-doors and the sense-objects of arising of sixfold consciousness. Of the consciousness or mind aggregate included in a course of cognition of eye-consciousness, just the eye-base is the "door" of origin, and the base of the material form is the object. So it is in the case of the others. But of the sixth sense-base the part of the mind-base called the life-continum, the unconscious mind, is the "door" of origin [chatthassa pana bhavangamanasankhato manayatanekadeso uppatti dvaram]. And in a particular or special way the mind-object base is the object [asadharananca dhammayatanam arammanam]. [T] Dependent on both: The eye becomes a condition by way of decisive support and the material forms, the objects, become a condition by way of objective predominance and objective decisive support [cakkhum upanissaya paccayavasena paccayabhutam rupe arammanadhipati arammanupanissaya vasena paccayabhute ca paticca]. 22430 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun May 25, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Dear Mike, See below. op 24-05-2003 19:30 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Subject: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part > 3. >> It is said in the Commentary that Rahula had to develop vipassanaa > pa~n~naa. He >> had to develop understanding of ultimate realities, of nama and rupa. > > If you haven't already done so, could you please post this particular > passage from the Commentary (in English!)? Nina: And further on: And the Subcommentary: Nina. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22431 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun May 25, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Cooran meeting; cetana Hello all, At the Cooran meeting, Andrew handed out copies of the Cetana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya XII.38 (translated by B. Thanisssaro)) and asked for comments. Even the bookworms (Christine and Steve), couldn't come up with much on the key terms, "intend," "arrange," and "obsess." Steve pointed out that the third paragraph described the Arahant (and, presumably, the second; the Noble Learner and the first; the Worldling(?)). But apart from that, we were struggling for ideas. The translation consists of just three paragraphs so hopefully, it can be explained quite briefly. If any dsg members are prepared to do so, I'll put their suggestions to the next Cooran meeting. Thanks in advance. Ken H ------------ CETANA SUTTA INTENTION "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. Such is the origination of the entire mass of suffering and stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering and stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering and stress."" Note [1] The seven obsessions are; the obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming and the obsession of ignorance. See AN VII.12. 22432 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:14am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff (& Lee), Thanks for your kind comments. ..... Jeff: > ... I believe at the center of this question lies the question > of what > the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has > completely > erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of > non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' > > In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, > > because there is no self to act or react. ..... S: Regardless of whether there is any wrong view of self or not, the ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ of anatta and of other aspects and conditions such as kamma remain the same. Kamma is not dependent on wrong views. Also it is not that there is a self and then no self. There never is a self regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a self acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling on’. I think these are important issues you’ve raised and I’d be glad to discuss them further. ..... J: >There is no reaction, because > there is > no self to react. But, one who is free of a self, is not likely to be > compelled to act harmfully or selfishly, because there is no self > present to be > selfish. .... S: I agree that with no wrong view of self, there will be fewer conditions to act in these ways - for a start, no conditions to take anything ‘personally’ such as the worldly conditions with wrong view. Still, as we know, the sotapanna is free of this wrong view, but still has plenty of attachment and aversion and ‘selfish’ inclinations in the sense of pursuing pleasant experiences. ..... J: > On the other hand, if there is a self present, and the practitioner only > believes there is no self, then they are acting from self, whether they > believe it > or not, and their actions are therefore self motivated. Consequently > there > is karma. .... S: Only at the stage of arahantship will there be no new kamma. Even then, for the rest of the life of the arahant (and even the Buddha), there will be the experiencing of the results of past kamma. Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here, Jeff. ..... J: >So, in the case of no self present, then it is non-dualism, in the all > other > cases, it is either nihilism or antinomiumism which require a self to > maintain > a belief, but no belief will save one from karma. Only not having a > self for > karma to cling to will releive one of karma. ..... S: I would say this will only be done by the full eradication of all kilesa (defilements) and in particular the eradication of tanha (craving), as expounded in the second Noble Truth. In another post to Lee and myself you wrote: J: >“Yes the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the self”. ..... S: As I understand, the aim of the teachings (in the Pali canon) is not the ‘cessation of conceptualization and the self’, but the understanding that the conceptual and self worlds are illusions and the actual worlds that can be known and realized at this very moment are those of the six senses. There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge. I’m not sure if we are in agreement here or not, but I agreed with your point that conceptual understanding is not the same as direct knowledge or ‘realization’. ..... J: > I feel complete here, I hope I have expressed myself adequately. If not > I am > sure someone here will let me know. Please excuse me if I misspelled > 'antinomium' or 'antinomiumism.' I am actual a terrible speller, but > thanks to > spell-check I am freed of much humiliation. Unfortunately, my dead hard > drive has > my good dictionary on it. ..... S: I make many mistakes of all kinds, inc. spelling, too.... especially when I’m rushing which is often. Also, I haven’t even found the spell-check here as yet so I can’t help with the ‘antinomium/antinomiumism’ qu!!! Instead I’ll thank you for the ‘camaraderie’ which I managed to combine with ‘comradeship’ in a recent post and saw too late;-(. With metta, Sarah ====== 22433 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:31am Subject: Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Lee, In another post to Jeff you were discussing the often quoted lines from the Udana description of nibbana (see below). I thought you might find the following notes from the Udana of interest as well. You may also wish to look at other posts in the same series at this link, under ‘Udana - nibbana’. Also, following interesting comments you made to Jon on sabhava,you may like to look at some of the saved posts at the same link under ‘sabhava’ too when you have a little spare time as it has been discussed quite a lot: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I’ll be glad to hear any further comments on either of these threads (or any other of course;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== QUOTE from my earlier post ======================= Udana VIII.1 > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor > fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor > dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, .................... S: I may not have made it clear, that in the Masefield translation and Comy notes which I’m using, base is used instead of dimension (as here) in ‘There is, monks,that base’ (tadayatanam) ******************** (p.1012 Udana Comy): “...The Lord, having thus indicated, face to face, the existence, in its highest sense, of the unconditioned element, next says ‘Wherein there is neither earth, nor water’ and so on so as to indicate its own nature via an elimination of things that are the antithesis thereof. Just as nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sankhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sankhara), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) therein either, for the collection of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing)not witnessed......there is neither the earth element whose characteristic is that of hardness, nor the water element whose characteristic is that of oozing, nor the fire element whose characteristic is that of heat, nor the wind element whose characteristic is that of distending......absence therein of the four great elements, the absence of all derived materiality....absence..of any becoming associated with (the world of) sense desires and (the world of) form.....Even though its own nature is one in which there is an absence of forms, there is next said, so as to indicate the absence within nibbana of any of the states belonging to becoming in the formless (sphere), ‘Nor that base consisting of endless space......nor that base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception’.” ******************** In other words, as I understand ‘endless space.....non-perception’, these lines are referring to the arupa planes where there are already an absence of the elements and all rupas. They are referred to here to indicate that even so, all ‘states belonging’ to these planes (i.e. all conditioned realities) are also absent. END EARLIER POST =================== 22434 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran - detachment/compassion Hi Christine & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: C: > I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing > how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the > verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel > a little less dosa about them. .... S: I think there are two points here - one concerns the origins of the Jataka stories and other commentaries which is of course a topic in itself and has been discussed before. The other concerns those parts of the Pali Canon (inc. commentaries) which we find disturbing and off-putting. For some this may mean Abhidhamma texts, for others the Vinaya, for many, Jatakas such as the Vessantara commentary Tale. On an internet discussion group we read not only what we’re ready and interested to hear but what, as you say, may be a condition for doubt and shock as well. We’ve discussed this before, I know. ..... C: >Maybe in some cultures, or in some > time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would > think right now in western cultures some of the stories would > probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning > away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). ..... S: As Ken put it in a post to Mike, “I was reminded that nothing about the Dhamma is easy”. I don’t think the Tales or other parts of the teachings condition adverse responses just in western cultures, but in all cultures. The teachings are contrary to our conditioned views and instincts and the way we’d like life to unfold. As Nina mentioned, even at the time of the discussions between the King and Ven Nagasena in the ‘Questions of King Milinda’,written long before Buddhaghosa’s commentaries (prob. 1st century AD), it was difficult for people to accept the Vessantara Jataka without feeling shock. I’ve just re-read these questions and answers (Dilemma 71, ‘Vessantara’s Giving’) and it’s uncanny how similar the questions are to ones you or I might raise. I think the answers may also give some useful clues to the other questions raised in Cooran on detachment and compassion, i.e: ..... C: > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > practised together? > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? ..... S: The King (Dilemma 71) asks “What, pray, has the man who seeks to gain merit to do with bringing sorrow on others! Should he not rather give himself away?” and also “....he who gives gifts in such a way as to bring sorrow upon others - does that giving of his bring forth fruit in happiness, does it lead to rebirth in states of bliss?”. The King perceives that Vessantara had no pity and when the children were ‘led away to nameless horrors’ that ‘his heart did not break, utterly break!’. Aren’t these responses familiar?? Ven Nagasena explains that it was because the acts were so difficult that “the fame of the Bodisat was spread abroad” and so on and the paramis were perfected. He also explains that sometimes a gift brings sorrow but leads to a happy rebirth. He gives an example of a monarch ‘harassing people with taxation’ in order to bestow gifts. Hmm.. The King suggests Vessantara’s gift was excessive and therefore worthy of ‘censure and blame’ by the wise. Nagasena explains this is not so - “just as the ocean by its exceding greatness can never be quite filled”, so no gift (with the right intentions) is excessive and subsequently Vessantara was praised and exalted in all those world systems or planes. Other interesting questions are asked about what kinds of gifts are unsuitable and why Vessantara didn’t give himself instead (answer: because he was asked for his wife and children and the greatest gift is to give what is requested. If someone asks for water, giving food is not a substitute.) We read two further reasons for the giving of the children against their wishes or lack of understanding. One is that the “practice of giving should not be interrupted” and the other is that he knew they would eventually be set free. “Vessantara knew, O king: ‘No one is capable of keeping my children as slaves. their grandfather will ransom the children, and so they will come back to me.’” The old Brahman’s ‘merit is small’ and he could not ‘seize the moon and the sun’. In other words, Vessantara knew what the ramifications would be and had confidence in the power of the wholesome deed. Further, “Just as a mighty bonfire burning on a mountain top would be visible afar off in the darkness and the gloom of night, so was Vessantara the king well known among men, and therefore could no one whatever keep in use, as his slaves, the children of so distinguished a man...” Christine, I’m not sure if any of these comments help - I’ve really just been exploring and considering further for my own interest and understanding too. As I mentioned before in a post, according to one of the commentaries (AN Comy), the Vessantara Jataka will be the first Tale to disappear. In response to the questions concerning compassion and detachment, Mike wrote: “detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a social level.” I have confidence that if we could learn to appreciate its value, this Jataka Tale would epitomise the Bodhisatta’s fully developed ‘detachment, compassion and concern for humanity’. If however, we were to copy the actions -- as opposed to seeing the value and developing the qualities in our daily lives -- it would of course be with wrong understanding and not lead to good results at all. With metta, Sarah ====== 22435 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Additions to Photo Albums Hi Christine, Kom & All, Good work! It’s good to see Christine’s tall SOs (Significant Others)in place and that reminds me - it’s a long time since we heard from Sarah F....perhaps a nudge is in order.... Andrew, whilst I sympathise with any SOs who have their rear ends caught on film and then displayed for the world (well, for DSG members anyway) to see, perhaps it’s time for Smokey Joe to consider a little diet;-) Good to see a group pic from Cooran (hope it nudges others like Reg to join us, and the new good pics of Azita and RobM. LIke Chris said, perhaps a few members might ask for permission to post their SOs whilst shy members might like to try giving their excuses to Chris to work with - she can handle them all, I promise. (She even managed to rescue Larry’s pic from the Non-Duality Salon..). James, good to see your photographic work - maybe you could make sure your name is included in the labels for clarity. Nice to see you around again as well;-) Azita and Andrew, Looking forward to your weekend reflections as well...please add comments about what you found helpful then and now on reflection. Maybe Andrew, you’d like to give a summary of the paper you presented on environmental issues and Buddhism as well and the feedback. It looks like a beautiful setting at Cooran and obviously everyone finds it very beneficial. Anumodana (appreciation) in your hospitality. With metta, Sarah ====== 22436 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: L: > Eye consciousness, for example, is literally insignificant because it is > without concept. Concept=sign=nimitta. No-sign = inSIGNificant. Because > it is formless (no shape) one might be tempted to say there is no gift > and no result of giving etc. Clearly nihilistic. .... S: I get your inSIGNificent point;-) In an ultimate sense, there is no gift.....merely mental and phsyical phenomena. However, there are wholesome cittas, intentions and results in the way of eye consciousness and so on. Even though there is no concept, shape or form in what is seen, doesn’t mean the result, i.e the seeing of pleasant or unpleasant visible objects, is without sign or lakkhana (characteristics) and so on. You may need to elaborate further for me to really understand your point. ..... > L: That's it!!! In order to see an object as it is, concept is > NECESSARY. All eye consciousness sees is formless light. This is not the > object. ..... S: I think that if we say eye consciousness ‘sees ..formless light’, again our scientific knowledge is intruding. All I would say is that the visible object is just that which is seen now ...this and this and that...no need to think about it. The same ‘this and this and that’ or visible object can be known immediately by panna as it is - just that which is seen at that moment and then gone. As soon as there are concepts it is the thinking again which cuts in immediately. Sorry, I know this sounds garbled. .... L: >The result of kamma is not limited to consciousness. It is > reasonable to assume there are many aspects of my body that I am not > aware of. .... S: Yes and what we take for body are a multitude of rupas. Howard is discussing this area with Jon. When we read about ‘body’ in the various suttas, we find it is referring to rupas, i.e paramatha dhammas. For example in the MahaRahula sutta, after references to the body, details are given of all the various elements to be known. ..... L: >We don't know what they are the result of, but they are all > the result of some process. This rescues kamma result from being nearly > nothing because kamma result is much more than a few cittas in the > 5-door process. .... S: Yes, the rupas making up the body are formed by kamma from the first instant of life. It’s very complicated isn’t it? ..... L: AND because 5-sense consciousness cannot distinguish > between a rock and a hair because it has no concept, it PROVES that > concept is necessary in order to see objects "as they are". What do you > say? .... S: This was the ‘No, to your last question’ I mentioned;-) It’s true that while say, looking at a rock and a hair, that seeing only sees visible object, touching just experiences hardness/softness and so on. However, it is on account of the different visible objects, touching experiences and so on that concepts are then conceived by the mind to ‘identify’ the various objects as Howard explained well, I believe. But for panna to see (or rather know) objects “as they are”, such as visible object or hardness, none of these concepts are necessary. They are simply understood when they are experienced , just as they are. It’s not interested in conceptualising or distinguishing but in knowing the characteristics that appear. Again, I may be missing part of your point and I’d ask you to be patient and add further detail if I’ve gone off track. I think these are important points to consider and you’re making some pertinent comments imho. With metta, Sarah ====== 22437 From: Lee Dillion Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Sarah: Thanks so much for the references. The "useful posts" listing is a great service that I wasn't aware of. As for the Udana passage, I like Bhikkhu Nanananda's take on the passage as follows: -- "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not-made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import. Where there is no 'putting-together', there is no 'falling-apart'. Hence Nibbaana is also called apalokitam--the 'Non-disintegrating'. It is unfortunate that many scholars, both Eastern and Western, have interpreted metaphysically the two passages from the Udaana quoted here, bringing out conclusions which are hardly in keeping with the teachings of Anattaa. The widespread tendency is to see in these two passages a reference to some mysterious, nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence, though the Buddha was positive that all existence is subject to the law of impermanence." from _The Magic of the Mind_, pages 78-79, footnote 2 -- Lee Dillion 22438 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:59am Subject: anatta, good or bad? Hi all, In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why is anatta undesirable? Larry 22439 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? Hi Larry, Let me pose these questions: How is the term "self" used in the verses in Dhammapada XII, Self http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/12.html (or http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html) ? What are the definitions for the word "self" in the dictionary? In what sense, given the definitions in the dictionary, is the word "self" used in the verses in Dhammapada XII, Self? Is what is impermanent, dukkha desirable? Is what is impermanent, dukkha fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Your feedback and/or comment is welcome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry 22440 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:15am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. There is a specific order of the cittas arising in sense-door processes and in mind-door processes, and if we consider this carefully, we can understand more clearly that there is no self who can decide whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises after the determining-consciousness in the sense-door process, and after the mind-door adverting-consciousness in the mind-door process . This depends on conditions; akusala cetasikas and sobhana cetasikas have been accumulated from moment to moment, from life to life and this is a condition for the arising of akusala citta and kusala citta. Each dhamma has its own unchangeable characteristic. Seeing only experiences colour, it is not angry, it is not attached. Anger and attachment are cetasikas that can accompany other moments of citta. Whenever we see, the seeing-consciousness is followed very closely by kusala citta or akusala citta. It all happens so rapidly that we do not notice this. Whenever we do not perform generosity, observe síla or apply ourselves to mental development, the javanacitta is akusala. Then we act, speak or think with akusala citta. When sati sampajañña arises and it is aware of nåma and rúpa, the citta is kusala citta. However, mindfulness does not last and akusala citta is bound to arise again. If there is no awareness the moments of kusala citta or akusala citta cannot be known. Akusala citta with clinging is bound to arise very often, but clinging may be very subtle. We learn about the processes of citta and we have theoretical understanding of these processes. However, it is important to consider more deeply the cittas as they arise in our daily life. We may not be able to know the characteristic of each citta, but we can come to understand that seeing is completely different from akusala citta or kusala citta. We may see more clearly that what we take for ³I² is in the ultimate sense: citta, cetasika and rúpa. Gradually we can come to understand what the Abhidhamma is: the Buddha¹s teaching of ultimate or absolute realities, paramattha dhammas. When we verify in our own life the Buddha¹s teaching on paramattha dhammas, we shall have no doubt that the Abhidhamma is part of the Tipitaka. The Abhidhamma gives us a sense of urgency as to the development of kusala: before we realize it, akusala cittas arise. We learn about the processes of cittas, we learn that after seeing, hearing etc. akusala cittas can arise. We do not even notice them, cittas arise and fall away extremely rapidly. As we have seen, there is a certain fixed order in the processes of cittas, and nobody can change this order. It depends on the accumulated cetasikas and many conditions whether kusala cittas or akusala cittas arise within a process, and before we realize it the process is over, and another process begins again. This can help us when we are in difficult situations. We are only citta, cetasika and rupa, or, in other words, five khandhas, that is the same. When we hear someone's angry words and we react with aversion we can remember that there are only citta, cetasika and rupa that have immediately fallen away. Understanding of realities can condition more mettå. ******* (end of Ch 2) 22441 From: connie Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:19am Subject: jhana Hi, All ~ I've been listening to the Foundation's India 2001 tapes and Jon (thank you) was nice enough to explain the phrase "ben puu mii-pokati charoen satipatthaan" to me as: <> ben - is, to be puu - person, 'one who' mii - has/have pokati - usually, normally, regularly, habitually charoen - develop satipatthaan - satipatthana Thus: One who develops satipatthana regularly The Thai word 'pokati' is actually the Pali word 'pakati' meaning 'natural(ly)'. <> I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and say I enjoy being here. peace, connie 22442 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 10:36am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 2, no 7. Hi Nina, Exactly who take citta, cetasika, and rupa for "I"? Regards, Victor We may see more > clearly that what we take for ³I² is in the ultimate sense: citta, cetasika > and rúpa. 22443 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 12:02:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry > > =========================== Well, I would suppose that in order for something to be desirable (in the usual sense of tanha) it must be graspable and controllable. No dhamma is either of these. Of course, what is truly of value is the absence of desire. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22444 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 26, 2003 1:53pm Subject: Re: Cooran - detachment and compassion Hello Sarah, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of the Jataka Tales. As previously stated, I don't regard the Jataka Tales as part of the Dhamma, the Buddha's Teachings. When they are included as 'evidence' for or 'justifications' or 'explanations' of the true Teachings I think they undermine and weaken the point the writer is trying to make. (IMO no different from using Beowulf, as a support). In the Vesantara Jataka, women and children are seen as 'things', 'belongings', 'parcels' , which the men in the story have the right to trade or give away, use and mistreat with impunity for their own benefit, 'spiritual' or otherwise. I am appalled that the abuse of human beings is depicted in this and other Buddhist stories as acceptable and meritorious. I note that the Questions of King Milinda are a very late inclusion and are only in the Burmese Canon. I reiterate my understanding (and relief) that the Jataka Tales as a whole are not part of the Canon, and that only the verses are. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14958 My point of view is clearly coloured by the crisis work I do with women, babies and children, by my being a woman, by my having dearly loved children, and by the culture I was born in. In this country, those men engaged in the use, trading and assault of the children would have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their abuse and neglect, and for failing to provide for the protection of a minor. The claim by the perpetrator that he was advancing his own spiritual progress, would merely give reason for the magistrate to order a pyschiatric review. The woman and the children would have been offered the refuge, support and protection that any civilised society ought to offer its citizens. I see no benefit in a 'teaching' whose point is so obscure that it requires one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome. I do not greet with sadness your comment that the Vesantara Jataka is predicted to be the first one to disappear. metta, Christine > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > C: > I think the problem I had with the Jatakas was initially not knowing > > > how they were regarded in Buddhism. Once it was clarified that the > > verses are Word of the Buddha, but the Tales are not, I began to feel > > a little less dosa about them. > .... > S: I think there are two points here - one concerns the origins of the > Jataka stories and other commentaries which is of course a topic in itself > and has been discussed before. > > The other concerns those parts of the Pali Canon (inc. commentaries) which > we find disturbing and off-putting. For some this may mean Abhidhamma > texts, for others the Vinaya, for many, Jatakas such as the Vessantara > commentary Tale. On an internet discussion group we read not only what > we're ready and interested to hear but what, as you say, may be a > condition for doubt and shock as well. We've discussed this before, I > know. > ..... > C: >Maybe in some cultures, or in some > > time periods, the Tales may make good teaching tools, but I would > > think right now in western cultures some of the stories would > > probably be an occasion for doubt, shock, revulsion, and a turning > > away from Buddhism (especially the Vesantara Jataka). > ..... > S: As Ken put it in a post to Mike, "I was reminded that nothing about the > Dhamma is easy". > > I don't think the Tales or other parts of the teachings condition adverse > responses just in western cultures, but in all cultures. The teachings are > contrary to our conditioned views and instincts and the way we'd like life > to unfold. > > As Nina mentioned, even at the time of the discussions between the King > and Ven Nagasena in the `Questions of King Milinda',written long before > Buddhaghosa's commentaries (prob. 1st century AD), it was difficult for > people to accept the Vessantara Jataka without feeling shock. > > I've just re-read these questions and answers (Dilemma 71, `Vessantara's > Giving') and it's uncanny how similar the questions are to ones you or I > might raise. I think the answers may also give some useful clues to the > other questions raised in Cooran on detachment and compassion, i.e: > ..... > C: > 1. If compassion means to relieve suffering in a positive way, and > > detachment to remain aloof from the world, how can the two be > > practised together? > > 2. Does detachment in Buddhism imply lack of concern for humanity? > ..... > S: The King (Dilemma 71) asks "What, pray, has the man who seeks to gain > merit to do with bringing sorrow on others! Should he not rather give > himself away?" and also "....he who gives gifts in such a way as to bring > sorrow upon others - does that giving of his bring forth fruit in > happiness, does it lead to rebirth in states of bliss?". > > The King perceives that Vessantara had no pity and when the children were > `led away to nameless horrors' that `his heart did not break, utterly > break!'. > > Aren't these responses familiar?? > > Ven Nagasena explains that it was because the acts were so difficult that > "the fame of the Bodisat was spread abroad" and so on and the paramis were > perfected. He also explains that sometimes a gift brings sorrow but leads > to a happy rebirth. He gives an example of a monarch `harassing people > with taxation' in order to bestow gifts. Hmm.. > > The King suggests Vessantara's gift was excessive and therefore worthy of > `censure and blame' by the wise. Nagasena explains this is not so - "just > as the ocean by its exceding greatness can never be quite filled", so no > gift (with the right intentions) is excessive and subsequently Vessantara > was praised and exalted in all those world systems or planes. > > Other interesting questions are asked about what kinds of gifts are > unsuitable and why Vessantara didn't give himself instead (answer: because > he was asked for his wife and children and the greatest gift is to give > what is requested. If someone asks for water, giving food is not a > substitute.) > > We read two further reasons for the giving of the children against their > wishes or lack of understanding. One is that the "practice of giving > should not be interrupted" and the other is that he knew they would > eventually be set free. "Vessantara knew, O king: `No one is capable of > keeping my children as slaves. their grandfather will ransom the > children, and so they will come back to me.'" The old Brahman's `merit is > small' and he could not `seize the moon and the sun'. > > In other words, Vessantara knew what the ramifications would be and had > confidence in the power of the wholesome deed. > > Further, "Just as a mighty bonfire burning on a mountain top would be > visible afar off in the darkness and the gloom of night, so was Vessantara > the king well known among men, and therefore could no one whatever keep in > use, as his slaves, the children of so distinguished a man..." > > Christine, I'm not sure if any of these comments help - I've really just > been exploring and considering further for my own interest and > understanding too. As I mentioned before in a post, according to one of > the commentaries (AN Comy), the Vessantara Jataka will be the first Tale > to disappear. > > In response to the questions concerning compassion and detachment, Mike > wrote: > > "detachment born of understanding (as opposed to indifference) is the > greatest force for good known to humanity, both on an individual and on a > social level." > > I have confidence that if we could learn to appreciate its value, this > Jataka Tale would epitomise the Bodhisatta's fully developed `detachment, > compassion and concern for humanity'. > > If however, we were to copy the actions -- as opposed to seeing the value > and developing the qualities in our daily lives -- it would of course be > with wrong understanding and not lead to good results at all. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== 22445 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Re: Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, I will start the ball rolling on this one. I believe that that the Buddha was expalaining the second link in the chain of dependent origination in this Sutta. In brief, this is the link whereby sankhara is a condition for vinnana to arise. Let me first give the Abhidhamma perspective on this link and then try to relate it to this Sugga. Abhidhamma Perspective on Second Link ===================================== Sankhara (kamma-formations) is cetana in 29 cittas: - Merit (cetana in 8 kamavacara kusala and 5 rupavacara kusala) - Demerit (cetana in 12 akusala) - Imperturbable (cetana in 4 arupavacara) The two modes of conditioning of this link are asynchronous kamma and natural decisive support. Vinnana (consciousness) arises at two times (kala) - At rebith (patisandhi-kala) - During life (pavatti-kala) One can read more about this in Visuddhi Magga XVII, 177-179. Relating this to the Sutta ========================== I see intend = cetana and arrange / obsess as being different degrees of papanca (conceptual proliferation). I see "stationing of consciousness" as referring to rebirth linking. Patisandhi-citta is a base of support for the various vipaka citta that arise during life (pavatti-kala). The "landing and growing" refers to the new kamma and new papanca in the subsequent existence that arises and binds to samsara. This is my undestanding of the first paragraph. I see the second paragraph referring to the rupavacara and arupavacara planes of existence; in these planes of existence, there is no new object, but there continues to be obsession with the object of the jhanic state and therefore rebirth continues. I see the third paragraph as referring to the Arahant. My analysis could probably use some fine tuning, but does this make sense? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > At the Cooran meeting, Andrew handed out copies of the > Cetana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya XII.38 (translated by B. > Thanisssaro)) and asked for comments. Even the bookworms > (Christine and Steve), couldn't come up with much on the > key terms, "intend," "arrange," and "obsess." Steve > pointed out that the third paragraph described the > Arahant (and, presumably, the second; the Noble Learner > and the first; the Worldling(?)). But apart from that, > we were struggling for ideas. > > The translation consists of just three paragraphs so > hopefully, it can be explained quite briefly. If any dsg > members are prepared to do so, I'll put their suggestions > to the next Cooran meeting. Thanks in advance. > > Ken H > ------------ > CETANA SUTTA > > INTENTION > > "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What > one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses > about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of > consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing > [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that > consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of > renewed becoming in the future. When there is the > production of renewed becoming in the future, there is > future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, > distress and despair. Such is the origination of the > entire mass of suffering and stress. > > "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still > obsesses [about something], this is a support for the > stationing of consciousness. There being a support, > there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is > the origination of this entire mass of suffering and > stress. > > "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about > anything], there is no support for the stationing of > consciousness. There being no support, there is no > landing of consciousness. When that consciousness > doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed > becoming in the future. When there is no production of > renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, > aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or > despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of > suffering and stress."" > > Note [1] > The seven obsessions are; the obsession of sensual > passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of > views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of > conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming and the > obsession of ignorance. See AN VII.12. 22446 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? No good Victor. A question isn't an answer. Larry 22447 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 7:13am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Sarah: In a message dated 5/26/03 12:14:41 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << ..... Jeff: > ... I believe at the center of this question lies the question > of what > the person's concept of self is. If, for instance, the person has > completely > erased the concept of self, then we are talking about a condition of > non-dualism, because if there is no self, then there is no 'other.' > > In the condition of non-dualism, then anything goes. There is no karma, > > because there is no self to act or react. ..... S: Regardless of whether there is any wrong view of self or not, the ‘reality’ or ‘truth’ of anatta and of other aspects and conditions such as kamma remain the same. Kamma is not dependent on wrong views. Also it is not that there is a self and then no self. There never is a self regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a self acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling on’. I think these are important issues you’ve raised and I’d be glad to discuss them further. >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I Understand that this is what you believe, but this has not either been my experience, nor my perception of human cognitive history. Just because the Buddha (and a few other enlightened teachers) said there was no ultimate self, does not mean that humans have been conceiving, or better perceiving and interacting with their reality through a conception of a self. I have not found that just changing one's belief regarding a self has lead to the annihilation of self. I am sure if you look around in the Dhamma community, you will find plenty of "egotists" who claim there is no self, while they have constructed very elaborate precious little egos that they maintain with impeccable effort. .... S: I agree that with no wrong view of self, there will be fewer conditions to act in these ways - for a start, no conditions to take anything ‘personally’ such as the worldly conditions with wrong view. Still, as we know, the sotapanna is free of this wrong view, but still has plenty of attachment and aversion and ‘selfish’ inclinations in the sense of pursuing pleasant experiences. ..... Jeff: Well, one then should ask what is that 'sotapanna?' Why do we need to resort to Pali, when the English language is a very rich language that we are all quite familiar with? If there is no self there is nothing to attach or avert. Just by believing there is no self does not eliminate grasping and aversion. The ego, or self, is still a construct that one has maintained for many lifetimes. It doesn't just devolve because one chooses not to believe in it any more. That is in part why Buddhism is a contemplative tradition at it heart. Buddhism isn't about thinking and believing, that's Christianity. Buddhism is about realizing. One doesn't realize, or actualize an egoless state through belief or thought. One does it through an intense contemplative practice. .... S: Only at the stage of arahantship will there be no new kamma. Even then, for the rest of the life of the arahant (and even the Buddha), there will be the experiencing of the results of past kamma. Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding you here, Jeff. ..... Jeff: Well, I think that is what I am getting at. One still has an ego (self), whether one believes it or not, until one has effaced it through nibbana, which means one has become an arahant. As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning. Can we say that his food poisoning was due to karma? No, he was enlightened, therefore he had no actions or reactions of a self anymore, his subsistence strategy probably caused his chronic food poisoning. Can we call his food poisoning due to his subsistence strategy karma? Only if you have a mechanistic view of karma. Otherwise, no. Also when you read the section on body meditation, foulness meditations, and cremation ground meditation, he talks about the parasites that live in our body working their way out of the dead body at a particular stage of its decomposition. From his perspective of human anatomy, it seems clear to me that he believed parasites were beneficial creatures that lived inside of everyone. Therefore he also probably had a host of parasites of every kind inside of him. So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" of his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I do not look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions and reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. If one were to consider karma from this perspective then, the manifestations of one's life are irrelevant, the only thing of interest to the yogi at this point is whether suffering exists for him or her. And, suffering is purely a consequence of an ego as it grasps and averts at its subjective world. For an enlightened being, experiencing food poisoning has no element of suff ering. There may be pain as he or she retches out the poisonous food, but since there is no grasping or averting over the experience there is no suffering, and no perpetuation of suffering through actions and reactions of a clinging self. ..... S: I would say this will only be done by the full eradication of all kilesa (defilements) and in particular the eradication of tanha (craving), as expounded in the second Noble Truth. ..... Jeff: Yes, I would agree, first comes the "eradication of the defilements," which requires 'eradication' of grasping and aversion, as you say "the second Noble Truth." Once one has annihilated, or as you say 'eradication,' these then one continues through cessation to the final stage is 'eradication' or 'annihilation' of the self. J: >“Yes the Pali canon is a big document for one who was seeking the cessation of conceptualization and the selfâ€?. ..... S: As I understand, the aim of the teachings (in the Pali canon) is not the ‘cessation of conceptualization and the self’, but the understanding that the conceptual and self worlds are illusions and the actual worlds that can be known and realized at this very moment are those of the six senses. There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge. I’m not sure if we are in agreement here or not, but I agreed with your point that conceptual understanding is not the same as direct knowledge or ‘realization’. ..... Jeff: Good point, but if we look at the Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17 we get that we move out of the world of the sense as we pass through the rupa jhana to the arupa jhanas (supramundane ecstasies) which are beyond the 6 sense world as we approach cessation which equals nibbana. As for "There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge." It depends on how you conceive of full knowledge, but it is generally considered that nibbana is the ultimate "knowledge" or state of "wisdom." ..... S: I make many mistakes of all kinds, inc. spelling, too.... especially when I’m rushing which is often. Also, I haven’t even found the spell-check here as yet so I can’t help with the ‘antinomium/antinomiumism’ qu!!! Instead I’ll thank you for the ‘camaraderie’ which I managed to combine with ‘comradeship’ in a recent post and saw too late;-(. With metta, Sarah ====== Jeff: Yes, I appreciate the "virtual" sangha or company we keep here as well. Best regards to you and all, layman Jeff 22448 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, My reading of many suttas is that "X" is anatta BECAUSE "X" is dukkha. I've been trying to think of a better translation than "not self" and it occured to me that the flavor (or flavour) of anatta is closer to "selfish" than it is to "selfless". That seems to me to be the logic behind calling the khandhas anatta. Here I am using "selfish" and "selfless" in the modern sense of "self grasping or not", not in the sutta sense of "permanent". Although I am not clear on what the Buddha is getting at by implying that the common sense of "self" is "permanent". How do you understand the suttas on this issue? Larry 22449 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] jhana To Connie: In a message dated 5/26/03 10:17:32 AM, nichicon@h... writes: << I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and say I enjoy being here. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Connie, well said, it has been my experience. A great deal of 'dry' practitioners seem to have jhana, but since there is no dialog about it, they wouldn't know. I personally believe it is an error not to have dialog about a natural consequence of meditation practice. As for the question of jhana practitioners or 'wets' being different from 'drys.' I have found people meditate for many reasons. Not many vipassana practitioners seem to be intent on nibbana. I believe most of us have humbler goals, so should we fault a vipassana practitioner for not giving everything away and shaving their head and going forth? No, why should we. We all have our path to follow, and it takes us in different ways. So, jhana yogis, 'wets,' are like 'drys,' they do what they do for a wide range of reasons. But, the difference is, the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of abs orption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy. Best to all, Jeff Brooks president, University of Arizona Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22450 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? Hi Larry, Thank you for your reply. Regarding the questions that I posed to you, you are free to contemplate, investigate, and respond to them or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > No good Victor. A question isn't an answer. > > Larry 22451 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 0:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 6:11:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > My reading of many suttas is that "X" is anatta BECAUSE "X" is dukkha. > I've been trying to think of a better translation than "not self" and it > occured to me that the flavor (or flavour) of anatta is closer to > "selfish" than it is to "selfless". That seems to me to be the logic > behind calling the khandhas anatta. Here I am using "selfish" and > "selfless" in the modern sense of "self grasping or not", not in the > sutta sense of "permanent". Although I am not clear on what the Buddha > is getting at by implying that the common sense of "self" is > "permanent". How do you understand the suttas on this issue? > > Larry =========================== I understand 'anatta' as meaning all the following - impersonal, not (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own-being. So, I certainly don't see "selfish" as an appropriate rendering of 'anatta'. Also, while one *might* agree that whatever would be personal, controllable, substantial, independent, self-reliant, or self-existing would be satisfactory, and, thus, whatever is unsatisfactory (dukkha) must lack all these (and, hence, be anatta), I don't see being unsatisfactory as being a "cause" for being anatta. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22452 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, There are many interesting points in the three and a half pages of commentary in the "Wisdom" edition of this sutta (B. Bodhi trans.) This is actually the first of three short suttas all saying the same thing in slightly different ways. B. Bodhi translates the first part of the formula as follows: "...whatever one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes the basis..." L: Here "intends" is "cetana", "plans" is "craving and views", "tendency towards" is "anusaya" (bad habits, see below), and "basis" is a translation of "arammana" and means in this case "condition". The difference between the three suttas is as follows: 1. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence...future birth, aging, death etc..." 2. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name-and-form...sense bases...contact etc." 3. "When consciousness is established and has come to growth there is inclination...coming and going...passing away and being reborn etc." L: The commentary on the second section is as follows: The second section is stated to show that wholesome and unwholesome kamma capable of producing rebirth is accumulated in the preliminary portion (of the path of practice), and that even without planning (through craving and views), the volitions of insight meditation in a meditator who has seen the dangers in existence are still conditioned by the underlying tendencies and capable of generating rebirth. It is also stated to show that even when wholesome and unwholesome states are not occurring there is still an establishing of kammic consciousness with underlying defilements as condition; for so long as these have not been abandoned they lie latent in the existing resultants of the three planes, etc. L: This merits a bit of subcommentary, imo. What does it mean for anusaya to lie dormant in resultants? Maybe others can bring up some of the other points. Larry CETANA SUTTA INTENTION "Staying at Savatthi . . [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about;[1] this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or; an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair. Such is the origination of the entire mass of suffering and stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is . . [as above]. . . and despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering and stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land and grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering and stress."" anusaya ["tendencies", "obsessions"] the 7 'proclivities', inclinations, or tendencies are: sensuous greed (káma-rága, s. samyojana), grudge (patigha), speculative opinion (ditthi, q.v.), sceptical doubt (vicikicchá, q.v.), conceit (mána, q.v.), craving for continued existence (bhavarága), ignorance (avijjá, q.v.) (D. 33; A. VII, 11, 12). "These things are called 'proclivities' since, in consequence of their pertinacity, they ever and again tend to become the conditions for the arising of ever new sensuous greed, etc.'' (Vis.M. XXII, 60). Yam. VII, first determines in which beings such and such proclivities exist, and which proclivities, and with regard to what, and in which sphere of existence. Thereafter it gives an explanation concerning their overcoming, their penetration, etc. Cf. Guide VI (vii). According to Kath. several ancient Buddhist schools erroneously held the opinion that the anusayas, as such, meant merely latent, hence karmically neutral qualities, which however Contradicts the Theraváda conception. Cf. Guide V, 88, 108, 139. [BUDDHIST DCTIONARY, ~Nanatiloka] 22453 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, This is an example of why I think the characteristic of dukkha is a cause or condition for the characteristic of anatta: MN 22, par. 26: "Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?" -- "No, venerable sir." "Seeing thus, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form, etc." L: Seeing anatta leads to disenchantment. Disenchantment leads to cessation (nibbana). Therefore anatta is not a positive attribute of a dhamma but seeing its negativity leads to the end of craving for that dhamma. It is a wrong valuation to regard anatta as selfless or egoless, in a modern sense. Larry 22454 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 6:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, I think the main reason Buddhists argue over what is real and what is not is in order to steer a middle course between the two extreme views of kamma. Some would say an "ultimate" view that says nothing is given is an extreme. Others would say not so. However that may be, let's take another tack. Is ignorance a reality? How does it manifest? [hint: I'm trying to get you to say ignorance is a wrong conceptual view and a reality] Larry 22455 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 8:32:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: Seeing anatta leads to disenchantment. Disenchantment leads to > cessation (nibbana). Therefore anatta is not a positive attribute of a > dhamma but seeing its negativity leads to the end of craving for that > dhamma. It is a wrong valuation to regard anatta as selfless or egoless, > in a modern sense. > ========================== I don't quite know whether I agree or disagree with you, because I don't quite understand your point. We are enchanted by what we think is a self-sufficient, independent, substantial, personal, and controllable reality. When we discover that this way of seeing things is illusory, that nothing is me or mine or mine-to-control or self-existent, the enchantment evaporates. Dukkha is exactly a matter of grasping at what is not graspable. When we see the true nature of things, we open our grasping fist, we let go, and the dukkha goes. This is what I see to be the case. Do you see it differently, or do we see it similarly but you are using terminology to characterize it that somehow doesn't ring true with me? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22456 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, Pardon me for jumping in. I would consider this way: For instance, body is not self. Body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I wouldn't say that seeing that body as impersonal, not (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own- being is the same as seeing body as not self, as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - [snip] > I understand 'anatta' as meaning all the following - impersonal, not > (fully) controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of > own-being. So, I certainly don't see "selfish" as an appropriate rendering of > 'anatta'. > Also, while one *might* agree that whatever would be personal, > controllable, substantial, independent, self-reliant, or self- existing would be > satisfactory, and, thus, whatever is unsatisfactory (dukkha) must lack all these > (and, hence, be anatta), I don't see being unsatisfactory as being a "cause" for > being anatta. > > With metta, > Howard 22457 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 8:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi Howard, The way I see our differences is that I am saying the suttas say impermanence is dukkha while you say impermanence is just impermanence; dukkha is attempting to grasp the impermanent. I think your view is more of a Mahayana view. Not necessarily wrong but possibly a difficulty in relinquishing due to aesthetic appreciation of the "illusion". My view has the danger of being too negative and reactionary. In my view, impemanence, dukkha, and anatta are almost the same characteristic. I think it would be inappropriate to call nibbana anatta and I don't think you will find this characterization in the tipitaka or commentaries, in spite of the "sabbe dhamma anatta". Anatta and nibbana are nearly an equation in some Mahayana schools but I think this goes against the Theravada strategy of cultivating at least some degree of revulsion. Does the idea of anatta make you want to throw-up? Larry 22458 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Victor - In a message dated 5/26/03 11:33:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Pardon me for jumping in. > > I would consider this way: > For instance, body is not self. Body is to be seen as it actually > is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. > This is not my self." > > I wouldn't say that seeing that body as impersonal, not (fully) > controllable, insubstantial, dependent, contingent, and empty of own- > being is the same as seeing body as not self, as it actually is with > right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is > not my self." > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== That's fine, Victor. You are certainly welcome to your perspective. To me, to say with regard to the body "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." and to say that it is impersonal come down to the same thing. If the rest of what I said has no appeal to you, or if the word 'impersonal' is unappealing to you, that's fine. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22459 From: Date: Mon May 26, 2003 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] anatta, good or bad? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/26/03 11:58:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The way I see our differences is that I am saying the suttas say > impermanence is dukkha while you say impermanence is just impermanence; > dukkha is attempting to grasp the impermanent. I think your view is more > of a Mahayana view. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is definitely my view. If it is a Mahayanist view, then in that respect I am a Mahayanist. But as far as I'm concerned, the Pali canon distinguishes the five khandhas from the five khandhas afflicted by clinging, and it identifies dukkha with tanha and upadana. ----------------------------------------------------- Not necessarily wrong but possibly a difficulty in> > relinquishing due to aesthetic appreciation of the "illusion". My view > has the danger of being too negative and reactionary. > > In my view, impemanence, dukkha, and anatta are almost the same > characteristic. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' means that all conditions are unsatisfactory in the sense of not affording satisfaction to us, not being worthy of clinging to, and in fact causing distress if clung to due to their impermanent and empty nature. But without the clinging, there is no problem. No conditions were problems to the Buddha. When Gotama became Buddha, dukkha, for him, was *gone*. ------------------------------------------------------ > I think it would be inappropriate to call nibbana anatta and I don't > think you will find this characterization in the tipitaka or > commentaries, in spite of the "sabbe dhamma anatta". > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, do you think that nibbana is atta??? ------------------------------------------------- Anatta and nibbana> > are nearly an equation in some Mahayana schools but I think this goes > against the Theravada strategy of cultivating at least some degree of > revulsion. Does the idea of anatta make you want to throw-up? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually quite the opposite! It makes me calm. I see it as the way things really are, and I see its realization as the doorway to freedom. -------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22460 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue May 27, 2003 1:08am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? Dear All, Anatta Good or Bad ? Anatta is a concept of no-self. In other religions there is a soul, a permanent entity that survives death . The teachings of the Buddha denies the existence of a self, soul or Atma. Therefore the Buddha's teaching is called the doctrine of Anatma (no-self). Whether it is good or bad is how one looks at it. I think the way the question has been put makes it unclear what is really meant by it. What is good or bad in Anatta. Perhaps what he means is whether, anatta is true or false. Anatta, as we know it, is a concept, we have to go beyond the concept to understand what it means. It is not possible to understand the reality of antama, by merely saying I am antama or I am not anatma. To understand the reality of it we have to understand the other relevant teachings of the Buddha-such as the Causal Genesis (paticchasamuppada) or his discourse the Annatta Lakkhana Sutta among others.Besides, calling into question ultimate realities.....! Self is the basic cause of suffering (dukkha). If we understand the impermanence of all conceptual things, we will know the reality of Dukkha and the non existence of a self. If we were to understand, that the cause of dukkha, is the attachment to a self. Then it would logically follow that, if there is no self there is no dukkha.-then to that extent Anatma is good. With metta, Yasa 22461 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 1. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 1. Chapter 3 The five Khandhas The five khandhas are: rúpakkhandha, including all materiality, vedanåkkhandha, including all types of feeling, saññåkkhandha, remembrance or perception, sankhårakkhandha, including all cetasikas other than feeling and remembrance, viññånakkhandha, including all cittas. We read in the ³Greater Discourse at the Time of a Full Moon² (Middle Length Sayings III, 109) that the Buddha, while he was staying near Såvatthí in the Eastern Monastery, explained the five Khandhas to a monk who questioned him about this: Whatever, monk, is material shape (rúpa), past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, mean or excellent, or whatever is far or near, this is the group of material shape (rúpakkhandha). The Buddha said the same about the four nåma-khandhas. The five khandhas will be seen and understood as they are by the development of insight. Right understanding of nåma and rúpa is developed stage by stage. There are three stages of beginning insight, ³tender insight², and after that several stages of ³principal insight² (mahå-vipassanå ñåna) follow, before enlightenment is attained. Acharn Sujin said during our discussions that, before we understand what the khandhas are, we should clearly know nåma as nåma and rúpa as rúpa. At the first stage of ³tender insight² the difference between the characteristic of nåma and of rúpa is clearly distinguished. So long as this stage is not reached, we are confused as to what nåma is, and what rupa is. We do not know feeling as nåma. We may think of khandha as a whole, it seems as if it is a concept. It is a concept so long as we have not yet directly experienced the khandhas. When the third stage of ³tender insight² is reached the five khandhas can be directly experienced, dhammas that arise and fall away, that are past, present and future. We should remember again the words of the ³Bhaddekaratta Sutta², ³A Single Excellent Night²: "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes; For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state...² The past has just fallen away, and the future that has not come yet, but the future will be present very soon. We should consider in how far we really understand the texts of the Tipiìaka. Acharn Sujin reminded us that when we read the Tipiìaka we shall come to know the amount of our understanding, we shall know ourselves. This reminder helps us to realize how little we understand. 22462 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 10. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 10. As to the fifth qualification, the going forth, he must have gone forth into the homeless state, either as an ascetic or as a bhikkhu who believes in the doctrine of kamma and its appropriate result. His aspiration does not succeed when he lives as a layman. Also at the time he makes his resolution to become a Sammasambuddha, he should have gone forth, because a monk is stronger in his determination than a layman. As to the sixth qualification, the achievement of noble qualities, we read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct²: 6) The achievement of noble qualities (gunasampatti): the achievement of such noble qualities as the direct knowledges (abhiññå), etc. For the aspiration only succeeds when made by one who has gone forth and gained the eight meditative attainments (samåpatti) and the five mundane types of direct knowledge; it does not succeed for one devoid of these qualities. Why? Because one devoid of them is incapable of investigating the paramis. It is because he possesses the necessary supporting conditions and the direct knowledges that the Great Man, after he has made the aspiration, is able to investigate the påramís by himself. As to the seventh qualification, extreme dedication, we read: (7) Extreme dedication (adhikåra): extreme devotion. The aspiration only succeeds for one endowed with the aforesaid qualities who at the time has such strong devotion for the Buddhas that he is prepared to relinquish his very life for them. During the Bodhisatta¹s life as Sumedha, people were clearing the way for the Buddha Dípankara, but since they were not yet ready, Sumedha threw himself on the road so that the Buddha would tread on him. As to the eighth qualification, we read: (8) Strong desire (chandatå): wholesome desire, the wish for accomplishment. One possessed of the aforesaid qualities must have strong desire, yearning, and longing to practise the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Only then does his aspiration succeed, not otherwise. This shows us the Buddha¹s great compassion. Due to his great compassion we still have the opportunity to listen to the Dhamma. We read further on about the aspiration of the Bodhisatta who is endowed with these eight factors: Its characteristic is rightly resolving to attain the supreme enlightenment. Its function is to yearn, "Oh, may I awaken to the supreme perfect enlightenment, and bring well-being and happiness to all beings!" It is manifest as the root-cause for the requisites of enlightenment. Its proximate cause is great compassion, or the achievement of the necessary supporting conditions. Since it has as its object the inconceivable plane of the Buddhas and the welfare of the whole immeasurable world of beings, it should be seen as the loftiest, most sublime and exalted distinction of merit, endowed with immeasurable potency, the root-cause of all the qualities issuing in Buddhahood. Simultaneous with its arising, the Great Man enters upon the practice of the vehicle to great enlightenment, mahåbodhiyånapaìipatti. He becomes fixed in his destiny, irreversible, and therefore properly gains the designation "bodhisattva." His mind becomes fully devoted to the supreme enlightenment in its completeness, and his capacity to fulfil the training in the requisites of enlightenment becomes established. 22463 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:26am Subject: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. Dear Yasa (Charles), Thank you for your input. I hope you do not mind that I react to your question on dsg. Your questions are interesting for everybody, I am sure. I appreciate it that you continue with this difficult subject, and also for myself this proves to be really useful. It is very appropriate to direct to dsg whatever questions you have, also those you want to ask me personally. As you have seen, we write also personal letters on dsg, because we like to share our experiences. Yasa wrote: Now the mind is also a sense-door, isn't it....? That is the sixth sense door, in the sense-door process one speaks only of the dvipancha ( "pancha" is five- does it mean that the mind is left out as a sense-door). Nina: In the case of the processes of cittas experiencing an object through one of the senses of eye, ear, etc. the sense-doors are rupa, not nama. Y: If not, a thought arising in the mind is the object...in that case, how does the mind-door process work ..? Is it the same as a mind-door process after a sense door process or do you have the sense-door process and the mind-door process in that case as well ? Please let me know if I am not clear. Nina: If I understand your question about a thought, you mean thinking about a subject, a story, an idea? The word thought can have several meanings. But from the context I take it, when citta thinks. The cittas in a mind-door process that succeed a sense-door process have the same object as that sense-door process, thus, the rupas of visible object, sound, etc. After that there are other mind-door processes and these may take ideas, concepts: they know a name, they know details. For example, when you are reading, there is the experience of visible object through the eyesense, and after that the experience of visible object through the mind-door. After that: the object is a concept, not a rupa, you know the shape of the letters, the meaning, the meaning of the whole story. There are many mind-door processes not preceded by a sense-door process. After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas which think of many different subjects, any subject, not necessarily related to the sense object that was experienced before. For example, we think a great deal all the time, we think of what we are going to do today, we are planning. These are long stories. We are so absorbed in our thoughts that we do not notice that these are interrupted by sense-door processes, such as sound which is heard, or hardness which is touched. Each of these sense-door processes is followed by a mind-door process which experience that same sense object, but then we may not dwell further on these, but continue our original story of planning what we are going to do today. Processes of cittas succed one another so rapidly, that we do not even notice that our thinking of stories is interrupted by other processes. It is good to know how forgetful and ignorant we are. I just realize this now because of your questions. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand what the objects of satipatthana are: all objects impinging on six doors experienced by cittas arising in different processes. Intellectual understanding is a foundation for the arising of sati-sampajanna, and this is different from thinking about the objects of satipatthana. With appreciation, Nina. 22464 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 27, 2003 11:33am Subject: Re: anatta, good or bad? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > In the suttas anatta seems to be an undesirable characteristic. What > does this mean? Does anatta NOT mean "egoless"? Is "self" (atta) NOT > equivalent to "ego"? If so, what does "self" mean in the suttas and why > is anatta undesirable? > > Larry Hi Larry, Here is my perspective: Anatta is good for the enlightened, but bad for the unenlightened. The self or ego is created through fear of anatta. It is like the ego is balancing on the head of a pin, in the middle of a endless abyss of nothingness, one false move and the ego will fall off into nothing and disappear. That is a scary proposition isn't it? But the enlightened person, who has conquered the fear and taken that plunge, realizes that an eternity of balancing on the head of a pin, enmeshed in fear, is the worse of the two. Again, this is just my opinion and I could be wrong. I am making an educated guess. Thank you for bringing up the subject. Metta, James 22465 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 27, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Dear RobM, Larry (and Mike), Thank you very much for your replies, they have been most helpful; I am beginning to see the meaning of the sutta. It seems to cover some of the territory that Mike has been researching. Currently, my rough summary of the three paragraphs is as follows: The first paragraph refers to akusala javana cittas (of the worldling): Whatever object one has intentions towards and whatever object one sees with craving and wrong view and whatever object one has akusala tendencies towards; that object is a condition for rebirth-producing kamma. The second paragraph refers to vipaka cittas and to kusala javana cittas (of the non-arahant): When there is neither intention, craving nor wrong view directed at the object, there are still [latent] accumulated tendencies. Therefore, there is still the condition for rebirth-producing kamma. That is: 1) Even vipaka cittas carry forward the accumulated tendencies (not to mention accumulated kamma), albeit in a latent form. 2) Neither the mundane jhana absorbtions nor mundane vipassana, is enough to destroy accumulations. The third paragraph refers to all cittas of the arahant: In the arahant, the accumulated tendencies to perform kusala and akusala kamma have been eradicated (by supramundane consciousness), and so there is no condition for kamma. Alterations and additions welcome. Kind regards, Ken H 22466 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:02pm Subject: Way 94, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects 1. Mindfulness After explaining the contemplation of mental objects by way of the internal and the external sense-bases, the Master said, "And further, o bhikkhus," in order to talk on the contemplation of mental objects, by way of the Factors of Enlightenment, the mental limbs of a being who is awaking from the stupor of the passions that soil or who is penetrating the Real Truths of Suffering, its Cause, its Cessation, and the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering. [Tika] Limbs are members or constituent parts of the awaking mind. Santam = "Is present". Existing by way of attainment. The enlightenment factor called mindfulness is the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight. It is a name for him who stands in the practice starting from the arising of the knowledge of the rise and fall of phenomena. The sevenfold completeness or harmony, beginning with mindfulness by which he awakes, effectively, rises from the sleep of the defilements, or penetrates the Truths, is "Complete Enlightenment." The components of that "Complete Enlightenment" or of the harmony called "Complete Enlightenment" are the factors of enlightenment. [T] The instruction of the Discourses is figurative and as this instruction on the Arousing of Mindfulness is set going by way of the mundane eightfold path, it is said by the commentator that the meditator is "Complete Enlightenment". Otherwise he should be a Pure Disciple [ariya savaka]. The meditator is considered the personification of the factors of complete enlightenment by which he can reach Nibbana. In the other factors of enlightenment the word-meaning should be understood in the same way. Assantam = "Is absent". Not existing through lack of attainment. Yatha anuppannassa = "How (the arising) of the non-arisen." First, is the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. There are things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason that is conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the increase, the expansion and completion by culture of the arisen enlightenment factor. Thus it comes into being: just mindfulness comprises the things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Right reflection has just the characteristic already mentioned, and when right reflection occurs plentifully in the things which condition the enlightenment factor of mindfulness, the enlightenment factor of mindfulness arises. Further, four things lead to the arising of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness: Mindfulness with clear comprehension, the avoiding of persons with confused minds, association with persons who keep mindfulness ready for application, inclination towards mindfulness. In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulness with clear comprehension in the seven positions beginning with that of "going forwards"; or the mindfulness arousing the knowledge which grasps the purpose of these actions is mindfulness with clear comprehension, and as mindfulness with clear comprehension everywhere is a state which brings about the cultivation of mindfulness, mindfulness with clear comprehension is necessary for the arising of mindfulness. As the abandoning or rejection of contrary things and the practice of suitable things are necessary for the arising of fresh karmically wholesome things, so the eschewing of persons bereft of mindfulness, association with persons who cultivate mindfulness, the state of being not engaged with the first kind and the state of being engaged with the second are necessary for the arising of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness. Mindfulness arises through the avoiding of persons who are confused in mind like crows that come cawing to food thrown; through association with persons who keep mindfulness ready for application like the Elder Tissadatta who in the Terrace of the Wisdom Tree having got a golden ticket authorizing him to expound the Dhamma [bodhi mande suvanna salakam gahetva] entered the assembly saying: "In which one of the eighteen languages shall I expound the Dhamma?" and the Elder Abhaya who is mentioned as the Elder Dattabhaya by the commentator; and through the state of mind tending for originating mindfulness in all postures, in all kinds of behavior or disposition of the body. And the bhikkhu knows that the completion by culture of the enlightenment factor of mindfulness brought into being by these four ways takes place by means of the attainment of the path of arahantship. 22467 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: anatta, good or bad? Dear Howard, Yasa, and James, I think everyone expressed themselves very clearly and I thank you all for your input. It's always good to reflect on the characteristic of anatta and see what we can learn. Larry 22468 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Well done Ken. Makes sense to me. Larry 22469 From: Date: Tue May 27, 2003 4:07pm Subject: Get Published in the Southwest Insight E'letter Hello everyone, I publish a web-based newsletter called the Southwest Insight E'letter. The journal is dedicated to Theravadan Buddhism, the emergence of a Western Dhamma, the practice of Vipassana meditation and the emergence of jhana (Ecstatic Buddhism). I am always happy to receive submissions of articles for publication. Since I have noticed there are some excellent writers in this Yahoo group, I hope that some of you will be inclined to polish up some of your excellent commentary and send it my way. Unfortunately at this time the journal does not have the money to pay for submissions. The intention of this monthly newsletter is to provide timely information to the community of contemplatives who adhere to a non-dualistic philosophy, such as Theravadan Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and seek a post-absorption (jhana) insight practice, such as vipassana and satipatthana meditation. This newsletter principally serves practitioners in the Southwestern USA, and offers articles on Buddhism, a monthly calendar of retreats and other related activities, letters to the editor and an editorial. This newsletter is a service of the University of Arizona Meditation Club Best to all, Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22470 From: connie Date: Tue May 27, 2003 10:25pm Subject: Re: jhana Hi, Jeff ~ Interesting choice of words: "the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of absorption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy." I shave my head when my hair starts falling in my eyes. I just don't care to mess with it. peace, connie 22471 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 27, 2003 11:08pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I appreciated your feedback and comments. --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: S:....>There never is a self > regardless of any misperceptions to the contrary. What we take for a > self > acting and reacting are ‘bare phenomena (i.e namas and rupas) rolling > on’. > %%%%%%%%%%%% J: > Jeff: > I Understand that this is what you believe, but this has not either been > my > experience, nor my perception of human cognitive history. Just because > the > Buddha (and a few other enlightened teachers) said there was no ultimate > self, > does not mean that humans have been conceiving, or better perceiving and > interacting with their reality through a conception of a self. ...... S: I hope I’ve got your point. The Buddha’s teachings are contrary to what most people (including ourselves much of the time) believe they experience. A good example of the latter point is Potthapada’s crowd of wanderers (in the DN sutta you’ve referred to a few times). Even after listening to the Buddha teach a discourse, they sneer and jeer at Potthapada for agreeing with the Buddha eventually. For Potthapada himself, it is very difficult to comprehend there is no self as he admits: “Lord, is perception a person’s self, or is perception one thing, and self another?” “Well, Potthapada, do you postulate a self?” “Lord, I postulate a gross self, material, composed of the four elements, and feeding on solid food.” Later, “Well, Lord, if this question of self and perceptios is difficult for one like me - tell me: Is the world eternal.? Is only this true and the opposite false..?” He continues to ask the avyaakataani( questions which the Buddha refused to answer), indicative of his wrong understanding in spite of having no difficulty in fully comprehending the jhanas. ..... J: >I have > not found that > just changing one's belief regarding a self has lead to the annihilation > of > self. .... S: I think I agree. As you have implied before, just conceptualising or repeating ‘anatta’ like a manatra without any direct understanding will not lead to any annihilation (to use your word this time;-)) ..... J: > I am sure if you look around in the Dhamma community, you will find > plenty of > "egotists" who claim there is no self, while they have constructed very > elaborate precious little egos that they maintain with impeccable > effort. ..... S: Perhaps as we get to know our own conceits and defilements more and more, --especially the great attachment to self -- there will be more compassion and equanimity ( rather than aversion or conceit) when we see other examples of the same difficulties. ..... J: > Jeff: > Well, one then should ask what is that 'sotapanna?' Why do we need to > resort > to Pali, when the English language is a very rich language that we are > all > quite familiar with? .... S: ;-) Sorry, a sotapanna is a ‘person’ who has reached the first stage of enlightenment. Wrong view of self has been eradicated. As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion. For example, in the ‘Cetana Sutta’ which Ken H recently posted, I had no idea that ‘obsessions’ was a translation of ‘anusaya’ (proclivity) until Larry added the helpful references and details of a very specific term, not captured by the rich English language translations imho. I do try to avoid Pali terms or give an English meaning, especially when writing to those who have difficulty or find the terms an irritant. I also recommend printing out this very basic glossary to have handy for following other posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms For more detail, Nyantiloka’s dictionary is a very rich source of detail: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html ..... J: >...... Buddhism isn't > about > thinking and believing, that's Christianity. Buddhism is about > realizing. > One doesn't realize, or actualize an egoless state through belief or > thought. > One does it through an intense contemplative practice. ..... S: Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise. ..... J: > Jeff: > ..... One still has an ego > (self), > whether one believes it or not, until one has effaced it through > nibbana, which > means one has become an arahant. ..... S: As I mentioned, at the first stage of enlightenment, all wrong view and belief of self is eradicated. It is panna (wisdom) that ‘effaces’, no self. It’s true that only the arahant (your choice of Pali term and I also note 'karma' below;-)), has no more attachment to becoming at all. ..... J: > So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" > of > his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I > do not > look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions > and > reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. I... ..... S: According to the teachings, the results of kamma are inevitable, regardless of whether there is attachment or wrong view of self or not. The Buddha and arahants still experienced unpleasant bodily feeling, but no mental aversion subsequently. Usually there are many factors involved. Experiencing the physical effects of food poisoning or a splinter must be the result of kamma, but other factors such as temperature (no refrigeration) or others’ deeds will of course be decisive in support of these effects. This is a good area to continue discussing separately if you wish. You make some interesting points and I agree with many of those snipped. ...... J: > Jeff: > ....first comes the "eradication of the defilements," > which > requires 'eradication' of grasping and aversion, as you say "the second > Noble > Truth." Once one has annihilated, or as you say 'eradication,' these > then one > continues through cessation to the final stage is 'eradication' or > 'annihilation' of the self. .... S: Would you clarify what you mean by ‘One’ and ‘the self’. I’m not sure whether by ‘annihilation of the self’ you mean self view or the khandhas or parinibbana or something else. ..... J: > Jeff: > Good point, but if we look at the Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17 we get that > we > move out of the world of the sense as we pass through the rupa jhana to > the > arupa jhanas (supramundane ecstasies) which are beyond the 6 sense world > as we > approach cessation which equals nibbana. ..... S: I understand these experiences without any sensory impingement to also be impermanent and therefore inherently unsatisfactory (dukkha). So although they are very highly wholesome states --and taught and followed by many before the Buddha-- they still have to be known as namas, no self involved. They have to be seen with detachment and righ view of satipatthana in order for all kilesa to be finally eradicated and final liberation attained. This is why I said there cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge directly realizing the truths. “ ‘But, Lord, what has the Lord declared?’ ‘Potthapada, I have declared: ‘this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, and this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering.’” .... J: > As for "There cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge." It > depends on how you conceive of full knowledge, but it is generally > considered that > nibbana is the ultimate "knowledge" or state of "wisdom." .... S: I understand nibbana to be that state experienced by this ultimate knowledge or wisdom. Nibbana is not the knowledge or wisdom. Let me know if you have a Pali canon reference you wish to discuss further. .... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I appreciate the "virtual" sangha or company we keep here as well. > > Best regards to you and all ..... S: Thanks for all your interesting comments. There are many topics of discussion here. Please feel free to break them into separate threads if you can. Metta, Sarah ===== 22472 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > > I've just been thinking a little about the ideas that jhana also > develops naturally and that satipatthana includes jhana but not the > other way around... so I guess it's "ben puu mii-pokati charoen chan(?)" > as well and the 'dry insight worker' would also have jhana, just not as > a 'practiced art' and wouldn't place that much importance on it... it > would be there but just not conditioned to play an obvious role. ..... I think not necessarily. I believe all kinds of kusala (including samatha) are bound to be developed as the characteristics are known more and more precisely -- the kilesa (defilements) being seen more and more as unwholesome and kusala (wholesome) states being seen more and more as skilful. As you suggest, as detachment and equanimity develop with right understanding in satipatthana, there will be less attachment and it’ll depend on individual accumulations as to what is apparent, just as now. Whilst at the moments of actual enlightenment , the concentration must be of a very high level (equivalent to jhana, I think), satipatthana development does not necessarily include jhana . Lots of controversy here ;-) Perhaps others will help further. .... > Mostly, I just want to thank everyone for making this list possible and > say I enjoy being here. .... Like you say, it takes ‘everyone’ to make it possible;-) In another post (to Howard), you referred to jhana paccaya, one of the 24 conditions and concluded by saying: C:“(the no deed part) suggests that at least a feeble jhana predisposition is accumulating a great deal of the time. Just thought it was interesting and hadn't thought of it like that before.” Yes, this is a very interesting condition and the jhana factors can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ affecting our actions a great deal of the time. This is why it is so important to know whether the concentration and other factors such as thinking and blissful feelings are wholesome or unwholesome in daily life. One point - we need to distinguish between the use of ‘jhana’ in jhana paccaya (jhana condition) and ‘jhana’ as in attainment of jhanas. I wrote a post on this subject of (right and wrong) jhana factors and jhana paccaya which you may find of interest. It relies a lot on Nina’s ‘Conditions’ and U Narada’s ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11231.html I’d be very glad to discuss any of these points further, though I’m just exploring what I read, like you. Metta, Sarah p.s. I'm glad to see you're finding the series of tapes from India of interest (and even learning a little Thai as well as Pali;-)).Please share any points you find of special significance or value. If anyone else would like a copy of these or the ones from Kaeng Kacang, please let me know off-list. (They are not edited, contain lots of Pali terms and are only available on old-fashioned cassettes). ======== 22473 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran - detachment and compassion Hi Christine (& Yasa ), I’m glad you replied and to read your further comments. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > I think we will have to agree to disagree on the relative merits of > the Jataka Tales. ..... ;-) Yes and I think it’s ‘healthy’ to be able to do this..... no one should ever agree just for the sake of an easy life;-) I understand and appreciate the points you make and as you say, many others will be responding as you do. Sometime I’d like to pursue the origins and inclusion of the Jataka Tales and Qus of King Milinda with you and anyone else. (*Yasa, please see footnote). One question that immediately comes to mind is whether you would also reject all the commentaries which make reference to both of these sources of the teachings as well? For example, I just came across a long quote from Qus of K. Milinda in the Sammohavinodani (Comy to the Vibhanga). I know many Buddhists do reject all these sources, but to my mind, they miss out on a lot of the important and detailed explanations. .... > I see no benefit in a 'teaching' whose point is so obscure that it > requires one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality > and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome. I do not greet with > sadness your comment that the Vesantara Jataka is predicted to be the > first one to disappear. ..... I think your point about obscurity in a teaching is a good one and certainly if the reflection on it leads “one to disregard basic decency, the teachings on morality and to consider what is unwholesome as wholesome” then it is certainly not wise to pursue it. We read and consider about the perfections, but only a Bodhisatta can really appreciate or fully investigate the qualities. I was reminded of this as I read from Nina’s recent extract on Perfections: ..... “The achievement of noble qualities (gunasampatti): the achievement of such noble qualities as the direct knowledges (abhiññå), etc. For the aspiration only succeeds when made by one who has gone forth and gained the eight meditative attainments (samåpatti) and the five mundane types of direct knowledge; it does not succeed for one devoid of these qualities. Why? Because one devoid of them is incapable of investigating the paramis. It is because he possesses the necessary supporting conditions and the direct knowledges that the Great Man, after he has made the aspiration, is able to investigate the påramís by himself.” ..... Chris, I appreciate your honest response which has helped me to reflect further and question my own limited understanding of these qualities and paramis. I apologise for any further dismay caused (or at least conditioned!) by my posts on this or any other subject . Metta, Sarah * Yasa, you may find it interesting to look at some of the posts under: ‘Abhidhamma- Origins’ at this link on the origins of the Abhidhamma with regard to the Councils and so on. I’d be glad to hear any comments: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ======================================================== 22474 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:59am Subject: Burma trip Dear Jon, Sarah, Chris, Azita, Tom W. and Bonnie, and anyone else interested, Sorry for delays in coming up with the information you need, but it looks like what I have below are the final arrangements. The tour company made a survey trip to Burma to scout out better hotels and other arrangements for our group and Tan Achaan has assured me that a complete itinerary, including dates and hotels, will finally be ready at the beginning of next week. After I translate it, I will send it on to you. It will be a 5 day trip, ideally from Monday to Friday, during the last week in October through the first week in November, depending on flight schedules for Phuket Airways, the carrier we will use (I think its a brand new airline). We will visit Yangon (Rangoon), Hongsawadee (Pegu), Mandalay (2 nights) and Pagan (1 night). A local carrier will be used for any internal flights within Burma. The emphasis of the trip will be on holding Dhamma discussions (sontana) and performing tamboon (merit making) ceremonies, as well as visits to well known and important temples and religious sites. The cost will be Bt. 27,500 (US$654.76; US$1=42 baht, but the rate may change between now and time of payment). So, this is all I have for you now. Watch out for the itinerary, some time next week, metta, Betty _______________________ Mom Bongkojpriya Yugala 38 Soi 41 Phaholyothin Road Bangkok 10900, Thailand tel: 662-579-1050; 661-826-7160 e-mail: beyugala@k... 22475 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 1:37am Subject: Link for Lee (The Problem of Knowledge) Hi Lee After following the Concepts & Ultimate Realities thread thought this link http://www.orientalgate.org/article381.html to The Problem of Knowledge & The Four Schools of Later Buddhism may be of interest. metta Simon 22476 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:17am Subject: Re: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasa (Charles), > > Thank you for your input. I hope you do not mind that I react to your > question on dsg. Your questions are interesting for everybody, I am sure. I > appreciate it that you continue with this difficult subject, and also for > myself this proves to be really useful. It is very appropriate to direct to > dsg whatever questions you have, also those you want to ask me personally. > As you have seen, we write also personal letters on dsg, because we like to > share our experiences. > Yasa wrote: > Now the mind is also a sense-door, isn't it....? That is the sixth > sense door, in the sense-door process one speaks only of the > dvipancha ( "pancha" is five- does it mean that the mind is left out > as a sense-door). > > Nina: In the case of the processes of cittas experiencing an object through > one of the senses of eye, ear, etc. the sense-doors are rupa, not nama. > > Y: If not, a thought arising in the mind is the > object...in that case, how does the mind-door process work ..? > Is it the same as a mind-door process after a sense door process or do you > have the sense-door process and the mind-door process in that case as > well ? Please let me know if I am not clear. > Nina: If I understand your question about a thought, you mean thinking about > a subject, a story, an idea? The word thought can have several meanings. But > from the context I take it, when citta thinks. The cittas in a mind- door > process that succeed a sense-door process have the same object as that > sense-door process, thus, the rupas of visible object, sound, etc. After > that there are other mind-door processes and these may take ideas, concepts: > they know a name, they know details. For example, when you are reading, > there is the experience of visible object through the eyesense, and after > that the experience of visible object through the mind-door. After that: the > object is a concept, not a rupa, you know the shape of the letters, the > meaning, the meaning of the whole story. There are many mind-door processes > not preceded by a sense-door process. > After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas which think of > many different subjects, any subject, not necessarily related to the sense > object that was experienced before. For example, we think a great deal all > the time, we think of what we are going to do today, we are planning. These > are long stories. We are so absorbed in our thoughts that we do not notice > that these are interrupted by sense-door processes, such as sound which is > heard, or hardness which is touched. Each of these sense-door processes is > followed by a mind-door process which experience that same sense object, but > then we may not dwell further on these, but continue our original story of > planning what we are going to do today. Processes of cittas succed one > another so rapidly, that we do not even notice that our thinking of stories > is interrupted by other processes. It is good to know how forgetful and > ignorant we are. I just realize this now because of your questions. > The Abhidhamma helps us to understand what the objects of satipatthana are: > all objects impinging on six doors experienced by cittas arising in > different processes. Intellectual understanding is a foundation for the > arising of sati-sampajanna, and this is different from thinking about the > objects of satipatthana. > With appreciation, > Nina. ________________________________Yasa_______________________________ Dear Nina, Thank you , for your reply. I don't know how to post a new problem to the Yahoo Forum. There is no page, for all posts, on a particular subject under discussion, to appear. Some times it is difficult to get reference on a particular subject under discussion, as there are several posts on the same subject. That is why I send you the e-mails direct. I will try to use the dsg for future queries to you. I think I was not quite clear in the question I posed to you, about the sense-door process and mind- door process. The Buddha had used two different terminology to describe " nama-rupa" for meditation purposes in his discourses in Sutta Pitaka and for analytical purposes in Abhidhamma. For a yogi to see all the 17 citta moment in meditation would be a distraction of concentration. Therefore in meditation, there are, in each sense door, five elements which represent the , nama: (i) contact ( passa, which probably includes ,atita bhavanga, bhavanga-chalana,bhavanga uppajjedha,panca dvaravajjana) (ii) feeling (vedana, which probably includes, sampaticchana, santirana) (iii) perceptions( sanna-which probably includes, votapanna) (iv) consciousness( vinnana- which probably includes, seven javana) (v ) mind-factors ( sankhara-which probably includes, two moments of tadarammana) And there are six sense doors: Eyes (cakkhu vinnana) Ear (sota vinnana) Nose (Ghana vinnana) Tongue (jivvha vinnana) Body ( kaya vinnana) Mind (mano vinnana) In seeing an object three factors come into play- the eye (cakkhu) - eye-consciousness (cakkhu-vinnana) - visible object (arammana), similarly, In hearing a sound - the ear( sota) -ear consciousness (sota vinnana) -sound ( arammana) In smelling -the nose (Ghana) -nose consciousness(Ghana vinnana) - smell (arammana) In tasting -tongue (jivvha) -taste consciousness (jivvha vinnana) - taste( arammana) In feeling -body(kaya) -feeling consciousness (kaya vinnana)- form (arammana) In thinking- mind (mana)- mind consciousness (mano vinnana) -thought (arammana) It is in reference to the latter: " mind(-mana) mind consciousness-(mano vinnana)-thought- (arammana) , that I asked you how in Abhiddhamma the sense-door process and mind- door process are explained. I think it could perhaps be explained in the same way as in the case of the "eye door process". Because, say suddenly a thought of a "woman" arises in my mind, then the "the mental form of the woman", becomes the object that impinges on the mind, which will result in the awakening of the atita bhavanga……etc. ……. And end up in tadarammana. All thought moments thus becomes an object of reflection ( if any one were to objects to the word "meditation"). Nina, I would not say that sati-sampajjana, is the result of intellectual understanding but ,it would be due to rather mindful observation. With metta, Yasa 22478 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion about the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, Part 3. Dear Nina (and Lodewijk), I was glad to hear about your Vesak discussions on Rahula and appreciate the series very much. I’d like to just add a few comments between some of yours: --- nina van gorkom wrote: > ---------- > Nina: Rahula had to apply himself to development of the mind like the > earth, > he had to be steadfast and unshakable. He had to be unmoved by pleasant > or > unpleasant objects. When we experience a pleasant object we are bound to > like it and when we experience an unpleasant object we are bound to > dislike > it. The Commentary explains about the cittas rooted in attachment > (lobha) > and the cittas rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise. > Rahula had to learn not to be overcome by objects. This is like a test > we > have to pass. > Lodewijk: Do I have to pass this test? > N: We all have. > L: This is very difficult, I cannot do it. ..... I understand Lodewijk’s response. LIke the earth ‘accepts’ the dirt and spittle and garbage dumped on it, is it really possible to accept and be unshakable regardless of what we experience? A friend mentioned that he finds it difficult not to respond in kind when hearing or reading wrong speech. At the time I was thinking about these lines which you then quoted: >Discourse on the Elephant's Footprint" (M 28, translation of Wheel > 101). We read : > understands thus, ‘This painful feeling born of ear-contact has arisen > in me. That is dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on > contact.’ Then he sees that contact is impermanent.> > The same is said about feeling, perception (sa~n~naa), > san"khaarakkhandha (the activities) and consciousness (vi~n~naa.na). We then read: ‘And his mind enters into that very object (taking it just as an > impersonal) element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein)’. ..... I don’t think we should expect too much of ourselves. If we do and feel disappointed when yet again we fail the test, get drawn into concerns about the ‘others’, doesn’t it show the clinging to self? Perhaps it’s more useful to learn to see the value of developing the mind ‘like the earth’, understanding how moved we are by the objects being experienced and develop detachment from the passing and failing of the test at this moment. Otherwise, like you say, Nina , it’s always an idea of self trying to ‘do’ it, trying to pass the test, being concerned when it doesn’t work out as we know thoretically would be best. Sometimes we need to smile at all the ‘falling over’ and start again. What’s gone is gone and the future hasn’t come yet as we all keep reminding each other! .... > It is important to remember that in the ultimate sense our difficult > situations, our unsurmountable problems, are only different experiences > through the six doors, pleasant or unpleasant, and that they are > conditioned. We cannot change the objects we have to experience. We have > to > remember that kamma brings its appropriate result. This can be the > condition > for equanimity when facing problems. .... Yes, I think this is the point they were discussing in Cooran. Everyone faces difficult situations and worldly conditions. Usually we’re so concerned with our own problems, which always seem more serious, that we really have no idea or concern for others facing far harder tests still. So often when we think that kamma is bring a difficult result, we are referring to proliferations about very brief sensory experiences which may not be so bad at all. .... > Rahula had to become like the earth when facing pleasant and unpleasant > impressions. We have to develop patience with regard to what is > desirable > and what is undesirable. > Just now I failed the test. When we were talking about the Sutta at the > dining table of the hotel, we were all the time interrupted by people > who > served food and wine and by a talkative fellow guest, sitting at a table > next to us, who started a conversation. I had to stop my explanation and > therefore I had aversion, dosa. .... I smiled when I read this .... Yesterday, I was about to start writing a post a few times, but I kept being interrupted by telephone calls until it was time to teach and I had no more opportunity. I started to justify the aversion to myself, saying, ‘just some nonsense on the telephone or useless chatter’, but ‘the dhamma post is useful’ and so on. At these moments subtle wrong views about ‘practice’ can easily sneak in, thinking again in terms of ‘situation’ and ‘activity’, instead of having confidence in the value of kusala cittas whilst say, explaining the progress of a student to his parent, talking with family members about what they’d like to hear or politely listening to fellow guests at your table. Sometimes, I find that as a result of the irritation I’m not even able to resume what I was doing after the interruption. .... > Dosa is often conditioned by conceit. We think, ‘How can he do this to > me’ > and then we cling to the importance of self. We need to remember the > dustrag > mentality of Sariputta. .... Yes, I was thinking of this again before you mentioned it. As you say, conceit and so much clinging to self at these times. Self-occupied and no metta at all. Still there can be dosa, conceit, wise reflection, metta.....and in between moments of seeing and hearing with or without any awareness. So Lodewijk should rest assured there is plenty of passing and failing tests all the time. Better to know this and not cling to the truth being any different. No self involved. .... > Several of these passages are in the 3Kindred Sayings2(II, ch XVII, §1) > in > the Suttas about gains, favours and flattery. The Buddha said: > 3Wherefore, > brethren, thus should you train yourselves:- ŒWhen gains, favours and > flattery come to us, we will put them aside, nor when they come shall > they > take lasting hold on our hearts.1 2 > These are among the worldly conditions which are gain and loss, honour > and > dishonour, praise and blame, bodily wellbeing and pain. They change all > the > time. .... Without understanding of the underlying realities it’s so true that we are bound and ensnared by these worldly conditions as Jon, KenH and others were discussing. I think it helps a lot to know that the actual results of kamma are just the brief moments of seeing, hearing and so on. .... > L: We are facing problems in our family which cannot be solved, and I > cannot > help being overcome by them, being worried about them day and night. > N: It is helpful to remember that in the midst of trying circumstances > there > are also ultimate realities such as seeing, thinking or aversion. There > are > pleasant and unpleasant impressions assailing us all the time and they > are > bound to persist, unless understanding of them is developed. .... I think L’s point ‘which cannot be solved’ is right. Isn’t this the truth that the Buddha taught? Conventional problems as we know them cannot be solved. Age, sickness, death are inevitable and there isn’t any real worldly solution. While we are obsessed by them and to solving them, as a result of the anusaya (underlying tendencies), we’re bound to be overcome like the ‘madman’ referred to in the Mulapariyaya Sutta Comy: “..he perceives through a perversion of perception, seizing upon the conventional expression (and thinking) “it is earth’ (lokavohaara”m gahetvaa sa~n~naavipallaasena sa~njaanaati). Or, without releasing such a segment of earth, he perceives it as a being (satta) or as belonging to a being. Why does he perceive it in this way? This should not be asked, for the worldling is like a madman. He seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can......” Just occasionally in the midst of the perversions and mad obsessions there may be be moments of sanity when realities are seen for what they are and there is a ‘living alone’ with the sense door experiences without being overwhelmed by the pleasant and unpleasant impressions you discuss. We can be grateful for just these very brief moments of wisdom, wise reflection and even for any moments of calm or generosity including appreciation of others’ kindnesses. With metta and best wishes as you face any difficulties, Sarah ====== 22479 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 3:59am Subject: Cooran Weekend Visible object Hi The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; dark blue, pale yellow, red//snip other colours//: long, short, small, large, spherical, circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight- sided, sixteen-sided; low, high; shade, sunshine; light, darkness; snow, smoke, mist; moonlight, sunlight, starlight …then back into more colours. How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, mist" to be understood? Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as well? Thanks Steve 22480 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 28, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Link for Lee (The Problem of Knowledge) dragonwriter2 wrote: > Hi Lee > > After following the Concepts & Ultimate Realities thread > thought this link http://www.orientalgate.org/article381.html to The > Problem of Knowledge & The Four Schools of Later Buddhism may be of > interest. Thanks so much, Simon. -- Lee Dillion 22481 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi Connie, Sarah, and all, I see that the development of right mindfulness and right concentration quite interrelated. Concentration is part of the development of mindfulness, and the development of mindfulness, in turn, leads to concentration. Let's examine the Anapanasati Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html , starting with the following passage. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. What is the rapture and pleasure mentioned in the above passage ([5]- [8])? It is the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation in the first jhana or the one born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance in the second jhana. In this sense, concentration is an integral part of the development of mindfulness. How can concentration be developed in the development of mindfulness? It can be developed through the first frame of reference of the mindfulness of breathing as mentioned in the following passage ([1]- [4]): "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath), and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. With the first or two jhana state developed through the development of mindfulness in the first frame of reference as mentioned in the above passage ([1]-[4]), one would then proceed to the second frame of reference of the development of the mindfulness as mention in the passage ([5]-[8]). From a broader perspective, in terms of the seven factors for Awakening as mentioned in the Anapanasati sutta, the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening indirectly leads to the development of concentration as a factor for Awakening. Nevertheless, concentration is also a part of development of mindfulness Your feedback and comment is appreciated Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Connie, [snip] > > Metta, > > Sarah [snip] 22482 From: m. nease Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana Hi Ken, This is the way I see it, I couldn't have encapsulated it so well. Usually when I think something's right, it turns out to contain errors, so be on the look out for corrections! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran meeting; cetana > Dear RobM, Larry (and Mike), > > Thank you very much for your replies, they have been most > helpful; I am beginning to see the meaning of the sutta. > It seems to cover some of the territory that Mike has > been researching. > > Currently, my rough summary of the three paragraphs is > as follows: > > The first paragraph refers to akusala javana cittas (of > the worldling): > Whatever object one has intentions towards and whatever > object one sees with craving and wrong view and whatever > object one has akusala tendencies towards; that object is > a condition for rebirth-producing kamma. > > The second paragraph refers to vipaka cittas and to > kusala javana cittas (of the non-arahant): > When there is neither intention, craving nor wrong view > directed at the object, there are still [latent] > accumulated tendencies. Therefore, there is still the > condition for rebirth-producing kamma. That is: > 1) Even vipaka cittas carry forward the accumulated > tendencies (not to mention accumulated kamma), albeit in > a latent form. > 2) Neither the mundane jhana absorbtions nor mundane > vipassana, is enough to destroy accumulations. > > The third paragraph refers to all cittas of the arahant: > In the arahant, the accumulated tendencies to perform > kusala and akusala kamma have been eradicated (by > supramundane consciousness), and so there is no condition > for kamma. > > Alterations and additions welcome. > Kind regards, > Ken H 22483 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed May 28, 2003 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Dear Sarah, Lee, and All How are you? Lee quoted Bhikkhu Nanananda's commentary on nibbana as follows. "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import." Nibbana is often called the Unconditioned Element (Asankhatadhaatu). Because it is unconditioned, it is timeless. Nibbana is not time- bound because it is not something temporally measurable in terms of arising, decaying and vanishing phases (the time of arising, the time of decaying, etc.). A sentient event, however, is temporally measurable in terms of emerging, decaying, and vanishing phases. So a sentient event is time- bound. What I am getting at is that the timeless unconditioned element does not depend on a time-bound conditioned phenomena. Yet, Bhikkhu Nanananda seemed to be asserting that nibbana, the highest dhamma (nibbanam paramam) depended on sentient beings. In short, according to Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation, sentient beings must pre-exist before nibbana can "happen" - (a conditioned/compounded state must be transformed into the unconditioned/uncompounded state). Thus, Bhikkhu Nanananda's description of nibbana amounted to making nibbana a time-bound, dependent phenomenon. Furthermore, Bhikkhu Nanananda seemed to be declaring that there are only three ultimate realities in terms of matter, consciousness, and mental associates (ruupam, cittam, and cetasikam) because he described nibbana only psychologically, i.e, a transformed state of consciousness and mental associates. In short, Bhikkhu Nanananda did not accept the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. Therefore, Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation of nibbana is outside the original teachings of the Buddha and those of Arahant commentators. Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dillion wrote: Hi Sarah: Thanks so much for the references. The "useful posts" listing is a great service that I wasn't aware of. As for the Udana passage, I like Bhikkhu Nanananda's take on the passage as follows: -- "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when ignorance and craving are eradicated. The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not metaphysical, in their import. Where there is no 'putting-together', there is no 'falling-apart'. Hence Nibbaana is also called apalokitam--the 'Non-disintegrating'. It is unfortunate that many scholars, both Eastern and Western, have interpreted metaphysically the two passages from the Udaana quoted here, bringing out conclusions which are hardly in keeping with the teachings of Anattaa. The widespread tendency is to see in these two passages a reference to some mysterious, nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence, though the Buddha was positive that all existence is subject to the law of impermanence." from _The Magic of the Mind_, pages 78-79, footnote 2 -- Lee Dillion 22484 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:20am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. When the third stage of insight is reached, also the different groups of rúpa are directly known. Rúpas always arise in groups, kalåpas, consisting of at least eight rúpas. These eight are: the four great Elements of Earth (hardness or softness), Water (cohesion), Fire (temperature: heat or coldness), and Wind (motion or pressure). In addition there are: visible object, odour, flavour and nutrition. Each group of rúpa is surrounded by the rúpa that is space, åkåsa. This is the infinitesimally tiny space that surrounds each group so that the groups are distinct from each other. When at the third stage of tender insight groups of rúpa are directly known, also the space in between them can be known. This makes us realize again how little we know now, at present, and how coarse our awareness is. When, for example, hardness appears there can be awareness of it, but there is no precise understanding yet of that rúpa. Acharn Sujin reminded us that it is the function of paññå to understand realities precisely. She said: ³You do not have to think of a group. We should not try to understand that word. When there is an idea of group, it is thinking. We do not have to count groups. Develop understanding of visible object: a reality that does not experience something. Nåma is a reality that experiences an object. See the difference between nåma and rúpa. Why should we think of groups? It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are. People have different abilities. We do not have the wisdom of a Buddha, but that does not mean that all these realities cannot be experienced by insight knowledge in due time.² We are bound to have expectations as to the experience of the arising and falling away of realities, but it is understanding that should be developed so that the impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized. Each moment of understanding is very precious, we should be grateful to the Buddha who taught us the Dhamma. If we have expectations as to the development of paññå we have attachment and this will obstruct the development of paññå. We should not forget that the Tipiìaka points to elimination, to the eradication of defilements. When there is even one moment of understanding there is no condition to cling to our progress, and then we are on the right Path. We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(III, Kindred Sayings on Elements, First Fifty, §1)about personality belief, sakkåyadiììhi. Såriputta explained to Nakulapitar who was sick, how body and mind are sick: Herein, housefather, the untaught many-folk, who discern not those who are ariyans, who are unskilled in the ariyan doctrine, who are untrained in the ariyan doctrine...these regard the body as the self, they regard the self as having body, body as being in the self, the self as being in the body. ³I am the body², they say, ³body is mine,² and are possessed by this idea; and so possessed by this idea, when body alters and changes, owing to the unstable and changeful nature of body, then sorrow and grief, woe, lamentation, and despair arise in him... The same is said about the other four khandhas. Såriputta then explained that the person who does not have personality belief, though sick in body, is not sick in mind. 22485 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:20am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no. 11 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no. 11 Here we see the Buddha¹s great compassion for all of us. We do not have to cross the worldsystems that are extremely hot, or that are a jungle of thorny creepers, or to accumulate the perfections for as long as an incalculable period and a hundred thousand aeons. The Buddha, whose excellent qualities are incomparable, extended his great compassion to us. He became a Sammasambuddha so that we could gain the benefit of the Dhamma he taught to all people. He taught the Dhamma so that we can investigate and consider it, so that paññå can arise that leads to the eradication of our defilements and the realization of the four noble Truths, and we can become true disciples. When we see the immense benefit of the Dhamma the Buddha taught because of his great compassion, we become humble and respectful. We become people who are ³easily instructed², that is, openminded to the Dhamma, and in this way our defilements can gradually be eliminated. The determination for relinquishment, cåga, pertains to the abandoning of defilements, it pertains to síla, our conduct through body and speech in daily life. We should investigate whether we already eliminated some of our wrong conduct through body and speech, or whether our conduct is still as it used to be, although we have listened to the Dhamma. The abandonment of defilements which pertains to our conduct, to síla, is the condition for heedfulness in action and speech, it is the cause of excellent qualities. We can notice this in someone who has pleasing manners, who is gentle and does not show anger; he does not cause uneasiness in others by a cross and fierce facial expression and harsh manners. Heedfulness in conduct is to be applied in daily life. When kusala citta arises our behaviour changes. Heedfulness in speech means that we have to give up wrong speech. Some people are straightforward, but this does not mean that they should speak disagreeable words. People who have accumulated straightforwardness may neglect heedfulness in speech and the elimination of defilements. When they develop the kusala kamma which is the ³straightening of one¹s views² (ditthujukamma), they have right view which knows when there is kusala that is to be developed and when there is akusala that is to be abandoned. The ³straightening of one¹s views² can be accumulated so that it becomes one¹s nature. 22486 From: Lee Dillion Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Suan: abhidhammika wrote: > Dear Sarah, Lee, and All > > How are you? I am doing fine - thank you. > Lee quoted Bhikkhu Nanananda's commentary on nibbana as follows. > > "In a psychological sense, a design could be 'unmade' or 'dissolved' > by shifting one's attention to its components. Even so, 'what is > born' (jaatam), 'become' (bhuutam), 'made' (katam) and 'compounded' > (samkhatam) is transformed into a 'not-born', 'not-become', 'not- > made' and 'not-compounded' state by a penetrative insight into its > causes and conditions. All 'designs' involved in the magic-show of > consciousness, which are but dependently arisen, also cease when > ignorance and craving are eradicated. > > The above epithets of Nibbaana are therefore psychological, and not > metaphysical, in their import." > > Nibbana is often called the Unconditioned Element (Asankhatadhaatu). > Because it is unconditioned, it is timeless. Nibbana is not time- > bound because it is not something temporally measurable in terms of > arising, decaying and vanishing phases (the time of arising, the time > of decaying, etc.). A sentient event, however, is temporally > measurable in terms of emerging, decaying, and vanishing phases. So a > sentient event is time- bound. > > What I am getting at is that the timeless unconditioned element does > not depend on a time-bound conditioned phenomena. Yet, Bhikkhu > Nanananda seemed to be asserting that nibbana, the highest dhamma > (nibbanam paramam) depended on sentient beings. In short, according > to Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation, sentient beings must pre-exist > before nibbana can "happen" . . . > Therefore, Bhikkhu Nanananda's interpretation of nibbana is outside > the original teachings of the Buddha and those of Arahant > commentators. This is a misreading of what the Bhikkhu writes. Let me try to help by posting below my signature several quotes from Richard Hayes who had a number of helpful discussions on the nature of Nibbana on usenet some years back. In essence, what Richard says below (and that agrees with Bhikkhu Nanananda) is that every vastu (thing) is compounded or conditioned, Nibbana is avastu (i.e. not a thing) but is merely a designation (abhidhaana-maatra) for the absence of some particular things, which are greed, hatred and delusion. I am not sure as to the source of your confusion about the Bhikkhu's understanding, but perhaps it is because you would see Nibbana as something more than a mere absence but not as a conditioned thing? In any event, this absence is not a "thing" conditioned on the efforts of sentient beings - rather, it is a merely a designation for the absence of greed, hatred and delusion as noted in the following sutta passage: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 That sentient beings can experience Nibbana (the absence of greed, hatred and delusion) through their efforts is wholly in line with the suttas - for to argue that Nibbana is not secured by their efforts would render the teachings meaningless in my view. Take care. Lee ------- Post by Richard Hayes to talk.religion.buddhism "Every thing (vastu) is compounded or conditioned. Whatever is compounded is bound to perish. This cannot be avoided. So every thing that comes into existence is destined to become absent. This absence or cessation (nirodha) therefore is the destiny of every thing. Only that which does not exist at all can avoid perishing. Only absence itself does not become absent. It is deathless, because it does not exist in the first place, except as a name and a concept. - 1997/12/05" "The debate over the nature of nirvana in India has been a debate over whether or not nirvana is a vastu. (The word "vastu" is quite vague, rather like the word "thing".) The side of the controversy that makes more sense to me is the one that holds that nirvana is "avastu", which literally means "not a thing" or "nothing". The position is that nirvana is not in itself a thing but is merely a designation (abhidhaana-maatra) for the absence of some particular things, namely, greed, hatred and delusion. Not being a thing, nirvana naturally has no beginning and no end, so it can be said to be uncreated and deathless. Not being a thing, nirvana in fact has no attributes at all. No predicate can apply to it, just as no predicate can apply to the present Queen of the United States of America. Now how, according to this view, is it possible to account for the fact that nirvana is said to be blissful and so forth? The traditional answer to this question is that the predicate "blissful" is applied to nirvana by synecdoche (upacaara), which is the rhetorical device of transferring a predicate from one subject to another. The bliss is a quality of the mental continuum that is free of greed and hatred. But since the occasion of that bliss is the very absence of greed and hatred, the bliss is poetically ascribed to the absence itself. It is similar to when someone says, "The dark is terrifying." Actually, the darkness itself is not frightening, for darkness is merely a word for the absence of light. What is frightening is one's own ideas about what might happen when there is no light by which to see dangerous things. Alternatively, the dangerous things concealed for want of light to reveal them can be said to be frightening. But since that fright is associated with times when there is an absence of light, one says poetically that darkness is terrifying. But not every absence of passion is nirvana. Nirvana is a very particular kind of absence of passion. - 1997/12/02" 22487 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To Sarah: In a message dated 5/27/03 11:10:36 PM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion. For example, in the ‘Cetana Sutta’ which Ken H recently posted, I had no idea that ‘obsessions’ was a translation of ‘anusaya’ (proclivity) until Larry added the helpful references and details of a very specific term, not captured by the rich English language translations imho. I do try to avoid Pali terms or give an English meaning, especially when writing to those who have difficulty or find the terms an irritant. I also recommend printing out this very basic glossary to have handy for following other posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms For more detail, Nyantiloka’s dictionary is a very rich source of detail: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html >> %%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you Sarah for your kind responses, which resonate for the most part with my own point of view so I have skipped over them. I am aware of the Pali Glossary, and I am also familiar with "As for the Pali, it is often helpful to use the very precise terms to avoid confusion." I hear this often, but it never seems to avoid confusion, because, just like with English, Pail also often has a range of meaning for each word in its language. Words are just approximations, and are best used when there is agreement. But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word 'samadhi' is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual absorption, much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for 'concentration.' When this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an incorrect use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came about from using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to absorption. This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word 'vipassana.' It's original meaning was 'insight,' but because it has been used to describe a particular meditation technique in the U ba Kin lineage, it has come to mean a kind of meditation technique. Give this confusion a few more centuries and 'vipassana' it will no doubt come to mean 'body scanning' and not 'insight' ..... S: Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise. ..... Jeff: Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I believe is immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a self or not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as realization (insight) emerges. Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 10 precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation to grasp. One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be realized, revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am preaching to the choir. .... S: Would you clarify what you mean by ‘One’ and ‘the self’. I’m not sure whether by ‘annihilation of the self’ you mean self view or the khandhas or parinibbana or something else. ..... Jeff: I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 jhanas, as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the self, much like the proverbial peeling of the onion. The 4 arupa jhanas, the immaterial jhanas, or supramundane absorptions, are various experiences of becoming infinite, time, space, being, consciousness, etc. When one becomes infinity there is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, just infinite and empty. ..... S: I understand these experiences without any sensory impingement to also be impermanent and therefore inherently unsatisfactory (dukkha). So although they are very highly wholesome states --and taught and followed by many before the Buddha-- they still have to be known as namas, no self involved. They have to be seen with detachment and righ view of satipatthana in order for all kilesa to be finally eradicated and final liberation attained. This is why I said there cannot be any final cessation without full knowledge directly realizing the truths. ..... Jeff: Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does that not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. One must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically through the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. Nice quote, I'll use it to. “ ‘But, Lord, what has the Lord declared?’ ‘Potthapada, I have declared: ‘this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, and this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering.’â€? .... S: I understand nibbana to be that state experienced by this ultimate knowledge or wisdom. Nibbana is not the knowledge or wisdom. Let me know if you have a Pali canon reference you wish to discuss further. .... I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. The i ntellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit morning and evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the night. Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason for quoting some dead guy. ..... S: Thanks for all your interesting comments. There are many topics of discussion here. Please feel free to break them into separate threads if you can. Metta, Sarah %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, you are right there are many interesting things to talk about here. But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just take refuge, let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity. Best to you, Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22488 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana In a message dated 5/27/03 10:18:49 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Hi, Jeff ~ Interesting choice of words: "the 'wets' don't believe ignorance, or choosing not to have a dialog about something, like the conditions of absorption, is a good idea. They believe dialog and open conversation can only be healthy." I shave my head when my hair starts falling in my eyes. I just don't care to mess with it. peace, connie >> It must be a common hairstyling motif among yogis, because I have the same method of hair cutting. Jeff 22489 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 28, 2003 11:14am Subject: Pain As A Signal (04) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is a daily problem but hardly anyone notices that it is a signal.What signal does it bring with it.This depends on sufferers. Actually pain is a signal of disease or sufferings.Bodhisatta saw a man in desparate pain and He assumed that finding as a signal for searching for Dhamma and finally led to forest-going and deserting everything He owned. That signal should be borne in mind and review repeatedly.It is a phase of decaying of a life.If someone can see this with a great wisdom he will be able to see the real Dhamma.Dhamma is nowhere but around us and in our mind if we can recognise it. May you all recognise pain as a signal in your daily life. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22490 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/28/03 1:22:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 2. > > When the third stage of insight is reached, also the different groups of > rúpa are directly known. Rúpas always arise in groups, kalåpas, consisting > of at least eight rúpas. These eight are: the four great Elements of Earth > (hardness or softness), Water (cohesion), Fire (temperature: heat or > coldness), and Wind (motion or pressure). In addition there are: visible > object, odour, flavour and nutrition. Each group of rúpa is surrounded by > the rúpa that is space, åkåsa. This is the infinitesimally tiny space that > surrounds each group so that the groups are distinct from each other. When > at the third stage of tender insight groups of rúpa are directly known, also > the space in between them can be known. This makes us realize again how> > little we know now, at present, and how coarse our awareness is. When, for > example, hardness appears there can be awareness of it, but there is no > precise understanding yet of that rúpa. Acharn Sujin reminded us that it is > the function of paññå to understand realities precisely. She said: > ³You do not have to think of a group. We should not try to understand that > word. When there is an idea of group, it is thinking. We do not have to > count groups. Develop understanding of visible object: a reality that does > not experience something. Nåma is a reality that experiences an object. See > the difference between nåma and rúpa. Why should we think of groups? It is a > stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, much of the foregoing "bothers" me. Please don't take what I now say as indicating disrespect. That is not my intention. But much of the foregoing appears to me to be a prescientific, rather primitive addition to what the Buddha teaches in the suttas. What particularly make no sense to me at all are the following: 1) that image, odor, flavor, and "nutrition" arise with every rupic discernment [By the way, *what* in the world is nutrition??], 2) that space is a rupa rather than a relation, and 3) the statement by Khun Sujin: " It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are," because I fail to see what that has to do with the wisdom the grasps the tilakkhana. [I understand pa~n~na as the function consisting of directly seeing the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self character (impersonality and insubstantiality) of all dhammas, plus whatever subordinate insights foster such direct understanding.] I would much appreciate a way of looking at this material which would provide a basis for my finding it to be more believable. (I'm not someone who enjoys being skeptical.) ----------------------------------------------------- > People have > different abilities. We do not have the wisdom of a Buddha, but that does > not mean that all these realities cannot be experienced by insight knowledge > in due time.² > We are bound to have expectations as to the experience of the arising and > falling away of realities, but it is understanding that should be developed > so that the impermanence of nåma and rúpa can be realized. Each moment of > understanding is very precious, we should be grateful to the Buddha who > taught us the Dhamma. If we have expectations as to the development of paññå > we have attachment and this will obstruct the development of paññå. We > should not forget that the Tipiìaka points to elimination, to the > eradication of defilements. When there is even one moment of understanding > there is no condition to cling to our progress, and then we are on the right > Path. > We read in the ³Kindred Sayings²(III, Kindred Sayings on Elements, First > Fifty, §1)about personality belief, sakkåyadiììhi. Såriputta explained to > Nakulapitar who was sick, how body and mind are sick: > > Herein, housefather, the untaught many-folk, who discern not those who are > ariyans, who are unskilled in the ariyan doctrine, who are untrained in the > ariyan doctrine...these regard the body as the self, they regard the self as > having body, body as being in the self, the self as being in the body. ³I am > the body², they say, ³body is mine,² and are possessed by this idea; and so > possessed by this idea, when body alters and changes, owing to the unstable > and changeful nature of body, then sorrow and grief, woe, lamentation, and > despair arise in him... > > The same is said about the other four khandhas. Såriputta then explained > that the person who does not have personality belief, though sick in body, > is not sick in mind. > > ================================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22491 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed May 28, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: , > As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define > karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical > doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone > during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most > people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers > from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means > that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a > tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was > definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning. > > Can we say that his food poisoning was due to karma? No, he was enlightened, > therefore he had no actions or reactions of a self anymore, his subsistence > strategy probably caused his chronic food poisoning. Can we call his food > poisoning due to his subsistence strategy karma? Only if you have a mechanistic > view of karma. Otherwise, no. > > Also when you read the section on body meditation, foulness meditations, and > cremation ground meditation, he talks about the parasites that live in our > body working their way out of the dead body at a particular stage of its > decomposition. From his perspective of human anatomy, it seems clear to me that he > believed parasites were beneficial creatures that lived inside of everyone. > Therefore he also probably had a host of parasites of every kind inside of him. > > So, one could say Siddharta's health problems were based on the "karma" of > his subsistence strategy and the time period in which he lived. But, I do not > look at karma in a mechanistic way. To me karma is about the actions and > reactions of the 'self' with respect to its subjective world. If one were to > consider karma from this perspective then, the manifestations of one's life are > irrelevant, the only thing of interest to the yogi at this point is whether > suffering exists for him or her. And, suffering is purely a consequence of an ego > as it grasps and averts at its subjective world. > > For an enlightened being, experiencing food poisoning has no element of suff > ering. There may be pain as he or she retches out the poisonous food, but > since there is no grasping or averting over the experience there is no suffering, > and no perpetuation of suffering through actions and reactions of a clinging > self. Hi layman Jeff, I wish to comment a bit on your observations here…specifically about the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." I find that view complete sacrilege! (Sorry for my outburst.) Human kind is eventually working itself toward vegetarianism; I am also working my way, slowly but surely, toward that state. But it cannot be forced overnight! The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. Please give credit where credit is due. In all the universe, with its material and non-material beings, there is none to match or rival the Lord Buddha. We should never bite the hand that feeds us. I hope you can understand my intentions here. I respect your insights and am very thankful that you brought this subject up. Take care. Metta, James ps.I felt that I needed to comment because your reasoning, though all- inclusive, is confusing and undeclarative. On issues as weighty as this, I believe concrete stands should be posited. Forgive me if you disagree. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22492 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: Cooran Weekend Visible object --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > --snip-- > > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? > > > Thanks > Steve dear Steve, this is an interesting one for me too. I always thought that visible object was just 'color'. I'll be keen to see this explained. Happy to have met you at the Cooran w/e. For others infomation, I found the group get-together that w/e very beneficial. It was great to meet fellow dhamma 'students' on my own soil, so to speak, rather than travellin' overseas - and I enjoy doing that too. The discussion on vipaka has make me think more about vipaka. I guess by saying "I was robbed" is not strictly vipaka in the true sense, but many, many moments of cittas arising and falling. Because I am 'an uninstructed worldling', I mix all these moments up, and have the concept 'I was robbed". Loosing possessions, loved ones, etc. causes us pain because we still have attachment [and will until arahatship]. Slowly, slowly the wisdom grows and slowly, slowly the kilesa fall away. I remember saying to K. Duangdern, as we gazed out over the river in BKK. on a rare peaceful day, how beautiful it was, but there was really no point dwelling on our good vipaka bec both the deed and the result were gone already, and by being seduced by the pleasantness of the object, we were creating future result - we went on enjoying the view anyway!!!!! patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 22493 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed May 28, 2003 6:36pm Subject: Re: Cooran Weekend Visible object --- Dear Steve, As you say visible object is only different colours. There is no shape or form in visible object. However to describe the wonder of cakkhu-vinnana (seeing consciousness) it is helpful to refer to different objects. Seeing can distinguish them all because of the variety of different shades and colours. If there was only one colour there would be no way to distinguish different shapes such as spherical or octagonal or large or small. Acharn Sujin writes: "Is what is appearing through the eyes at this moment one and the same colour or are there different colours appearing? Reality is true dhamma (sacca dhamma), it can be verified. We should find out whether at this moment we see only one thing, only one colour, or whether we see that which is appearing as different colours, in a detailed way, so that we can distinguish between different things which are perceived. Can we, for example, distinguish between a real diamond and a synthetic diamond? Citta is the reality which sees and knows clearly, it clearly knows the different characteristics of the different objects, and that even into the smallest details. At this moment the rúpa which is the eyesense has as its characteristic a special clarity, it can be compared to a mirror in which the image of whatever passes is clearly reflected. The eyesense can come into contact with visible object. .. Whatever colour appears, colour of a real diamond, of a synthetic diamond, of jade, of a stone, even the colour of the look in someone's eyes which expresses envy, all that can appear to the citta which sees. What appears at this moment through the eyes appears to citta which clearly knows it. It sees all the colours of the different objects which appear, and thus the meaning of things can be known, the shape and form perceived, and there can be thinking about what has appeared through the eyes. " "http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para3.htm Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which > is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; > dark blue, pale yellow, red//snip other colours//: long, short, > small, large, spherical, circular, four-sided, six-sided, eight- > sided, sixteen-sided; low, high; shade, sunshine; light, darkness; > snow, smoke, mist; moonlight, sunlight, starlight …then back into > more colours. > > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? > > > Thanks > Steve 22494 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 2:51pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, James - We haven't "talked" for a while. It's a pleasure to do so! Please forgive me that this particular conversation involves a little disagreement. ;-) In a message dated 5/28/03 7:55:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes with regard to the Buddha's not insisting on vegetarianism: > But it cannot be forced > overnight! The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to > force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the > negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. Please give > credit where credit is due. In all the universe, with its material > and non-material beings, there is none to match or rival the Lord > Buddha. ========================== I just want to confirm my understanding that by "he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices," what you are saying is that out of kindness to others, the Buddha allowed himself and his followers to eat meat, thereby creating akusala kamma vipaka for himself, a "price" he was willing to pay. If I understand you correctly, then that is much better than if you were saying that the Buddha was "taking on himself" the consequences of the kamma of others. (That, of course, cannot be done, and to claim it would sound more Christian than Buddhist, rather like taking on the "sins" of others! ;-) But I don't think, even given that I'm correct in my non-salvational interpretation of what you wrote, that you are quite correct. I don't think that a buddha (or arahant) can act except functionally. That is, it is not possible for an arahant to engage in either kusala or akusala kamma. An arahant, of course, always acts compassionately, lovingly, sympathetically, and with equanimity, but does not will actions in the same way as worldlings, and does not generate kamma vipaka. So, not only did the Buddha not take on the kammic results of others' actions, but he also didn't produce any himself. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22495 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door and mind-door, thinking. Dear Yasa, op 28-05-2003 11:17 schreef yasalalaka op charlesperera@h...: There is no page, for all posts, on > a particular subject under discussion, to appear. Some times it is > difficult to get reference on a particular subject under discussion, > as there are several posts on the same subject. Nina: It is this way: anything that comes up, any problem, any experience you have, you can just post, it does not matter whether it is a subject under discussion. Anybody can start a new subject. Y: I think I was not quite clear in the question I posed to you, about > the sense-door process and mind- door process. The Buddha had used > two different terminology to describe " nama-rupa" for meditation > purposes in his discourses in Sutta Pitaka and for analytical > purposes in Abhidhamma. N: I do not see it this way. All teachings point to satipatthana, to vipassana. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is not merely analytical, the purpose is the same as that of the sutta: develop right understanding to eradicate defilements. Y: For a yogi to see all the 17 citta moment in meditation would be a > distraction of concentration. N: I cannot separate meditation and life.We cannot count all the moments of citta in a process, and there is no need to. We just learn so that we have more understanding that citta cannot be controlled or directed. It helps to know more details about processes, but we should not try to catch the moments of citta. Y:Therefore in meditation, there are, in > each sense door, five elements which represent the , nama: > > (i) contact ( passa, which probably includes ,atita bhavanga, > bhavanga-chalana,bhavanga uppajjedha,panca dvaravajjana) > > (ii) feeling (vedana, which probably includes, sampaticchana, > santirana) > > (iii) perceptions( sanna-which probably includes, votapanna) > > (iv) consciousness( vinnana- which probably includes, seven javana) > > (v ) mind-factors ( sankhara-which probably includes, two moments of > tadarammana) N: It is not so that each of them include certain cittas. Contact is cetasika, how could it be bhavangacitta and panca dvaravajjana? The same for the other cetasikas, feeling perception, how could it include cittas? It is important to distinguish here citta and cetasika. Cetasikas are mental factors that accompany citta. There is one citta at a time and it is accompanied by several cetasikas, at least seven, which always include contact, feeling, perception.When we have cleared this point perhaps your next point about doors may be solved? > Y: Nina, I would not say that sati-sampajjana, is the result of > intellectual understanding but ,it would be due to rather mindful > observation. N: Now I quote Sarah to Jeff: < Like we see with Potthapada’s questions and the responses, there has to be a clear intellectual right view in the first place, developed by hearing, contemplating and considering the truths over and over again. There is no self to do any practice, merely mental and physical phenomena. The first stage of insight is clearly knowing and distinguishing these phenomena directly when they arise.> end quote. Thus, intellectual understanding is the foundation and the condition for the arising of sati-sampajanna. The other part of your post: this depends whether it is solved or not yet. Just tell me, Nina. . 22496 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 94, Mental Objects Dear Larry, just wondering about a term: op 28-05-2003 02:02 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w... > > Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets > enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the > time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight. Pali:ettha hi sambujjhati aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya yogaavacaroti sambodhi, strenuous contemplation on insight: aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya. aaraddha: from arabhati: to begin, firm. Also said of viriya. There is viriya, but it is a cetasika. We should not be neglectful, but there should not be any idea of I am strenuous. The word strenuous could give rise to misunderstandings of : I have to be mindful uninterruptedly. A certain translation can have influence on one's conduct, I think. Nina. 22497 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object Hi Steve, op 28-05-2003 12:59 schreef bodhi2500 op Bodhi2500@a...: > The subject of visible object came up a few times at the cooran > get together. It was my understanding that visible object was colour > alone. Looking in the Dhammasangani it states> > > Dependent on the 4 primary elements, there is the corporeality which > is visible, which arises with impingement, and is of various colours; > dark blue, (snipped) > How are the "long, short, small, large, spherical, sided-sided, six- > sided-sided, sixteen-sided; low, high" or the "snow, smoke, > mist" to > be understood? > Is it only colour that is "visible object" or are "forms" included as > well? Nina: It gives examples by way of conventional terms that colour is not neutral. Anything that appears through eyes, but seeing does not know yet that the object has six sides, it does not count. When we pay attention to shape and form it is not seeing. We always have doubts about visible object, until there can be awareness of just visible object and just seeing. Nina. 22498 From: Date: Wed May 28, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 94, Mental Objects Hi Nina, I agree "strenuous" is a little strange. Sort of like "muscular". And I also agree we need to be aware of conceit, the "I". But I seem to remember there is the intention to be continually mindful, at least for the recluse. I don't remember which section this was in though. Maybe the Section On Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension. Larry ------------------ Nina wrote: Pali:ettha hi sambujjhati aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya yogaavacaroti sambodhi, strenuous contemplation on insight: aaraddhavipassakato pa.t.thaaya. aaraddha: from arabhati: to begin, firm. Also said of viriya. There is viriya, but it is a cetasika. We should not be neglectful, but there should not be any idea of I am strenuous. The word strenuous could give rise to misunderstandings of : I have to be mindful uninterruptedly. A certain translation can have influence on one's conduct, I think. Nina. Re: Way 94, "Because in these enlightenment factors, the meditator effectively gets enlightened, the meditator is called "Complete Enlightenment" from the time he begins strenuous contemplation on insight." 22499 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed May 28, 2003 10:39pm Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > We haven't "talked" for a while. It's a pleasure to do so! Please > forgive me that this particular conversation involves a little disagreement. ;-) James: It is nice to talk with you also. I don't mind if you disagree. It isn't a contest ;-). I just want to confirm my understanding that by "he chose to take the > negative karma onto himself for their poor choices," what you are saying is > that out of kindness to others, the Buddha allowed himself and his followers to > eat meat, thereby creating akusala kamma vipaka for himself, a "price" he was > willing to pay. If I understand you correctly, then that is much better than > if you were saying that the Buddha was "taking on himself" the consequences of > the kamma of others. (That, of course, cannot be done, and to claim it would > sound more Christian than Buddhist, rather like taking on the "sins" of others! > ;-) > But I don't think, even given that I'm correct in my non- salvational > interpretation of what you wrote, that you are quite correct. I don't think > that a buddha (or arahant) can act except functionally. That is, it is not > possible for an arahant to engage in either kusala or akusala kamma. An arahant, of > course, always acts compassionately, lovingly, sympathetically, and with > equanimity, but does not will actions in the same way as worldlings, and does not > generate kamma vipaka. So, not only did the Buddha not take on the kammic > results of others' actions, but he also didn't produce any himself. > > With metta, > Howard James: You are entitled to your opinon, of course. But I disagree with these statements and stand by my original statements. In Buddhism there is such a thing as 'giving and gaining merit' which operates contrary to how you describe the functions of karma. The Buddha taught that people would gain merit through dana (generosity), and he also taught that this merit would be higher if the generosity was directed toward his monks (There are many, many sutta references about this). He also taught that there is a type of karma that 'neutralizes' other karma, that is what I mean by his 'taking on' negative karma...if this reminds you of Christian ideology, okay. I have nothing against Christian ideology, per se. I just don't believe in Original Sin, which means I don't believe in the emphasis you will find therein. Again, it was nice to hear from you again. Take care. Metta, James 22500 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I think the main reason Buddhists argue over what is real and what is > not is in order to steer a middle course between the two extreme views > of kamma. >Some would say an "ultimate" view that says nothing is given > is an extreme. Others would say not so. ..... ??? .... ?However that may be, let's take > another tack. Is ignorance a reality? How does it manifest? [hint: I'm > trying to get you to say ignorance is a wrong conceptual view and a > reality] ..... Actually it’s a great help if you give me a hint each time of what you’re wishing to hear;-) At least then I know what you’re getting at. It reminds me of playing chess with my brothers - I was hopeless as they’d always be several steps ahead. To your question: Ignorance is a reality but is not the same as wrong conceptual view. However, whenever there is wrong view (micha ditthi) there must be ignorance accompanying it -- ignorance accompanies and is a root for all unwholesome cittas. Wrong view arises with cittas rooted in attachment as well. To put it another way, any moments now when the cittas (in the javana process) are not wholesome, ie concerned with dana, sila or bhavana, then they are unwholesome and rooted in ignorance. Those cittas arising which are rooted in attachment (lobha-mula-cittas) may in addition be accompanied by wrong view. Hope that clarifies, even if it wasn't what you wished me to say;-). Metta, Sarah ===== 22501 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote > > I'll start with accumulated kamma as related in stories in the Suttanta > and > the Jatakas. In this example from > > Samyutta Nikaya III.19 > Aputtaka Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-019.html > > and > > Samyutta Nikaya III.20 > Aputtaka Sutta, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn03-020.html .... These suttas and your summaries and comments raised many interesting issues and I'm keen for you to pursue your reflections - .... > Unfortunately I've run out of time--I'd like to go ahead and post this > as a > basis for further discussion and hope to pick up the thread later. > > Thanks again for your patience, .... Just trying to make sure you don't forget that many of us are waiting for the sequel;-) With thanks in advance, Metta, Sarah ====== 22502 From: Andrew Date: Thu May 29, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: Additions to Photo Albums > Dear Sarah and all Having survived a cold and an attack by computer gremlins, I am busily catching up on all the wonderful posts about some of the issues discussed at our Cooran weekend. Thank you to all those contributors. > Sarah: Andrew, whilst I sympathise with any SOs who have their rear ends caught > on film and then displayed for the world (well, for DSG members anyway) to > see, perhaps it?s time for Smokey Joe to consider a little diet;-) A: Smokey is firmly of the view that there is no "I" to go on a diet and it is therefore not on "his" agenda. Besides, as he often says to Christine "I think my karma just ran over your dogma!" > S: Andrew, > you?d like to give a summary of the paper you presented on environmental > issues and Buddhism as well and the feedback. A: I didn't actually write a paper on environmental issues and Buddhism but referred to a book on that theme and a chapter by Christopher Titmus on "being passionate" about the environment. I also related my story of attending a Palm Sunday protest many years ago as part of a Buddhist group, some members of which had a yelling match with disgruntled motorists caught in a traffic jam caused by the march. I suggested that going on such marches was akin to grasping a snake, chances are you will not take the proper hold and the snake will bite. Then again, just staying at home furnishes ample scope for creating akusala too. One aspect of dukkha is expecting samsara to be better or get better. And how can we know these things anyway? There are instances of scientists implementing a program intended to save a species from extinction, and later discovering that part of that program was actually having the opposite effect. Perhaps what we need is just to understand the present moment, what is paramattha dhamma and what isn't, and conditions will produce whatever result they do - be it marching or not marching. I fully intend to keep up my membership and support for environmental groups and would not be surprised if I go on another march sometime but I seem to get less "worked up" over conceptual debate.I have to end here, but perhaps some of the others may like to summarise some of the points discussed on the weekend. Metta, Andrew 22503 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:04am Subject: Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain,a signal,is not a permanent one as other dhammas.Pain arises than may persist and then passes away with time. If the pain is bodily pain,it is sensed by body sense-receptors.In bodily sense there are three types in Abhidhamma.The first type is called Pathavi(hardness,softness,roughness,smothness-density of mass). Next type is Vayo(pulling force,pushing force,springingness,resilience,attraction,propulsion,repulsion-any moving forces). And then Tejo comes as a type of pain.It is coolness,coldness,warmness,hotness- some degree of temperature.Pain is a mixture of all these three even though the most prominent Rupa that sensed as pain is Tejo. When a pain comes,it may manifest as a form of wave of heat and it spread through out the nearby structures and related organs.In Abhidhamma that sense is carried a long Kaya-Pasada with the aid of Thaddha-Pathavi. If an insight can be developed by practice then pain can become tolerable one and if it is based as an mental object further mental faculty can be developed through the practice of putting the mind at the object pain at the bodily sense-door. May you all can tolerate pains of different kind and have an insight into pains and real dhamma. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22504 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, S: Thanks for your further comments - as expected, I agree with some and not with others. In any case, I think it’s useful to have these discussions even if we eventually agree to disagree on some aspects of the teachings. ..... --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: J: > But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word > 'samadhi' > is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual > absorption, > much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for > 'concentration.' When > this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an > incorrect > use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. .... S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon’s post 10879 perhaps): - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503 ..... J: > I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came about > from > using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to > absorption. .... S: So perhaps it would be better to use ‘samadhi’ or ‘ekaggata cetasika’;-) ..... J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > 'vipassana.' .... S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify misunderstandings. I appreciate we’re on the same page here;-) ..... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I > believe is > immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a > self or > not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > realization > (insight) emerges. ..... S: I would call this ‘wishful thinking’. To quote from a past post of Jon’s to another friend: Jon: “You suggest that it's better to actually start following the Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha himself said on the subject. On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage from a sutta ....: Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter (1) Blessings "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? …" “ **** S: We also read about how much detail Potthapada had to hear in the sutta you selected (including lots of argument about ‘self’)before he could understand what was meant by ‘practice’. Without this detail, he would have continued to practice with his wrong views, waiting for nibbana. ..... J: > Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, > 10 > precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation > to grasp. > One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be > realized, > revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense > contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am > preaching to the choir. .... S: I don’t consider the 4 noble truths or 8 fold path as basics. We probably have different ideas about ‘practice’ as well. .... J: > Jeff: > I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 > jhanas, > as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the > self, much > like the proverbial peeling of the onion..... >When one becomes > infinity there > is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, > just > infinite and empty. .... S: The cessation of sensory impingements and so on pertaining to jhanas was not discovered by the Buddha and does not equate to any understanding of anatta. There is only one way to understand realities as anatta, that of satipatthana, regardless of what other attainments have been realized as I understand. This is the unique teaching by the Buddha as often pronounced. ... J: > Jeff: > Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does > that > not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. > One > must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically > through > the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. .... S: In truth, there’s no self to follow or avoid or choose at all. If there are the right conditions for samatha to develop and jhanas to be attained, it should be praised. Regardless, there is one eightfold path leading to nibbana with 8 ‘right’ path factors. .... J: > I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. The intellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit morning > and > evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the > night. > Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason > for > quoting some dead guy. ..... S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha’s own advice which is what we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend only to be used when it supports one’s position;-) ..... J: > But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just take > refuge, > let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold > Path, > and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with > duration and > intensity. .... S: Just to clarify - I don’t think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for ‘the wise’ and not something that can be ‘grasped’ without very careful reflection and consideration. I appreciate your good wishes, Jeff and I’m glad we find some aspects to agree on;-) With metta, Sarah ====== 22505 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu May 29, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object Dear Nina,Robert and Steve, This topic is one of interesting subjects in Dhamma discussion.If all parts of real Dhammas are fully realised,then despute,query,suspicion,confusion and everything mixing up in the mind no more exist. What is visible object?Is it just colour?Or does it include form,shape,size and so on? Dhamma is working on its own. Understanding of a thing sometimes comes up only when constellation parts work together. To completely realise and fully experience a visible object,there have to arise countless Cittas. The external object(visible object) is called Rupa(in arammana it is Ruparammana,and other names are Rupayatana,Rupa-Dhatu). Rupa,Cekkhu,Mansikara and light all must arise together and simultaneously to experience visible object.But for full realisation of visible object there have to arise many series of Vithi-Cittas. You all are experts in the subject.The question here is whether visible object is just colour or whether it also includes shape,form,size,etc. Anyway,all the visible sense information is carried through light without which there is total impossibility of visible-sense perception (leave Dibbacekkhu which works at mind-door). Visual information passes over as a wave.This wave contains all the visual information.Colours are just different wave forms.Outlining and shape is the basis.Then it is volumatise as three-dimensional shape.Size is included in volumatisation.This 3-D again has to have smoothness-looking or roughness-looking.Finally colouring has to complete the whole visual information. This is just exploration of visual sense object.To experience it all four necessary requisites have to exist.The first series of Vithicittas pass on the Cekkhu Vatthu.Next series arise at Manodvara and in between Citta shifts from Hadaya Vatthu and Cekkhu Vatthu and there have to arise many series of Vithicittas just to recognise visible object. This may take 10 to 100 milliseconds or even less.But countless Cittas have to happen in series.Full understanding needs to look 2 or 3 seconds even in well trained persons. May you all be free from any sufferings. With Metta, Htoo Naing ================ Nina: It gives examples by way of conventional terms that colour is not neutral. Anything that appears through eyes, but seeing does not know yet that the object has six sides, it does not count. When we pay attention to shape and form it is not seeing.We always have doubts about visible object, until there can be awareness of just visible object and just seeing. Nina. 22506 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 29, 2003 5:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Hi Suan, ----- Original Message ----- From: abhidhammika To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. ___ Could you please post the 'solemn utterance' to which this refers (in English and in Pali too, if you like)? Thank you sir, mike 22507 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 29, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, A fine post, and thanks for reminding me of Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter--a great and wide-ranging discourse, full of similes etc. as well as a very interesting passage on right concentration and right insight: Just as, Saa.lha, a warrior is a far-shooter, so also the Ariyan disciple is endowed with right concentration. Of all forms whatsoever, past, present or future, subjective or objective, gross or subtle, low or high, and near or far, he says 'this is not mine, this am not I, this is not the soul of me.' Thus, Saa.lha, the Ariyan disciple endowed with right concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right insight. Whatsoever sensation, whatsoever perception, whatsoever predispositions and whatsoever consciousness there be, whether past, present or future...of all such sonsations, perceptions, predispositions or consciousness he says, 'This is not mine ; this am I not ; this is not the soul of me.' Thus he sees a thing as it really is, with the eye of right insight. This struck me as somewhat unusual, that is the 'disciple endowed with right concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right insight'. Of course this does refer to an Ariyan in whom all the path-factors have already arisen. Well--just found this interesting... ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:23 AM Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Jeff, > > S: Thanks for your further comments - as expected, I agree with some and > not with others. In any case, I think it's useful to have these > discussions even if we eventually agree to disagree on some aspects of the > teachings. > ..... > --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > J: > But, there is rarely agreement, even in the Pali language. The word > > 'samadhi' > > is an example. Samadhi is a Sanskrit term that means spiritual > > absorption, > > much like jhana, but in Pali I find it is often used for > > 'concentration.' When > > this use of the word came to be I cannot say, but I believe it is an > > incorrect > > use of the word and only perpetuates confusion. > .... > S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to > momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata > cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as > well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane > or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. > > I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon's post > 10879 perhaps): > - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) > > 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503 > ..... > J: > I believe 'samadhi' coming to mean 'concentration' probably came > about > > from > > using the word to describe a meditation technique that leads to > > absorption. > .... > S: So perhaps it would be better to use 'samadhi' or 'ekaggata > cetasika';-) > ..... > J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > > 'vipassana.' > .... > S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our > job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify > misunderstandings. I appreciate we're on the same page here;-) > ..... > J: > Jeff: > > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I > > believe is > > immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a > > self or > > not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > > realization > > (insight) emerges. > ..... > S: I would call this 'wishful thinking'. To quote from a past post of > Jon's to another friend: > > Jon: "You suggest that it's better to actually start following the > Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory > right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly > understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being > right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of > selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, > does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha > himself said > on the subject. > > On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage > from a sutta ....: > > Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter > (1) Blessings > "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the > ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the > mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? ." " quote> > **** > S: We also read about how much detail Potthapada had to hear in the sutta > you selected (including lots of argument about 'self')before he could > understand what was meant by 'practice'. Without this detail, he would > have continued to practice with his wrong views, waiting for nibbana. > ..... > J: > Yes, the basics have to be grasp, 3 gems, 4 noble truths, 8 fold > path, > > 10 > > precepts. The irony, is these will take a whole lifetime of meditation > > to grasp. > > One cannot understand them intellectually. They are meant to be > > realized, > > revealed through insight, which is driven by a dedicated and intense > > contemplative practice. But, I am sure you know that, and I am > > preaching to the choir. > .... > S: I don't consider the 4 noble truths or 8 fold path as basics. We > probably have different ideas about 'practice' as well. > .... > J: > Jeff: > > I am speaking from the stand point of jhana, as you know there are 8 > > jhanas, > > as one moves through these there is a progressive effacement of the > > self, much > > like the proverbial peeling of the onion..... > >When one becomes > > infinity there > > is no longer a self, as we speak of a self. That being is empty, empty, > > just > > infinite and empty. > .... > S: The cessation of sensory impingements and so on pertaining to jhanas > was not discovered by the Buddha and does not equate to any understanding > of anatta. There is only one way to understand realities as anatta, that > of satipatthana, regardless of what other attainments have been realized > as I understand. This is the unique teaching by the Buddha as often > pronounced. > ... > J: > Jeff: > > Yes, they are impermanent until 'final' cessation in nibbana, but does > > that > > not mean one avoids them? No. they are various passageways to nibbana. > > One > > must pass through the stages leading to nibbana, not just pop magically > > through > > the 8 stages into nibbana after one's morning coffee. > .... > S: In truth, there's no self to follow or avoid or choose at all. If there > are the right conditions for samatha to develop and jhanas to be attained, > it should be praised. Regardless, there is one eightfold path leading to > nibbana with 8 'right' path factors. > .... > J: > I believe we are now splitting hairs as intellectuals like to do. > The intellect can never understand these things. It is better to sit > morning > > and > > evening, evening and morning, and through the dark and stillness of the > > night. > > Knowledge, wisdom will eventual come like dawn, then there is no reason > > for > > quoting some dead guy. > ..... > S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha's own advice which is what > we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana > Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness > in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has > the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend > only to be used when it supports one's position;-) > ..... > J: > But, I know the intellectual approach cannot liberate anyone. Just > take > > refuge, > > let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light, follow the Eighth Fold > > Path, > > and observe the precepts, and practice regularly and often, with > > duration and > > intensity. > .... > S: Just to clarify - I don't think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that > an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any > liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the > degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress > that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for 'the wise' and > not something that can be 'grasped' without very careful reflection and > consideration. > > I appreciate your good wishes, Jeff and I'm glad we find some aspects to > agree on;-) > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== 22508 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 29, 2003 8:41am Subject: Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Dear Mike and all How are you? Here is a fast and rough translation of Tatiyanibbanapa.tisamyutta Suttam (The Third Nibbana Connection Discourse). Ref: Section 73, Udaana Pali, Khuddaka Nikaaya. "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam. No cetam, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, nayidha jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkha tassa nissara.nam paññaayetha. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, tasmaa jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkhatassa nissara.nam paññaayatii"ti. "Monks, there exists nibbana that is the un-arising (due to conditions), the un-emerging (due to causes or self-caused), the un- made (by any causes), the un-conditioned (by any conditions). Monks, if nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un-made, the un-conditioned were not to exist, the liberation from the arising, the emerging, the made, the conditioned would not be evident. Monks, only because nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un- made, the un-conditioned does exist, the liberation from the arising, the emerging, the made, the conditioned is evident." In this Suttam, the Buddha was unmistakably confirming the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: Hi Suan, ----- Original Message ----- From: abhidhammika To: Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Lee - nibbana and sabhava Please read the following quote from the Commentary on Udaana that supports and confirms the independent ultimate existence of nibbana. "..micchaavaadabhañjanatthañca imam amatamahaanibbaanassa paramatthato atthibhaavadiipanam udaanam udaanesi." "..and for the purpose of breaking the wrong speech (doctrine), the Buddha uttered this solemn utterance that shows the fact of the existence of the immortal supreme nibbana as an independent untimate reality." Section 73, Udaana A.t.thakathaa. ___ Could you please post the 'solemn utterance' to which this refers (in English and in Pali too, if you like)? Thank you sir, mike 22509 From: connie Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:58am Subject: re: jhana Hi, Victor, Jeff & Sarah ~ Thanks for the quotes from Nina's 'Conditions' in the http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11231.html [dsg] Right and Wrong Path and Jhana Factors, Sarah. There's another book I should go read again. A lot of reminders that it all starts with right understanding if I'm not going to just keep my spinning wheel going down the wrong path. Right View: The Sammaditthi Sutta [Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli] Bhikkhus, just as the dawn is the forerunner and first indication of the rising of the sun, so is right view the forerunner and first indication of wholesome states. For one of right view, bhikkhus, right intention springs up. For one of right intention, right speech springs up. For one of right speech, right action springs up. For one of right action, right livelihood springs up. For one of right livelihood, right effort springs up. For one of right effort, right mindfulness springs up. For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up. For one of right concentration, right knowledge springs up. For one of right knowledge, right deliverance springs up. Anguttara Nikaya 10:121 Sorry for being snide, Jeff. My hair comment was just to say that my haircut might say one thing to people, but my reasons are entirely different. peace, connie 22510 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance abhidhammika wrote: > > Dear Mike and all > > How are you? > > Here is a fast and rough translation of Tatiyanibbanapa.tisamyutta > Suttam (The Third Nibbana Connection Discourse). Ref: Section 73, > Udaana Pali, Khuddaka Nikaaya. > > > "Atthi, bhikkhave, ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam. > No cetam, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajaatam abhuutam akatam > asa`nkhatam, nayidha jaatassa bhuutassa katassa sa`nkha > tassa nissara.nam paññaayetha. Yasmaa ca kho, bhikkhave, > atthi ajaatam abhuutam akatam asa`nkhatam, tasmaa jaatassa > bhuutassa katassa sa`nkhatassa nissara.nam paññaayatii"ti. > > "Monks, there exists nibbana that is the un-arising (due to > conditions), the un-emerging (due to causes or self-caused), the un- > made (by any causes), the un-conditioned (by any conditions). Monks, > if nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un-made, the > un-conditioned were not to exist, the liberation from the arising, > the emerging, the made, the conditioned would not be evident. Monks, > only because nibbana that is the un-arising, the un-emerging, the un- > made, the un-conditioned does exist, the liberation from the arising, > the emerging, the made, the conditioned is evident." > > > In this Suttam, the Buddha was unmistakably confirming the > independent ultimate existence of nibbana. Hi Suan: Translations are always an interesting thing, with two alternative translations of the same Pali excerpt provided below, neither of which choose to use the word "exists" in their version to describe Nibbana: "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned." - Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." - Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. But these translations differences are just minor quibbles compared to my original point - which is that there are those (like Bhikkhu Nanananda) firmly within the Theravada tradition who disagree with your position that Nibbana is a "thing" and who have presented a comprehensive picture of the Buddha's teachings in line with their understanding. That you choose to have a different understanding of Nibbana is ok with me if it helps you in your practice and also because I do not pretend to hold the final answer to these types of questions. My concern is that you state your view as the only possible view with absolute certainty, a rigid mental approach that I personally have not found beneficial in my own practice. Take care. Lee 22511 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 10:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Vesak Discussion and problems Dear Sarah, thank you for your kind words. op 28-05-2003 11:38 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > ..... > I don’t think we should expect too much of ourselves. If we do and feel > disappointed when yet again we fail the test, get drawn into concerns > about the others’, doesn’t it show the clinging to self? > > Perhaps it’s more useful to learn to see the value of developing the mind > like the earth’, understanding how moved we are by the objects being > experienced and develop detachment from the passing and failing of the > test at this moment. Otherwise, like you say, Nina , it’s always an idea > of self trying to do’ N: I agree. If there can be a short moment of awareness when failing the test, of dosa, we are for that short moment like the earth. And we always have to check our understanding when there are tests, we know how little it is. But no need to be surprised about it, or have aversion, we have to think of the aeons of ignorance we have behind us. Tests are in daily life, objects present themselves in daily life and these are the objects understanding can be developed of. S: I think L’s point which cannot be solved’ is right. Isn’t this the truth > that the Buddha taught? Conventional problems as we know them cannot be > solved. Age, sickness, death are inevitable and there isn’t any real > worldly solution. N: I am glad you mention this, we often hear it, but forget. There is our problem, and then: we should see them as part of the cycle we are in: birth, old age, sickness, death. The real problems are only to be finally solved by the wisdom of the arahat. With appreciation for the reminders, Nina 22512 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 10:21am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 3. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 3. We cling to citta, cetasika and rúpa, we take them for self. The are four kinds of personality belief with regard to each of the five khandhas: 1. We believe that we are identical with each of the five khandhas, we identify ourselves with them. 2. We believe that we ³own² them. 3. We believe that the khandhas are contained in ³us². 4. We believe that we are contained in them. Thus, there are twenty kinds of personality belief. When we ponder over the words khandha and personality belief, we may have doubts, but when satipatthåna arises we can understand the meaning of the words of the scriptures. We have accumulated the tendency to think of ourselves, the clinging to personality belief may be very subtle. Only paññå can detect this. Khun Anop, one of the teachers at the ³Foundation² said that it seems that there is ³I² who acts, ³I² who thinks. Acharn Sujin asked: ³What is I?² The answer was: personality belief, sakkåya ditthi. When we are concerned about someone else, there may still be clinging to ourselves. This may be with wrong view or without wrong view, only paññå can know this. When Lodewijk and I were walking with Acharn Sujin in the garden, in between our discussions, I said that I am sometimes worried about Lodewijk, about his wellbeing. She explained: ³When there is Œhim¹ in the thinking we are still thinking of ourselves. It is very difficult to get rid of belonging. When we do not cling to the notion of a particular person, more mettå can arise." We read that the five khandhas are non-self, but we may have only intellectual understanding of this truth. We should try to find out why it is so difficult for us to see the truth directly. Personality belief (sakkaya ditthi) prevents us from direct understanding of the truth. We have to find out for ourselves what personality belief is when it arises. When we are thinking about different things, when we perform different actions in daily life, is there a subtle clinging to the idea of "I do this"? Or, "this is my opinion"? We have to be very honest with regard to ourselves, and we need patience to listen to the Dhamma, to study and consider it and to be mindful of different characteristics. We cling to nåma and rúpa with personality belief, sakkå ditthi, but we also tend to cling to wrong practice, ³sílabbata paråmåsa². Only the sotåpanna has eradicated this. Even when we have understood what the right Path is, we can still cling to wrong practice. In the Buddha's time some people were also clinging to wrong practice and they believed that they could obtain a result in this way. The word sílabbata paråmåsa,³clinging to rite and rituals² stands for wrong practice, practice that does not lead to the goal. The goal is: detachment from the wrong view of self, and the eradication of all defilements. We have to verify whether a certain practice is based on the teachings and whether it leads to detachment from the concept of self, that is, detachment from the idea of, ³I do it, I practise². 22513 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu May 29, 2003 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Weekend Visible object --- Dear Htoo, This whole world is completly dark - except at the moment of cakkhuvinnana - when for an incredibly brief instant there is seeing contacting colour. All the other cittas in the following processes cannot do this. All ideas of volume, 3d etc happen in these later processes. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Nina,Robert and Steve, > > Visual information passes over as a wave.This wave contains all the > visual information.Colours are just different wave forms.Outlining > and shape is the basis.Then it is volumatise as three-dimensional > shape.Size is included in volumatisation.This 3-D again has to have > smoothness-looking or roughness-looking.Finally colouring has to > complete the whole visual information. > > This is just exploration of visual sense object.> ================ > 22514 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? to Sarah: In a message dated 5/29/03 3:24:31 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << .... S: I think we need to look carefully at the texts. Samadhi can refer to momentary concentration which accompanies all consciousness (ekaggata cetasika). Furthermore there is miccha samadhi (wrong concentration) as well as samma samadhi (right concentration). It can refer to the mundane or supramundane path factor and it can refer to jhanas. I think you would find these past posts helpful (particularly Jon’s post 10879 perhaps): - Right Concentration (samma samadhi) 2155, 4068, 4104, 10879, 11742, 14294. 19448, 19571, 20503  ..... >> Jeff: Thank-you Sarah, for your kind post, I should most certainly be clear that I am by know means a scholar of anything. I am simply a native English speaking yogi who is trying to make sense out the many translated texts and the many commentaries and points of view that are published in my native language. And, I compare that literature to my personal subjective experience and endeavor to make some comparison between them. I will of course avail myself of your fine recommendations at my earliest convenience. I do have grant proposals pending which will serve to further my endeavors and a journal to compose and post this weekend, as well as my daily activity of service to inquiring seekers intent on jhana. But, while Pali or at least Pali scholarship seems to be intent on viewing the word 'samadhi' as concentration, I have to simply voice that every word has a range of meaning in every language. And, as words move from one language to the next that meaning can change. I believe 'samadhi' is originally (as best we can know) a Sanskrit word, which I said before means absorption (the consequence of concentration) not concentration, but I can see how it has come to be used for 'concentration' in Pali. But, if we are to allow ourselves to question the historic Buddha's use of the word 'samadhi,' since he no doubt was an educated man, and trained by Brahmans, and there for he probably knew the current Sanskrit use for the term, so when he used that word in his Eight Fold Path as "samma samadhi" perhaps he wasn't speaking of right concentration, but right absorption. This interpretation of the word certainly worked better for me when examining the Eight Fold Path of Siddharta Gotama. ..... J: > This is much like the confusion we have at present over the word > 'vipassana.' .... S: I agree with your comments about the mis-use of the term. I think our job is to explore and understand the terms and help clarify misunderstandings. I appreciate we’re on the same page here;-) ..... Jeff: Yes, I agree and that is why I endeavor to use English whenever possible, and when using a non-English word I try to place the English meaning I am intending on in brackets instead of resorting to the Pali, which can have, as I have said, have a range of meaning, like words in any language, and therefore I believe using Pali terms is no where nearly as accurate as many here seem to think it is. Unless you subscribe to a single, and often narrow interpretation of that Pali term, which I do not. ..... J: > Jeff: > Yes, I agree, but obsessing over whether one has a self or not, I believe is immaterial. One will find out upon cessation. Why argue if one has a self or not? One cannot know until nibbana anyway. I don't see how belief is > relevant, as long as one is practicing. Beliefs are simply shed as > realization (insight) emerges.>> ..... S: I would call this ‘wishful thinking’. To quote from a past post of Jon’s to another friend: Jon: “You suggest that it's better to actually start following the Buddha's instruction than to concern oneself with getting the theory right. I'm afraid I can't agree here. If the teachings are not correctly understood, I don't think the 'practice' can have any chance of being right. Simply following what we understand from a superficial reading of selected suttas, or what we are told by a 'teacher' to be the practice, does not seem to me either prudent or in accord with what the Buddha himself said on the subject. ..... Jeff: Well, I would agree, now who's interpretation are you depending on for understanding what the Buddha intended? If you are going to depend on a scholar's interpretation of the Pali canon to direct your practice, I assure you, your practice will not be "correct." Only a practitioner, that is one who has "gone before" or "achieved" can understand the practice and the intent. A scholar can only give you one of many interpretations for the text. Also, it does not seem to me to be prudent to wait to practice until one has understood the "Buddha's instruction(s)" thoroughly, Are you saying you want to first read and understand the whole of the Pali cannon before you will begin to practice? If so, how many lifetimes do you think that will take? ..... Sarah: On the question of what the Buddha himself said, let me quote this passage from a sutta ....: Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter XX, Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter (1) Blessings "Brethren, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight. What four? …" “ **** Jeff: Thank-you for the nice quote, but who's interpretation of that quote is it? Are you willing to consider there are other linguistically valid interpretations for the same quote? And, how do you interpret the word 'insight' (vipassana)? I interpret vipassana (insight) as a subjective state as a consequence of absorption when the activities of thinking and cogitation are at rest. I do not consider 'insight' as a thinking process, which I believe some here do. Therefore my interpretation for the above quote is likely to be radically different from someone who thinks insight is a process of thinking, which in my view constitutes wrong thinking. ..... S: I think this would be contrary to the Buddha’s own advice which is what we are discussing here;-) In the latest extract from the Satipatthana Sutta which Larry just posted, it stresses the development of mindfulness in all positions and on all occasions. I appreciate that not everyone has the same respect for the Buddha and his teachings and that quotes tend only to be used when it supports one’s position;-) ..... Jeff: That is the very problem with endlessly quoting the same tiresome rhetoric. Every orthodoxy depends on their quotes and their interpretation of those quotes. So, why not speak from personal experience instead? .... S: Just to clarify - I don’t think anyone on DSG has ever suggested that an intellectual approach or knowledge in itself can ever bring about any liberation. For me, refuge in the Triple Gem is closely related to the degree of respect I have for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Again I stress that I consider the teachings to be very subtle, only for ‘the wise’ and not something that can be ‘grasped’ without very careful reflection and consideration. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, I agree that is why I have spent 30 years reflecting on these concepts and testing them in my daily practice. Blessing to you and all, &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Take refuge Let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light Follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts Practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22515 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: jhana In a message dated 5/29/03 9:56:37 AM, nichicon@h... writes: << Sorry for being snide, Jeff. My hair comment was just to say that my haircut might say one thing to people, but my reasons are entirely different. peace, connie >> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: No harm taken, it does seem like nama-rupa in action again with respect to your hair. The appearance, verses the content. Best to you Jeff 22516 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu May 29, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Reith Lectures 2003, The Emerging Mind Hi everyone Thought this might be interesting. Having listened to it all myself I can well recommend the fifth talk. Science can't find any self, even in the Brain. Cheers Peter 22517 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Way 95, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects There are karmically good and karmically bad things... right and wrong counterparts of bright and dark things, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects and for the increase, expansion and the completion of culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. [Tika] Here, right reflection is the conscious state that is associated with knowledge and which arises by way of perceiving, according to actuality, the nature, function, characteristic and so forth of the several skillful (or wholesome) states of mind and the like. Because it is correct reflection it is called right (or radical) reflection. Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor: Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma. Purification of the basis is the cleaning of the personal basis: the body, and of the impersonal basis: clothes and dwelling place. The flame of a lamp is unclear when its wick, oil and container are dirty; the wick splutters, flickers; but the flame of a lamp that has a clean wick, oil and container is clear and the wick does not spit; it burns smoothly. So it is with knowledge. Knowing that arises out of the mind and mental qualities which are in dirty external and internal surroundings is apt to be impure, too, but the knowledge that arises under clean conditions is apt to be pure. In this way cleanliness leads to the growth of this enlightenment factor which comprises knowledge. Personal cleanliness is impaired by the excessive length of hair of the head, nails, hair of the body, by the excess of humors, and by the dirt of perspiration; cleanliness of impersonal or external things is impaired when robes are worn out, dirty and smelly, and when the house where one lives is dirty, soiled and untidy. So personal cleanliness should be secured by shaving, hair-cutting, nail-paring, the use of pectoral emetics and of purgatives which make the body light, and by shampooing, bathing and doing other necessary things, at the proper time. In similar way external cleanliness should be brought about by darning, washing and dyeing one's robes, and by smearing the floor of one's house with clay and the like to smoothen and clean it, and by doing other necessary things to keep the house clean and tidy. 22518 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: non-dualism becomes diet? [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? To James: In a message dated 5/28/03 4:55:29 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% <> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: (from his post) << I wish to comment a bit on your observations hereâ€|specifically about the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: To say that the historic Buddha is a hypocrite because, since he lived off of alms, he ate what he was given (some of which was meat) seems to me to be an extreme conclusion, even if you do call him "Lord." First, I do not believe it says anywhere in the Pali canon one should not eat meat. The only thing I believe Siddharta Gotama said was not to harm (precepts), which meant to him not to kill creatures as well as humans, and not to eat the flesh of animals that were killed for you. So, how does him eating yesterday's leftovers that are given to him, which might have some meat in it, become hypocrisy? We may want to take into account the period in which Siddharta Gotama lived. I believe Brahmans today are typically vegetarian, but according to the record in the Pali Canon, they engaged in animal sacrifice. If they engaged in animal sacrifice, they probably ate the flesh after the ceremony. In fact if we look at the descriptions of the typical animal sacrifice of the day, it wasn't too different from what we would call a barbecue. It was just a highly ritualized, culturally distinct and period relevant barbecue. So, if Siddharta, during his alms rounds, came upon a Brahman animal sacrifice (barbecue), and they felt it would be good luck to give a samana (a spiritually dedicated street person) alms, and he accepted their gift of generosity and ate it, then in someone's mind here he is a hypocrite. That is an interesting conclusion based on how we use the word 'hypocrite,' but Hypocrites was a pretty cool guy, he was basically the Greek equivalent of a yogi. So, I agree with you, one cannot call the Buddha's behavior here hypocritical, nor did I imply in my earlier post that he was being hypocritical, so I am not sure who you are responding to here, but I do not believe it was me. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: Human kind is eventually working itself toward vegetarianism; %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This is an interesting assumption that I donot believe is either valid nor neccessarily valid. If one studies Permaculture, which I did, one finds out that "strict" vegetarianism isn not neccessarily the most apropriet lifestyle for a people who grow their own food, and for Permaculture, a population is not sustainable if it doesn't grow its own food. It turns out chickens, rabbits and goats are a pretty useful to have in a small farm unit, because they provide useful fertilizer and composting functions as well as provide sources of nutrition. This is in no means my way of justifying a carnivorous diet, but only an acknowledgement, that rural communities of subsistance argiculture is more successful (sustainable) if it encorporates some "harvestable" domesticated meat production. I was at a Thai Wat over Vesak and I noticed the monks were keeping chickens, and they were offered fish products in their meal that day. In fact, of the two Wats I've been to, both served eggs, chicken and fish protein. I also spent last year intimately involved in the regional Vajrayana community, Tibetan monks and Rinpoches eat meat, primarily beaf. So, according to the assumption that a Buddhist who eats meat is a hypocrit, therefore all of these peoples from whom we are learning Buddhism from are hypocrits. Well, since we are learning Buddhism from them, maybe we should not be so quick to judge our teachers. But, then I think you will agree with me, thus there is no arguement. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: I am also working my way, slowly but surely, toward that state. But it cannot be forced overnight! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I wouldn't kill myself over it, there is no evidence that vegetarianism is a requirement for Buddhism. Probably the only "strictly" vegetarian Buddhists in the world are Western converts anyway, therefore it is probably not too big a deal. I would go so far to say that since relinquishing grasping and aversion was higher up the historic Buddha's agenda than vegetarianism, I would think it is safe to say, "go out and have a Big Mac, but just focus your attention (mindfulness) on relinquishing your grasping and aversion." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: The Lord Buddha realized this and rather than trying to force a premature conversion of his kinfolk, he chose to take the negative karma onto himself for their poor choices. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: This sounds like a distinctly Christian interpretation of the historic BUddha's life. I assume you are implying that since he had chronic food poisoning and intestinal parasites (among others) his "suffering" was for us. Well, I would agree that I believe it is the very nature of an enlightened being to not do anything for him or her self, but to dedicate all actions and their "merit" for the benefit of all beings. But, I do not believe that this is clearly stated any where in the Pali canon. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: We should never bite the hand that feeds us. I hope you can understand my intentions here. I respect your insights and am very thankful that you brought this subject up. Take care. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, I hope I poitned out that I believe it is clear you missunderstood me. I neither said, nor implied that the historic Buddha was a hypocrit for eating meat. He ate what was offered him. I find no fault in that. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: Metta, James ps.I felt that I needed to comment because your reasoning, though all- inclusive, is confusing and undeclarative. On issues as weighty as this, I believe concrete stands should be posited. Forgive me if you disagree. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: My logic must have been pretty unclear, and as you say confusing, because no where in it did I state or imply the Buddha was hypocritical for eating meat. Proof of my errors is how a dialog on non-dualism can become an argument over diet. Please accept my apologies. But, I can understand your confusion when I said: <> But, I negated that statement by saying: <> In fact, I couldn't care less about what he ate, my point had nothing to do with defending his diet or a discussion of diet. I was talking about karma and cessation, I used his subsistence strategy as a means of proving my point, that since he was an enlightened one, he was free of karma. <> My point was, someone in cessation has no karma, regardless of what they do, because there is no 'self' for karma to cling to. If I may quote again myself from the message you were responding to? <> So, please forgive my obvious flaws in logic, and my flawed writing. Thank-you for your kind patience. Blessing to you and all, &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Take refuge Let the Four Noble Truths be your guiding-light Follow the Eighth Fold Path, and observe the precepts Practice regularly and often, with duration and intensity &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ president, UofA Meditation Club http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Vivatha/ moderator, Jhana Support Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/ 22519 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Hmm. Ignorance is a reality but it isn't wrong conceptual view. So what is it? You said it accompanies all uwholesome consciousnesses but you didn't say what it is. Is wrong conceptual view a reality? [Remember, we are using a very broad definition of concept. A shape or, presumably, a compound (apparent whole) is a concept.] *The answer is yes. Wrong conceptual view is a reality. No idea what you have in mind for ignorance. Larry 22520 From: Date: Thu May 29, 2003 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Hi Htoo, Your series on pain prompted me to try to identify the various kinds of pain I experienced today as they arose. Really, there was way too much to identify it all, but mostly lots of hot and thirsty. Pain of not getting what one wants seemed to arise as a factor in nearly every action. There was some pain of conceit and even a pain of pleasure. Not necessarily because pleasure is temporary but it seems that pain is in everything. Several pains I couldn't identify their sign (nimitta). I'm going to try to look at these more carefully when they arise. Many people have trouble sleeping at night because of the pain of worry. And then there was Christine's pain of compassion. All very interesting. Larry 22521 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 29, 2003 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang,groups of rupa. Hi Howard, op 28-05-2003 20:33 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > What particularly make no sense to me at all > are the following: 1) that image, odor, flavor, and "nutrition" arise with > every rupic discernment [By the way, *what* in the world is nutrition??], N: Instead of rupic discernment I like to use: group(kalapa) of rupas. Rupas do not arise in isolation, say colour (I prefer the word colour to image) does not float in the air, it needs for instance solidity (the element of earth) to support it, and also the three other great Elements of cohesion, heat and motion (oscillation). The same for sound: does it not need solidity? It must seem a primitive, theory, I understand your point. But it is so helpful to know: solidity which is in earth is also in what I take for my body. Think of the Discourse on the Elephant Footprint Simile.Thus, in each unit of rupa (very tiny) there are the four Great Elements and in addition: colour, odor, flavor, and "nutrition". Nutrition: it is nutritive essence which is present. It is in your famous tree outside, you will not deny it, but also in your table, and in the smallest unit of rupas. A primitive prescientific vision? It is good you bring this up, it helps me to understand what people may find not appealing in the Abhidhamma. This is food for thought. We have to think of the goal: detachment. The goal is not the same as in science. I would think: it shows the intricacy of realities that are conditioned and conditioning. All these units of rupa arising and falling away and then they are immediately replaced. They are produced by one of the four factors of: kamma, citta, heat or nutrition. All conascent rupas support each other for that extremely short moment of their presence and one out of such a group impinges on a sense which also consists of groups of rupa. And it impinges only on one rupa. Thus, sound only impinges on earsense, and sound as well as earsense are in a group of conascent rupas which support each other. Does this make more sense to you? H: 2) > that > space is a rupa rather than a relation, N: Yes, see also the Suttas. Space is real, it is not mental, it is rupa. It has a function, as was explained: separates the groups of rupa, holds them together. H: 3) the statement by Khun Sujin: " > It is a stage of insight knowledge that understands what groups are," because > I > fail to see what that has to do with the wisdom the grasps the tilakkhana. [I > understand pa~n~na as the function consisting of directly seeing the > impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and not-self character (impersonality and > insubstantiality) of all dhammas, plus whatever subordinate insights foster > such direct > understanding.] N: I agree that the tilakkhana have to be known as they are, but they are characteristics *of* namas and rupas. Take impermanence: it is impermanence *of* a nama and *of* a rupa, seen one at a time when that nama or rupa appears. This cannot be realized immediately, only when panna through the successive stages of insight understands more profoundly what nama is, what rupa is, that they are conditioned, and panna can become more disenchanted. At the third stage (which is still a beginning stage) panna understands more about the groups of rupa. Each of the stages is significant and plays its part. See the Visuddhimagga (at a shelf in your bedroom! Now I visualize too much of your house and garden). With appreciation, Nina 22522 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 30, 2003 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Lee, Suan & Mike, --- Lee Dillion wrote: > > "There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a > not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, > not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be > discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But > since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a > not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, > brought-to-being, made, conditioned." > > - Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. ..... S:I’ve just repeated one of the translations you added here. It reads the same to me whether we say ‘there is’ or ‘there exists’, like Suan and Masefield use in their translations. I’d like to quote further from the Udana commentary which I believe helps to elucidate the meaning of these famous lines. (As it is long, I am just typing out parts only with a few comments --suggestions only;-)-- of mine interspersed): Comy to Udana 8-3, Nibbana(P.Masefield transl) =============================================== “.....”This Udana (ma.m udaana.m)”: gave rise to this Udana elucidating the existence, in the highest sense, of the Deathless Great Nibbana, not only with the aim of scattering the scepticism of those monks, but also with the aim of rending asunder the false doctrine of those brahmin recluses within with the erroneous prctice of holding, as with those of the Lokayata (school) and so on, that “‘Nibbana, nibbana’ is mere talk, for that which is termed nibbana does not exist in the highest sense , on account of its own nature failing to be discovered” and of those on the outside resorting to a multiplicity of (wrong) views....” ***** S: nibbana is paramattha (ultimate)dhamma with sabhava(nature/characteristic) which can be known ***** “....Or alternatively, (taking things) in reverse order, “that which is conditioned (sa”nkhata.m) is such since it has been created (kata.m) by conditions that have come together (samecca), that have become co-existent (sambhuuya), “that which is unconditioned” (asa”nkhata.m) being such since it is not so conditioned.......It is to be understood that, upon thus fathoming the significance of these four terms, the existence, in the highest sense, of nibbana is (itself) made known , in that (they imply) “There exists, monks, that same nibbana”.....” ***** S: by clearly understanding the nature of conditioned dhammas, the unconditioned dhamma, i.e nibbana will be realized ***** “...Monks, “if there were not (na abhavissa=na siyaa,)” that unconditioned element having as its own nature that which is unborn and so on, “there could not be made known,” there could not be discovered, there could not be witnesssed,”here,” in this world , “the escape”, allayment and without remainder, “for that which is conditioned” reckoned as the khandha-pentad of form and so on that has as its own nature being born and so forth. For states associated with the ariyan path, such as right view and so on, as they proceed making nibbana their object, extirpate the defilements without remainder. In this way, there is made known in this connection the non-occurrence of, the disappearance of, the escape from, the entire dukkha belonging to the cycle......” ***** S: The 8-fold path factors have nibbana as object at moments of enlightenment, eradicating defilements in stages. ***** “.....yet however good that knowledge associated with vipassanaa, which has conditioned dhammas as its object, may be, not even adaptation-knowledge is able to abandon the defilements by way of extirpation. Similarly, that knowledge which, in the first jhana and so on, has conventional truth as its object, abandons the defilements only by way of suppression, not by way of extirpation. Hence, given the inability, as regards abandoning the defilements by way of extirpation, on the part of either that knowledge having conditioned dhammas as its object or that having conventional truth as its object, there has to be an object, with an own nature the converse of both of these, for that knowledge associated with the ariyan paths that does effect the abandonment of these by way of extirpation - this being the unconditioned element....” **** Only the supramundane knowledge, with nibbana -- the unconditioned element -- as object, can eradicate defilements. ***** “...Or alternatively, the unconditioned element itself exists in the highest sense, on account of its own nature being the converse of, and free of, the rest , such as the earth-element or sensation. It is by way of methods such as these and so on that the existence, in the highest sense , of the unconditioned element is to be understood also through logic.” ***** S: Nibbana is the unconditioned ultimate reality or element,without trace of the khandhas which conditioned realities consist of. Whilst it can only be realized by the supramundane path factors arising (i.e conditioned) in the mind-door process,it has its particular ‘nature’ regardless. It is on account of there being the unconditioned reality to be known by the fully developed path factors, that eradication of defilements and an eventual ‘escape’ from samsara is possible. I’d be glad to hear any further comments or different understandings to the comments I’ve given. With metta, Sarah ======= 22523 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri May 30, 2003 1:21am Subject: Re: non-dualism becomes diet? [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To James: > > In a message dated 5/28/03 4:55:29 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > < (from a previous post which James is responding to) > As for the results of past karmas, I believe it depends on how you define > karma. Siddharta Gotama had chronic intestinal problems. I am no medical > doctor, but his subsistence strategy was based on begging. I am sure not everyone > during his lifetime consider him to be an enlightened being. Probably most > people during his time period gave the wandering samanas of India the leftovers > from the previous meal, or day. Since there was no refrigeration that means > that the Buddha was probably eating yesterday's un-refrigerated meal. In a > tropical climate, like much of India, that means he was eating food that was > definitely going bad. Therefore he probably had chronic food poisoning.>> > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > James: (from his post) > << I wish to comment a bit on your observations hereâ€|specifically about > the Lord Buddha`s diet. Sarah did a bit, and then encouraged other > threads as well, so I am going to pick up her lead. Frankly, and > please don't take this the wrong way, I take exception to this > characterization of the Buddha. Even though everything you state is > correct, in one sense, it doesn't factor in the great interplay of > karmic forces that the Buddha had to contend with. It is easy for > us, anyone, to sit back and say, "Look, the Buddha ate meat, and the > Buddha taught against killing, so there is an contradiction there. > The Buddha paid the consequences for that hypocrisy." >> > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > To say that the historic Buddha is a hypocrite because, since he lived off of > alms, he ate what he was given (some of which was meat) seems to me to be an > extreme conclusion, even if you do call him "Lord." LOL! Okay, thank you for your post. Metta, James 22524 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 3:44am Subject: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi All, A quick question. Somebody asked me what makes ditthi and mana mutually exclusive (they cannot appear in the same lobha-mula citta). I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. Nina's book, "Cetasikas" says, "Conceit and wrong view are different realities which do not arise at the same time. When one takes a reality for permanent or for self there is wrong view and there cannot be at the same time conceit, which is pride or self- assertion." Metta, Rob M :-) 22525 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Sarah wrote: > Hi Lee, Suan & Mike, > > --- Lee Dillion wrote: > > > >>"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a >>not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, >>not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be >>discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But >>since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a >>not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, >>brought-to-being, made, conditioned." >> >>- Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. > > ..... > S:I’ve just repeated one of the translations you added here. It reads the > same to me whether we say ‘there is’ or ‘there exists’, like Suan and > Masefield use in their translations. Hi Sarah: Thanks for the commentary material. I don't mean to be contrary, but this is simply one of those situations where I choose to go with an interpretation of the suttas by a well-respected Bhikkhu that is at variance with the understanding that you and Suan (and the much later commentarial tradition) has of the suttas. I don't make this lightly, as I have considered your position, and that in the commentary, very carefully and found it is contrary to my understanding of the suttas. In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): (a) difficult to square with the idea in the suttas that anything outside of the six sense-spheres (or the five aggregates) is only a thing of speech; and (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond the all. But just to be clear, it isn't my position that your view of Nibbana is wrong - my position is that I personally have no basis within my range to determine anything more than what appears to me in the sutta - that Nibbana is the state described in AN III.32 as "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana" and that to ask if there is anything more is to engage in fabrications. That is, I see no need to make ontological claims about Nibbana when I have no basis for doing so and when the psychological understanding is within my range and more than sufficient to keep me moving forward with my practice. That this position of mine may reflect my own limitations and not something inherent in the dhamma is admitted. :) -- Lee Dillion 22526 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: ... > Hi Jonothan: > > You raise an interesting issue, for what is or isn't understod as > impermanent in the Buddhist tradition seems to be the subject of > some > fascinating discussion about anicca and dukkha being descriptive of > sabbe sankhárá and anatta being descriptive of sabbe dhamma. > > But Dreyfus is talking not solely within a particular tradition > (Theravada or otherwise) but from the perspective where select > terms and > definitions were ascribed some common or conventional understanding > or meaning among a range of Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions > simply to > facillitate discussion and debate and not to suggest that these > defintions were ultimately correct from *within* each tradition > entering the discussion. I'm afraid I don't see the purpose in such an approach, which no doubt makes it difficult for me to participate in this kind of discussion. But I'm happy to contribute what I can from the perspective of the Pali canon. > In any event, Dreyfus' example seems to be a stumbling block for > you as > you filter the discussion through your perspective (which, of > course, we > all tend to do) and that is understandable if the example does not > speak > to you. If viewed as ultimate language, it would also be unlikely > to > speak to a tradition that sees all as mere illusion as they await > unity with their god. > > I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you > as a > way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can account > for > valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from faulty > conception > or how to account for how our conceptions operate nonrandomly. To my understanding the teachings do not require the drawing of any valid inferences, of the kind I understand the author to be referring to. I see the teachings as claiming to be descriptive of the present moment, and as inviting the listener to confirm by his or her own observation the correctness (or otherwise) of that description. In doing so, however, I do not see them as asking one to make any assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment. (I suppose this puts me fundamentally at odds with the author.) Do you have an different perspective on the teachings? Jon 22527 From: Sarah Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, If you remember, in ADL chapter 7, we read a lot of detail about moha (ignorance). One quote now from the Atthasalini: “ ‘Delusion’ (moha) has the characteristic of blindnes or opposition to knowledge; the essence of non-penetration or the function of covering the intrinsic nature of the object; the manifestation of being opposed to right conduct or causing blindnes; the proximate cause of unwise attention; and it should be regarded as the root of all akusala...” So at this moment of looking out of the window or picking up a pencil or sipping some tea, there are bound to be countless moments of moha -- no knowing anything about kusala and ignorance about the nature of phenomena being experienced. As you say, wrong conceptual view is also a reality, but it doesn’t necessarily arise with all these moments of ignorance. Without the development of understanding of the various paramattha dhammas, I believe it will be impossible to understand what the characteristics of moha and ditthi are. Please give me another hint if this is not the answer you were looking for;-) Metta, Sarah p.s. You may also like to review a few of the posts under “ignorance and wrong view” in Useful Posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts =================== 22528 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jonothan: > > Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the > ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of > passages > regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to the > Chachakka > Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of the discourse > and > experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas as another example > of the regularity we call dependent arising. I *think* I see what you're saying here, but I hope you won't mind if I ask you to comment in terms I can more easily relate to. I would see these suttas as descriptive of the present moment, and of development of insight into the true nature of the present moment. Is this your perspective also? If not, then what do you see these suttas as being descriptive of, and what parts of the sutta pitaka do you see as descriptive of the development of insight? > I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of > a > deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes this > latter approach as follows: Thanks for the quote from the introduction to CMA. I know that people react differently to the Abhidhamma. Indeed, many who find it useful now probably did not have any particular affinity with it in the beginning (and in some cases quite the opposite). I would suggest that there's no need to either embrace or reject the Abhidhamma, or to reach any final view on it's origin or content. As I said in an earlier post, the suttas by themselves are beyond us, and there is much in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that can help unlock the meaning. I've never heard of any instance of a contradiction between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. > I may get there at some point. Who knows? That's about how it is for all of us ;-)) Jon 22529 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I think you might find this discourse helpful. > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Thanks for the reference to the sutta. I like the analogy of the child's sandcastles. Is there any specific aspect of the sutta you wanted to draw my attention to? I note you haven't responded to the question in my previous post. Does this mean we're not going to hear your comments on the words spoken by Sister Vajira? I was looking forward to hearing your views on the connection being made between the five aggregates and the concept 'a being'. Jon 22530 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> I invite you to provide an example that does make more sense to you >> as a way of explaining or examining the questions of how we can >> account for valid inferences and how to then distinguish them from >> faulty conception or how to account for how our conceptions operate >> nonrandomly. > > > To my understanding the teachings do not require the drawing of any > valid inferences, of the kind I understand the author to be referring > to. > > I see the teachings as claiming to be descriptive of the present > moment, and as inviting the listener to confirm by his or her own > observation the correctness (or otherwise) of that description. In > doing so, however, I do not see them as asking one to make any > assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment. (I > suppose this puts me fundamentally at odds with the author.) > > Do you have an different perspective on the teachings? Hi Jon: Personally, I agree with your statement that you "do not see them [the teachings of the Buddha] as asking one to make any assumptions or draw any inferences about the present moment" as I am more than content to work with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to my senses without needing to designate or characterize this flow any further. However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the "present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. 22531 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> Again this is where we differ as to the salvational versus the >> ontological nature of the suttas. I can read any number of >> passages regarding the sense bases, from the Satipatthana Sutta to >> the Chachakka Sutta, remaining solely at the phenomenal level of >> the discourse and experiencing the pragmatic value of these suttas >> as another example of the regularity we call dependent arising. > > I *think* I see what you're saying here, but I hope you won't mind if > I ask you to comment in terms I can more easily relate to. > > I would see these suttas as descriptive of the present moment, and of > development of insight into the true nature of the present moment. > Is this your perspective also? If not, then what do you see these > suttas as being descriptive of, and what parts of the sutta pitaka do > you see as descriptive of the development of insight? Hi Jon: I suppose I don't know what you intend by the phrase "true nature" since I have seen these words used in so many different ways. If you mean that we have to understand the ontological status of the present moment, then I have not found that approach particularly useful since it quickly implicates the whole thicket of questions raised by Dreyfus. If you mean, simply, the way in which appearances arise and cease and how those appearances can be understood, in a salvational sense, as a way of letting go of fabrications based on cravings, conceit, and views (what I would see as a psychological and not an ontological perspective), then I prefer that approach. >> I realize others have gone farther, seeing these suttas as part of >> a deeper, more sophisticated philosophy. Bikkhu Bodhi describes >> this latter approach as follows: > > > > > Thanks for the quote from the introduction to CMA. I know that > people react differently to the Abhidhamma. Indeed, many who find it > useful now probably did not have any particular affinity with it in > the beginning (and in some cases quite the opposite). > > I would suggest that there's no need to either embrace or reject the > Abhidhamma, or to reach any final view on it's origin or content. I agree. > As I said in an earlier post, the suttas by themselves are beyond us, > and there is much in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that can help > unlock the meaning. I've never heard of any instance of a > contradiction between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. Here I would disagree. I find the suttas powerful in their clarity and vision. That others have a different understanding is not unexpected, nor is it unexpected that your interpretation, which may vary from mine, is consistent with your take on the Abhidhamma as you have an apparent affinity for the Abhidhamma. Such is the power of our interpretive systems - to see harmony if that is what we look for. >> I may get there at some point. Who knows? > > > That's about how it is for all of us ;-)) True. Thanks. Lee 22532 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Lee (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/30/03 10:12:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, leedillion@c... writes: > Hi Jon: > > Personally, I agree with your statement that you "do not see them [the > teachings of the Buddha] as asking one to make any assumptions or draw > any inferences about the present moment" as I am more than content to > work with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what > appears to my senses without needing to designate or characterize this > flow any further. > > However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and > draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the > "present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. > ========================== Not only that, but there is also the view that the Gelukpas seem to have with regard to the role reasoning plays in Buddhist practice. As I understand it, their practice could be viewed as a form of gnani yoga in which cool contemplation at the conceptual level (of ultimates) conditions the development of subsequent wisdom. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22533 From: Lee Dillion Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities upasaka@a... wrote: >>However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions and >>draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes the >>"present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. >> > > ========================== > Not only that, but there is also the view that the Gelukpas seem to > have with regard to the role reasoning plays in Buddhist practice. As I > understand it, their practice could be viewed as a form of gnani yoga in which cool > contemplation at the conceptual level (of ultimates) conditions the development > of subsequent wisdom. Hi Howard; There is much in the Gelukpa intellectual tradition that I find fascinating, though my practice remains far more mundane in orientation. Perhaps if I could get them to ditch the funny hats . . . :) 22534 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Lee - In a message dated 5/30/03 11:00:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, leedillion@c... writes: > Hi Howard; > > There is much in the Gelukpa intellectual tradition that I find > fascinating, though my practice remains far more mundane in orientation. > Perhaps if I could get them to ditch the funny hats . . . :) > > > ========================== Always ready for a party, those guys! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri May 30, 2003 10:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. I have responded to your question by providing the reference to the discourse Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Let me quote the following passage from the discourse: I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. Radha went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?" "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' It is the above passage that I wanted to draw your attention to. Thank you again for your reply. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > Thanks for the reference to the sutta. I like the analogy of the > child's sandcastles. Is there any specific aspect of the sutta you > wanted to draw my attention to? > > I note you haven't responded to the question in my previous post. > Does this mean we're not going to hear your comments on the words > spoken by Sister Vajira? I was looking forward to hearing your views > on the connection being made between the five aggregates and the > concept 'a being'. > > Jon 22536 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 2:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance --Dear Lee, A quick comment: - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dillion wrote: > > Hi Sarah: > > Thanks for the commentary material. > > I don't mean to be contrary, but this is simply one of those situations > where I choose to go with an interpretation of the suttas by a > well-respected Bhikkhu that is at variance with the understanding that > you and Suan (and the much later commentarial tradition) has of the > suttas. I don't make this lightly, as I have considered your position, > and that in the commentary, very carefully and found it is contrary to > my understanding of the suttas. > > In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other > sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to > talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an > unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): > > +++++++++++++ One thing the commentaries are at pains to stress is that nibbana is absolutely not 'some other sphere of existence'. RobertK 22537 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 2:19pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi All, I have been thinking about this question. How does the following sound? Mana (conceit) is a thought of the nature, "I am 'X'", where 'X' can be 'man', 'young', 'wealthy', etc.. This type of thought has the nature of separating the world into (at least) two parts; those who have a characteristic of 'X' and those who do not have this characterisitic. Therefore, mana (conceit) has a nature of separating. Ditthi (wrong view) can arise on a variety of subjects; personality- view, nature of the world, nature of kamma, nature of existence, etc.. All of these types of thoughts have the nature of generalizing or combining. In summary, mana is a "specific" / "separating" mode of thinking, whereas ditthi is a "general" / "combining" mode of thinking. This is why the two are incompatible within the same citta. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > A quick question. Somebody asked me what makes ditthi and mana > mutually exclusive (they cannot appear in the same lobha-mula citta). > > I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward > looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. > > Nina's book, "Cetasikas" says, "Conceit and wrong view are different > realities which do not arise at the same time. When one takes a > reality for permanent or for self there is wrong view and there > cannot be at the same time conceit, which is pride or self- > assertion." > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22538 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 4:59pm Subject: The Cetasikas in Lobha-mula Cittas - Please comment Because they are akusala, each of the lobha-mula cittas include the four universal unwholesome cetasikas: - Moha: Delusion that conceals the true nature of things - Ahirika / Anottappa: No shame / no fear in doing wrong - Uddhacca: Restlessness or mental distraction There are eight lobha-mula cittas: - Four cittas with pleasant feeling, four with indifferent feeling. Lobha-mula cittas with pleasant feeling are accompanied by the cetasika piti (enthusiasm), which increases their kammic weight. - Four cittas accompanied by wrong view, four not accompanied by wrong view (see section below on ditthi). - Four spontaneous cittas and four prompted cittas. Prompted cittas are accompanied by the cetasikas thina (sloth) and middha (torpor); see section below on thina and middha. Lobha (Greed / Attachment / Sensuous Desire) ============================================ To catch monkeys, hunters would tie a coconut with a small hole in it to a tree. There would be food placed inside the coconut and the hole would be large enough for the monkey to inert its hand to grasp the food, but too small for the monkey to withdraw its hand while grasping the food. When the hunters came to kill the monkey, the monkey would struggle to escape, not realizing that the only thing holding it back was its own greed; the monkey does not even consider letting go of the food in order to escape. We can see that lobha has a characteristic of grasping an object, a function of sticking to the object, a manifestation of not giving up and a proximate cause of seeing enjoyment in things that lead to bondage. The story of the monkey hunters illustrate how lobha can be regarded as taking beings with it to states of loss. Unfortunately, for most people, lobha is the most common citta. In fact, the first javana (kamma-creating) citta in an existence is clinging to life. This type of subtle clinging to existence is only uprooted by the Arahant. Clinging to pleasures of the senses (enjoying a taste, liking a smell or feeling comfortable, etc.) is not uprooted until one is an Anagami (non-returner, the stage of sainthood before Arahant). It is easy to recognize the coarse forms of lobha (greed, covetousness, craving) but more difficult to recognize the subtle types of lobha. According to dependent origination, the feeling that accompanies the five senses gives rise to the form of lobha called craving (tanha); craving for visible data, sound, odour, flavour, tangible-data and dhamma-data (ideas). Craving is a condition for the arising of other forms of lobha; sense-door clinging, false view clinging, rite-and- ritual clinging and self-clinging. We can see that, according to dependent origination, lobha ties us to continuous rebirth. Lobha can also result in rebirth in one of the four woeful planes when it acts as a motivator for: - Thoughts: Covetousness and clinging to wrong view (see section on ditthi) - Speech: Lying, slandering and idle talk (when these actions have an objective of benefiting oneself or pleasing others) - Action: Stealing and sexual misbehaviour Lobha arises extremely frequently in our thoughts: - Politeness and pleasant speech can easily be motivated by a desire to please others. Through mindfulness, we can become more sincere in our behaviour. - Before and after doing kusala, we can be attached to the idea of "our kusala" and "our kamma" - When we meditate, we can have a desire for results and this attachment to results may inhibit progress; the purpose of meditating is to sit, results come from proper practice, not from a desire for results - During the sense-door citta process, there can be attachment to the stimulation of the senses. In the subsequent mind-door citta process, there can be a desire to understand and an attachment to familiar concepts. In the Gandhabhaka Sutta (SNXLII.11), the Buddha explained that craving is a source of suffering (dukkha). We experience dukkha when those to whom we are attached experience problems. We do not experience dukkha when those to whom we are not attached experience problems. Therefore, attachment is a cause of dukkha. There are two forms of lobha that are particularly dangerous because they can also have a negative impact on others: - Maya: this form of lobha causes one to conceal one's faults. - Satheyya: this form of lobha causes one to pretend to have qualities that one does not have Just as drinking salty water can never quench one's thirst, lobha is insatiable; it cannot be satisfied. Ditthi (Wrong View / Evil Opinion) ================================== All akusala cittas contain moha (delusion), but in those moments with ditthi, there is an attachment to a false conviction. When there is ditthi, one clings to a false view of reality. Ditthi perverts one's way of thinking, leading one down the wrong path. Conditions leading to deviation from the right path can arise as long as ditthi has not been uprooted (Sotapanna has no ditthi). Ditthi should be regarded as the highest fault. Just as Right View is the foundation of the right path (Noble Eightfold Path), ditthi is the foundation of the wrong path. In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Ones, Chapter XVII), the Buddha said: "Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the arising of evil states not yet arisen, or if arisen, to cause their more-becoming and increase, as perverted view… Monks, in one of perverted view evil states not yet arisen do arise, and if arisen, are apt to grow and grow… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the non-arising of good states not yet arisen, or, if arisen, to cause their waning, as perverted view… Monks, in one of perverted view good states not yet arisen arise not, or, if arisen, waste away… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt to cause the arising of perverted view, if not yet arisen, or the increase of perverted view, if already arisen, as unsystematic attention . In him who gives not systematic attention perverted view, if not arisen, does arise, or, if already arisen, does increase… Monks, I know not of any other single thing so apt, when body breaks up after death, to cause the rebirth of beings in the Waste, the Way of Woe, the Downfall, in Hell, as perverted view…" The Sotapanna has uprooted ditthi and therefore there are no conditions to break precepts or perform acts that can result in rebirth in one of the four woeful planes. When one does not cling anymore to the concept of self and sees realities as they are, this will bear on one's actions, speech and thoughts. One has to uproot ditthi before other defilements can be uprooted. Types of wrong view capable of causing an unhappy rebirth are: - There is no result of kamma - There are no causes - There is no such thing as kamma Examples of less serious wrong view include: - Personality view (sakkaya-ditthi): Body as self, self having body, body being in the self, self as being in the body (the same for the other four aggregates, for a total of 20 views). - Ego-illusion (atta-ditthi): Believes in the existence of a soul, ego or life-entity within the body. - Taking concepts as reality - Belief that wrong practice can eradicate defilements The Brahma-jala Sutta (The All-Embracing Net of Views) lists sixty- two kinds of wrong view. There are eighteen speculative theories concerning the past and forty-four concerning the future. There are speculative theories about the world being finite or infinite, about the origin of the "soul" or the world. There are speculations about good and evil and about NibbŒna. Mana (Conceit / Pride) ====================== The commentaries say that ditthi and mana are like two lions that cannot live together in the same cave; they cannot arise in the same citta. Lobha-mula cittas with wrong view will never have mana, but lobha-mula cittas without wrong view may or may not have mana. The reason that mana and ditthi cannot arise at the same time is: - The nature of mana is to compare, and comparison requires a separating of "I" from "others" ("I am strong" implies that there are others who are not strong). - The nature of ditthi is to generalize ("… is the nature of kamma for all beings", "… is the nature of self for all beings", "… is the nature of the world for all beings") We normally think of conceit or pride as arising only when we think ourselves better than another person. However, mana includes all forms of comparison; "better than", "equal to" and "inferior to". "I am luckier / unluckier than he is" is a form of mana. Racism, bigotry, prejudice and kiasu are all forms of mana. Competition is driven by mana. When we see an old and sick person and we think, "I am young and healthy", this is mana. Mana makes us blind to the fact that we have lived countless lives; youth and health are impermanent. Mana arises often and there are subjects of mana including birth, health, age, position, wealth, appearance, physique, intelligence, reputation, skills, accomplishment, popularity and being moral. According to the commentaries, mana should be regarded as a form of lunacy. What benefit do we get by comparing ourselves with others? Is mana not a source of mental intoxication? The thought, "I will volunteer to teach Dhamma because I am a good speaker" is based on mana. This thought may condition a wholesome action, but the thought itself is unwholesome. This is an example of akusala being a condition for kusala. Mana is so deeply ingrained that it remains until one becomes an Arahant. Even though a Sotapanna has uprooted ditthi and no longer has personality view or ego-illusion, mŒna can still arise. One may think "one's own" namas and rupas better, equal or less than someone else's, even though one has realized that there is no self. Thina (Sloth) and Middha (Torpor) ================================= Thina (sloth) and middha (torpor) always arise together; they arise in the four lobha-mula cittas that are "prompted". These cetasikas make the mind unwieldy and lazy. Cittas with thina and middha are passive whereas cittas without thina or middha are active and spontaneous. Thina is a sickness of the citta while middha is a sickness of the cetasikas. Summary ======= Lobha -> Mine Ditthi -> Me Mana -> I 22539 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 5:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual view is also a reality,...". Larry 22540 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:04pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Larry, and All, After a while of reading, talking and reflecting. I had begun to think I understood that there are only six classes of objects, which are experienced through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. That these classes included Paramattha dhammas as well as Concepts. I thought that there could only be either paramattha dhamma OR concepts as objects in any lifetime or on any plane of existence. That moments of consciousness (citta) take as object either a concept or a reality. i.e. when a reality, a paramattaha dhamma is not the object in daily life, then a concept must be. I don't understand your last post Larry where you quote Sarah: 'Wrong conceptual view is also a reality'. I haven't been following this thread, so if I've missed the point and have descended into irrelevancy, just ignore. Oterwise, I'd be grateful for directions to get back on track. metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are > realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual > view is also a reality,...". > > Larry 22541 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 8:28pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > when a reality, a paramattaha dhamma is not the object > in daily life, then a concept must be. I don't understand your > last post Larry where you quote Sarah: 'Wrong conceptual view is also > a reality'. I haven't been following this thread, so if I've missed > the point and have descended into irrelevancy, just ignore. Oterwise, > I'd be grateful for directions to get back on track. I haven't been following this stream either, so my comments may add further confusion. I agree that the object of a citta can either be a paramattha dhamma or a concept. The list of paramattha dhammas includes cetasikas, specifically it includes ditthi (wrong view - see my recent post on cetasikas in lobha-mula cittas). The list of paramattha dhammas does not include "car", "tree" or other concepts. Does this help or confuse things further? Metta, Rob M :-) 22542 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 9:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Christine, In my ditthi the whole question of the difference between paramattha dhamma and concept hasn't found the right words. A view, ditthi, is listed as a paramattha dhamma but is surely conceptual. The discussion between Sarah and me is based on TA Sujin's "Realities and Concepts" which can be accessed here: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Larry 22543 From: Date: Fri May 30, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob, I agree that conceit separates, but I think the main difference is that self view is relatively superficial while conceit is very deep. This is evidenced by views being eradicated at stream-entry, but conceit isn't eradicated until arahantship. If you want to be an arahant, forget about opinions and look very carefully at conceit. Maybe the reason views and conceit don't arise with the same consciousness is because they are like two hats rather than a hat and coat. A consciousness can only wear one hat at a time. Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does it have objective qualities? Larry 22544 From: robmoult Date: Fri May 30, 2003 10:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Sorry Larry, I am still confused. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > I agree that conceit separates, but I think the main difference is that > self view is relatively superficial while conceit is very deep. This is > evidenced by views being eradicated at stream-entry, but conceit isn't > eradicated until arahantship. If you want to be an arahant, forget about > opinions and look very carefully at conceit. ===== I agree that conceit is more "deep rooted" than wrong view; but why is this so? Also, "self-view" is only part of ditthi. ===== > > Maybe the reason views and conceit don't arise with the same > consciousness is because they are like two hats rather than a hat and > coat. A consciousness can only wear one hat at a time. ===== Lots of other cetasikas can co-exist quite well (like coats and hats); what is it about ditthi and mana that makes them mutually exclusive? ===== > > Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By > "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective > qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does > it have objective qualities? ===== I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? Metta, Rob M :-) 22545 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Reference(s) Hi, I would appreciate if anybody could provide the reference for the stories below. If possible, if you could quote the relevant passage (s) it would be best. 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. 3. The story that when t he Buddha came back to his birthplace. All came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... I can't find these story in Life of Buddha by Nanamoli. Maybe I accidentally skip them. Also, does anyone know anywhere in the scripture where the Buddha deal with the issue of love (romantic love, I mean) Thanks, Rahula 22546 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Limerence Hi, See http://gost.isi.edu/brian/elbows/limerence.html 1. How to overcome limerence (romantic love)? If anyone need more information, please email me (rahula_80@y...) 2. Did the Buddha address the issue of limerence? Well, if yes, what did he say? could you also provide the reference(s) 3. What is your opinion of limerence, as a Buddhist and as a human? (answer this only if you have experienced limerence) Thanks, Rahula 22547 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri May 30, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have been thinking about this question. How does the following > sound? > > Hi Rob, Your theory sounds good but I have a different one: 1) As your description would seem to confirm, mana always takes a concept as its object. 2) Wrong View, on the other hand, always has a dhamma as object. (All this is just my theory, of course.) 3) So the two cannot arise in the same citta. My reasoning for 2, is that Wrong View is a wilful refusal to see an object with Right View -- and the only object that can be seen with Right View, is a paramattha dhamma. Comments welcome but feel free to treat with disdain :-) Ken H Mana (conceit) is a thought of the nature, "I am 'X'", where 'X' can > be 'man', 'young', 'wealthy', etc.. This type of thought has the > nature of separating the world into (at least) two parts; those who > have a characteristic of 'X' and those who do not have this > characterisitic. Therefore, mana (conceit) has a nature of > separating. > > Ditthi (wrong view) can arise on a variety of subjects; personality- > view, nature of the world, nature of kamma, nature of existence, > etc.. All of these types of thoughts have the nature of generalizing > or combining. > > In summary, mana is a "specific" / "separating" mode of thinking, > whereas ditthi is a "general" / "combining" mode of thinking. This > is why the two are incompatible within the same citta. > > Comments? > 22548 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:36am Subject: Re: Reference(s) Hi Rahula, I think this has been discussed on this list in the past, and Ramindu, Peter and KKT posted some information. There are a couple of posts under Yasodhara in the Useful Posts. Peter's post points to the Buddhist Dictionary of Proper Names. If you look under "Rahulamata", one of the other names attributed to Yasodhara, you may find some of your questions answered. http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/r/rahulamata.htm Also below is an excerpt from an article (found by KKT, I think): "The Nidanakatha, Buddha's biography that was the first among the Pali Jataka, but was actually written a while later, seems to have also been influenced, more subtly and indirectly, since our heroine only appears as Rahulamata, the name given to her in most Pali texts. Therein, she is born on the same day as Buddha and various other characters of varied importance in Buddha's legendary biography. (58) She marries him at age 16, after he conquers her hand by proving his superiority over her other pretenders in a series of games comparable to the Olympics. (59) Buddha leaves the layman's life, his wife and his son after taking one last look at his sleeping family, this is the same night that Yasodhara bears Rahula.(60) When Buddha returns to K., Yasodhara is awestruck by his appearance and pronounces verses of praise in his favor.(61) She refuses to assist in the banquet given for Buddha the day after his arrival, although all the other ladies of the court are present. So, Buddha visits her in her wing and she bows before her husband. At the same time S. informs Buddha of Yasodhara's austerity since his death.(62)" http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm Hope this helps, metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80" wrote: > Hi, > > I would appreciate if anybody could provide the reference for the > stories below. If possible, if you could quote the relevant passage > (s) it would be best. > > 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry > princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. > > 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before > departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to > because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. > > 3. The story that when t he Buddha came back to his birthplace. All > came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... > > I can't find these story in Life of Buddha by Nanamoli. Maybe I > accidentally skip them. > > Also, does anyone know anywhere in the scripture where the Buddha > deal with the issue of love (romantic love, I mean) > > Thanks, Rahula 22549 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:55am Subject: Precepts Dear Group, Here's a story and a question or two. The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, the place - and all the other sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily feelings and thoughts that so very rarely combine to briefly create a wonderful memory. My daughter and I had flown to Sydney to watch my son's admission as a Solicitor in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The beginning was rising at 3.00 a.m. in a dark wet, cold and squally Brisbane to fly into a perfect warm blue late-Autumn Sydney day - the ending was landing back in the same cold Brisbane Airport drizzle at 9.30 p.m. that night, and home to contented sleep. But in between ... The Admission was presided over by three judges in red ceremonial robes, carrying white gloves and wearing formal long wigs who sat on highbacked chairs, behind a bench on a raised polished wood dias. The judges entered in procession after an official leading them struck the door with a staff, all stood until the judges were assisted to be seated, the gathering bowed, the judges acknowledged the courtesy, and the ceremony began. ... After the ceremony, the Chief magistrate gave a (considerately, brief) rousing and heartening speech about ethics, and community service. Then the judges were assisted to rise, we also rose, bows were exchanged and they were led out in procession. After photos, a group of us went for a long, long lunch sitting in warm, dappled sunlight under the trees on the edge of Sydney's magnificent Harbour, with birds singing, a gentle breeze blowing across the diners and overall the endless blue sky. Lots of legal jokes, lots of 'my learned friend' remarks, lots of smiling toasts, other friends passing the restaurant popping over to shake hands and briefly join with us, much storytelling, more photos, an inundation of non-stop congratulatory calls and text messages coming in from local, interstate and overseas on Luke's mobile phone. The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour of their employers' time.]. So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal from society is not a current option. metta and peace, Christine Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time 22550 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 1:58am Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Your theory sounds good but I have a different one: > > 1) As your description would seem to confirm, mana > always takes a concept as its object. > > 2) Wrong View, on the other hand, always has a dhamma as > object. (All this is just my theory, of course.) > > 3) So the two cannot arise in the same citta. > > My reasoning for 2, is that Wrong View is a wilful > refusal to see an object with Right View -- and the only > object that can be seen with Right View, is a paramattha > dhamma. > > Comments welcome but feel free to treat with disdain :-) > ===== Interesting concept, but it doesn't "feel right". Let me try to put my finger on it... An Arahant always has "right view"; akusala cittas don't even arise for an Arahant. If you are saying that right view can only take a paramattha dhamma as object, never a concept, then this would imply that concepts could not arise in the mind of an Arahant. I believe that concepts do arise in the mind of an Arahant, but unlike worldlings, the Arahant always recognizes them as concepts. What do you think? Metta, Rob M :-) 22551 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, Nice story... well told. Right view (seeing nama as nama and rupa as rupa) does not arise because of conscious effort exerted at the moment. Nor does right view arise because of reading or studying the Dhamma. Right view arises naturally at the moment because it is a habit, an accumulation. Right practice develops this accumulation. Let's not talk about the others, let's only talk about you. Each are heirs to their own kamma. Which precepts did you yourself break (no need to confess on-line... just consider the answer in your own mind). Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to break a precept yesterday. Once you have finished with the precepts, the "avoid doing..", consider the opportunities that presented themselves to do kusala; were there missed opportunities for dana? for metta? for karuna? Examine the conditions that caused you to miss these opportunites and make a mental note to watch for similar conditions in the future so that you do not miss more opportunities. In general, the kammic weight of breaking a precept (or more aptly breaking yourself against a precept) depends on the strength of the volition involved. From what you described, it doesn't sound as though there was a lot of strong negative volition in the air. Obviously, some of the precepts are more difficult to maintain than others. Probably the most difficult precept to maintain is to avoid lying. But I do not believe that it is impossible to function well in society without lying. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the > weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, > the place - and all the other sights, sounds, tastes, smells, bodily > feelings and thoughts that so very rarely combine to briefly create a > wonderful memory. > > The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete > forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just > people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and > delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to > remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real > consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of > the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding > their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative > severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five > Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but > that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to > become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume > the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. > Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala > accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a > delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's > life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete > teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or > hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the > day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none > of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over > lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except > by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought > the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking > a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the > single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court > where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour > of their employers' time.]. > So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what > buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this > society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long > conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational > crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, > or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the > people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal > from society is not a current option. Weight Age Gender Female Male 22552 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:13am Subject: Re: Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even the > weather joined with other circumstances - the occasion, the people, > Hi Christine, That was a really nice story; I enjoyed reading it! Congratulations on the stellar accomplishment of your son. Thank you for sharing. Metta, James 22553 From: nidive Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:42am Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob M, > I answered that ditti was "inward looking" while mana was "outward > looking" but I am not really satisfied with my answer. Just to quote a sutta which I think is relevant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-089.html "It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?" "No, friend." "Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?" "As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly." "In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' Swee Boon 22555 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi Rahula, I haven’t heard the first story and will be glad if you let me know if you find a Theravada source for it. I have read about his skill in archery (he could split a hair) but that’s about the closest I recall. ..... I’ve read the second story in the Introduction to the Jataka Tales (Buddhist Birth Stories transl by Rhys Davids). Much of this Introduction is also included in Clarke Warren’s ‘Buddhism’ along with many other excellent translated passages. Conveniently it’s also on line- here’s a link for the passage. Note, the reason for not waking the queen given here is so that she would not prevent him from leaving. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits006.htm “Now the Future Buddha, after he had sent Channa on his errand, thought to himself, "will take just one look at my son;" and, rising from the couch on which he was sitting, he went to the suite of apartments occupied by the mother of Rahula, and opened the door of her chamber. Within the chamber was burning a lamp fed with sweet-smelling oil, and the mother of Râhula lay sleeping on a couch strewn deep with jasmine and other flowers, her hand resting on the head of her son. When the Future Buddha reached the threshold, he paused, and gazed at the two from where he stood. "If I were to raise my wife's hand from off the child's head, and take him up, she would awake, and thus prevent my departure. I will first become a Buddha, and then come back and see my son." So saying, he descended from the palace.” ..... The third story is summarised in the Dict of Pali Proper Names (thx Chris for the on line reference!!;-)). I think I’ve read it somewhere but forget where. The Dict gives the Canda-Kinnara Jataka (485) as a reference but not all the details are included here. Please let me know if you find another reference to it and I’ll keep it in mind too. We read so many stories about great love and devotion and sorrow. I think the Canda-Kinnara Jataka just referred to is a great example. We read about the wholesome qualities of faith, loyalty and devotion praised by the Buddha, but also about the sorrow and grief that accompanies the loss of what/ whom one is attached to (both when he visits Yasodhara in the last life) and in the earlier tale when they were fairies and the Bodhisatta was shot. “By the power of her pain Sakka’s throne became hot” and he came to her rescue as a brahmin. He then advises them to abide in “The Mountain of the Moon” and she utters this verse which I hope is romantic enough for you;-): “To the mountain let us go Where the lovely rivers flow, Rivers all o’ergrown with flowers: There for ever, while the breeze Whispers in a thousand trees, Charm with talk the happy hours.” “When the Master had ended his discourse, (on the occasion when he visited in your third reference below) he said: “Not now only, but long ago as now, she was devoted and faithful of heart to me.” Why not tell us a little more about your interest in these questions....we’d be glad to hear more feedback from you too;-) With metta, Sarah ====== --- rahula_80 wrote: > 1. The story that the winner of a millitary competition would marry > princess Yasodhara, which was won by Prince Siddhartha. > > 2. Prince Siddhartha, went to watch his wife and son, before > departing from his palace. Planned to say goodbye, but decided not to > because, afraid that if he did, he would not be able to leave them. > > 3. The story that when the Buddha came back to his birthplace. All > came to greet him except Princess Yasodhara......... 22556 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/31/03 9:08:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > I haven’t heard the first story and will be glad if you let me know if you > find a Theravada source for it. I have read about his skill in archery (he > could split a hair) but that’s about the closest I recall. > ..... > ========================= Lots of good archers here as well ... we also split hairs! ;-)) [Sorry, just couldn't resist!] With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22557 From: Sarah Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reference(s) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > ========================= > Lots of good archers here as well ... we also split hairs! ;-)) > [Sorry, just couldn't resist!] .... ;-) Perhaps there's hope for us all yet.... Sarah ===== 22558 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 31, 2003 7:34am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, Thank you for sharing the story and congratulations to your son's achievement! Your questions remind me of the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 8 Sallekha Sutta The Discourse on Effacement http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn008.html The five precepts can be perfectly observed and maintained by a lay follower without seclusion or withdrawal from society. Here is a writing by Thanissaro Bhikkhu that I like: The Healing Power of the Precepts http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/precepts.html Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Here's a story and a question or two. > > The Story: Yesterday was a wonderful day, a glorious day - even [snip] > > The Question: In reflecting on this lovely day, I note a complete > forgetfulness of distinguishing nama and rupa, there were just > people, things and stories, and a great deal of attachment and > delight. How difficult it is to tell akusala from kusala or even to > remember to do so. And at that time, there was no real > consideration of the five Precepts - or more exactly, the breaking of > the Precepts. Does the order of precepts indicate anything regarding > their relative importance, or, if broken or 'dented', the relative > severity of consequential vipaka? I note that often the five > Precepts are listed succinctly as simple, blunt training rules, but > that other times (by modern writers) they are expanded so as to > become almost unrecognisable compared to the originals, and assume > the form of complicated 'cover every situation' commandments. > Yesterday many of the Precepts were broken and akusala > accumulations were strenghtened in what others would only see as a > delightful and significant moment in an individual's and a family's > life. Yesterday, nobody was a vegetarian, nobody was a complete > teetotaller, nobody spoke without exaggeration, frivolity or > hyperbole, nobody was unattached to the joy and fellowship of the > day, the sights and sounds and rituals. [As far as I noticed, none > of the group killed anyone or was guilty of sexual misconduct over > lunch - though I don't recall the Dhamma getting a mention, except > by one surprised young lawyer wearing mala beads who said "I thought > the precept was just against getting intoxicated, not against taking > a drink" - and a few of the party took what was not given - the > single page paper menus as a souvenir, photos in an area of the Court > where it was not allowed because of tradition, and an extra half hour > of their employers' time.]. > So, how are we to live in a non-buddhist society, where what > buddhists are taught is 'wrong' is not what good people in this > society see as wrong? (having a regular drink, telling a joke, long > conversations about the theatre, music, books, the latest sensational > crimes, money making, and politics) Should there be no celebrations, > or non-dhamma discussions? How could this be managed when 99% of the > people I know are not Buddhist? I'm sure seclusion or withdrawal > from society is not a current option. > > metta and peace, > Christine > > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time 22559 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ditthi vs. Mana HI Rob, Larry: Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If subject, does it have objective qualities? ===== Rob: I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? L: Is there a pali word for subject as opposed to object? This ties-in to the other two ways of experiencing self: self view and conceit. Is the experience of light the object of eye consciousness or the subject of eye consciousness? Different consciousnesses function differently but the experience of that function seems to be the object. How would you characterize the subject? What is consciousness itself? I don't have any other thoughts on why opinion and conceit don't arise with the same consciousness or why conceit is deep and opinion is shallow. Larry 22560 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Subject / object Hi Larry, Gramatically, I believe that the Pali language has subjects, verbs and objects. But I don't think that this is your main point and I am sure that they all have labels as parts of speech (though I don't know what they are). In "eye-consciousness", I would say that "citta" is the subject and "visible object" is the object. Citta is defined in three ways: - Process of being aware of an object (Citta is an activity) - That which is aware of an object (Citta is an agent) - The means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object (Citta is an instrument) Nyanatiloka defines "object" (arammana): There are six: visible object, sound, odor, taste, body-impression, mind-object. The mind-object (dhammarammana) may be physical or mental, past, present or future, real or imaginary. The 5 sense- objects belong to the corporeality-group (rupa-kkhandha). They form the external foundations for the sense-perceptions, and without them no sense-perception or sense-consciousness (seeing, hearing, etc.) can arise. If I understand your inquiry properly, I think the fact that citta is both "the process of being aware" and "that which is aware" is significant. Does this help? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Larry: Btw, one dhamma that doesn't seem to have a name is > subjectivity. By "subjectivity" I mean the subjectivity that is void of > all objective qualities. Is consciousness the object or the subject? If > subject, does it have objective qualities? > ===== > Rob: I don't understand. Can you express this another way to help me? > > L: Is there a pali word for subject as opposed to object? This ties-in > to the other two ways of experiencing self: self view and conceit. Is > the experience of light the object of eye consciousness or the subject > of eye consciousness? Different consciousnesses function differently but > the experience of that function seems to be the object. How would you > characterize the subject? What is consciousness itself? 22561 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:23pm Subject: Is It Wrong to be Ambitious? Hi All, Christine recently related a story and mentioned how difficult it was to be a "good" Buddhist in a secular society. Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda wrote a booklet, "Is It Wrong to be Ambitious?" which touches on this subject. I have summarized this booklet below: Advice for the Laymen ===================== Buddhism is misinterpreted and misunderstood by many people. The Buddha clearly recognized two classes of people: those who had renounced the world and those who chose to follow the life of householders. Certain precepts and observances that the Buddha prescribed are specifically meant for those who have renounced the worldly life. Some people have mixed these up with the precepts meant for householders. For those who have renounced the worldly life, there is one way to develop selfless ambition. For those who are still attached to the world as householders, there is another way. For instance, during the Buddha's time, many rich people who enjoyed their mundane pleasures approached the Buddha, and told Him that it was difficult for them to renounce the world. They had worldly commitments, family obligations and many other duties to fulfill. They requested the Buddha to lay down a suitable religious way of life for them to practice. The Buddha did not ridicule them; for He knew that not everyone was so ready to give up worldly pleasures. The Teacher who had renounced absolutely everything for His own Enlightenment knew the nature of worldly attachment. Renunciation must only be undertaken when realization appears in the mind. Otherwise, there will be feelings of disappointment or frustration. Those who make a premature renunciation may return to the lay life. So we have to wait until such realization appears in our mind. The Buddha's Advice for Householders ==================================== The first happiness atthi-sukha is to enjoy the economic security of wealth acquired by just and righteous means; the second bhoga-sukha is spending that wealth liberally on oneself, one's family, friends and relatives, and on meritorious deeds; the third anana-sukha is to be free from debts; the fourth happiness anavajja-sukha is to live a faultless and pure and blameless life committing no evil in thought, word or deed. When you come to know that you have earned something honestly, the happiness that you gain through your accumulated wealth develops confidence in the household life. Some people who go on earning and accumulating wealth neither experience happiness nor use wealth in a proper way. According to the Buddha, we can experience worldly happiness by using what we have earned in a reasonable way, following basic religious principles. It is not correct to say that Buddhists should not experience worldly happiness. Certain harmless cultural amusements and entertainments relax the mind and help reduce tension. Human emotions can be satisfied without disturbing the peace and happiness of others. Many cultural performances in Asia actually developed through the influence of Buddhism. Middle Path =========== The Buddha was a most active and energetic religious teacher. He advised people to use their skill and knowledge in their daily life. A Buddhist should not lead a lazy and easy life and blame it on Buddhism for any of his / her failures. A good Buddhist has the quality of V´riya - energy. Buddhists must constantly strive for perfection. They must not delay doing something by finding excuses like it is too hot or it is too cold. The Buddha's advice to lay people was not to go to either extremes of sensual pleasure or self- torture to practice a religion. Everyone must try to lead a happy, harmless and peaceful life. Buddhism is known as the Middle Path. You find it difficult to maintain absolute honesty, kindness and tolerance. It is also true that very few can become perfect religious persons in the household life. Your responsibilities, obligations and duties can disturb your mind. They provoke you to do certain things that go against your conscience. If you try to be a religious fanatic as a layperson, your attitude may not appeal to your family members, friends and others. If you follow Buddhist rules that are meant specifically for monks who lead a monastic life, your associates may feel embarrassed; and they may regard you as a nuisance or an eccentric. Therefore, try to lead a sensible life by observing reasonable religious principles. This is how you avoid becoming a religious fanatic. If you go to extremes, not only will people laugh at you, they will also get a wrong idea of what Buddhism teaches. If you are not fanatical, you can live and work even with other religionists. The Buddha has pointed out that you must know your limit in everything. Try to practice religious principles that are universally accepted. As lay Buddhists, your duty is to lead a normal religious life while fulfilling your family obligations. If you neglect your responsibilities towards your family, you may experience problems. Others may think of you as a useless person. You must know how to adjust your way of life to the country and society you live in without going against the important cultural and traditional practices of the majority, if they are harmless. You should also co-operate with others without behaving as if your religion is the only one that has the right to exist. Buddhism is a religion of freedom. It respects the freedom of other religions. Your commonsense and understanding are important in practicing a religion. Nature of Ambition ================== Every person entertains some kind of ambition. When we refer to the Buddha, He too had an ambition that was implanted in His mind long ago. He continued to develop that ambition, life after life, until He achieved what He wanted. But this ambition is best described as an aspiration. When we read the Buddha's discourses, we can understand how He had worked to reach the goal He aspired to. He has revealed this to us by referring to previous birth stories. He also explained the nature of the great virtues and discipline that He had to cultivate to achieve His aspiration. When we compare our ambition with the Buddha's aspiration we can see a vast difference. This is because our ambition is primarily based on desire and anxiety bound to worldly pleasure. On the other hand, the Buddha's aspiration was to free Himself from selfishness in order to serve others. We develop our ambition by disturbing another's happiness. That is how we create enormous problems and misery in this world. We are willing to do any kind of evil or wicked deed for our own pleasure. From the Buddhist point of view, this kind of selfish ambition is not justifiable. What we should constantly strive to do is to develop the higher kind of ambition by working very hard to obtain freedom, happiness and liberation from our existing worldly problems. This ambition is harmless and reasonable. However, this is not the final goal: we must not be satisfied with these temporary mundane ambitions. Our ultimate goal should be freedom from suffering - Nirvana, where all ambitions cease and the reality of existence seen. Rendering Service to Others =========================== While working for our own happiness, freedom and salvation, we have to render some service for the benefit and happiness of others. The Buddha adopted this type of aspiration with deep conviction and boundless compassion. Whilst working for His own salvation, He served others in every possible way. He continued His service to humanity by sacrificing His sensual pleasures, by cultivating all the good qualities and virtues and by eradicating evil thoughts to maintain purity in the mind. This is the way He developed His selfless ambition to gain His enlightenment. He never cultivated it for His own benefit but for the welfare and liberation of every living being. He developed boundless compassion and wisdom and expressed them by word and deed. But our ambitions, which are selfish in nature, can create much misery. Therefore, we have to learn how to direct our ambitions in such a way as to relieve the suffering of others. Such ambitions are wholesome because they contribute to the greater good of mankind. Metta, Rob M :-) 22562 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Rob, I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being zero object. Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. Larry 22563 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat May 31, 2003 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Larry and Rob, If you are using the words 'subject' and 'object' as originating in any grammatical sense, then perhaps this will be of interest. Warder's 'Introduction to Pali' - "In sentences (vakya) there is usually one verb, which generally expresses an action (kiriya), and a noun, ordinarily in the nominative case, expressing the agent (kattar) who does the action. (Often there is another noun, ordinarily in the "accusative" case, expressing the patient (kamma) who or which undergoes the action.)" Word order in sentences (Pali sentences sometimes don't have a verb): agent -> attribute -> patient -> action (subject) -> (adjective) -> (object) -> (verb) vakya = sentence kiriya = action kattar = subject kamma = direct object ("patient" who undergoes the action of an active verb). Should you wish, you can go the Pali-Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and put 'kattar' in the search engine. . http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali > word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). > I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the > subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, > I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective > qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how > these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense > consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being > zero object. > > Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. > > Larry 22564 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi, Larry (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/31/03 6:42:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Rob, > > I did a search in the PTS Dict. for the word "subject" and found no Pali > word for this particular usage as the counterpart of object (arammana). > I'm not sure if this is significant of anything as the whole idea of the > subject object relationship in experience is a little hazy. As subject, > I would think that consciousness would not be experienced with objective > qualities but experience _is_ objective qualities and I don't see how > these qualities could not be consciousness. So in some sense > consciousness is both subject and object with the subject part being > zero object. > > Don't ask me to explain. It doesn't make sense to me either. > > Larry > > > ============================ I've been following this thread with considerable interest but little comprehension. Are you zero-ing in on the fact that when one is aware of something, one is (often) also aware of being aware? If so, it isn't entirely clear to me what the 2nd order awareness is exactly. One thought is that it is a non-dual, reflexive aspect of the current mindstate the primary function of which, of course, is to discern its object. But I tend to doubt that. I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the subject. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22565 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Christine, "Kattar" That's the word I was looking for. It means subject, agent, doer. I didn't realize that grammar could straighten out a philosophical problem, but it did. Thanks for the tip! Larry 22566 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: Ditthi vs. Mana Hi Rob, You wrote: > An Arahant always has "right view"; akusala cittas don't even arise > for an Arahant. If you are saying that right view can only take a > paramattha dhamma as object, never a concept, then this would imply > that concepts could not arise in the mind of an Arahant. I believe > that concepts do arise in the mind of an Arahant, but unlike > worldlings, the Arahant always recognizes them as concepts. > > What do you think? When concepts are arising in the mind of an Arahant, his right view is latent, not manifest. The object of his consciousness is not a reality and so, at that moment, he can't directly see conditioned or unconditioned reality (ie., he can't have right view). All he can do is, as you say, recognize a concept as a concept (illusion). As for mana not arising with miccha-ditthi, I prefer your and Nina's explanations to mine. The two are simply different, incompatible mind states. Ken 22567 From: Date: Sat May 31, 2003 6:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi Howard, I agree with your point but I was thinking something else that turned out to be wrong. I'll dice your paragraph to illustrate: H: I've been following this thread with considerable interest but little comprehension. Are you zero-ing in on the fact that when one is aware of something, one is (often) also aware of being aware? L: No. I thought that when experiencing something the experience was the object and the experiencer (consciousness) was the point of view. But actually it's the other way around. The experience is the subject and we only know the object as far as reason and our cache of other experiences will take us. When eye consciousness experiences an object it can be expressed grammatically as "yellow yellows a banana" or "like likes banana". The object cues the subject (consciousness) to manifest as experience ("knowledge"). H: If so, it isn't entirely clear to me what the 2nd order awareness is exactly. One thought is that it is a non-dual, reflexive aspect of the current mindstate the primary function of which, of course, is to discern its object. But I tend to doubt that. L: This is where I got stuck. Experience is experiential. There is something very odd about that that makes us assume an experiencer even if that experiencer is labelled "consciousness" or "reflexive awareness". As Rob pointed out consciousness is the process of knowing so the subject and the verb are the same and they are the experience. [I realize this sounds like gibberish but it makes a little sense to me.] H: I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the subject. L: I agree. This sounds like sati to me. However, I think we have to be careful of the word "object". If my above reasoning is correct then any experience is a subject and the object isn't directly known (isn't the experience). Sorry Howard. Thst's the best I could do, coherence-wise. Larry 22568 From: rahula_80 Date: Sat May 31, 2003 8:11pm Subject: Re: Reference(s) /Limerence Hi, > Why not tell us a little more about your interest in these > questions....we'd be glad to hear more feedback from you too;-) Few months ago, I fell "in love" with someone which I shoudn't. Since then, I have be doing a lot of studies into the feeling I went through. That's how I found the word "limerent" Being a Buddhist, I would like to find out everything Buddhism have to say about it eg. did the Buddha experience went through it, is it a destructive emotion, if it is, how to overcome it, since it is an involuntary reaction, do monks, Arahants and Buddha experience it etc...etc... 22569 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat May 31, 2003 10:35pm Subject: Re: Precepts Dear RobM and Christine, Rob wrote: > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to break > a precept yesterday. Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there is a description of how mind states come and go by conditions. An understanding of that description, is the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now and in the future. Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the Middle Way is like no other:-) Kind regards, Ken H 22570 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Howard Thanks very much for bringing this up. Yes, you are quite correct about the references to the body, and not only in the instance(s) you give but also, for example, in the Satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere throughout the suttas. However, as can be seen from the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, reference to the body is to be understood as reference to all rupas, the whole of rupa-khandha. The body simply represents the most important and clung-to rupas of them all for everyone. Another example of conventional discourse, ultimate meaning (as I see it). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > > > > To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where > the > > characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional > objects > > such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, > the > > 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in > the > > context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements > etc, > > these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > > phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > > > ============================= > How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the > Gela~n~na > Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And > this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". ... > Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the > body ... > The born, become, produced, > > made, fabricated, impermanent, > > composed of aging & death, > > a nest of illnesses, perishing, > > come from nourishment > > and the guide [that is craving] -- > > is unfit for delight. 22571 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 31, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities (archery corner) Howard As I think we've agreed previously, a thought is something that is *conceived of* (or 'created') by mind-door consciousness of the kind we call thinking. Absent the consciousness that thinks, there can be no thought. There is no sense in which it can be said that a thought has any existence independent of the consciousness of which it is the object -- the very idea is anomalous. By contrast, however, the objects of the senes-door consciousness are *experienced by* (not conceived of or created by) the sense-door consciousness, the consciousness we call seeing, hearing, etc. Absent sense-door consciousness, rupas that could otherwise constitute sense-door objects still arise in this plane of existence or, at the very least, the possibility that they do so is not conceptually anomalous and cannot be discounted. So while the model of 'object arising and being experienced by consciousness' fits for sense-door objects and consciousness, it's perhaps not a particularly apt description for thoughts and thinking. That's how I see it anyway, based on my reading of the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. The further comments that follow (interspersed) reflect a similar analysis. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - H: I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. J: You mention the idea of a thought *arising as an object* of awareness/thinking. For reasons just explained, I see it more as a case of thinking arising and having as its object a thought that is conceived of by that thinking. For example, thinking that is accompanied by attachment will have as object thoughts of desirable things, and so on; when attachment has been eradicated, no more daydreaming about being at the beach instead of at work. H: The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, and has different effect. J: As between the thought and the moment of thinking consciousness of which the thought is object, it is the thought that is conditioned by the thinking, not the other way around. By definition, a thought could not condition the very moment of consciousness by which the thought is conceived of or 'brought to mind'. Insofar as a thought takes its nature from the moment of consciousness of which it is the object, the relationship between thoughts and thinking is quite different from the relationship between the sense-door object and consciousness. There, the sense-door object has its own nature and independent existence, which is in no way determined by the 'quality' of the experiencing consciousness (although there must of course be congruence between the 2 as regards the kusala/akusala nature of the vipaka moment). In the case of sense-door experiences, both the consciousness and the rupa that is to become the sense-door object are said to *arise*, so that there are 2 *arisen dhammas* each having its own nature. In the case of (mind-door) thinking, the consciousness arises and conceives of the thought (which is otherwise not to be found), so that there is only 1 arisen dhamma having its own nature. H: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness is to the body door? J: The similarity between mind-door and sense-door objects ends with the fact that both are objects of the corresponding consciousness. There are no 'elementary thoughts' to *arise* and *be apprehended*, since all thoughts are purely a creation of the moment of consciousness of which they are object (although that moment of consciousness is of course itself conditioned by other, mainly preceding, factors). H: Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in order for us to become free. J: You are referring to wrong view, I think. Consciousness that is accompanied by wrong view thinks thoughts that are 'wrong', i.e., not in accordance with the way things actually are. It is the consciousness that arises at the mind door. That consciousness must arise in order for the thought to be conceived of and thus become the object of that consciousness. Thoughts can be said to 'arise at the mind-door' only in the sense that they are the object of consciousness that arises at the mind door (advanced archery corner here ;-)) H: We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of thoughts and co-occurring awareness of them ... J: You equate thinking with a 'flow of thoughts of which thinking consciousness is aware' (I hope I'm not misreading you here, Howard). But thinking is just thinking, a kind of consciousness that has thoughts (images) as its object. 'Flow of thoughts' is how it seems to us; but like so much else of what seems to be the way things are to us, the teachings tell us that the reality ('flow of thinking' only) is otherwise. Jon 22572 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:43am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi RobM, Victor, James, KenH, and All, I took a copy of my original post and the replies (except KenH's which I hadn't yet seen) to a small Buddhist discussion group this afternoon. Everyone agreed on the importance of Sila and the fact that all three 'legs' of of buddhist practice must be in evidence and in balance. RobM: Thank you for your advice - on reflection, I see that one should never be complacent about sila - unusual circumstances that undermind restraint can pop up at any time. I'm not sure I agree about lying being the most difficult precept to keep - this caused some discussion this afternoon. Some thought that an alcoholic may find the precept against intoxicating drugs to be the hardest, others thought it depended upon accumulations in general. Generally, people were concerned about other aspects of the Precept concerning Speech. This group ('the first Sunday of the month mob') wondered where it actually says that frivolous speech breaks the precept. And there were varying ideas on what frivolous speech actually is... They felt that more good comes out of what others (me :-)) might see as their frivolous speech, i.e. friendly supportive teasing, ironic understated humour, which creates lasting bonds. (Todays group included some of the Aussie blokes who also go to Cooran.) Victor: Thank you for your links. I printed Thanissaro's article 'The Healing Power of the Precepts' and they all took a copy. We had a stimulating discussion - particularly about the two kinds of denial when we don't measure up to certain standards of behaviour. [We all knew 'someone else' who fitted the description. :-)] The paragraphs about the Precepts being practical, clear-cut, humane, and worthy of respect, met with approval. One of the group, Klaas who is over eighty years of age, and is a volunteer lecturer in The University of the Third Age, intends to include some of the ideas and expressions in his next set of introductory talks. He liked the article. :-) James: :-) Thanks for your kind words :-) KenH: I don't disagree with your words - "there is a description of how mind states come and go by conditions. An understanding of that description, is the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now and in the future." BUT I still don't see how that is any different to other forms of practice (sitting meditation, keeping sila). Who is it that understands, and how do they go about gaining understanding? It reminds me of the question that I asked at Cooran .... "How are we to live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear RobM and Christine, > > Rob wrote: > > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to > break > > a precept yesterday. > > > Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? > There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try > harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future. > > Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the > Middle Way is like no other:-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22573 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Dear Larry, Thank you very much for your reply letter.I am going to deal with pains more and finally I will try to relate pains with Abhidhamma and practice. Yours sincerely, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Htoo, > Your series on pain prompted me to try to identify the various kinds of > pain I experienced today as they arose. Many > people have trouble sleeping at night because of the pain of worry. And > then there was Christine's pain of compassion. All very interesting. > > Larry 22574 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 4:02am Subject: Pain As A Signal (06) Dear Dhamma Friends, Pain is not a permanent one like other dhammas.It is a signal.Let's try to focus on pain.You all had once pains in your lives.Among them some will be the worst until worse one arises.The worst will be perimortem pains(????). Now go back to your pain in the past or if you already have a pain now,focus on that pain.Depending on the type of pain it may be intermittent or interrupted or continual or continuous.But consciousness on that pain is not continuous. The mind in pain is interrupted by other mind.Anyway,now look into that pain.It arises.You know it arises.Thing that arise is pain that is Tejo-Phothabba-Arammana mixed with Vayo-Phothabba-Arammana.The real thing that became realised the pain at that moment is Kayavinnanacitta(possibly Ahetuka Akusala Vipaka Citta). With continous attention and concentration at that pain,pain will be seen(realized) as some form form of wave that carries heat.The heat is wandering about here and there inside of the body concerned.What we need to do is just follow what happens next and putting the mind on the present moment of pain. The signal,pain will be finally seen as a separate entity.When pain is separated what left is consciousness or Citta.These two are discriminated by a clear dividing line.When this happens,the practitioner will gain something related to Vipassana-Nana. May you all be able to practice on Vedananupassana-Satipathana and tolerate all sorts of pains. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 22575 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:52am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > RobM: Thank you for your advice - on reflection, I see that one > should never be complacent about sila - unusual circumstances that > undermind restraint can pop up at any time. I'm not sure I agree > about lying being the most difficult precept to keep - this caused > some discussion this afternoon. Some thought that an alcoholic may > find the precept against intoxicating drugs to be the hardest, others > thought it depended upon accumulations in general. Generally, people > were concerned about other aspects of the Precept concerning Speech. > This group ('the first Sunday of the month mob') wondered where it > actually says that frivolous speech breaks the precept. And there > were varying ideas on what frivolous speech actually is... They felt > that more good comes out of what others (me :-)) might see as their > frivolous speech, i.e. friendly supportive teasing, ironic > understated humour, which creates lasting bonds. (Todays group > included some of the Aussie blokes who also go to Cooran.) I agree that which precept is most difficult to keep depends on one's accumulations. I have been a tea-totaler for twenty years and I am a faithful husband, so for me it is lying that is the toughest to keep. "Frivolous speech" is akusala kamma patha, one of the ten unwholesome deeds that can lead to rebirth in a woeful states but "Frivolous speech" is not one of the five precepts, nor is it one of the eight precepts which are only kept on holy days. Eliminating "frivolous speech" is part of the path factor of "Right Speech". "Frivolous speech" is not uprooted until one becomes an Arahant. The definition of "frivolous speech" that arises in the Suttas is, "tiracchana-katha: 'low talk', lit. 'beastly talk', is the name in the sutta-texts for the following: "Talk about kings and robbers, ministers and armies, danger and war, eating and drinking, clothes and dwellings, garlands and scents, relations, chariots, villages and markets, towns and districts, women and heroes, street talks, talks by the well, talk about those departed in days gone by, tittle- tattle, talks about world and sea, about gain and loss." Obviously, laypeople cannot avoid "frivolous speech". Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 22576 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 6:06am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Ken, The Buddha very often gave exhortations using conventional terms: - "Strive on with diligence" - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of similar examples in the Suttas. I will do some checking, but I think that the Buddha even used this type of language when talking to those who had already attained the level of Sotapanna and had eliminated self-view. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear RobM and Christine, > > Rob wrote: > > Examine the conditions that caused you to break a precept. > > Make a mental note to watch out for those conditions in the future > > and try to avoid falling into the same pattern that led you to > break > > a precept yesterday. > > > Obviously, that is good advice but is it the best advice? > There is no self who can learn from her mistakes and try > harder in the future. But, thanks to the Buddha, there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future. > > Sorry to be nit-picking, but we must remember that the > Middle Way is like no other:-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22577 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Subject / object Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/31/03 9:55:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > H: I suspect that what actually happens is that one act of awareness of > an object is succeeded by an awareness of the just-passed act of > discernment (or better, an awareness of a "fresh memory" of that > just-passed act of discernment). So what I'm saying is that when it > seems we are aware of being aware, we are actually engaged in ordinary > discernment of an object, but where the object is a fresh memory of the > immediately preceding cognitive event. In this case, the fresh memory > which is the current object of consciousness is truly an object, and not > a subject, and it is the cognizing of that fresh memory that is the > subject. > > L: I agree. This sounds like sati to me. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it isn't sati per se, though some degree of sati must be involved. (I think I may have thrown matters off by using the word 'discernment' here, which I like as a translation of 'vi~n~nana' in preference to 'consciousness', the latter having a "substance flavor" to it, I think, as opposed to a function/event flavor.) ----------------------------------------------- However, I think we have to be> > careful of the word "object". If my above reasoning is correct then any > experience is a subject and the object isn't directly known (isn't the > experience). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think that when there is an experience, there is an object that is known, and, in fact, it is that object, not the experiencing, which is what is known. I view the matter as follows. On any occasion, there is a single cognitive event (let us leave this nameless) which has two mutually dependent aspects to it, neither of which ever occurs without the other: 1) the subjective aspect which is the visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustatory, or mental being-aware-of the object (the discerning of the object), and 2) the objective aspect which is the image, sound, smell, bodily sensation, or thought being discerned. When there is awareness of awareness, as I see it, that is the case of a single cognitive event in which the subjective aspect is a mind-door discernment (mano-vi~n~nana) whose object is a fresh memory of the just passed cognitive event. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Sorry Howard. Thst's the best I could do, coherence-wise. > > Larry > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22578 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:16:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > Thanks very much for bringing this up. Yes, you are quite correct > about the references to the body, and not only in the instance(s) you > give but also, for example, in the Satipatthana Sutta and elsewhere > throughout the suttas. > > However, as can be seen from the commentary to the Satipatthana > Sutta, reference to the body is to be understood as reference to all > rupas, the whole of rupa-khandha. The body simply represents the > most important and clung-to rupas of them all for everyone. > > Another example of conventional discourse, ultimate meaning (as I see > it). > > Jon > =============================== I agree that there is a difference between conventional speech and speech referring to "primaries". I also agree that references to impermanence etc with respect to conventional objects are derivative matters. But, so long as one is dealing with speech only, as opposed to direct "seeing", it may be just as worthwhile for worldlings (and perhaps even those not yet non-returners) to be made aware of the tilakkhana in conventional objects, because these are what they are most readily aware of. Much of the teaching of the tilakkhana the Buddha gave as recorded in the sutta pitaka pertains to conventional objects, and even when he was teaching in his discourses with regard to elements of the khandhas, he did it in a conventional manner, avoiding the techno-speak of the Abhidhamma. (For those bhikkhus who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas, no doubt more technical detail was given as appropriate to their stage of development.) But I do not believe that when the Buddha taught about the impermanence of the body or about how one loses what (and whom) one loves, that he was "really" referring to rupas etc. There is, of course, no doubt that the Buddha knew what the reality of things was, but, from my perspective, he was teaching his bhikkhu and lay followers exactly as he wanted them to understand and as was suitable for them to understand at their stage. ================================ With metta, Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 5/25/03 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >jonoabb@y... writes: > > > >> > >>To elaborate, I am not aware of any instance in the suttas where > >the > >>characteristic of impermanence is attributed to conventional > >objects > >>such as mountains, as suggested by the author. To my knowledge, > >the > >>3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are only discussed in > >the > >>context of the five aggregates, the sense-bases, the elements > >etc, > >>these being different ways of classifying the same fundamental > >>phenomena that underlie the world as we know it. > >> > >============================= > > How about the body? That's a conventional object. In the > >Gela~n~na > >Sutta, available at the following web site, the Buddha states "And > >this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen". > > ... > > Also there is the following, obviously with regard to the > >body ... > >The born, become, produced, > >>made, fabricated, impermanent, > >>composed of aging &death, > >>a nest of illnesses, perishing, > >>come from nourishment > >>and the guide [that is craving] -- > >> is unfit for delight. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22579 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities (archery corner) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:25:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > As I think we've agreed previously, a thought is something that is > *conceived of* (or 'created') by mind-door consciousness of the kind > we call thinking. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that thoughts are mind-constructed. I think it doubtful that a thought is created by the act of awareness that is currently discerning the thought. There must a constructive mental *process* that creates the thought and presents it for conscious discernment. ---------------------------------------------------- > > Absent the consciousness that thinks, there can be no thought. There > is no sense in which it can be said that a thought has any existence > independent of the consciousness of which it is the object -- the > very idea is anomalous. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is also no hardness without an act of consciousness discerning it. And both are, ultimately, kamma vipaka. The difference is that specific thought-constructing activities are involved in the creation of thoughts that are not involved in the creation of other sorts of sense-door objects. Another critical difference is that those mental objects that are percepts (the percept of 'the tree is see right now through my den window') and that are concepts (the concept of 'tree') seem to *refer*. They seem to point to something, some conventional object or class of objects, beyond themselves. But the objects of other sense doors lack such referential aspect - they do not point beyond themselves. They are direct. In the seeing there is just the seeing, in the hearing just the hearing, etc. It is mind that projects. ----------------------------------------------------- > > By contrast, however, the objects of the senes-door consciousness are > *experienced by* (not conceived of or created by) the sense-door > consciousness, the consciousness we call seeing, hearing, etc. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: But they are kamma-created, which ultimately means they are cetana-created. But, yes, they are not mental constructs in the same way that thoughts are. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Absent sense-door consciousness, rupas that could otherwise > constitute sense-door objects still arise in this plane of existence > or, at the very least, the possibility that they do so is not > conceptually anomalous and cannot be discounted. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What exists beyond experience is, per force, unknowable. We cannot presume or deny the existence, for example, of experience-independent hardness. I doubt its existence, but I do not know one way or the other. ------------------------------------------------------ > > So while the model of 'object arising and being experienced by > consciousness' fits for sense-door objects and consciousness, it's > perhaps not a particularly apt description for thoughts and thinking. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think the model still applies quite well. The distinction to be made, I think, lies in the area of the machinery involved in *creation* of arammana at the mind door vs the other sense doors. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > That's how I see it anyway, based on my reading of the commentaries > and the Abhidhamma. The further comments that follow (interspersed) > reflect a similar analysis. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > > H: I see the following going on during "thinking": A thought arises > as an object of awareness. The thought is the objective pole of the > thinking event, the awareness of the thought is the subjective pole, > the two are mutually dependent but distinguishable. > > J: You mention the idea of a thought *arising as an object* of > awareness/thinking. For reasons just explained, I see it more as a > case of thinking arising and having as its object a thought that is > conceived of by that thinking. For example, thinking that is > accompanied by attachment will have as object thoughts of desirable > things, and so on; when attachment has been eradicated, no more > daydreaming about being at the beach instead of at work. > > H: The content of consciousness is certainly a part of the nature of > that consciousness. Think, for example, of the Buddha's > distinguishing eye consciousness from ear consciousness. The sort of > object is a critical aspect of the consciousness of that object. > Likewise, mental consciousness/thinking is conditioned by its > objects. Thinking of light is different from thinking of darkness, > and has different effect. > > J: As between the thought and the moment of thinking consciousness > of which the thought is object, it is the thought that is conditioned > by the thinking, not the other way around. By definition, a thought > could not condition the very moment of consciousness by which the > thought is conceived of or 'brought to mind'. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, the awareness of a thought is the last step in a process of thought creation, most of which is unconscious. We are fooled, I think, into thinking that we, for the most part, consciously create our thoughts. What I think is the case is that for the most part they are unconsciousl constructed and then, finally, though not always, presented to awareness. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Insofar as a thought takes its nature from the moment of > consciousness of which it is the object, the relationship between > thoughts and thinking is quite different from the relationship > between the sense-door object and consciousness. There, the > sense-door object has its own nature and independent existence, which > is in no way determined by the 'quality' of the experiencing > consciousness (although there must of course be congruence between > the 2 as regards the kusala/akusala nature of the vipaka moment). > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just not so, Jon. Our state of mind dramatically effects what we observe and how it appears. This is well known, and, I think, quite evident. ---------------------------------------------------- > > In the case of sense-door experiences, both the consciousness and the > rupa that is to become the sense-door object are said to *arise*, so > that there are 2 *arisen dhammas* each having its own nature. In the > case of (mind-door) thinking, the consciousness arises and conceives > of the thought (which is otherwise not to be found), so that there is > only 1 arisen dhamma having its own nature. > > H: Are you saying, Jon, that there actually do not arise directly > apprehended, elementary thoughts that are to the mind door what > images are to the eye door, sounds are to the ear door, and hardness > is to the body door? > > J: The similarity between mind-door and sense-door objects ends with > the fact that both are objects of the corresponding consciousness. > There are no 'elementary thoughts' to *arise* and *be apprehended*, > since all thoughts are purely a creation of the moment of > consciousness of which they are object (although that moment of > consciousness is of course itself conditioned by other, mainly > preceding, factors). > > H: Thoughts arise at the mind door just as images at the eye door > etc, and it is the thoughts that arise, and that we take seriously, > that constitute the scaffolding of this house we build and rebuild > for ourselves whose rafters need to be shattered in order for us to > become free. > > J: You are referring to wrong view, I think. Consciousness that is > accompanied by wrong view thinks thoughts that are 'wrong', i.e., > not in accordance with the way things actually are. It is the > consciousness that arises at the mind door. That consciousness must > arise in order for the thought to be conceived of and thus become the > object of that consciousness. Thoughts can be said to 'arise at the > mind-door' only in the sense that they are the object of > consciousness that arises at the mind door (advanced archery corner > here ;-)) > > H: We don't need to stop our thinking, i.e., stop the flow of > thoughts and co-occurring awareness of them ... > > J: You equate thinking with a 'flow of thoughts of which thinking > consciousness is aware' (I hope I'm not misreading you here, Howard). > But thinking is just thinking, a kind of consciousness that has > thoughts (images) as its object. 'Flow of thoughts' is how it seems > to us; but like so much else of what seems to be the way things are > to us, the teachings tell us that the reality ('flow of thinking' > only) is otherwise. > > Jon > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22580 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Cetasikas in Lobha-mula Cittas - Please comment Dear Rob M, I really appreciate your post on lobha-mula-citta. I do not want to be hairsplitting, but there is just a passage on sitting as a purpose. I think your purpose is not sitting. As you say, results do not come from desire for results. Nina. op 31-05-2003 01:59 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > - When we meditate, we can have a desire for results and this > attachment to results may inhibit progress; the purpose of > meditating is to sit, results come from proper practice, not from a > desire for results 22581 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Some people may select the objects of sati and pañña, but this will not lead to the goal. We read in the Scriptures what the objects of sati and pañña are. We read in the "Path of Discrimination", I, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch 1: All: "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be directly known? ...² Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up and among them are the following: ³Materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, is to be directly known...Craving for visible objects, sounds...odours...flavours...tangible objects..ideas is to be directly known." Lobha is the second noble Truth, craving that is the origination of dukkha. Lobha has to be known. When? Now, when it appears. Lobha is difficult to detect because it can be very subtle. When it is not subtle but more intense it may happen that we do not want to know it. But it is reality and if there is no awareness, it cannot be realized as non-self. If one tries to suppress akusala, how can it be known as it is? ³The all² should be known, there is no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a conditioned nåma. We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 70: Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each for himself, by the wise?" "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I have personally a passion for objects.'..." The same is said with regard to the other doorways. The Buddha then explained that when there is no desire for objects, one is aware of the absence of desire. Realizing akusala as only a conditioned nama is most helpful. We should not have aversion on account of it; when we have aversion, we have even more akusala. At the moment of awareness the citta is kusala. We should not avoid to know akusala. If one avoids knowing it, this causes delusion. Delusion is dangerous, it causes one to believe that one has no tendencies to akusala, that one is a righteous person. Even when we have only begun to develop sati and pañña, it is beneficial to be aware of akusala. When we see akusala as a conditioned reality, we shall also understand other people when they say disagreeable things or commit bad actions. The cittas which motivate speech and action arise because of accumulated tendencies, and they have fallen away already when we are thinking about them. When we have more understanding of realities it will be easier to forgive. 22582 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:29am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 12 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 12 If we want to relinquish defilements, if we have determination for relinquishment (cågåditthåna) with regard to síla, our conduct in action and speech, we have to guard the faculties of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind-door in daily life. Kusala citta is completely different from akusala citta: when akusala citta arises, the faculties of the senses and the mind-door are involved with akusala which is not beautiful. Whereas when kusala citta arises, the faculties are well guarded, they are involved with kusala, which is beautiful. When the eye-door is not well guarded, this will result in seeing wrongly and understanding wrongly, and hence there will be more trouble and disturbance in our life. We can also see in daily life the consequences of not being heedful as to the faculty of the ear. We cannot avoid hearing senseless words very often, but when we are heedful as to the faculty of the ear we do not pay attention to such words. We should know for ourselves when sati-sampajañña arises which is heedful or when we are not heedful. There can also be heedfulness with regard to the faculty of the nose. Then we are not infatuated with enticing odours, we do not cling to them, or strive to experience them, and we are not disturbed by them. Some people cling to the fragrance of flowers, and if they try to experience ever more of such odours, it leads to distress. When one has developed heedfulness of the sense faculties, all anxiety will gradually decrease. When we are heedful with regard to the bodysense, we shall not be meddlesome, jesting, ridiculing others and be reckless in conduct, we shall not molest or harm others. When we are heedful with regard to the mind, we are not worried and preoccupied, we do not think about things that make us unhappy. Some people seem to be happy in appearance, but in reality they are worried all the time. If they would know that at such moments there are akusala cittas, they would not give in to their worries and make themselves unhappy. They would not think of matters that would cause them to be angry with others, that would cause them to be jealous or to have conceit. If they could consider themselves a dustrag [5] they would be able to guard the faculties of the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, and the bodysense, and they would be able to abandon defilements. This is the determination for relinquishment. Footnote: 5. We read in the ³Gradual Sayings² (IV), Book of the Nines, Ch 2, §1, that a monk falsely accused Såriputta, but that Såriputta felt no ill-will. He compared himself with a duster that wipes up everything, clean and foul, but that is not filled with disgust. He said to the Buddha: ³Even so lord, like a duster, I abide with heart, large, abundant, measureless, feeling no hatred, nor ill-will...² 22583 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 8:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4 > > Some people may select the objects of sati and pañña, but this will not lead > to the goal. We read in the Scriptures what the objects of sati and pañña > are. We read in the "Path of Discrimination", I, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch > 1: All: > "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be > directly known? ...² > Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up and among them are the > following: > ³Materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, is to be > directly known...Craving for visible objects, > sounds...odours...flavours...tangible objects..ideas is to be directly > known." > Lobha is the second noble Truth, craving that is the origination of dukkha. > Lobha has to be known. When? Now, when it appears. Lobha is difficult to > detect because it can be very subtle. When it is not subtle but more intense > it may happen that we do not want to know it. But it is reality and if there > is no awareness, it cannot be realized as non-self. If one tries to suppress > akusala, how can it be known as it is? ³The all² should be known, there is > no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a > conditioned nåma. > We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § > 70: > > Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use > is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. > Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, > bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each > for himself, by the wise?" > "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with > the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of > that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I > have personally a passion for objects.'..." > The same is said with regard to the other doorways. > The Buddha then explained that when there is no desire for objects, one is > aware of the absence of desire. > > Realizing akusala as only a conditioned nama is most helpful. We should not > have aversion on account of it; when we have aversion, we have even more > akusala. At the moment of awareness the citta is kusala. We should not avoid > to know akusala. If one avoids knowing it, this causes delusion. Delusion is > dangerous, it causes one to believe that one has no tendencies to akusala, > that one is a righteous person. > Even when we have only begun to develop sati and pañña, it is beneficial to > be aware of akusala. When we see akusala as a conditioned reality, we shall > also understand other people when they say disagreeable things or commit bad > actions. The cittas which motivate speech and action arise because of > accumulated tendencies, and they have fallen away already when we are > thinking about them. When we have more understanding of realities it will be > easier to > forgive. > ============================= The point made in the quotation from the Path of Discrimination may well be a valid one, but I doubt it. I think that for liberating insight into the tilakkhana to arise, it needn't arise with regard to every single, individual conditioned dhamma. With Blake, I think it suffices to see the universe in a grain of sand. The direct seeing of impermanence etc at the ultimate level of experience, even once, is transformative. Also, I have some reservations with regard to the Path of Discrimination as a primary source. As I understand it, it was incorporated into the Khuddhaka Nikaya rather late,and might well be more of a commentarial work than direct Buddha Word. I say this despite my looking favorably on comments made in it with respect to the notion of 'sabhava'. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22584 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 9:03am Subject: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, all - The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22585 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right to me. Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: Hi, all - The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard 22586 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas > are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right > to me. > > Larry > ======================== "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22587 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Limerence Hi Rahula, I looked-up "love" in the PTS Dictionary and found several potential candidates for romantic love, but I couldn't locate any of the textual references. Here's the page: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html Enter love in the third box down. As to your questions: Hi, See http://gost.isi.edu/brian/elbows/limerence.html 1. How to overcome limerence (romantic love)? If anyone need more information, please email me (rahula_80@y...) Larry: The Buddha's standard antidote for "lust and delight" is contemplation of impermanence and/or ugliness. 2. Did the Buddha address the issue of limerence? Well, if yes, what did he say? could you also provide the reference(s) Larry: See above PTS ref. I couldn't find anything in my resources. 3. What is your opinion of limerence, as a Buddhist and as a human? (answer this only if you have experienced limerence) Larry: It's pure hell but I would defiitely recommend it. I am a little uneasy with considering it as evil and unwholesome. For one thing metta and mudita are not far away and I think piti might figure into this somehow. Also there is the slight possibility it may turn into a blissful, limerent, union that produces little baby buddhists. Larry ps: try not to do anything really stupid 22588 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard,Larry, all, Howard, did you mean that only all conditioned things are anatta, impersonal, soulless? What about: sabbe sankhara anicca: all conditioned things are transient sabbe sankhara dukkha: all conditioned things are sorrowful sabbe dhamma anatta: all things, conditioned and non-conditioned, are impersonal, soulless metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the khandhas > > are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound quite right > > to me. > > > > Larry > > > ======================== > "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be > a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. > Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > With metta, > Howard 22589 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 2:38pm Subject: Re: Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > I took a copy of my original post and the replies (except KenH's > which I hadn't yet seen) to a small Buddhist discussion group this > afternoon. Everyone agreed on the importance of Sila and the fact > that all three 'legs' of of buddhist practice must be in evidence and > in balance. > _______ Dear Christine, When we are concerned that sila be in evidence and in balance what are the dhammas at that moment. Is there genuine understanding that simply sees that at this moment there is sila. Or is there a degree of conceit that is happy that now sila is evident. Or is there worry that it is not so evident. Or is there a subtle clinging to the idea of me having sila. Nina quoted "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salåyatanavagga, Second Fifty, Ch 2, § 70: Then the venerable Upavåna came to see the Exalted One:- " 'Of immediate use is the Norm (Dhamma)! Of immediate use is the Norm!' is the saying, lord. Pray, lord, to what extent is the Norm of immediate use, apart from time, bidding one come and see, leading on (to the Goal), to be experienced, each for himself, by the wise?" "Now here (under my teaching), Upavåna, when a brother sees an object with the eye, he experiences objects, conceives a passion for objects, and of that passion for objects which exists for him personally he is aware, 'I have personally a passion for objects.'..." Are we as keen as those monks in the Buddha's time who really investigated the present moment including 'passion'. If not there won't be understanding of the anattaness of all dhammas. > > KenH: I don't disagree with your words - "there > is a description of how mind states come and go by > conditions. An understanding of that description, is > the most potent condition for kusala states to arise now > and in the future." > Christine: BUT I still don't see how that is any different to other forms of > practice (sitting meditation, keeping sila). Who is it that > understands, and how do they go about gaining understanding? It > reminds me of the question that I asked at Cooran .... > "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." > ______________ You ask "who is it that understands"? This reminds me of the questions asked by venerable Moliyaphagunna (Samyuttanikaya Nidana Moliyaphagguna p541 bodhi) "'With the six bases (salayatana)as condition contact comes to be'. Ven. Moliyaphagguna: 'Venerable sir, who feels?' Buddha: 'I do not say 'One makes contact'. If I should say 'One makes contact' in that case this would be a valid question.....In this case the valid answer is 'With the six sense bases as condition, contact [comes to be]; with contact as condition feeling'. Moliyaphagguna: 'venerable sir, who craves?. Buddha: I do not say 'one craves...." endquote The Buddha says (SN 12:35 Bodhi p.575) that with the eradication of ignorance such ideas and vacillations as "what now are volitional formations (sankhara) , and for 'whom' are there volitional formations? or'Volitional formations are one thing, the one for whom there are these volitional formations is another'--all these are abandoned, cut off at the root...."endquote. It is ignorance of dhammas that is the heart of why this wheel keeps spinning. KenH was so compassionate to explain this and so, inspired by him, I add more. The Visuddhimagga notes about the development of vipassana: "there is no removal of false view in one who takes it thus "I see with insight, my insight'..there is removal of false view in one who takes it thus 'only formations see formations with insight, comprehend, define, discern and delimit them." XX83 I might have mentioned a while back meeting a Hare Krishna in Auckland . He was about my age and had spent 20 years living at the center. He told me about his austere life which was quite impressive and by any outward measure full of sila. But to me he seemed trapped by his way of life. This doesn't mean he would be better off leaving and living some conventional life where frivilous talk and so on are common. However, I think it hints at what KenH said with regard to understanding the moment been most potent: Vis XV163 "The perfect ones behave like lions. When they make suffering cease and when they teach the the cessation of suffering, they deal with the cause, not the fruit. But the sectarians behave like dogs. When they make suffering cease and when they teach the cessation of suffering, by teaching devotion to self-mortification etc., they deal with the fruit not the cause." When there is a moment of insight there cannot be the breaking of sila. If it is genuine insight then it isn't forced and so the anattaness of sati is known too. This moments may not happen as regularly as tanha would wish - but that is ok because gradually tanha will come to be known too. That is, if there are the right conditions - such as having good friends, hearing true Dhamma, refelecting wisely. So if there is growing insight then confidence in the benefit of understanding the moment and of sila and of all kusala will develop. And this brings more patience and so the present moment can be seen better, and that leads to more insight, more confidence, which leads... But there is no one who can control any of that. Next year- if conditions are such- we might join the Hares. RobertK Majjhima Nikaya 148 Chachakka Sutta The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known." Note that it says the six classes of craving should be known. I think this is important, craving is part of the wheel. Usually we misperceive it as "my" craving. But craving, as much as other dhammas, can be an object for understanding. if it is seen through the lens of anatta it is not mistaken for "my" craving and so its true characteristic can be seen. (Craving, the English translation of tanha, may make us think of a very strong desire, but tanha includes even very minute aspects of unwholesome desire) Later the sutta says: "'The six classes of craving should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. With feeling as a requisite condition there is craving." and it repeats for the other senses of ear, nose, tongue, body, mind. "If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. ...... If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self. " What then should we do and what is right effort: Ogha-tarana Sutta Crossing the Flood This is the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya A deva asks the Buddha how he crossed the flood (the four floods are sensuality, becoming, views, ignorance). "Sir, how did you cross the flood? Friend, by not remaining still, and by not putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." But Sir, in what way did you cross the flood, neither remaining still, nor putting forth strenuous effort. Friend, if I remained still. I sank; If I put forth strenuous effort, I was swept away Thus, by neither remaining still nor putting forth strenuous effort, I crossed the flood." 22590 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Christine - In a message dated 6/1/03 5:11:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hi Howard,Larry, all, > > Howard, did you mean that only all conditioned things are anatta, > impersonal, soulless? What about: > > sabbe sankhara anicca: all conditioned things are transient > sabbe sankhara dukkha: all conditioned things are sorrowful > sabbe dhamma anatta: all things, conditioned and non-conditioned, are > impersonal, soulless > > metta and peace, > Christine ============================= In reply to Larrya natta was all I was addressing as that was all Larry was asking about. In my intial post (to which Larry replied as you quote below), what I said involved all three lakkhana. What I had written was the following: **************************************** The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or self-sufficient. Comments anyone? **************************************** Larry had picked up on my saying that nothing is personal, and it was that to which I was replying here. With metta, Howard > ---The trouble is that you think you have time > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Larry - > > > >In a message dated 6/1/03 4:36:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > LBIDD@w... > >writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>I have a problem with saying nothing is personal insofar as the > khandhas > >>are said to be personalty. "Impersonal desire" doesn't sound > quite right > >>to me. > >> > >>Larry > >> > >======================== > > "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal > means to be > >a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is > no self. > >Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > >/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, > a bubble > >in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering > lamp, a > >phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond > Sutra) > > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22591 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Way 96, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects continued Imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties is the equalizing of the controlling faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. [Tika] Equalizing is making neither more nor less effective functionally. When faith outstrips the others through over-activity, the others are thrown out of gear. Then energy finds it impossible to exert; mindfulness, to attend to the object; concentration, to be non-distracted; and wisdom, to see. Therefore that over-activity of faith should be made to wane either by reflection on the phenomenal nature of the things (faith) or by not attending to that thing when thinking of which faith becomes excessive. The story of the Thera Vakkali[34] is the illustration of over-active faith. [T] Faith outstrips the others because of unclearness of wisdom and the laxity and so forth of energy and the others, through the excessive zeal of the function of faith, in regard to a believable object, an object that generates trust. Energy is unable to do the work of exerting and of supporting the associated mental characteristics and to avoid indolence. [T] Mindfulness is not able to do the work of attending to the object, of continuing to be at the object, after coming to it. [T] Concentration is not able to do the work of non-distraction, of rejecting distraction. [T] To see the object, according to actuality as if one were seeing a physical thing with the eye, wisdom is not able. [T] These four faculties are unable to do their work because of their being overwhelmed by the faculty of faith acting very strong. Only by the evenness of function can the mental things which exist together with consciousness, and are the principal things amongst conascent mental things, namely, the five spiritual controlling faculties, accomplish their work. Not otherwise. [T] Reflection on the phenomenal nature of the thing (faith). By examining the object of faith by way of the conditioned and the produced from the conditioned and the like, by scrutiny according to actuality. [T] The story of the Thera Vakkali. This venerable person who fulfilled his duties through keen faith liked to behold the Master always. The Master admonished him saying, "What shall it profit you to see this impure body. Who sees the Dhamma, sees me," and urged him to practice a subject of meditation. He was unable to apply himself to the practice of the subject of meditation and as he was inclined to destroy himself, he went up to a place that was a steep declivity. Then the Master showed himself by his psychic power as if he were seated before the thera and spoke these words: [T] The bhikkhu who is full of joy and believes in The Dispensation of the Buddha Can reach the peaceful happy state of the ceasing of activities. [T] Gladdened by the words of the Master he set up the development of insight, but as his faith was very strong he was not able to enter into the joy of the insight. The Master knowing this gave him the subject of meditation after correcting it with the imparting of evenness of the controlling faculties. The thera after putting himself in the path of practice taught by the Master, and after doing hard work in regular order, reached arahantship. 34. Samyutta Nikaya iii, page 120, P.T.S. Edition and Dhammapada Atthakatha iv, pages 117-119, P.T.S. Edition. 22592 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, I prefer "worthless" or "vacuous" as the meaning is "anatta". Larry ----------------- Howard wrote: "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. 22593 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 8:18:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I prefer "worthless" or "vacuous" as the meaning is "anatta". > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal > means to be a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But > there is no self. Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > =========================== I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. BTW, my parenthesized 'conditioned' above was an error. ALL dhammas are impersonal. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22594 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, "Worthless" for "anatta" is just a personal preference. It's practical. I rationalize it by considering "self" to be some sort of ultimate value as opposed to nibbana which transcends value. It's easier to get into a relinquishing mode with that kind of attitude. As a universal characteristic I use "empty of itself". But this has to do with the imminence or ever-presence of nibbana. That is more of a madhyamika thing; although you can see hints of it in the suttas. Larry ---------------- Howard wrote: I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. 22595 From: Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/1/03 10:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > "Worthless" for "anatta" is just a personal preference. It's practical. > I rationalize it by considering "self" to be some sort of ultimate value > as opposed to nibbana which transcends value. It's easier to get into a > relinquishing mode with that kind of attitude. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whatever works for you! (Skillful means, and all that! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- > > As a universal characteristic I use "empty of itself". But this has to > do with the imminence or ever-presence of nibbana. That is more of a > madhyamika thing; although you can see hints of it in the suttas. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I rather like "empty of itself" due to the koan-like nature of the expression, and also due to my predilection for Madhyamika. -------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ---------------- > Howard wrote: I'll meet you halfway. I'll buy the "vacuous". But > "worthless" is too strong for me. Liberation is not worthless. Wisdom is > not worthless. Metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha are not worthless. > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22596 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Jun 1, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine, > "How are we to > live an 'examined life if there is no-self, no-control?' > Even 'listening to the true dhamma, reflecting ... discussing with > Admirable friends ... and practising in accordance with the true > Dhamma, seems to imply 'someone' who can have 'some control' and 'the > ability to choose, plan and do' to some extent." -------------- I appreciate your concern but, unfortunately, I don't think we can allow you even that! I'm thinking of the marionette metaphor which explains that dhammas create the impression of having interest (concern), but really there is no interest there -- all dhammas are impersonal -- without self -- anatta. So, there is no control over, and no interest in, whether we are going to sit on a cushion or whether we will plan, arrange, attend Dhamma discussions -- or whether we will go to the pub. There is an overwhelming impression of interest but that's as far as it goes. Sorry :-) Kind regards, Ken H 22597 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 0:01am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi RobM, > The Buddha very often gave exhortations using > conventional terms: > - "Strive on with diligence" > - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" ------- I realise that your advice to Christine was meant to be read in the light of anatta. It goes without saying that you would never suggest there is a self who can 'try to overcome akusala tendencies.' What I am not clear about is the particular significance you see in the Buddha's use of conventional terminology. Are you suggesting that a conventional approach to 'striving with diligence' can have some efficacy in attaining the Eight-fold Path? That question is not meant to be patronising or rhetorical -- there are dsg members who believe exactly that. Some say that worldlings should not concern themselves with anatta; it will become clear when the final goal is reached. On the other hand, there are members who remind us that 'striving with diligence' refers purely to cetasikas -- because in the Buddha's explanation of reality, there are only namas and rupas. Dare I suggest that your advice to Christine betrayed a slight 'slipping back' into conventional ways? Were you not momentarily forgetting that Christine, just like 'chariot,' 'living being' was a mere designation? Kind regards, Ken H 22598 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Jeff, I’m glad to get back to our discussion and thankyou for your feedback - sorry for the delay. Jeff: > ..... I believe 'samadhi' is originally (as > best > we can know) a Sanskrit word, which I said before means absorption (the > consequence of concentration) not concentration, but I can see how it > has come to be > used for 'concentration' in Pali. .... S: It’s true that many Pali words have Sanskrit equivalents and are often derived from them. We need, however, to carefully examine their meanings in the Pali context. In this regard, according to the Pali dictionaries there are many uses of samadhi, only one of which refers to the jhanas. The PTS Rhys Davids/Stede dict uses ‘concentration’ for translation and then continues to give a very long section on its meanings in various contexts - too much for me to quote or even summarise here. It would be a good sparate topic or post. ..... Jeff: > when he used that word in his Eight Fold Path as "samma samadhi" perhaps > he > wasn't speaking of right concentration, but right absorption. This > interpretation of the word certainly worked better for me when examining > the Eight Fold > Path of Siddharta Gotama. ..... S: So shall we just use ‘samma samaadhi’ ?;-) It’s true, as I understand, that the samma samadhi of the eightfold path at the moment of enlightenment is equivalent to absorption level, so what you say may be valid here. Along the way, as the Path is being developed, the samma samadhi accompanying other path factors will not be of this level unless jhana is being used as a basis for insight as I understand. So now, there may be a moment of right awareness and understanding, accompanied by right concentration, right effort and right thought, but there is no absorption. ..... > Jeff: > I > believe using Pali terms is no where nearly as accurate as many here > seem to > think it is. Unless you subscribe to a single, and often narrow > interpretation of > that Pali term, which I do not. .... S: ;-) I know you mentioned one or two of your broad definitions of terms (eg jhana) before. I like to look at the texts and consider what the Buddha means as best I can. I certainly agree with you that using Pali terms does not eliminate misunderstandings and varied interpetations;-) Good point. ..... > Jeff: > Well, I would agree, now who's interpretation are you depending on for > understanding what the Buddha intended? If you are going to depend on a > scholar's > interpretation of the Pali canon to direct your practice, I assure you, > your > practice will not be "correct." Only a practitioner, that is one who > has "gone > before" or "achieved" can understand the practice and the intent. A > scholar > can only give you one of many interpretations for the text. .... S: I’ll put the translation of the sutta in question at the end of this post as it’s short. I wouldn’t call a translation an interpretation, though of course interpretations affect the translation;-). You make many other good points here. I think the bottom line is that we need to consider the words carefully, discuss and test out. The practice should conform to what is written in the texts however as the Buddha urged in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Perceived experience - our own or others’ - is a very unreliable guide I think. If someone says “I had a dream about XYZ”, “I experienced being one with the universe”, “I’m enlightened” or “I see white lights”, I think it is of little value to the listener. It’s more helpful, as I see it, to receive guidance about the ultimate phenomena and truths in life which are common to all, have always been common to all and always will be. These phenomena - the mental and physical data - can be tested and proved at this moment. There is no self to have any special experiences or to achieve anything. This is why the exploration and understanding of these phenomena is more precious to me than comparing any anecdotes about personal experiences. I’m not sure if I’m making any sense here. .... Jeff: > Also, it does not seem to me to be prudent to wait to practice until one > has > understood the "Buddha's instruction(s)" thoroughly, Are you saying you > want > to first read and understand the whole of the Pali cannon before you > will begin > to practice? If so, how many lifetimes do you think that will take? ..... S: ;-) no rules - I think we can start by just reading and considering a few lines together. The aim of the study is merely to understand the anatta nature of the phenomena arising now. Some people like to read a lot and find this helpful, others prefer to just read a few lines and question what they say. I agree that the practice should always be now and not put off. I think it’s also important to understand that the practice can be at this very moment of seeing or hearing without waiting for any other conditions too. .... > Jeff: > .....And, how do you interpret the word 'insight' (vipassana)? I interpret > vipassana (insight) as a subjective state as a consequence of absorption > when the > activities of thinking and cogitation are at rest. I do not consider > 'insight' > as a thinking process, which I believe some here do. .... S: Jeff, I’ve read every post on DSG and I haven’t heard anyone refer to or consider ‘insight’ or vipassana as a ‘thinking process’. No one ‘thinks’ that ‘thinking’ can think its way to nibbana;-)You may be getting confused with comments referring to insights in mind-door processes. This doesn’t mean thinking about concepts are involved at moments of insight. Insight (vipassana)refers to the development of panna (wisdom) and its accompanying mental factors in the various stages. Unlike the development of samatha leading to jhanas, vipassana always refers to the development of satipatthana and the objects of panna must be ultimate realities (namas or rupas), not concepts. In the Visuddhimagga we can read about the various vipassana nanas (stages of insight). Before the first stage, the clear distincting and direct understanding of namas and rupas must be known, not by thinking but by direct insight or knowledge. I should add that thinking is not an obstacle to satipatthana. Any reality can be known at any time. If your interpretation of vipassana was correct, surely all those before the Buddha’s time who had attained absorption/jhana would also have experienced ‘insight’ (vipassana) which would be contrary to what we read in the (Pali) texts. ..... Jeff: > Therefore my > interpretation for the above quote is likely to be radically different > from someone who > thinks insight is a process of thinking, which in my view constitutes > wrong > thinking. .... S: We’d agree on this point. .... > Jeff: > Yes, I agree that is why I have spent 30 years reflecting on these > concepts > and testing them in my daily practice. > > Blessing to you and all, .... S: I appreciate your input. You asked again why I don’t speak from ‘personal experience’. I think we all have to consider what is most helpful and of value and what the purpose of discussion is. For me, if I were to talk about my dreams, my insights (or lack of;-)), and so on, it would be motivated by attachment to self and a clinging to an idea of ‘personal experience’, in all probability without any understanding of anatta at those moments. The aim of the path is the development of detachment rather than attachment, so regardless of the experience or insight or dream, it’s gone already, it’s past. The question which I find more interesting is regarding the present reality. I’m not sure if this makes sense, Jeff. I’m not trying to be difficult. Perhaps we can look at some other suttas together if you’re interested or follow any of these comments further. With Metta, Sarah ========= http://www.abhidhamma.org/anguttara_nikaya.%20(2)%2020htm.htm Anguttara Nikaya CHAPTER XX Mahavaggo THE GREAT CHAPTER (1) Blessings BRETHREN, four blessings should be expected from listening to with the ear, constant recitation with the voice, careful consideration with the mind and penetration of the Norm through insight (1). What four ? Herein, brethren, a brother masters the Norm consisting of the Suttas..... Vedalla (2). He thus listens to, constantly recites, carefully ponders over and penetrates the Norm. When he dies bewildered (3) in mind and is reborn in a certain assembly of devas, there the blissful ones recite to him the stanzas of the Norm. Brethren, the arising of mindfulness is slow, but such a being quickly achieves distinction therein.(4) Brethren, this is the first blessing that should be expected from listening to, constant recitation, careful consideration and penetration of the Norm through insight. ++++++++ 1 Diññiyà,. Comy. says 'himself penetrates it by his wisdom both as regards sense and cause.' 2 See suppra, P. 8. 3 Comy. says 'he is still a puthujjana'' One dying without reaching the Paths is said to die with mindfulness not established. 4 Comy`. He becomes nibbàna-gàmin (bound for the goal).' +++++++++ 22599 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:07am Subject: Right Reflection Hi Jeff & All, I found this extract from the commentary and sub-commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta (recently posted just after your post to me) to be relevant to the comments about reflection and consideration of the details. Note that ‘right reflection’, as I read it, is not just thinking, but direct knowledge conditioned by wise considering and the development of satipatthana. ********** QUOTE: “2. Investigation of Mental Objects There are karmically good and karmically bad things... right and wrong counterparts of bright and dark things, and an abundance of right reflection on them is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects and for the increase, expansion and the completion of culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. [Tika] Here, right reflection is the conscious state that is associated with knowledge and which arises by way of perceiving, according to actuality, the nature, function, characteristic and so forth of the several skillful (or wholesome) states of mind and the like. Because it is correct reflection it is called right (or radical) reflection. Six things lead to the arising of this enlightenment factor: Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth; the purification of the basis (namely, the cleaning of the body, clothes and so forth); imparting evenness to the (five spiritual) controlling faculties; avoiding the ignorant; associating with the wise; reflecting on the profound difference of the hard-to-perceive processes of the aggregates, modes (or elements), sense-bases and so forth; and the inclining (sloping, bending) towards the development of the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects. Inquiring about the aggregates and so forth means: seeking the meaning of the aggregates, the modes (or elements), sense-bases, controlling faculties, powers, enlightenment factors, way factors, absorption factors, the meditation for quietude, and the meditation for insight by asking for explanation of knotty points regarding these things in the Five Nikayas with the commentaries from teachers of the Dhamma." ***** 22600 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard, The Buddha taught that form is impermanent, dukkha, not self, feeling..., perception..., formations..., consciousness is impermanent, dukkha, not self, that eye is impermanent, dukkha, not self, ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., mind is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Every conditioned/fabricated/formed is impermanent, dukkha, not self. What the Buddha stated is not the same as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies, nor is personal. I don't see what you stated as an expression of insight into the conditioned/fabricated/formed. I see it as a twist to what the Buddha taught. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The word 'tilakkhana' literally means "three characteristics," but I > see them as absences. I see their assertion as stating that nothing in this > world remains, nor satisfies (perfectly), nor is personal, substantial, or > self-sufficient. Comments anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 22601 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:52am Subject: Re: Right Reflection --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Jeff & All, > > I found this extract from the commentary and sub-commentary to the > Satipatthana Sutta (recently posted just after your post to me) to be > relevant to the comments about reflection and consideration of the > details. Note that `right reflection', as I read it, is not just thinking, > but direct knowledge conditioned by wise considering and the development > of satipatthana. > ********** Hi Sarah, Actually, I see this excerpt as defining Right Reflection as wise considering of those factors which are the conditions for the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects; as such, it is in fact `thinking' about such and doesn't require `direct knowledge' of those mental objects. The only mental factor, or `frame of mind', required is to possess a `bent' toward this investigation. In other words, right reflection is only an enlightenment factor, it isn't enlightenment itself, and so doesn't require the `direct knowing' of mental objects. Additionally, it doesn't even require meditative practice, though I would think that meditative practice would strengthen it and would enrich the knowledge base. I just thought I would add this because I found your paraphrasing of the commentary a bit confusing/misleading. I am not sure what post of Jeff's and counter post you are referring to because I haven't been following that too closely (frankly, not able to…too dissected). If I have spoken out of turn, I apologize. Metta, James 22602 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I was primarily fishing for an acknowledgment that concepts are > realities. This is close enough for now: "As you say, wrong conceptual > view is also a reality,...". .... Sorry for the delay - others may have clarified. Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object are not realities. Sorry not to oblige this time;-) Why would you like concepts to be realities? Metta, Sarah ======== 22603 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi Howard (and Larry), Pardon me for jumping in. To say that form is impersonal is not the same as saying form is not self. Note the definitions of the word "personal" in the Webster online dictionary: 1 : of, relating to, or affecting a person : PRIVATE, INDIVIDUAL 2 a : done in person without the intervention of another; also : proceeding from a single person b : carried on between individuals directly 3 : relating to the person or body 4 : relating to an individual or an individual's character, conduct, motives, or private affairs often in an offensive manner 5 a : being rational and self-conscious b : having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction 6 : of, relating to, or constituting personal property 7 : denoting grammatical person I would say that to translate "anatta" as "impersonal" is misleading, and the idea that there is no self is simply speculative, irrelevant to what the Buddha taught. Your comment is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > [snip] > "Impersonal" is a translation for 'anatta'. To be personal means to be > a self, to belong to a self, or to pertain to a self. But there is no self. > Thus, all(conditioned) dhammas are impersonal. > > With metta, > Howard 22604 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Larry, Please excuse the late reply: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hi Mike, > > You wrote: "Aren't there two different kinds of > accumulation--accumulated kamma, which does get 'used up'--and > accumulated tendencies, which don't? On the other hand, (if I understand > it correctly), the latter is eradicated by pa~n~naa, the former are > not (Angulimala e.g.). Not sure if the terms 'aayuuhana' vs. 'anusaya' > are pertinent but would like to know more." > > I have no idea but would like to know more. By 'accumulated kamma' do > you mean kamma that is in the pipeline but hasn't come to fruition? I guess so, if you mean kamma that hasn't yet resulted in vipaaka. I think it's consistent with the texts to say that this (cetanaa cetasika?) accumulates (though it isn't clear to me that this is somehow 'discharged' by vipaaka). It seems to me that accumulated cetanaa has some direct relationship to 'anusaya' in it's sense of dormant or latent disposition. Not at all sure that this is sound abhidhamma, though. > Also, it seems reasonable to me that accumulations (aayuuhana) are > neutralized or rendered uninfluential by learning and consequent > repeated counter intention and action, and eradicated by a path insight. Not sure about 'neutralized or rendered uninfluential'. Subjectively, my own latent tendencies (to anger, e.g.) don't seem to be much affected by learning or by 'repeated counter intention and action'--they seem to me to remain latent (actually I'm coming to prefer 'dormant') and this seems consistent with the abhidhamma idea that these dormant dispositions are 'passed' or 'carried' along from citta to citta. I do think the habit of suppressing them can develop but this seems different to me from neutralizing or rendering uninfluential (except that the habit of suppressing may prevent thought from leading to speech or speech leading to action). This is, I think, why dormant dispositions are so resilient--because moments of profound insight are so rare. Thanks for helping to sort through this. mike 22605 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Tilakkhana as Negations Hi, Victor - In a message dated 6/2/03 7:24:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The Buddha taught that form is impermanent, dukkha, not self, > feeling..., perception..., formations..., consciousness is > impermanent, dukkha, not self, that eye is impermanent, dukkha, not > self, ear..., nose..., tongue..., body..., mind is impermanent, > dukkha, not self. Every conditioned/fabricated/formed is > impermanent, dukkha, not self. What the Buddha stated is not the > same as stating that nothing in this world remains, nor satisfies, > nor is personal. I don't see what you stated as an expression of > insight into the conditioned/fabricated/formed. I see it as a twist > to what the Buddha taught. > > Your comment is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > ============================== I really don't get what you are talking about, Victor. The elements of the five khandhas are exactly what there is "in the world". They constitute "the all". Moreover, what is impermanent does not remain, what is dukkha does not satisfy, and what is not self is impersonal. Please do not attempt to teach me language use, and please do not accuse me of "twisting" what the Buddha taught. I don't appreciate rudeness. You've acted this way to me before. I let it go. Now you are doing it again. It is at best tiresome. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22606 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:19am Subject: Another "Twister" of the Buddha's Teaching Hi Victor and all - The following is the beginning of the definition of 'anatta' from Nyanatiloka's dictionary (copied from ATI). The setting off of words and phrases by double slashes is made by me for emphasis: > anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, //impersonality\\, is the last of > the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá > doctrine teaches that //neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of > existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could > be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding > substance\\. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding > which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. //It is the only > really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the > Buddhist teaching stands or falls.\\ All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, > more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the > anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, > wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of > //Impersonality\\'. Whosoever has not penetrated this //impersonality of all existence\\, and > does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually > self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and > that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not > be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths ( > sacca, q.v.), in the right light. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22607 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:32pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Ken H, I believe that the Buddha's approach of using a mixture of conventional and absolute terms to be extremely important. When the Buddha was in His "analysis mode", He used absolute terms. When the Buddha was in His "exhorting mode", He used conventional terms. Why did I volunteer to teach an Abhidhamma class each Sunday morning? I must admit that there was some conceit (mana) involved; "I can do a good job". Yes, there was a love of the Dhamma, a desire to study the Dhamma and the knowledge that it was a kusala thing to study and teach the Dhamma, but there was also an element of mana. Why do I work so hard researching for each week's lecture and why do I work so hard preparing lecture notes? I must admit there there is some dosa (fear) involved; "I am afraid of making a fool of myself if I am not prepared". Yes, there is a love of the Dhamma, a desire to study the Dhamma and the desire to avoid spreading wrong view, but there was also an element of dosa. I am convinced through my own experience that akusala (mana, dosa and yes, "self-view") can be a strong condition for support of kusala. I quote Visuddhi Magga XVII 102: "Herein, for those of merit ignorance is a condition in two ways: it is a condition in two ways, namely, as object condition and as support condition. ... But it is a condition, as decisive support condition, in two cases, that is to say, [for the sense-sphere formation] in one who, for the purpose of surmounting ignorance, fulfils the various instances of sense-sphere merit-making consisting in giving, etc...." From the Bhumija Sutta (MN126), it is clear that good results come from proper practice, not good intentions. Does it make any difference if "proper practice" happened to be partially motivated (i.e. "decisive support condition") by akusala? I don't think so. My favourite "Dhamma the Cat" cartoon (http://www.dharmathecat.com/) is #49 (The Discourse): Bodhi the monk is at the chalkboard. He says, "The first thing we'll discuss is getting beyond words and concepts." Then Bodhi thinks, "Gee, where do I go from here?" The commentary to this cartoon is "Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." Back to the Buddha and His "analysis mode" and His "exhorting mode". It is easy to read "self-view" (a concept of a self who can change things) into the Buddha's exhorting mode. When in the "exhorting mode", I don't think that the Buddha was concerned about propogating a wrong view of self who can change things. When the monks followed the Buddha's exhortations and went to meditate, the monks would recognize the Dhamma through direct experience. If progress only comes from proper practice, why did the Buddha also use "analysis mode"? We can stimulate ourselves intellectually for hours, analyzing passages on anatta but this will not give us the "bright faith", the understanding that comes from experience. To use an analogy, I see analysis as "fertilizing the soil" - it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for "bright faith" to arise. The understanding of self-view will not arise until the stage of Sotapanna is reached, but I can "fertilize the soil" now while still a worldling. In summary, I strongly support the use of conventional language in exhortation mode to motivate worldlings such as Christine and myself. Some may reject this approach because "it implies a self who can change things". I disagree. I also strongly support the analysis of anatta (and other aspects of the Dhamma) as this activity "fertilizes the soil", facilitating and supporting the arising of direct understanding (bright faith) when other conditions support it. Others may see it differently (perhaps because they have different accumulations) but this approach seems right for me. I also believe that my approach is not against the Buddha's teachings and I believe that my approach is aligned with the Buddha's example. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi RobM, > > > The Buddha very often gave exhortations using > > conventional terms: > > - "Strive on with diligence" > > - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind" > ------- > > I realise that your advice to Christine was meant to be > read in the light of anatta. It goes without saying that > you would never suggest there is a self who can 'try to > overcome akusala tendencies.' > > What I am not clear about is the particular significance > you see in the Buddha's use of conventional terminology. > > Are you suggesting that a conventional approach to > 'striving with diligence' can have some efficacy in > attaining the Eight-fold Path? > > That question is not meant to be patronising or > rhetorical -- there are dsg members who believe exactly > that. Some say that worldlings should not concern > themselves with anatta; it will become clear when the > final goal is reached. > > On the other hand, there are members who remind us that > 'striving with diligence' refers purely to cetasikas -- > because in the Buddha's explanation of reality, there are > only namas and rupas. > > Dare I suggest that your advice to Christine betrayed a > slight 'slipping back' into conventional ways? Were you > not momentarily forgetting that Christine, just > like 'chariot,' 'living being' was a mere designation? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 22608 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, You asked, "Why would you like concepts to be realities?" L: For Kamma. Kamma is a concept. "Middle Way" is a concept. Four Noble Truths are concepts. Larry 22609 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: Another "Twister" of the Buddha's Teaching --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi Howard, Hmmm...that does sound pretty twisted...;-). Metta, James 22610 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 7:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, Another thought. You wrote, "Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but the concepts it takes as object are not realities." L: As I argued a couple of days ago in the thread on bananas and grammar objects are not experience. So consciousness of yellow and consciousness of concept are the same in that yellow IS consciousness and concept IS consciousness. The same goes for views. Larry 22611 From: Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Mike, I agree with everything you wrote except I haven't noticed you have a propensity for anger. I would say latent tendencies is a sub-group of accumulations, accumulations including wholesome and unwholesome accumulated intentions and latent tendencies being core unwholesome accumlated intentions. Unlike kamma result these can be somewhat manipulated by suppressing the unwholesome and cultivating the wholesome. But of course the cultivation or indulgence of accumulations affects what one's kamma results will be. Larry 22612 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry and Sarah, Please excuse my butting in, maybe I can learn something here: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Sarah, > > You asked, "Why would you like concepts to be realities?" > > L: For Kamma. Kamma is a concept. Larry, as I understand it (badly probably) kamma is not a concept. It is cetanaa cetasika and can be known by insight. > "Middle Way" is a concept. If I have this right (always a long shot), the middle path is not a concept--it is vipassanaa (though, of course, there is the idea of the middle path (and of vipassanaa), which is a concept). > Four Noble Truths are concepts. As I see it again, the truths are paramattha dhammas (dukkha, the origin of dukkha (ta.nhaa), the cessation of dukkha (nibbaana) and the path factors. The concepts of these are very profound by conceptual standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). Hope you'll excuse the intrusion and look forward to corrections. mike Weight Age Gender Female Male 22613 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Howard, You wrote to Jon: ---------- But > I do not believe that when the Buddha taught about the impermanence of the > body or about how one loses what (and whom) one loves, that he was "really" > referring to rupas etc. There is, of course, no doubt that the Buddha knew what the > reality of things was, but, from my perspective, he was teaching his bhikkhu > and lay followers exactly as he wanted them to understand and as was suitable > for them to understand at their stage. ---------------- Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that person's entire perspective on the world. That was because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. Would he have told a beggar that food and clothing were impermanent and therefore not worth having? Would he have told a miser that gold and diamonds shouldn't be clung to because, being subject to nuclear decay, they will only last a few trillion years? Not at all. In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object has been in existance for a while and will continue so, for a while longer. We all know that the human body is subject to death and decay but we refer to it as permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) We don't need anyone to point out that body and honeypot are not going to be around for all eternity and that therefore, we shouldn't be calling them permanent. That would be pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 22614 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 10:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" <> > Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower > that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that > person's entire perspective on the world. That was > because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt > very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human > body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were > impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. > > > In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object > has been in existance for a while and will continue so, > for a while longer. We all know that the human body is > subject to death and decay but we refer to it as > permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) > >_________ Dear Ken, I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once he conjured a form of a beutiful woman and then let it decay in front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence.\ Also he pointed out that even the mountains will decay - what to speak of other things. And he told a God in the arupa Brahma realm that one day he will die from that realm. I think the problem these days - as you are pointing out - is that someone might think that understanding these obvious signs of change (that no one ever doubts) means that one understands the deeper meaning of anicca. RobertK 22615 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection Hi James, S: You were quite right to point out that my comments about the extract were not very clear and actually sent hastily as an after-thought to my other post to Jeff. In the discussions with him, we seem to have half a dozen threads on the go in each post, one of which is the role of thinking/direct knowledge/ hearing and considering the details. Of course you haven’t spoken out of turn and you’ve done me a favour by encouraging me to check the texts more carefully and consider your comments. In the passage I quoted from Way 95: ***** >>Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment >>2. Investigation of Mental Objects ***** S: The second bojjhanga (enlightenment factor) is discussed in the extract. It is dhamma-vicaya (enlightenment factor of investigation of Dhamma). This is the same as pa~n~naa cetasika (right understanding), which is why I mentioned it is ‘direct knowledge conditioned by wise considering and the development of satipatthana’. We read about these same bhojjhangas in various suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Sabbaasava Sutta (MN2). In the Visuddhimagga, XV1,86 we read: “right view (sammaa di.t.thi) includes the fourth road to power consisting in inquiry, the understanding faculty, the understanding power, and the ivestigation-of-states enlightenment factor .” ..... --- buddhatrue wrote: >> > Actually, I see this excerpt as defining Right Reflection as wise > considering of those factors which are the conditions for the > enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects; as such, > it is in fact `thinking' about such and doesn't require `direct > knowledge' of those mental objects..... ..... S: I think perhaps the terms ‘reflection’ and ‘investigation’ may be somewhat misleading although I agree with all your comments about the value of wise considering and so on as essential conditions. Here it is ‘associated with knowledge’ and ‘perceiving, according to actuality’. In fact, I believe that for panna (and the other factors) to be a bojjhanga, we are talking about highly developed wisdom, developed to a degree that it can realize the 4 noble truths. Perhaps it’s also relevant that this section comes at the end of the Satipatthana Sutta. ***** S: In your ‘Conditioned Reality’ post you also brought up some interesting comments about the universality of conditioned reality. You wondered about the ‘perception of reality’ as a determining factor of reality and how this fits in with the Teachings. I know Rob M replied but just to add a couple more points while we’re talking here - As we know, our outlooks on life, include our belief systems, do of course have a profound effect. However, I think the ‘truths’ remain as truths regardless of any wishing or varying outlooks. In other words, regardless of contrary views, there remain the six worlds of realities and these actual phenomena are still inherently unsatisfactory, impermanent and not-self. Ignorance and craving continue to be causes of suffering and samsara will continue on whilst there are these causes. I think that by developing awareness and wisdom, confidence grows and there are fewer conditions to consider the possibilities of ‘soul’ and other contrary concepts which can only be ‘imagined’. I hope I haven’t missed your point. I’d be glad to hear any further reflections you have. With metta, Sarah ====== 22616 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, Mike’s helped me by replying to your first thought. Now the second one: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Another thought. You wrote, "Wrong (conceptual) view is a reality, but > the concepts it takes as object are not realities." > > L: As I argued a couple of days ago in the thread on bananas and grammar > objects are not experience. So consciousness of yellow and consciousness > of concept are the same in that yellow IS consciousness and concept IS > consciousness. The same goes for views. ..... I fear we may be going round in a circle here - Simply as I understand, citta (consciousness) experiences or is the experiencing of an object at every instant. It may be a reality that is experienced (a nama or rupa), but very often it is a concept such as ‘bananas and grammar’ or ‘yellow’. Regardless of whether the concepts are ‘right’ conventionally or not, they are never the same as the consciousness and thinking which experience them. They are at that moment the object. Wrong view (di.t.thi) is a mental factor which accompanies some kinds of consciousness rooted in attachment. The cittas and ditthi have characteristics which can be directly known. The concepts, such as ‘bananas and grammar’ can only ever be imagined or thought about. Incidentally, if one mistakenly took an apple thinking it was a banana or thought bananas grew in Greenland, these would not be aspects of di.t.thi. When we think consciousness and concepts are equivalent or have any other distorted view of realities, then ditthi comes into play....;-( Metta, Sarah ======= 22617 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Additions to Photo Albums Hi Andrew, I was glad to hear from you and to get your update on the Cooran discussions. --- Andrew wrote: > > A: Smokey is firmly of the view that there is no "I" to go on a diet > and it is therefore not on "his" agenda. Besides, as he often says to > Christine "I think my karma just ran over your dogma!" .... Sounds like Smokey has an answer for everything;-) (Perplexed new members can take a look in the photo album) .... > A:....I also > related my story of attending a Palm Sunday protest many years ago as > part of a Buddhist group..... Then again, just staying at home furnishes ample scope for > creating akusala too. ..... I think these are good examples of how the unwholesome states will sooner or later find an object regardless of the ‘situation’. They have an uncanny knack of following us around and just waiting for an oppotunity;-( moments of letting down the guard or of any akusala are an opportunity to see the accumulations for what they are. ..... >Perhaps what we need > is just to understand the present moment, what is paramattha dhamma > and what isn't, and conditions will produce whatever result they do - > be it marching or not marching. ..... Just so.... no need to set any rule about what is right and wrong in this regard. The past march or party has gone and so have any past moments of sense door activity and skilful and unskilful acts. Rather than cling or continue to proliferate on their account, there is the present moment to be known. ..... I fully intend to keep up my > membership and support for environmental groups and would not be > surprised if I go on another march sometime but I seem to get less > "worked up" over conceptual debate. ..... I think you’re making very good points here. No need to NOT go on the march or not take an interest/involvement, but just as you say, with more understanding of paramattha dhammas, less inclination or importance is put on such debates and getting “worked up” is pretty useless....It doesn’t mean one doesn’t have views and positions, but I think when we understand the basis and truth, we can understand it’s just the same for the other side too. Life is so very short. ...... Please keep sharing your reflections, Andrew. I always like hearing your comments and gentle humour. With metta, Sarah ======== 22618 From: sinweiy Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:17am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Am new here, do excuse me. :) Although words can be quite difficult to explain the Ultimate Realities. But logically speaking, Truth itself be it Conventional or Ultimate is Permanent. No? :) But thus i heard(read), there are 3 ultimate permanencies. They are Concepts (ignorant mind), Nirvana (pure mind) and Infinite Space/time (emptiness). But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara and Nirvana are but One. It's said the Buddha have/has no form. And there's why from no form, it can manifest all form. To us, getting to that stage can be a long time. But to a Buddha, time is but a blink of an eye. There's why Buddha taught us emptiness. Buddha had vowed to liberate all sentient beings, but there are but infinite beings, how can it be done. By become the Truth. And Buddha is Truth itself, thus it's said that the Buddha is omniscience. Awaken to Knowing is Permanent. Not knowing and ignorance is Impermanent. Still seeking for the real meaning of Emptiness. Thanks, sinweiy -Amituofo- > >_________ > Dear Ken, > I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of > all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit > about body and so on. > Once he conjured a form of a beutiful woman and then let it decay in > front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go > deeper to ultimate impermanence.\ > Also he pointed out that even the mountains will decay - what to > speak of other things. And he told a God in the arupa Brahma realm > that one day he will die from that realm. > I think the problem these days - as you are pointing out - is that > someone might think that understanding these obvious signs of change > (that no one ever doubts) means that one understands the deeper > meaning of anicca. > RobertK 22619 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Mike, I can see you struggling with this topic but, being well out of my depth, am unable to help. While you are at it, can you explain to me, why the jhana meditator who is born into the fine immaterial sphere, is doomed to be reborn [however many aeons later] in hell? I only seem to remember that it has something to do with his using up all his kusala kamma leaving only his akusala kamma in tact.(?) Thanks in advance, Ken 22620 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 2:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > S: In your `Conditioned Reality' post you also brought up some interesting > comments about the universality of conditioned reality. You wondered about > the `perception of reality' as a determining factor of reality and how > this fits in with the Teachings. I know Rob M replied but just to add a > couple more points while we're talking here - > > As we know, our outlooks on life, include our belief systems, do of course > have a profound effect. However, I think the `truths' remain as truths > regardless of any wishing or varying outlooks. In other words, regardless > of contrary views, there remain the six worlds of realities and these > actual phenomena are still inherently unsatisfactory, impermanent and > not-self. Ignorance and craving continue to be causes of suffering and > samsara will continue on whilst there are these causes. I think that by > developing awareness and wisdom, confidence grows and there are fewer > conditions to consider the possibilities of `soul' and other contrary > concepts which can only be `imagined'. I hope I haven't missed your point. > > I'd be glad to hear any further reflections you have. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ====== Hi Sarah, You are mixing truth with pure conjecture. The Buddha only taught the Four Noble Truths, which, of course, I believe, regardless of the reality. But he did not describe, in detail, all reality. I happen to believe that there is life on other planets in the universe; actually, it would be mindboggling if there wasn't. The Lord Buddha (and I will continue to call him that...even if LAYMAN Jeff disapproves;-) did not talk about or describe such life. Why? The Buddha actually knew and described that the universe expands and contracts**, over and over again, why wouldn't he describe life on other planets? I'm sorry Sarah, but I don't believe he described everything as neat and tidy as you would like to believe. We do create our own reality...and matter doesn't really matter. Metta, James **I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn036.html 22621 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Ken - In a message dated 6/3/03 12:08:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hello Howard, > > You wrote to Jon: > ---------- > But > >I do not believe that when the Buddha taught about the impermanence > of the > >body or about how one loses what (and whom) one loves, that he > was "really" > >referring to rupas etc. There is, of course, no doubt that the > Buddha knew what the > >reality of things was, but, from my perspective, he was teaching > his bhikkhu > >and lay followers exactly as he wanted them to understand and as > was suitable > >for them to understand at their stage. > ---------------- > > Whenever the Buddha taught a bhikkhu or a lay follower > that mind and body were impermanent, he changed that > person's entire perspective on the world. That was > because he was teaching ultimate reality. I doubt > very much, he ever told anyone that concepts - human > body, family members, chariot, honeypot, etc. -- were > impermanent in the ordinary sense of the word. > > Would he have told a beggar that food and clothing were > impermanent and therefore not worth having? Would he > have told a miser that gold and diamonds shouldn't be > clung to because, being subject to nuclear decay, they > will only last a few trillion years? Not at all. > > In ordinary, daily usage, 'permanent' means that an object > has been in existance for a while and will continue so, > for a while longer. We all know that the human body is > subject to death and decay but we refer to it as > permanent. (After all, it does last a life-time.) > > We don't need anyone to point out that body and honeypot > are not going to be around for all eternity and that > therefore, we shouldn't be calling them permanent. That > would be pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit > sagacious. :-) > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================= Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious" (all taken from ATI): ********************************** > "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is > dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are > dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is > dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five > clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > >> -- SN LVI.11 > **************************************** "And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth ..." **************************************** "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death ..." **************************************** The Buddha frequently, and non-fatuously ;-), pointed out the impermanence, unsatisfctoriness, and non-self character of (especially) beloved conventional objects to laypersons and venerables alike. It is not uncommon among worldlings, as greedy and confused as we are, to ignore the obvious facts of change, decay, loss and death, and constant reminders of these is very important. This is one reason, for example, for the cemetary meditations. Certainly, conventional grasping of conventional change of conventional objects is *far* from liberating wisdom. I am well aware of that. What is needed is the direct seeing of impermanence and conditionality, at the microscopic level of paramattha dhammas, for transformative disenchantment to set in. But everything has its place, and the clear understanding and recollection of change, decay, loss,and death at the conventional level is not a minor matter, and is far from something that was given short shrift by the Buddha. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22622 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Mike, > > I can see you struggling with this topic but, being well out of my depth, am unable > to help. Thanks for trying, just the same... > While you are at it, can you explain to me, why the jhana meditator who is born into > the fine immaterial sphere, is doomed to be reborn [however many aeons later] in > hell? I think this refers to a specific yogi (not all)? Text reference? > I only seem to remember that it has something to do with his using up all his kusala > kamma leaving only his akusala kamma in tact.(?) This sounds familiar and I remember the Buddha making similar explanations in reference to individuals in the suttas--that is, that after their accumulated kusala kamma was exhausted they were reborn in various other realms. By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, yakkhas, asuras, brahmas, talking animals, minced-and-reconstituted arahats flying through the air etc., except as metaphors, myths, parables, fables and so on referring to characteristics of a moment of experience (that is to say that I don't think they have physical existence in the same sense or to the same extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does). Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my accumulations'. Of course I'm probably quite wrong about all this, but who can choose what he believes? And my confidence in (momentary) kamma and rebirth, paticcasamuppaada and the Four Noble Truths is quite implicit (in the sense of 'being without doubt or reserve') --that is, I think that all of the above work perfectly with regard to momentary phenomena (with certain exceptions such as cuti- and pa.tisandhi-citta) and that they are no less 'true' for this different, less literal interpretation. I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone else should adopt these peculiar views or arguing in favor of them--just stating them in the interest of honest discussion. I realize these comments may seem controversial and apologize in advance for any offense given--none is intended. I have at least one (erstwhile?) friend who says he has no trouble believing literally in all the above, and who has vastly greater knowledge of the tipi.taka than I have. If my views are all wrong, maybe this correspondence will help to correct them in the future. > Thanks in advance, > Ken Back at you, Ken, mike 22623 From: m. nease Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hi Mike, > > I agree with everything you wrote except I haven't noticed you have a > propensity for anger. Well--try to keep it under control on dsg, mainly for vanity's sake I think--maybe a little bona fide hiri and ottaapaa in there, but I'm sceptical... > I would say latent tendencies is a sub-group of > accumulations, accumulations including wholesome and unwholesome > accumulated intentions I like this... > and latent tendencies being core unwholesome > accumlated intentions. Really--no wholesome latent tendencies (or dormant dispositions)? Interesting--I'd like to hear more. > Unlike kamma result these can be somewhat > manipulated by suppressing the unwholesome and cultivating the > wholesome. But of course the cultivation or indulgence of accumulations > affects what one's kamma results will be. Yes, especially to the extent that accumulated tendencies lead to kamma-patha (whether kusala or akusala). Parenthetically, I'm glad you used the word 'indulgence' because it reminded me of an interesting passage I just ran across in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: manopavicaara 'mental indulging'. There are mentioned 18 ways of indulging: 6 in gladness (somanassuupavicaara), 6 in sorrow (domanassa), 6 in indifference (upekkhaa). "Perceiving with the eye a visible form ... hearing with the ear a sound ... being in mind conscious of an object, one indulges in the joy-producing object, the sorrow-producing object, the indifference-producing object... " (M. 137; A. III, 61). - In the Com. to A., upavicaara is said to be identical with vitakka-vicaara (q.v.). http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/manopavicaara.htm Just found this interesting... mike 22624 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Way 97, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects continued If however the controlling faculty of energy becomes too powerful then neither will the faculty of faith be able to do its work of arousing faith in a settled way in its object nor will the remaining controlling faculties be able to perform their functions. Therefore, in such a case, energy should be made to lessen its activity by the development of the enlightenment factors of calm, concentration and equanimity. The story of the Thera Sona[35] is given as an illustration of overdone energy. [Tika] The story of the Thera Sona. This refers to Sona Thera who was of delicate constitution. After getting a subject of meditation from the Master he was living in Cool Wood, and he thought thus: "My body is delicate and it is not possible to reach happiness with comfort only. Even after being exhausted, the duty of the recluse should be done." Thereupon, he decided, while giving himself up to exertion, to keep to only the two postures of standing and walking. Owing to excessive walking blisters appeared on the soles of his feet and caused him great pain. He continued to make strong effort in spite of the pain but could not produce a state of distinction in meditation with his excessive energy. [T] The Master visited Sona, instructed him with the simile of the lute, corrected the Thera's subject of meditation showing him the method of applying energy evenly and went to Vulture Peak. Having applied energy evenly according to the method given by the Master, and after working hard for insight, the Thera, developing the practice, established himself in Arahantship. Even thus should the incapacity of the rest of the spiritual faculties to function effectively when one of them has become over-active and powerful, be understood. Here, the wise specially praise the equalizing of faith and wisdom and of concentration and energy. He who is very strong in faith and feeble in wisdom becomes a person who believes in foolish people who have no virtue, persons who are not trustworthy. He who has very strong wisdom and feeble faith gets crafty-minded and is like a drug-produced disease that cannot be cured. Such a person thinks that wholesome karma arises with just the intention to do good. Going along the wrong way, by a species of thought beyond the limits of reason, and doing neither almsgiving nor other similar good deeds, he is born in a state of woe. By the equalizing of faith and wisdom one believes only in those like the Buddha who are worthy of trust because there is a reason for trusting them. As concentration naturally inclines towards indolence, when there is too much of concentration and too little of energy, indolence overwhelms the mind. As energy inclines naturally towards restlessness or agitation when there is much energy and little concentration, restlessness overwhelms the mind. When concentration is combined well with energy there will be no falling of the mind into indolence. When energy is combined well with concentration there will be no falling of the mind into restlessness. [T] Discord of faith and wisdom and discord of concentration and energy through functional unevenness are not conducive to success in meditation. Faith and wisdom should be made functionally even and harmonious. So, too, concentration and energy. With the making even functionally of these pairs full absorption occurs. Further, to a worker in concentration -- a man pursuing the path of quietude [samatha] -- faith that is somewhat strong is met. With faith that is (rather) strong, the yogi will, by believing in and fixing the mind on the object, reach full absorption. [T] If for instance the yogi is meditating on the element of earth he will not think thus: "How can absorption arise by the repetition of the word earth?" He will think that the method of meditation taught by the Supreme Buddha will surely succeed, and he will settle in, and leap on to the object by way of firm belief, having, as it were, forced his way into it. 35. Vinaya Mahavagga Cammakkhandhaka and Anguttara Nikaya iii; pages 374-5, P.T.S. Edition. 22625 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 97, Mental Objects Hi, Larry (and others - like Jon for instance ;-)) I perked up at the following two items, the first from near the beginning of the article, and the second from near the end. In each case, the thoughts went through my mind "Uh, oh - that sure sounds like recommending the exercising of volition! It sure sounds prescriptive, not descriptive! ;-)) ********************************** "Therefore, in such a case, energy should be made to lessen its activity by the development of the enlightenment factors of calm, concentration and equanimity." and "Faith and wisdom should be made functionally even and harmonious. So, too, concentration and energy. With the making even functionally of these pairs full absorption occurs." =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22626 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Dear Howard and Robert K, Howard wrote: ----------- > Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit sagacious" (all taken from ATI): > ------------- Thank you Howard. My fatuous words have backfired on me. I withdraw them. Still with egg on my face, let me make another suggestion -- close to my previous one but with an important difference, hopefully: You have quoted the following: ---------------- > "Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, ------------- Whenever those self-evident events of daily life occur, that is when namas and rupas are arising and falling away. Ultimate reality is not something separate from daily life, there is ONLY ultimate reality -- there are ONLY dhammas -- all else is illusory. Ultimate reality is profound, directly knowable to the extremely wise; however, we should not take this to mean that right understanding cannot arise here and now. When there are concepts of bodies -- emerging, aging, dying -- THEN there are rupas to be known as they truly are. Robert wrote: ------------- > I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general impermanence of all things as a initial step to help those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it decay in front of a queen so that she could have that reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > ------------- Point taken, thank you very much. Changing the subject just slightly: Something has happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You never know when it's going to happen, do you? These things can happen to any of us, at any time!" I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. Kind regards, Ken 22627 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > > Kind regards, > Ken Ken, If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. It doesn't take into account the law of karma where people have some control over their destinies. If life was so haphazard and brutal, there would be no point to Buddhism, there would be no hope. Frankly, I am not sure how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is haphazard for everyone else but you…you are going to somehow escape and be okay?? The Buddha didn't teach this philosophy, it sounds a bit like Ayn Rand's objectivism. Metta, James 22628 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, Concerning kamma as concept, I would say kamma is a conditional relation and conditional relations are neither rupa, citta, cetasika, nor nibbana. However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. By "middle way" what I had in mind was the middle way between extreme views of kamma (eternalism and nihilism}. This all seems pretty conceptual to me. We could also consider it to be the middle way between worldly desires and extreme asceticism. I don't see how one could go this "way" without concepts. Isn't a "way" a concept? As for the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how a "truth" could be anything other than a concept. You wrote: M: The concepts of these [4 NT] are very profound by conceptual standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). L: Why not? Didn't Sariputta have a path insight as a result of hearing the dhamma (certainly words and concepts)? Also, isn't freeing oneself from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what they are, isn't that itself an exercise in conceptuality? [just thought I would throw this last point in because I was thinking about it today] Larry 22629 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > >_______ Dear ken, I think it all depends. I always say things like that to my mother. Just last night she said something about how she might live to ninety and I replied "No, you're on your way out already". She laughed. I think it is helpful to be open about death even with non-buddhists as otherwise it remains a taboo subject. A step in helping anyone to live examined lives (as Christine says) is to get them to face that they may die this very day. So I think even accepting death conceptually lifts so much fear. Then there is more room to investigate the present moment and learn that actually death is happening right now. BTW your question about arupa brahmas dieing from there and going to hell. No, I think arupa Brahmas cannot go to the lower realms in the next life. Only in subsequent lives. RobertK 22630 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:52pm Subject: death Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Dear Ken, While we're on the subject of death I thought I'd add some more. It is one of the meditations recommended for laypeople (as well as monks) suitable for all times. Samyutta i 108 "The life of Humankind is short, a wise man holds it in contempt, ...death will never fail to come." Visuddhimagga "in the ultimate sense the life moment of beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurence of one single conscious moment.. When that consciousness has ceased the being is said to have ceased"VIII39 It is unpredicatble how one will die: "The span, sickness, time, place, the body will be laid, the living world can never know these things. there is no sign fortells when they will be"Vis. Viii29 Anguttara nikaya iii306 " here bhikkhus a Bhikkhu considers thus: 'In many ways I risk death. A snake may bite me, or a scopion sting.. I might die of that. Or I might fall..Or food I have eaten might disagree....." A very calming subject of meditation- and that supports investigation of the moment. Robertk 22631 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sarah, You wrote: I fear we may be going round in a circle here - Simply as I understand, citta (consciousness) experiences or is the experiencing of an object at every instant. It may be a reality that is experienced (a nama or rupa), but very often it is a concept such as 'bananas and grammar' or 'yellow'. Regardless of whether the concepts are 'right' conventionally or not, they are never the same as the consciousness and thinking which experience them. They are at that moment the object. L: I disagree. Experience is only consciousness. There are no objects "in" experience which are other than consciousness. The experience of the object of eye consciousness is consciousness. Likewise, the experience of a concept is consciousness. Light is consciousness, hardness is consciousness, taste is consciousness, Sarah is consciousness. That was my only point. I don't know what it means. But whatever it means, the meaning will be a concept and we will experience it as consciousness. Larry 22632 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 97, Mental Objects Hi Howard, I agree. In fact I think this commentary has been prescriptive throughout and awash in concepts. However, the likelihood of anyone changing his or her mind seems pretty slim. Larry ---------------- Howard wrote: Hi, Larry (and others - like Jon for instance ;-)) I perked up at the following two items, the first from near the beginning of the article, and the second from near the end. In each case, the thoughts went through my mind "Uh, oh - that sure sounds like recommending the exercising of volition! It sure sounds prescriptive, not descriptive! ;-)) 22633 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 6/3/03 7:52:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Dear Howard and Robert K, > > Howard wrote: > ----------- > >Then, it follows that here are examples of the Buddha > being "pedantic and fatuous -- not in the least bit > sagacious" (all taken from ATI): > > ------------- > > Thank you Howard. My fatuous words have backfired on me. > I withdraw them. > > Still with egg on my face, let me make another suggestion > -- close to my previous one but with an important > difference, hopefully: > > You have quoted the following: > ---------------- > >"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, > decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, > weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that > group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing > away, > ------------- > > Whenever those self-evident events of daily life occur, > that is when namas and rupas are arising and falling > away. Ultimate reality is not something separate from > daily life, there is ONLY ultimate reality -- there are > ONLY dhammas -- all else is illusory. > > Ultimate reality is profound, directly knowable to the > extremely wise; however, we should not take this to mean > that right understanding cannot arise here and now. > When there are concepts of bodies -- emerging, aging, > dying -- THEN there are rupas to be known as they truly > are. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with you completely, Ken, and I think that what you have said here is very well said! ------------------------------------------------------- > > Robert wrote: > ------------- > >I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general > impermanence of all things as a initial step to help > those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once > he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it > decay in front of a queen so that she could have that > reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > > ------------- > > Point taken, thank you very much. > > Changing the subject just slightly: Something has > happened to make me stop telling non-Buddhists that life > is short and brutal. Rightly or wrongly, I have come to > the conclusion that it doesn't help them. When casual > conversations come around to tragedies that have befallen > neighbours or people on the news, I no longer say; "You > never know when it's going to happen, do you? These > things can happen to any of us, at any time!" > > I have noticed that such comments cause an involuntary > look of dismay on non-Buddhist faces (indicating akusala > reactions). My conclusion is that only a person who > understands the theory of paramattha dhammas can react to > those dreadful concepts with calm and confidence. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: And often even Buddhists who have heard the dhamma theory and have heard of the tilakkhana, and understand all of these, and believe all of these, still cannot stand hearing of loss, let alone experiencing it. Intellectual knowledge goes only so far. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22634 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 3:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/3/03 8:58:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > L: I disagree. Experience is only consciousness. There are no objects > "in" experience which are other than consciousness. The experience of > the object of eye consciousness is consciousness. Likewise, the > experience of a concept is consciousness. Light is consciousness, > hardness is consciousness, taste is consciousness, Sarah is > consciousness. That was my only point. I don't know what it means. But > whatever it means, the meaning will be a concept and we will experience > it as consciousness. > > ============================= This is a yogacara/vijnanavada view. But it is not the phenomenalism of Asanga and Vasubandhu, who founded that school. It is closer to the (substantialist, I think) idealism of the Lankavatara Sutra. It is true that what consciousness discerns does not lie in a presumed external world (a world which may or may not exist, but is, in principle, unknowable). But it is not quite correct, as I see it, to say that subject and object are the same - both just consciousness. This gives the picture of a consciousness-substance producing objects out of its own substance, rather like the God of the Kabbalists who withdrew part of his own substance within which he created the world. There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound co-occur, but are not the same. I do agree that there seems to be an "experiential space" within which cognitive events occur. Whether that is a reality or not, I cannot say. But if it is a reality, it wouldn't be correct, I think, to call it consciousness. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22635 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 7:47pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Rob M, I am very fortunate to have you and other Abhidhamma teachers so close at hand. Studying it on my own would be next to impossible. Some of the your explanations in this post, did not sink in. They prompted me to do some reading on decisive support condition (upanissaya-paccaya): The result: mental blank :-) What helps me more than anything else, is to be continually reminded of; the present moment, nama and rupa, and anatta. My gratitude for these reminders, makes me only too keen to do the same for others. At some of our local discussion meetings, one good friend of mine has been known to storm out of the room! In my opinion, for what it's worth, the best thing you can do as an Abhidhamma teacher is to impress anatta on your students at every opportunity. What use is a knowledge of the Dhamma if there is the belief in a self who has it? Even more insidious: What use is a 'practice' of the Dhamma if there is a belief in a self who is practising? You write: ------------- > From the Bhumija Sutta (MN126), it is clear that good results come from proper practice, not good intentions. Does it make any difference if "proper practice" happened to be partially motivated (i.e. "decisive support condition") by akusala? I don't think so. > -------------- and later: -------------- > When in the "exhorting mode", I don't think that the Buddha was concerned about propogating a wrong view of self who can change things. When the monks followed the Buddha's exhortations and went to meditate, the monks would recognize the Dhamma through direct experience. > -------------- I'm not sure what to make of the above. The time to practise is here and now -- there can be no other time [for anything]. If there are akusala motives here and now, then that's my world -- akusala. Kind regards, Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > I believe that the Buddha's approach of using a mixture of > conventional and absolute terms to be extremely important. When the > Buddha was in His "analysis mode", He used absolute terms. When the > Buddha was in His "exhorting mode", He used conventional terms. > > Why did I volunteer to teach an Abhidhamma class each Sunday > morning? I must admit that there was 22636 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:14pm Subject: Re: Precepts Dear RobM, RobK, KenH and all, Thanks for your posts - I've been thinking about them and following up the sutta refs. I smiled when KenH spoke of his friend who sometimes storms out of the room - I empathise with him.:-) The posts on the Precepts thread have given me a similar desire. :-) For me, it arises out of not being able to understand - to feel there is truth, but not to be able to form the questions to enable you all to elucidate further on what you have already told me. My major difficulty still remains in how is it possible for us to operate in this world if we have absolutely no control. I think we need limited control to be able to make choices, to regulate our lives, to have intentions. What is it that I'm not understanding? Your posts tell me that I, Christine, consist of momentarily existing namas and rupas whose thoughts, feelings and actions are the result of conditions; My understanding of 'no-control' is that my very existence, everything that has happened to me, all the thoughts that occur to me, all the emotions I feel, all the people and things that surround me and exist on this plane, are the result of complicated conditions in the past. But, is there nothing at all that can be done, decisions, plans etc. in the present moment, i.e. from this point looking forward? - even given that all is subject to previous conditions. If not, what is the point of anything? If we are just marionettes dangling on the strings of dosa, moha and lobha, why try to keep sila, why study the tipitaka, why not just helplessly do what arises. And why do we suffer the vipaka of actions that we had no control over? Or (if 'we' die in every moment) why does 'somebody else' suffer the vipaka from the actions that we had no control over? Surely to operate in the world, we must be able to make choices and plans. I seem to make present time decisions, even if my desires and decisions are heavily influenced by past experiences. And, if there is no way 'I' can do anything to make any progress on the path towards liberation why did the Buddha bother teaching and explaining. To listen to Dhamma is a choice. It doesn't just happen. If there is no-one who can create conditions, then it makes enlightenment seem an accident that happens to some and not to others. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" < 22637 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, By saying all there is in experience is consciousness I wasn't making a philosophical statement. The only implication I was interested in was that concepts have the same reality status as anything else because _as experience_ they are only consciousness and as anything other than consciousness they are not experienced and in that sense "not real". The same could be said of rupa. Cetasikas, and nibbana are seemingly forms of consciousness (right?). I think it is very reasonable to assume there are real objects that are not experienced but from the point of view of consciousness, all there is is consciousness. You wrote: H: There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound co-occur, but are not the same. L: I disagree. If there is an experienced difference between sound and awareness it is just a difference between two consciousnesses. Larry 22638 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 5:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/4/03 12:32:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > By saying all there is in experience is consciousness I wasn't making a > philosophical statement. The only implication I was interested in was > that concepts have the same reality status as anything else because _as > experience_ they are only consciousness and as anything other than > consciousness they are not experienced and in that sense "not real". The > same could be said of rupa. Cetasikas, and nibbana are seemingly forms > of consciousness (right?). I think it is very reasonable to assume there > are real objects that are not experienced but from the point of view of > consciousness, all there is is consciousness. You wrote: > > H: There is a clear distinction to be made, I believe, between the > knowing and the known. They are different in appearance and different in > kind. When they occur, they occur as opposing aspects of a single > cognitive event. They are mutually dependent, inseparable, but still > distinguishable. The awareness of bell-sound and the (heard) bell-sound > co-occur, but are not the same. > > L: I disagree. If there is an experienced difference between sound and > awareness it is just a difference between two consciousnesses. > > Larry > =========================== As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or an odor? A sound? A flavor? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22639 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi again, Larry - You might be interested in the following site: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/thinkers/vasubandhu-bio-uni.htm With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22640 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Sinweiy, Welcome to dsg. Without having a great deal of theoretical knowledge. I'd like to comment on your questions and remarks: ------------- > Truth itself be it Conventional or Ultimate is Permanent. No? > -------------- As for ultimate truth; yes, that is a profound point. Certainly the Dhamma is eternal truth. Conventional truth? No, I can't see how you can say that. Conventional truth depends on opinions, dogma, cultural differences, etc., etc; it changes all the time. -------------- > But thus i heard(read), there are 3 ultimate permanencies. They are Concepts (ignorant mind), Nirvana (pure mind) and Infinite Space/time (emptiness). But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara and Nirvana are but One. > -------------- I've seen that suggested before. I don't know where it comes from. To me, it seems entirely wrong that samsara and nirvana are one. --------------- > Buddha had vowed to liberate all sentient beings, but there are but infinite beings, how can it be done. By become the Truth. And Buddha is Truth itself, thus it's said that the Buddha is omniscience. Awaken to Knowing is Permanent. Not knowing and ignorance is Impermanent. > --------------- Yes, that's brilliant, thank you. Kind regards, Ken 22641 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello James (and Robert K), You wrote: --------------- > If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. > ------------- Quite right. If I were good and wise, I would have no trouble knowing when to speak, what to say [in order to help others] and when to remain silent. As it is, I'm likely to blurt out something I've read or something that seemed to work on a previous occasion, without really knowing what I'm doing. It's basically a 'hit and miss' affair :-) ------------- > Frankly, I am not sure how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is haphazard for everyone else but you…you are going to somehow escape and be okay?? > --------------- I think I follow you:- If I am calm in a world I believe to be tumultuous, then I must be thinking I am uniquely above it all. I didn't actually claim to be calm and confident. At any moment of right understanding there will be calm and confidence -- but then there will be no concept of toil and tumult. In the absence of such insight, I draw encouragement from my intellectual understanding of ultimate reality. What I was thinking at the time of writing, was that ordinary folk here in Australia, have never heard of ultimate reality. The only reality they know, is of self and others, people and places, peace and war, feast and famine . . . I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on this, but after reading his response, I concede that people of various persuasions can attain calm and confidence by facing up to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do it, though.) Kind regards, Ken 22642 From: Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 11:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or an odor? A sound? A flavor? 22643 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on this, but after > reading his response, I concede that people of various > persuasions can attain calm and confidence by facing up > to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do it, > though.) > > Kind regards, > Ken Ken, Yes, I agree with Robert, but let me add a bit more to what I was trying to say. Let me use an example, I saw this commercial on TV tonight, an anti-drug commercial, that has a father talking about his daughter who has died. She died after taking two Ecstasy pills, the first time she had ever taken them. The father was crying and wiping his eyes and saying, "It isn't right for a parent to outlive his children. It isn't proper." Even though most don't face death with the equanimity of a high practitioner, they accept that it does occur. But what is horrifying to people is if it occurs and it could have been prevented or it occurs as a senseless act of violence. If I was watching TV about the murder of Laci Peterson and said to my mother, "Well, you know, that could happen to you. That could happen to anyone, at any time," of course she is going to be horrified. But my parents plan openly for their deaths and we talk bout the inevitable quite often…I have been given specific instructions. I think there is a difference between keeping others mindful of death and scaring them unnecessarily with death. I am assuming that if you got horrified reactions from people, maybe it was more the later. But, given your level-headedness, maybe not. Maybe they are like Michael Jackson who says that he is never going to die. We all need a little wake-up call every now and then! ;-) Metta, James 22644 From: Andrew Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:57am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Ken, > > If I may kindly suggest, what you are telling those non-Buddhists > isn't Buddhism at all, it is pessimism. It doesn't take into account > the law of karma where people have some control over their > destinies. If life was so haphazard and brutal, there would be no > point to Buddhism, there would be no hope. Frankly, I am not sure > how you have calm and confidence if you really believe that life is > so haphazard and naturally brutal; you must believe that it is > haphazard for everyone else but you?you are going to somehow escape > and be okay?? The Buddha didn't teach this philosophy, it sounds a > bit like Ayn Rand's objectivism. > > Metta, James Hi James (and KenH) Here's a thought from Prof Hiriyanna in his "Outlines of Indian Philosophy". He says that the Dhamma IS pessimistic but "it must not be taken to be a creed of despair". That's probably a vital distinction. Personally, I have always thought of the Dhamma as uncompromisingly realistic. It is not a pessimistic story that can be brightened up, Hollywood-style, to suit the box office! You can't change the ending so that you walk away "feeling good". I know people who have walked away from Buddhism because they feel it is too pessimistic/depressing. I usually don't say anything to them but I do have thoughts that they are just not being realistic. When I was a little lad in a Catholic school, we used to sing "All things bright and beautiful .. the Lord God made them all". But if there was a flood or bushfire, all the priests and nuns would exclaim "Isn't nature cruel!" There was never any mention of the all-powerful God at those times. Well, I'm sorry, but this confused me. As we say in Australia, it was "having two bob each way", a reluctance or refusal to acknowledge the unpleasant consequences of one's accepted premises. I'll stop ranting there and humbly ask one of the Pali experts to expound on the meaning of "domanassa-manopavicara" or mental indulging in sorrow. The dictionary definition is not very fulsome and it strikes me that this teaching may help steer us away from despair. Any ideas? Metta, Andrew 22645 From: sinweiy Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:02am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Ken H, all No thankyou for you reply, i'm not that well verse either. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Conventional truth? No, I can't see how you can say that. > Conventional truth depends on opinions, dogma, cultural > differences, etc., etc; it changes all the time. > i agree that convention (without the word truth) are changing all the time and not permanent. And Yes the profound word "dependent". It all depends on ones' view. i'm a Dao/Tao practitioner and of course the Buddhadharma. As you state that convention and ultimate are 2 different views, is not that dualistic? :) Anyway from my understanding, conventions are "mould" or base on the same "law" as the Ultimate do. Convention is base on not knowing, while ultimate is base on all knowing. So one can said in terms of word, they are but 2 different descriptive of the word "Truth". But i don't want to tear them a part either, as they are only the pointing fingers, pointing towards the one moon (Truth). There's the great emptiness. Convention are still as true, but not completely true, as our minds are not complete. Like when i say that the computer in front of me is real and very true. i have no doubt because it's very near to me. But if one were to place it further away from me then i will not be that sure of the object anymore, as my "view" will be bluish. But they are the same computer object. Also (believe you heard it), if 5 Blind men were given to touch and examine an elephant. Each one will come together and tell a different story of the different parts they perceived. And yet actually they are speaking of the one elephant (ie Truth). > -------------- > But since the first two are Mind, thus it's said Samsara > and Nirvana are but One. > > -------------- > > I've seen that suggested before. I don't know where it > comes from. To me, it seems entirely wrong that samsara > and nirvana are one. > i so to speak because samsara is but a block of ice floating in the great ocean of nirvana. Both containing the same substance of the one primordial mind. i'm only follow the saying that All is One and One is All (Avatamsaka Sutra). i was told from a guru that if one is holding a dualistic, desire and attach mind, one is not reach a Bodhi mind. -Amituofo- sinweiy ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part of the great ocean.:) 22646 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Christine and all, The idea of "no-control" is not what the Buddha taught. It stems from misunderstanding and leads to confusion, to wrong effort. It is not unreasonable that you questioned the very validity of this idea of "no-control." Here is a reference to the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 20 Vitakkasanthana Sutta The Relaxation of Thoughts http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn020.html that I found relevant. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear RobM, RobK, KenH and all, [snip] > > metta and peace, > Christine 22647 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > Concerning kamma as concept, I would say kamma is a conditional relation > and conditional relations are neither rupa, citta, cetasika, nor > nibbana. I don't know what a conditional relation is (I don't mean to be obtuse)--I just think of kamma as action (mental, verbal or physical), speaking conventionally--in terms of abhidhamma, I do think of it as a cetasika, namely cetanaa, or as a condition (kamma-paccaya), also a cetasika. > However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine > of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" > and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. When you write, 'intentionality (the engine of kamma), do you mean 'intention' in the sense of 'cetanaa' (intention is the translation of cetanaa)? > By "middle way" what I had in mind was the middle way between extreme > views of kamma (eternalism and nihilism}. > This all seems pretty > conceptual to me. We could also consider it to be the middle way between > worldly desires and extreme asceticism. I see what you mean--I was thinking of the middle path in terms of paramattha-sacca, that is, a moment of the arising of the path-factors. As I see it, the concept of the path is different from the arising of the path. > I don't see how one could go > this "way" without concepts. Isn't a "way" a concept? When you say 'way' do you mean the same thing I mean when I say 'path'? If so, the concept of 'way' certainly can occur but this is different from the arising of the path factors, I think (hope I haven't misunderstood you or equivocated 'way' and 'path' incorrectly). Certainly I agree that right conventional understanding is necessary to begin to understand Buddhdhamma. I don't think it's the same thing as insight, though. In fact, as I understand it, the very difference between paramattha and other dhammas is that the former can be the bases of insight and the latter (including concepts) can't. I think this is consistent with the tipi.taka. > As for the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how a "truth" could be > anything other than a concept. You wrote: There is the conventional concept of the first truth, e.g., but the concept of dukkha is not the same as the experience of dukkha, I think. > M: The concepts of these [4 NT] are very profound by conceptual > standards but are still just concepts--they can't be the bases of > (profound) insight (as opposed to conventional, intellectual insight). > > L: Why not? Didn't Sariputta have a path insight as a result of hearing > the dhamma (certainly words and concepts)? I think most (all?) of the people who became enlightened in the tipi.taka did so after hearing (or reflecting on) the Buddhadhamma--the words and concepts came first, the insight followed, I think. > Also, isn't freeing oneself > from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what > they are, isn't that itself an exercise in conceptuality? Maybe so, but I don't think that 'freeing oneself from the bondage of concepts by recognizing them and understanding what they are' is at all the same thing as any of the stages of enlightenment--though it may be a very useful precursor. > [just thought > I would throw this last point in because I was thinking about it today] Thanks for all the throwing in, it's always worth sorting through all of this, I think. mike 22648 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/4/03 2:13:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but > I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. > > Larry > -------------------- > Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does > a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or > an odor? A sound? A flavor? > > ========================== I'm trying to grasp your meaning. It *may* be that you are speaking from a nondual perspective, one reflective of a nondual mode of awareness that transcends mine, or one reflective of a language error. I simply don't know. The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb or a noun. The "opposite" one-sided sense is 2) the content of consciousness on an occasion, so that, for example, itchiness could be an "experience" in this sense, or brightness, or love. This, I believe, would only be a noun. A third sense would be 3) the full cognitive event consisting of the knowing and the known, a single event with two distinguishable sides/aspects/poles comparable to the inside and he outside of a cup. This could be either verb or noun. A fourth sense, reflective of a fully nondual event is that of 4) a cognitive event in which there is no distinguishing whatsoever of subjective aspect from objective aspect. It is my experience that the typical mode of consciousness (in sense 3) of worldlings is an extreme of dualized awareness. In this there is the seeming of a self-existent subject relating to a separate, self-existing object. Here, both subject and object are reified, most often to the extent that the psychological subject appears as a self-existent "internal entity", and the psychological object is "projected outwards" as an "object in the world". Here, vi~n~nana is in the realm of "mind", and rupa is "matter" rather than just a "material form" content of consciousness. Now, I had an experience (once) in which this extreme of reification and splitting of subject and object was eradicated. During this, there was completely lost any sense of self. There was no longer any knower as an entity or existent. Along with this, there were no longer any "things" known. But, if attention was put it, it was still possible to be aware that there was content and knowing of that content as inseparable aspects of a single, flowing event. Now, when you say "the experience of sound is consciousness," I can't tell which of senses (1) - (4), or yet another, is being expressed. In sense (1), it is a mere truism. In sense (2), it strikes me as an odd use of language. In senses (3) and (4), it strikes me as true but with a possible substance-feel to it that is problematical, though not easily rectifiable. In any case, I cannot tell whether or not your regular mode of cognition is of type (4). I also cannot tell whether such a mode of cognition is one which sees truly, because subject-object polarity is illusion, or one which simply fails to make a valid distinction, going beyond non-reification of subject and object to a false annihilation of them. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22649 From: m. nease Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? p.s. ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:24 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > > However, I would go further and say intentionality (the engine > > of kamma) is usually conceptual because it regards an object as "other" > > and "otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit. I think of self view and conceit as very specific mental factors. I guess you could say in some philosophical sense that '"otherness" is conceptual, a corollary of self view or conceit' but I don't think this is consistent with the use of those terms in the tipi.taka. From Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary: sakkáya-ditthi 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1). http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm mána 'conceit', pride, is one of the 10 fetters binding to existence (s. samyojana). It vanishes completely only at the entrance to Arahatship, or Holiness (cf. asmi-mána). It is further one of the proclivities (s. anusaya) and defilements (s. kilesa). " The (equality-) conceit (mána), the inferiority-conceit (omána) and the superiority-conceit (atimána): this threefold conceit should be overcome. For, after overcoming this threefold conceit, the monk, through the full penetration of conceit, is said to have put an end suffering" (A. VI, 49). "Those ascetics and brahman priests who, relying on this impermanent, misera ble and transitory nature of corporeality, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness, fancy: 'Better am I', or 'Equal am I', or 'Worse am I', all these imagine thus through not understanding reality" (S. XXII, 49). In reality no ego-entity is to be found. Cf. anattá. http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/maana.htm I don't see the concept of 'otherness' to be particularly pertinent to either of these--hope I haven't misunderstood you... mike 22650 From: Michael Newton Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- buddhatrue wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "kenhowardau" > wrote: > I'm not sure if you agree with Robert on > this, but after > > reading his response, I concede that people of > various > > persuasions can attain calm and confidence by > facing up > > to their own mortality. (I'm not sure how they do > it, > > though.) > > > > Kind regards, > > Ken > > Ken, > > Yes, I agree with Robert, but let me add a bit more > to what I was > trying to say. Let me use an example, I saw this > commercial on TV > tonight, an anti-drug commercial, that has a father > talking about his > daughter who has died. She died after taking two > Ecstasy pills, the > first time she had ever taken them. The father was > crying and wiping > his eyes and saying, "It isn't right for a parent to > outlive his > children. It isn't proper." Even though most don't > face death with > the equanimity of a high practitioner, they accept > that it does > occur. But what is horrifying to people is if it > occurs and it could > have been prevented or it occurs as a senseless act > of violence. If > I was watching TV about the murder of Laci Peterson > and said to my > mother, "Well, you know, that could happen to you. > That could happen > to anyone, at any time," of course she is going to > be horrified. But > my parents plan openly for their deaths and we talk > bout the > inevitable quite often…I have been given specific > instructions. I > think there is a difference between keeping others > mindful of death > and scaring them unnecessarily with death. I am > assuming that if you > got horrified reactions from people, maybe it was > more the later. > But, given your level-headedness, maybe not. Maybe > they are like > Michael Jackson who says that he is never going to > die. We all need > a little wake-up call every now and then! ;-) > > Metta, James > > Hello!James; Your response to Ken was very well put and right on the mark.Yes,for a parent it must be hard to deal with a son or daughters death at a young age,especially in a way that might have been prevented.Haveing said this,the ultimate question,would be whether each one of us at our time of death,will put up resistance,or open up to this ultimate fact.One thing is certain,we all will die-but what is uncertain-is when that will happen.thanks,nice to hear from you again. Yours in Dhamma with Metta,Michael > 22651 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 1:40pm Subject: Audio Library - Seattle Insight Meditation Society Dear Group, Some members may be interested in this link to the Seattle Insight Meditation Society - their on-line class library is a good resource - I find it quite valuable: http://www.seattleinsight.org/onlineclasses.htm metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 22652 From: manjushri888 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:28pm Subject: Hello Hello, I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main reason I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some confirmation on the subject. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank's, Dan 22653 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Anatta Precepts > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < Dear Christine, These type of profound questions don't come out of nowhere, they come from conditions - including reflecting on profound Dhamma. --------------------------------------- For me, it arises out of not > being able to understand - to feel there is truth, but not to be able > to form the questions to enable you all to elucidate further on what > you have already told me. My major difficulty still remains in how > is it possible for us to operate in this world if we have absolutely > no control. I think we need limited control to be able to make > choices, to regulate our lives, to have intentions. What is it that Ø I'm not understanding? Ø _______________________ If it is wisdom that is developing then that will mean that life is understood much better and so operating in the world will become easier. Not us making it easier or trying to make it easier– rather simply that wisdom , a dhamma, sees things clearer. Always there are choices – and these are conditioned. Some people believe they have to decide to become enlightened or be aware. This is living in a world of concept revolving around selfview. Because of selfview there will always be movement away from the present moment, no satisfaction with what is here and now. There can be awareness while making choices, as during any moment. ----------------------------------- > > Your posts tell me that I, Christine, consist of momentarily existing > namas and rupas whose thoughts, feelings and actions are the result > of conditions; My understanding of 'no-control' is that my very > existence, everything that has happened to me, all the thoughts that > occur to me, all the emotions I feel, all the people and things that > surround me and exist on this plane, are the result of complicated conditions in the past. _________________________________ Why do you limit to past? Now there is cakkhu vinnana arising and then following mind door processes which think about what was seen. These are new conditions developing right now.____________________________________________ > But, is there nothing at all that can be > done, decisions, plans etc. in the present moment, i.e. from this > point looking forward? - even given that all is subject to previous conditions. If not, what is the point of anything? ________________ Everything can be done! Do you think the present moment disappears when one is walking or talking? ----------------------- If we are just > marionettes dangling on the strings of dosa, moha and lobha, why try > to keep sila, why study the tipitaka, why not just helplessly do what arises. ___________ Can we see that when it is `us' doing something that this is another spin of the wheel. Someone could indeed study the whole Tipitaka, and keep sila, and `believe" in anatta – and yet still miss the point. It is deepening understanding of conditions – as anatta – which leads to a gradual dis-attachment to the five aggregates. Because they are seen to be uncontrollable – no matter how much we thought they are or should be controllable. You write "helplessly do what arises". Is this is an assumption that there was a self before who was in some type of control and now there isn't. When we felt/feel in control there was ignorance of the different complex conditions which arise to have that feeling. When anatta-sannna, perception of anatta, is strong then one will face the moment directly. And then accumulations show themselves as they are and the puppet masters – ignorance and clinging– start to be glimpsed. This is how slowly the difference between sati and tanha is known. ""Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curisosity, and while it works and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too this materiality (rupa)- mentality (nama) is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness." Visuddhimagga xviii31 ________________________________________________- And why do we suffer the vipaka of actions that we had no > control over? Or (if 'we' die in every moment) why does 'somebody > else' suffer the vipaka from the actions that we had no control > over? Surely to operate in the world, we must be able to make >choices and plans. ____________ Arahants make choices and plan. It would be unnatural to try to stop making plans. That is self-view that thinks like that. ____________ >>> I seem to make present time decisions, even if my > desires and decisions are heavily influenced by past experiences. > And, if there is no way 'I' can do anything to make any progress on > the path towards liberation why did the Buddha bother teaching and > explaining. To listen to Dhamma is a choice. It doesn't just happen. _____ Of course. Someone else might choose not to listen: And be convinced they made the right decision. Choice is a complex series of different cittas and cetasikas conditioned by past and present conditions. If there are sufficient conditions then saddha cetasika (confidence) in the triple gem develops and this co-arises with viriya(energy) to hear more, reflect more: To not turn away from the present moment; to not be caught in some ritual. It can become a power. ---------------- >>> If there is no-one who can create conditions, then it makes >> enlightenment seem an accident that happens to some and not to others. _____________________- . Someone might marvel at why Angulimala - a bloody murderer – can become enlightened after a few sentences from the Buddha; while Venerable Sunnakkhata – an early attendant to the Buddha , and skilled in genuine jhana – leaves the order to follow the leader of a strange sect. If we don't know of the countless conditions and the way accumulations work it seems all by chance In the deepest sense no others , no us. Just dhammas arising – not by accident- but by conditions. All of these dhammas, the five aggregates, are nothing good. The five khandhas are: "a disease, a boil, a dart, as calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as no protection, as empty, as void, as having no core, as Mara's bait, as not self...."Patisambhidhimagga XXIX8 The khandhas have the appearance of being desirable because of the vipallasa (perversions of view)and because there is usually the taking of a whole - a concept - as object. It is seeing the uncontrollable, impermanent nature of all dhammas that leads to turning away. But this is an incremental process. I am still content to be a child playing with sandcastles, but like a child, realising that slowly maturity is coming and oneday I'll let the tide wash over them and not want to play anymore. So the urgency; "like putting out a fire on ones head" doesn't mean grab whatever's closest and throw on. It might be gasoline one picks up. I think it is the urgency to be so very patient. RobertK [SN XXIII.2]"It's just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles. As long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness -- because the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding." The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to conditions owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and have their existence depending upon conditions" Vis.xx102 22654 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken (and Robert) - > Hello Howard, Ken and Robert, I have been following this thread with interest as I work with sick and sometimes dying children. Currently we have been dealing with kids with life threatening diseases and thus the resulant behaviour problems from kids who know their lives are different from their peers. From this, I have often wondered about the following: > You have quoted the following: > > ---------------- > > >"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, > > decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life- force, > > weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that > > group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing > > away, > > ------------- > > > > Robert wrote: > > ------------- > > >I think sometimes the Buddha pointed out the general > > impermanence of all things as a initial step to help > > those overcome with conceit about body and so on. Once > > he conjured a form of a beautiful woman and then let it > > decay in front of a queen so that she could have that > > reminder - and then go deeper to ultimate impermanence. > > > ------------- we talk about aging and death, but sometimes I see the death before the aging, and people talk about 'premature death' or the comment 'died before his time'. Is there something in Buddhist literature that gives humans a certain life span? And now that I've asked this question, I vaguely remember asking this once before, and I think that bec. human life is so precious, that to have a long and healthy life span is probably much better kamma than to have a short and sickly life. However, I would like to hear others comment on this. How could you speak to a child about all this? As you can imagine, some of these children and their families, are difficult to deal with. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita > 22655 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, Let's narrow our focus onto one issue: kamma. I don't see kamma or kamma paccaya listed as one of the 52 cetasikas. I imagine you will say volition (cetana) is kamma. I would say volition is only part of kamma. There is also root consciousness, its object, kamma result and several other elements which I don't know. Also we could say kamma is a process which operates dependent on the relationships between these elements and others in the consciousness process and the largely unknowable kamma process. So kamma is a rather complex dog and pony show, to say the least. I believe this qualifies it to be characterized as a concept. What do you say? Larry 22656 From: Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I think this is pretty much what I had in mind by saying the experience of sound is consciousness: Howard: "The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb or a noun." L: I think we have to reason our way back to the true object of sense consciousness by means of logic, inference, and lots of data but I don't see any problem with that, except that we usually get it wrong. All I'm saying is everything is as real as the consciousness it IS as experience. I'm not making any claims about accuracy or truth regarding the object that instigated the experience. Larry 22657 From: gazita2002 Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 5:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn -again --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > --- buddhatrue wrote: [snip] > I > > think there is a difference between keeping others > > mindful of death > > and scaring them unnecessarily with death. > [snip] > Metta, James > > thank you, James. Your comments have been helpful, esp the above as I think I tend to be a little 'coarse' about death. > Hello!James; > Your response to Ken was very well put and right on > the mark.Yes,for a parent it must be hard to deal with > a son or daughters death at a young age,especially in > a way that might have been prevented.Haveing said > this,the ultimate question,would be whether each one > of us at our time of death,will put up resistance,or > open up to this ultimate fact.One thing is certain,we > all will die-but what is uncertain-is when that will > happen.thanks,nice to hear from you again. > Yours in Dhamma with Metta,Michael > > dear Michael, I think you have helped me a lot here. Yes, we know we will all die and I also think most of us put it out of our minds, until sudden death and not-so-sudden death comes to give us a shake up. Because I see young ones dying, I often wonder how those parents cope later on. Different for everyone, I know, but surely it must be easier when we really understand something about the ultimate realities of life, that there is death at every moment and that the death consciousness - cuti citta- and rebirth moment -patisandhi citta- are just more moments of arising and falling away. However, I still find it scarey, the moment of death, where will 'I' go. Just attachment I guess, to 'me' and 'my life'. Cheers, and wishing you patience and courage. Azita 22658 From: sinweiy Date: Wed Jun 4, 2003 8:25pm Subject: Re: Hello Dan Hi, i'm new to this group too. Would like to make my 1 cent comment.:) Commentary, You're right. The answer is yes, if not it will not fit the entire picture of the teachings. Thus i heard, samsara consist of the 3 realm of desire, form and formless. or the Ten Dharma Realms. The lowest six realms are known as the Six Paths or Six Realms of Rebirth. These six states of existence are subjected to birth and death. The upper four realms are known as the Four Holy Realms. These four states of existence are beyond birth and death and liberated from the Samsara. If as we understood Killing generates bad kamma. The lower beings do not know killing is bad as it is for their survival; their bad kamma is slight. But for an intelligent being, like a human being, knowing killing is inflicting suffering, the action of killing will bring him down to one of the lower levels of existence. After suffering the bad effects, he will come up again to one of the higher levels again. Due to this killing and other defilements, a unit of mind will forever be existing up and down in different levels of existence until one day it dawns on it that killing is bad and that he must work hard in doing good and eradicating all defilements. It then climbs to the summit (out of the 3 realms) with purities and wisdom and will not gather or cling to matters, physical or mental. It will stay on the top and will never descend to the lower levels again. -Amituofo- sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > Hello, > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main reason > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > confirmation on the subject. > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > Thank's, > > Dan 22659 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 0:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hello Mike, First of all, let me take back that question about jhana masters' going to hell. I'm sure you've seen Robert's answer; I was barking up the wrong tree. DELETE ALL REFERENCE :-) Getting back to aayuuhana v's anusaya, I'm finding this thread very informative and thought-provoking, thank you. You wrote: ------------ > By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), ------------- To digress briefly: I think you mean you don't believe in rebirth. (None of us at dsg believes in reincarnation):-) You continued: --------------- > hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, . . . . . . . . . I don't think they have physical existence in the same sense or to the same extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does. > ----------------- Obviously, these opinions don't detract from your confidence in the Dhamma. Personally, I tend to adopt a more compliant attitude but there's no certainty that that makes me any more receptive to right understanding. I'd say we're both wavering as to whether some or all of these unlikely-sounding things are, or are not, integral to right understanding. If I'm right, then I suppose there is vicikicca (sceptical doubt) at these moments? ----------------- > Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my accumulations'. > --------------- I can't argue with that as an over-all, perception of the way things are. However, when we consider the nature of the present moment, I think the only evidence of accumulations is in the actual cetasikas that present themselves. If there is adosa now, then a latent tendency for dosa makes no difference. Getting back to that cetasika that stops us from believing in things like hungry ghosts --whether it's vicikicca or whatever it is -- there is no self who is bound by it's statistical likelihood to arise. So, in the present moment, even you could believe in hungry ghosts :-) Kind regards, Ken 22660 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 0:43am Subject: Re: Hello Dan Hello Dan,and Sinweiy, Welcome Dan, and Sinweiy, nice to have you as members of dsg. Dan - you may find it interesting to go to the Subject Index at Access to Insight and look at the Buddha's suttas under "A" for 'Anatta' - (no soul, no self) ; and "R" for 'rebirth' and then anything else you wish to explore.. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html Sinweiy - I have enjoyed your interesting posts on Sangha list for quite a while. Glad to see you here. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" 22661 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sinweiy, I’m glad to see you’ve made yourself at home on DSG;-) Do you live in Asia, I wonder? Your name sounds Chinese. (Jon and I live in Hong Kong). You raise many interesting comments in your posts - some of the different understandings may be partly because as you say, you are a Dao practitioner and some other schools have different interpretations about nirvana/nibbana and samsara for example. ..... > i so to speak because samsara is but a block of ice floating in the > great ocean of nirvana. Both containing the same substance of the one > primordial mind. ..... I don’t believe you will find these ideas in the (Pali) Tipitaka, for example. ..... > i'm only follow the saying that All is One and One is All (Avatamsaka > Sutra). > i was told from a guru that if one is holding a dualistic, desire and > attach mind, one is not reach a Bodhi mind. ..... Again I haven’t read the ‘All is One and One is All’ sayings in the (Theravada) suttas and here, the emphasis given by the Buddha is on the 4 Noble Truths and the final goal of arahantship/eradication of defilements rather than the Bodhi mind I think. I appreciate that it’s difficult for those from other traditions to distinguish between suttas and sutras and so on and greatly appreciate your effort and patience to try and understand/fit in with us all in this regard. I’ll leave Ken H to discuss computer - concept/reality - with you further;-) and look forward to more of your reflections. Metta, Sarah p.s. > -Amituofo- > sinweiy > ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part > of the great ocean.:) ..... would you kindly explain what ‘Amituofo’ means and I’m not sure about the little ‘wave’ being part of the great ocean...: ??? =================================== 22662 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 1:56am Subject: Re: Hello Christine Hi Christine ^__^, all Actually, i am glad that you lead me here. Nice to see you doing some wonderful "job" here. :) with metta to all, sinweiy -Amituofo- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html > > metta and peace, > Christine 22663 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Dan, --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. ..... Let me add to the other ‘welcomes’ and say I’m glad you’ve joined and are already asking questions. If you’d care to share anything further about yourself, such as where you live or how you became interested in Buddhism, that would be interesting. ..... >The main reason > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > confirmation on the subject. ..... This is a complex subject and not an easy one for me either(like Mike). Of course in the Buddhist Teachings, there is no ‘soul’ as such, but that’s another topic. Rebirth can take place in one of many different planes of existence. If you look at this link and go down to ‘planes of existence’, you’ll find one or two past posts (one I remember from RobM in particular) giving more information on these: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Throughout the suttas there are many examples of different rebirths. The Jataka stories are also full of stories of past lives. There are also very interesting texts on the Peta (hungry ghost) Stories and Vimana (Deva mansion) stories. RobK mentioned that it’s not possible for rebirth immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I’d also be interested to hear more about this. In the Peta stories, all the petas discussed have ‘fallen’ from the human plane. This may just be because the stories are deliberately to ‘disturb’ us out of any complacency with regard to unwise actions. There are, however, unusual accounts of petas who are reborn in deva realms, usually as a result of great compassion and assistance of Noble disciples. Let me know if you’d like any more information on this. I’m pretty sure these texts aren’t on line. Certainly, in the course of samsara, there have been numerous rebirths in different planes and the only ‘escape’ is the development of insight and attainment of the stages of enlightenment. Maybe you could also tell us a little more about the reason for your interest in this area too. With metta, Sarah p.s we have another ‘Dan’ on DSG. Perhaps you could add an initial after your name, eg Dan A or even Dan2 if you prefer, to avoid confusion. ============================================= 22664 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > RobK mentioned that it's not possible for rebirth > immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I'd also > be interested to hear more about this. ________ Dear Sarah, The deva worlds are kama-loka ,like human realms and so , like human realms, many who die from there go to the lower worlds. Some stay in the deva world , some are born as human and some may go to brahma worlds. Only the arupa Brahmas have a breather as they will not go directly to the lower worlds. Robert 22665 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 2:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: How could you speak to a child about all this? As you can > imagine, some of these children and their families, are difficult to > deal with. > May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita Hi Azita, I would tell the terminally ill child and his family that before the child was born he or she decided to have a short life (through either God or Karma, depending on their faith) and also chose the appropriate parents for this short life. Since this life chosen was so short, there was only one thing to learn about: Love. How to give love and how to receive love in the most selfless way possible. They have been given a great opportunity to learn this lesson…the parents and the child. That is what I would tell them. Metta, James 22666 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sarah, Nice to meet you too. Thanks for your reply. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > I'm glad to see you've made yourself at home on DSG;-) Do you live in > Asia, I wonder? Your name sounds Chinese. (Jon and I live in Hong Kong). > S: Are you able to speak cantonese? How's the SARS situation going on? BTW, i'm live in Singapore. > You raise many interesting comments in your posts - some of the different > understandings may be partly because as you say, you are a Dao > practitioner and some other schools have different interpretations about > nirvana/nibbana and samsara for example.> I don't believe you will find these ideas in the (Pali) Tipitaka, for > example. > .....> Again I haven't read the `All is One and One is All' sayings in the > (Theravada) suttas and here, the emphasis given by the Buddha is on the 4 > Noble Truths and the final goal of arahantship/eradication of defilements > rather than the Bodhi mind I think. > > I appreciate that it's difficult for those from other traditions to > distinguish between suttas and sutras and so on and greatly appreciate > your effort and patience to try and understand/fit in with us all in this > regard. S: i'm more incline toward Pureland Mahayanists. :) i'm willing to fit in in terms of Buddhadharma's point of view - be it (Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand )Theravada or (China, Japan and Korea) Mahayana or Zen or Pureland, TienTai Or (Tibet and Mongolia) Vajrayana. You are right that the Mahayana(Great Vehicle)are not known in the Theravada Pali literature. And i'm not well verse in Pali, more toward chinese. Theravadins say that this potential can be realized through individual effort. Mahayanists, on the other hand, believe that they can seek salvation through the intervention of other superior beings called Bodhisattas. According to them, Bodhisattas are future Buddhas who, out of compassion for their fellow human beings, have delayed their own attainment of Buddhahood until they have helped others towards liberation. In spite of this basic difference, however, it must be stressed that doctrinally there is absolutely no disagreement concerning the Dhamma as contained in the sacred Tripitaka texts. Because Buddhists have been encouraged by the Master to carefully inquire after the truth, they have been free to interpret the scriptures according to their understanding. But above all, both Mahayana and Theravada are one in their reverence for the Buddha. The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the same in both schools. Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this world. Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without any difference. > > I'll leave Ken H to discuss computer - concept/reality - with you > further;-) > and look forward to more of your reflections. > S: Thank you. :) > > ps: High time the little "wave" understood that it is actually part > > of the great ocean.:) > ..... > would you kindly explain what `Amituofo' means and I'm not sure about the > little `wave' being part of the great ocean...: ??? > =================================== S: Maybe it's from my Daoism background. Amituofo - Chinese Amitabha Buddha - English Amida Nyorai - Japanese O ni tou fat - Cantonese? Here's The Noble Mahayana Sanghatasutra Shakyamuni Buddha http://lywa.rootr.com/otherteachers/buddha/sanghata.shtml 22667 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:57am Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts Dear Robert, I just wanted to quickly say thanks for your excellent post, so calming and reassuring as always. I'll take a little while to read it over some more, look up a few references, and think about it. I wonder who this Ven. Radha was that he has a whole Samyutta - 36 suttas counting the repetitions? Must have been around the Buddha a lot. Probably, I'll have some more comments/questions. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 22668 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Lee, I didn’t mean to cut the thread - as Rob Ep used to say, life caught up with me;-) We were discussing the Udana passage about nibbana and I quoted from the commentary. --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Thanks for the commentary material. > > I don't mean to be contrary, but this is simply one of those situations > where I choose to go with an interpretation of the suttas by a > well-respected Bhikkhu that is at variance with the understanding that > you and Suan (and the much later commentarial tradition) has of the > suttas. I don't make this lightly, as I have considered your position, > and that in the commentary, very carefully and found it is contrary to > my understanding of the suttas. ..... No problem and the ‘much later’ness of the commentarial tradition is another topic which I’m always happy to discuss further;-) ..... > In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other > sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to > talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an > unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): ..... I think the point is that the unconditioned reality does not exist in the conditioned realm. It can only be experienced by the supra-mundane consciousness. Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence and the Udana commentary makes this clear (see repeated quote at end of post): > (a) difficult to square with the idea in the suttas that anything > outside of the six sense-spheres (or the five aggregates) is only a > thing of speech; and ..... The khandhas or upaadaanakkhandha (groups of clinging) consist of the conditioned realities, i.e cittas, cetasikas and rupas. We also read about nibbana as the unconditioned reality. ..... > (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond > > the all. ..... I agree with this. However, the Comy to the Sabba Sutta make it clear that the All (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 ayatana which include nibbana in the external mind objects (dhammaayatana). ..... > But just to be clear, it isn't my position that your view of Nibbana is > wrong - my position is that I personally have no basis within my range > to determine anything more than what appears to me in the sutta - that > Nibbana is the state described in AN III.32 as "This is peace, this is > exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of > all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana" ..... This passage rather puzzles me in context. I think it is referring to parinibbana also- no conditions for samsara to continue. We need to be careful to see whether nibbana in context is referring to a) kilesa-parinibbana or sa-upadi-sesa-nibbana (nibbana with the khandhas remaining, i.e arahantship) or b) khandha-parinibbana or an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (nibbana without the khandhas remaining, i.e parinibbana). Sometimes a) and b) may take place at the same time, at the death of the arahant. I think your passage may be referring to both. I don’t have any Comy;-) ..... > and that to ask if there is anything more is to engage in > fabrications. That is, I see no need to make ontological claims about > Nibbana when I have no basis for doing so and when the psychological > understanding is within my range and more than sufficient to keep me > moving forward with my practice. > > That this position of mine may reflect my own limitations and not > something inherent in the dhamma is admitted. :) ..... Likewise. All we can do is read and consider what makes sense according to other parts of the Tipitaka and our own conceptual understanding. I’m not sure how useful the speculation is, but there has always been a lot of interest in this topic on DSG;-) If you look under nibbana and parinibbana in Useful Posts, you may find in interesting to follow some of the threads. I appreciate your considered comments, Lee. I certainly agree with B.Nanananda’s comment that nibbana is NOT “a nondescript realm in a different dimension of existence”. I don’t believe the comments you quoted from Richard Hayes are in line with the Pali canon for the most part or that any conditioned reality is ‘transformed’ into an unconditioned state or that nibbana is psychological as Nananada suggests. I do like the the description of the ‘magic-show of consciousness’ however. I thought Suan made some useful comments (i.e they accorded with my understanding;-)), but we are here to discuss and explore rather than to just agree. If you have any other texts you’d like to quote and discuss, that would be helpful. Swee Boon may also assist us as he has a lot of ready quotes and wise reflections on nibbana, I think. I’d also be glad to expand further on why the reading in the commentaries (such as the one below and the one I gave last time) seem right to me and accord with what I read elsewhere in the texts. Perhaps you might elaborate further on your own reasoning too. With metta, Sarah ====== ******************** (p.1012 Udana Comy): “...The Lord, having thus indicated, face to face, the existence, in its highest sense, of the unconditioned element, next says ‘Wherein there is neither earth, nor water’ and so on so as to indicate its own nature via an elimination of things that are the antithesis thereof. Just as nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sankhata)things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sankhara), so are all conditioned things (not to be found) therein either, for the collection of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing)not witnessed......there is neither the earth element whose characteristic is that of hardness, nor the water element whose characteristic is that of oozing, nor the fire element whose characteristic is that of heat, nor the wind element whose characteristic is that of distending......absence therein of the four great elements, the absence of all derived materiality....absence..of any becoming associated with (the world of) sense desires and (the world of) form.....Even though its own nature is one in which there is an absence of forms, there is next said, so as to indicate the absence within nibbana of any of the states belonging to becoming in the formless (sphere), ‘Nor that base consisting of endless space......nor that base consisting of neither perception nor non-perception’.” “..the unconditioned element itself exists in the highest sense, on account of its own nature being the converse of, and free of, the rest, such as (that of) the earth-element or sensation.....” ================================================= 22669 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:25am Subject: Realms (was: Re: [dsg] Hello) Hi RobK, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > The deva worlds are kama-loka ,like human realms and so , like human > realms, many who die from there go to the lower worlds. Some stay in > the deva world , some are born as human and some may go to brahma > worlds. > Only the arupa Brahmas have a breather as they will not go directly > to the lower worlds. ..... Thanks for clarifying - I think I was reading in haste the other day. This makes much more sense, thx. Glad to hear your mother is in good form and able to laugh when you bring up 'death'. Give her our regards. Sometime back I mentioned to my mother (in her mid 70s) something about (her) death to which she retorted "you may well die before me, so there!". Btw, my mother works voluntarily in a hospice and is very used to people dying whilst holding her hand .... I think that even with little or no understanding of paramatha dhammas, such dana and caring for others, rather than being too concerned about oneself, is a wonderful way to overcome fears or apprehensions. metta, Sarah ======= 22670 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi Jon: > > Personally, I agree with your statement that you "do not see them > [the > teachings of the Buddha] as asking one to make any assumptions or > draw > any inferences about the present moment" as I am more than content > to > work with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of > what > appears to my senses without needing to designate or characterize > this flow any further. I'm delighted to find we agree on the fundamental and very important point that the teachings do not ask anyone to make any assumptions about the present moment. It seems to me that on this basis, Dreyfus' problem/conundrum simply doesn't arise. I am interested in your reference to working with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the senses. Do you find this a useful approach? What does it involve exactly? > However, many Buddhist do seem to have a need to make assumptions > and > draw inferences about the ontological status of what constitutes > the > "present moment," and for those, Dreyfus's questions are relevant. But only becasue of their particular interpretation of the teachings, an interpretation that neither you or I share ;-)) Jon 22671 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Jon: > > I suppose I don't know what you intend by the phrase "true nature" > since I have seen these words used in so many different ways. It wasn't a good choice of words on my part, since what I had in mind was something general such as 'insight into the present moment as it really is'. I should have avoided that particular expression which, as you say, can be found used in a number of different ways. > If you mean that we have to understand the ontological status of > the > present moment, then I have not found that approach particularly > useful > since it quickly implicates the whole thicket of questions raised > by > Dreyfus. If you mean, simply, the way in which appearances arise > and > cease and how those appearances can be understood, in a salvational > sense, as a way of letting go of fabrications based on cravings, > conceit, and views (what I would see as a psychological and not an > ontological perspective), then I prefer that approach. I was really wondering whether you see those suttas (such as the Satipatthana Sutta and the Chachakka Sutta) as containing information that is relevant to the development of insight (or however you see the 'practice') and, if not, which sutta(s) you would put in that category. > > As I said in an earlier post, the suttas by themselves are beyond > us, > > and there is much in the Abhidhamma and commentaries that can > help > > unlock the meaning. I've never heard of any instance of a > > contradiction between the suttas and the Abhidhamma. > > Here I would disagree. I find the suttas powerful in their clarity > and vision. I think you are saying have no difficulty understanding the suttas without the aid of supplementary or explanatory materials. As I indicated above, I'd be interested to know which sutta(s) you find most directly descriptive of the development of samatha and/or insight, or generally the most relevant to 'practice'. > That others have a different understanding is not unexpected, > nor is it unexpected that your interpretation, which may vary from > mine, is consistent with your take on the Abhidhamma as you have an > apparent > affinity for the Abhidhamma. Such is the power of our interpretive > systems - to see harmony if that is what we look for. Regarding my perceived affinity for the Abhidhamma, this is a very relative thing. To someone born and bred in a Buddhist country and having an affinity for the Abhidhamma, I would be considered a mere novice, a philistine even ;-)). But on the more important point, if you're suggesting that there are indeed contradictions or differences between the Abhidhamma and the suttas, which people like myself tend to overlook, by all means feel free to be specific (I'm sure you'll find you have plenty of support among members here). Jon Jon 22672 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: non-dualism [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > A fine post, and thanks for reminding me of Anguttara Nikaya, Chapter > XX, > Mahavaggo, The Great Chapter--a great and wide-ranging discourse, full > of > similes etc. as well as a very interesting passage on right > concentration > and right insight: ...... Thx Mike, I think we’re all looking forward to B.Bodhi’s full translation of AN, hopefully with commentary notes in due course. ..... > Thus, Saa.lha, the Ariyan disciple endowed with > right concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right > insight. > This struck me as somewhat unusual, that is the 'disciple endowed with > right > concentration sees, as it really is, with the eye of right insight'. Of > course this does refer to an Ariyan in whom all the path-factors have > already arisen. > > Well--just found this interesting... > > ====== I think we read similar references to right concentration (sammaa samaadhi). Often (here??) it refers to the ‘concentration’ factors of the path, i.e sammaa vaayaama, sammaa sati and sammaa samaadhi. We also read in various places about rt concentration being the proximate condition or footing for insight -a decisive support condition. As we know, the path factors arise together. Always glad to hear any input from you, Mike. Metta, Sarah From my post a while back,: ***** "Immediate occasion (pada.t.thaana.m) means proximate cause. Thus wherever we speak of characteristics, etc, their mutual difference should be understood in this wise." Atthasalini transl PTS p84 For more: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12994.html ======================================== Weight Age Gender Female Male 22673 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi Sinweiy, --- sinweiy wrote: > Hi Sarah, > S: Are you able to speak cantonese? How's the SARS situation going on? > BTW, i'm live in Singapore. ..... Sik gong siu siu (yes, a little)...... we’re all slowly recovering from the SARS shock.... it was just like being in a war-zone for a couple of months. Pls let me know if you’re visiting anytime. We have a few members living in Sing. In fact your post and background reminded me of our friend KC or Ken Ong who we’ve not heard from in a while. Many thanks for all your explanations and it’s nice to hear how adaptable you are;-) As you mention, there are many teachings in common and some basic differences. I think it’s true that we all ‘interpret the scriptures according to understanding’, but we can also see which aspects and interpretations are supported in the Pali canon as we do here. Thanks again for finding us and enjoy your stay;-) Thx to Chris for leading you here as well;-) Joigin(see you again) & Metta, Sarah ===== > The areas of agreement between the two schools are as follows: > Both accept Sakyamuni Buddha as the Teacher. > The Four Noble Truths are exactly the same in both schools. > The Eightfold Path is exactly the same in both schools. > The Pattica-Samuppada or teaching on Dependent Origination is the > same in both schools. > Both reject the idea of a supreme being who created and governed this > world. > Both accept Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta and Sila, Samadhi, Panna without > any difference. 22674 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:13 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] aayuuhana vs. anusaya? > Hello Mike, > > First of all, let me take back that question about jhana > masters' going to hell. I'm sure you've seen Robert's > answer; I was barking up the wrong tree. DELETE ALL > REFERENCE :-) I always find Robert's posts most informative. > Getting back to aayuuhana v's anusaya, I'm finding this > thread very informative and thought-provoking, thank you. > > You wrote: > ------------ > > By the way, I don't believe in reincarnation(!), > ------------- > > To digress briefly: I think you mean you don't believe in > rebirth. Not at all! I meant, 'I don't believe in reincarnation(!)'. 'I believe' in kamma and rebirth quite implicitly--without them, Buddhadhamma makes no sense at all to me. > (None of us at dsg believes in reincarnation):-) You might be surprised... > You continued: > --------------- > > hells, heavens, world-cycles, devas, petas, . . . > . . . . . . I don't think they have > physical existence in the same sense or to the same > extent that 'a person'--yet another convention--does. > > > ----------------- > > Obviously, these opinions don't detract from your > confidence in the Dhamma. Personally, I tend to adopt a > more compliant attitude but there's no certainty that > that makes me any more receptive to right understanding. I'm probably hair-splitting and stating the obvious, but of course no one to adopt a more or less compliant attitude--and no one to be receptive to right or wrong understanding. Attitudes and understandings are the present result of extremely complex conditions and aren't constant, even for a second. > I'd say we're both wavering as to whether some or all of > these unlikely-sounding things are, or are not, integral > to right understanding. If I'm right, then I suppose > there is vicikicca (sceptical doubt) at these moments? Maybe--speaking for myself and the sea of akusala in which 'I'm' perpetually stewing, vicikicchaa doesn't seem to be a part of the mix. Certainly I'm sceptical by nature, but the kind of scepticism I'm habituated to doesn't seem to me at all to match the definition of vicikicchaa* below. Could be I'm wrong, of course... > ----------------- > > Why is this? Because I'm incapable of believing in > them (literally)--it isn't in 'my character' > (sankhaarakhandha?) or, to use the popular dsg term, 'my > accumulations'. > > > --------------- > > I can't argue with that as an over-all, perception of the > way things are. However, when we consider the nature of > the present moment, I think the only evidence of > accumulations is in the actual cetasikas that present > themselves. > If there is adosa now, then a latent > tendency for dosa makes no difference. Even if dosa is absent now, the knowledge that it lies dormant in every citta makes all the difference in the world to (at least conventional) understanding, in my opinion. The same is true, of course, of doubt and the other hindrances. > Getting back to that cetasika that stops us from > believing in things like hungry ghosts --whether it's > vicikicca or whatever it is -- there is no self who is > bound by it's statistical likelihood to arise. So, in > the present moment, even you could believe in hungry > ghosts :-) Certainly any belief can arise in anyone unenlightened, given the right conditions. > Kind regards, > Ken Back at you, Ken, mike *vicikicchá 'skeptical doubt', is one of the 5 mental hindrances (nívarana) and one of the 3 fetters (samyojana), which disappear for ever at Stream-entry, the first stage of holiness (s. ariya-puggala). As a fetter, it refers to skeptical doubt about the Master (the Buddha), the Teaching, the Sangha, and the training; about things past and future, and conditionality (Dhs.1004; cf. A.X.71). It also applies to uncertainty whether things are wholesome or not, to be practiced or not, of high or low value, etc. According to Vis.M. XIV, 177, vicikicchá is the lack of desire to think (things out i.e. to come to a conclusion; vigata-cikicchá, desiderative to [?] cit, to think); it has the nature of wavering, and its manifestation is indecision and a divided attitude; its proximate cause is unwise attention to matters of doubt. It is associated with one of the 2 classes of unwholesome consciousness rooted in delusion (Tab. I, No. 32). - Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/u_v/vicikicchaa.htm 22675 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Sarah: > Hi Lee, > > I didn’t mean to cut the thread - as Rob Ep used to say, life caught up > with me;-) :) It does have a way of doing that. > We were discussing the Udana passage about nibbana and I quoted > from the commentary. >> In particular, I find that speculation about Nibbana as some other >> sphere of existence (for I assume that that must be what you mean to >> talk of an existent thing that is unconditioned for how could an >> unconditioned existent exist in our conditioned realm?): > I think the point is that the unconditioned reality does not exist in the > conditioned realm. It can only be experienced by the supra-mundane > consciousness. Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence and > the Udana commentary makes this clear (see repeated quote at end of post): I agree that "Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence" - that, instead, it is a psychological state whereby we have resolved all fabrications. Thus, to speak of this experience as born, orgiginated, created, etc. is to make a category error. >> (a) difficult to square with the idea in the suttas that anything >> outside of the six sense-spheres (or the five aggregates) is only a >> thing of speech; and > ..... > The khandhas or upaadaanakkhandha (groups of clinging) consist of the > conditioned realities, i.e cittas, cetasikas and rupas. We also read about > nibbana as the unconditioned reality. Again, I agree. >> (b) contrary to the mental outlook of the Buddha to not speculate beyond >> the all. > I agree with this. However, the Comy to the Sabba Sutta make it clear that > the All (sabba) refers to > everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 > ayatana which include nibbana in the external mind objects > (dhammaayatana). I am familiar with the commentary on the word All, but not sure how it allows us to speculate beyong the All. I think I am misunderstanding your point, so any clarification would be helpful. >> But just to be clear, it isn't my position that your view of Nibbana is >> wrong - my position is that I personally have no basis within my range >> to determine anything more than what appears to me in the sutta - that >> Nibbana is the state described in AN III.32 as "This is peace, this is >> exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of >> all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana" > ..... > This passage rather puzzles me in context. I think it is referring to > parinibbana also- no conditions for samsara to continue. We need to be > careful to see whether nibbana in context is referring to a) > kilesa-parinibbana or sa-upadi-sesa-nibbana (nibbana with the khandhas > remaining, i.e arahantship) or b) khandha-parinibbana or > an-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana (nibbana without the khandhas remaining, i.e > parinibbana). > > Sometimes a) and b) may take place at the same time, at the death of the > arahant. I think your passage may be referring to both. I don’t have any > Comy;-) I suspect we could argue this back and forth and that is not my intent - my only purpose is to suggest that there are understandings of the dhamma that are consistent with sutta, mainstream within Theravada, and that minimize ontological speculation about what Nibbana is. Consistent with this are the comments of Bhikkhu Nanananda from his sermons on Nibbana at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm ---- "The cessation of consciousness is none other than Nibbàna. Some seem to think that the cessation of consciousness occurs in an arahant only at the moment of his parinibbàna, at the end of his life span. But this is not the case. Very often, the deeper meanings of important suttas have been obliterated by the tendency to interpret the references to consciousness in such contexts as the final occurrence of consciousness in an arahant's life - carimaka vi¤¤àõa.[10] What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaïkhata vi¤¤àõa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form." from part 4 of the Nibbana Sermons ----- Whether there is something "more" to Nibbana following the death of the Arahant, I don't know, and to argue about it given the rudimentary place I am on the path seems beyond my current abilities. > ..... >> and that to ask if there is anything more is to engage in >> fabrications. That is, I see no need to make ontological claims about >> Nibbana when I have no basis for doing so and when the psychological >> understanding is within my range and more than sufficient to keep me >> moving forward with my practice. >> >> That this position of mine may reflect my own limitations and not >> something inherent in the dhamma is admitted. :) > ..... > Likewise. All we can do is read and consider what makes sense according to > other parts of the Tipitaka and our own conceptual understanding. I’m not > sure how useful the speculation is, but there has always been a lot of > interest in this topic on DSG;-) If you look under nibbana and parinibbana > in Useful Posts, you may find in interesting to follow some of the > threads. > > I appreciate your considered comments, Lee. I certainly agree with > B.Nanananda’s comment that nibbana is NOT “a nondescript realm in a > different dimension of existence”. I don’t believe the comments you quoted > from Richard Hayes are in line with the Pali canon for the most part or > that any conditioned reality is ‘transformed’ into an unconditioned state > or that nibbana is psychological as Nananada suggests. I do like the the > description of the ‘magic-show of consciousness’ however. I thought Suan > made some useful comments (i.e they accorded with my understanding;-)), > but we are here to discuss and explore rather than to just agree. Yes. That is why I like this list. It presents a viewpoint that is often at odds with my own, yet it is a viewpoint that pushes me to think seriously about the dhamma. > > If you have any other texts you’d like to quote and discuss, that would be > helpful. Swee Boon may also assist us as he has a lot of ready quotes and > wise reflections on nibbana, I think. I’d also be glad to expand further > on why the reading in the commentaries (such as the one below and the one > I gave last time) seem right to me and accord with what I read elsewhere > in the texts. Perhaps you might elaborate further on your own reasoning > too. Thanks. As the opportunity arises, I will try to explain myself in more detail. Take care. Lee 22676 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon: >> --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Jonothan Abbott wrote: >> If you mean that we have to understand the ontological status of >> the present moment, then I have not found that approach >> particularly useful since it quickly implicates the whole thicket >> of questions raised by Dreyfus. If you mean, simply, the way in >> which appearances arise and cease and how those appearances can be >> understood, in a salvational sense, as a way of letting go of >> fabrications based on cravings, conceit, and views (what I would >> see as a psychological and not an ontological perspective), then I >> prefer that approach. > > I was really wondering whether you see those suttas (such as the > Satipatthana Sutta and the Chachakka Sutta) as containing information > that is relevant to the development of insight (or however you see > the 'practice') and, if not, which sutta(s) you would put in that > category. I think both suttas provide a wonderful guide to a practice, especially with their grounding in dependent origination. > I think you are saying have no difficulty understanding the suttas > without the aid of supplementary or explanatory materials. As I > indicated above, I'd be interested to know which sutta(s) you find > most directly descriptive of the development of samatha and/or > insight, or generally the most relevant to 'practice'. I misspoke if I suggested that supplemental materials are not helpful, even necessary for me at times to understand material that I have no ability to read in the Pali. What I meant to suggest by talking of their clarity was a shorthand way of describing the process I have gone through in reading the suttas, testing it against my own experiences, and finding that the suttas are often very helpful, clear ways of verbalizing the mental process I was going through in that experience. So when I come accross two interpretations of the same sutta, one by this commentator and one by another, I tentatively choose the one that resonates with my own experience. A rather "egoistic" way, perhaps, of judging suttas, but I find it a better guide than ignoring my own intuitions in favor of some commentator, no matter how revered, whose interpretation does not square with my own invesigation. When I "come and see" the dhamma, I ultimately use my own experience as the final guide. That said, as I have progressed in my practice and in my understanding of the suttas, I have often changed my mind about which interpretation was "best" for a particular suuta or pasage - for I believe that if I dogmatically hold to the first interpretation I settled on, I would be clinging to a view rather than investigating in an open manner. >> That others have a different understanding is not unexpected, nor >> is it unexpected that your interpretation, which may vary from >> mine, is consistent with your take on the Abhidhamma as you have an >> apparent affinity for the Abhidhamma. Such is the power of our >> interpretive systems - to see harmony if that is what we look for. > > Regarding my perceived affinity for the Abhidhamma, this is a very > relative thing. To someone born and bred in a Buddhist country and > having an affinity for the Abhidhamma, I would be considered a mere > novice, a philistine even ;-)). :) > But on the more important point, if you're suggesting that there are > indeed contradictions or differences between the Abhidhamma and the > suttas, which people like myself tend to overlook, by all means feel > free to be specific (I'm sure you'll find you have plenty of support > among members here). That is a discussion that I don't find useful outside of a specific context in which the possible discrepancy is relevant to me personally. To simply argue about the coherence or lack of coherence of the suttas and the Abhidhamma would likely give rise to unproductive debates and hurt feelings. It seems to suggest a debate not much more productive than the many debates among the various sectarians. Let me just end with the observation that I have much to learn and anything I state here, no matter how unqualified I phrase it, is always subject to investigation and change. Life has taught me that one lesson. Lee 22677 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon; > I'm delighted to find we agree on the fundamental and very important > point that the teachings do not ask anyone to make any assumptions > about the present moment. It seems to me that on this basis, > Dreyfus' problem/conundrum simply doesn't arise. Yes, I agree. > I am interested in your reference to working with the apparent > regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the > senses. Do you find this a useful approach? What does it involve > exactly? Let me try to describe this in a pre-theoretical sort of way, free of the pali terminology, and even free of my understanding of Buddhism since this approach was something I was doing long before I understood Buddhist terminology. There are obvious limitations in approaching it this way, but hopefully you will find some value in the description. When I talk of working with the apparent regularity of the arising and cessation of what appears to the senses, I generally mean my internal, psychological state, but not always. Thus, it had been my experience that if I could calm the mind, slow it down and center it so it wasn't dashing all about, I could then direct my thoughts to certain events that occurred during the day. By doing this, over time, several things seemed to be pragmatically true: 1. Certain events or conditions seemed to consistently trigger a particular emotional response from me, especially if I was distracted or otherwise agitated by the day. 2. If I took the time to later reflect on this "consistency" I often was able to develop strategies for minimizing the strength of my reaction the next time the same conditions arise. 3. Again, if I took the time to later reflect on this "consistency", I often found that many of my reactions were grounded in what you would expect - that is, ego, fear, desire, and on that were baseless if I took the time to really understand the situation. As I brought this process forward and then had a chance encounter with Buddhist thought, I was able to refine these observations using the many insights and illustrations contained in the suttas and in the various writings on these suttas. I also explored (perhaps superficially) writings from the many later Buddhist traditions (like the Dreyfus type material), but I have preferred the Theravada emphasis on the earlier material. And, because so much of my pre-Buddhist experience in letting go of these "cravings, conceit, and views" was rather mundane and pragmatic, my attraction within the Theravada materials has been to the more pragmatic elements to be found there. Hope this gives you some idea of what I mean. Take care. Lee 22678 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: Hello Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" wrote: > Hi, > i'm new to this group too. Would like to make my 1 cent comment.:) > > Commentary, > You're right. The answer is yes, if not it will not fit the entire > picture of the teachings. > Thus i heard, samsara consist of the 3 realm of desire, form and > formless. or the Ten Dharma Realms. > The lowest six realms are known as the Six Paths or Six Realms of > Rebirth. These six states of existence are subjected to birth and > death. The upper four realms are known as the Four Holy Realms. These > four states of existence are beyond birth and death and liberated > from the Samsara. > If as we understood Killing generates bad kamma. The lower beings do > not know killing is bad as it is for their survival; their bad kamma > is slight. But for an intelligent being, like a human being, knowing > killing is inflicting suffering, the action of killing will bring him > down to one of the lower levels of existence. After suffering the bad > effects, he will come up again to one of the higher levels again. Due > to this killing and other defilements, a unit of mind will forever be > existing up and down in different levels of existence until one day > it dawns on it that killing is bad and that he must work hard in > doing good and eradicating all defilements. It then climbs to the > summit (out of the 3 realms) with purities and wisdom and will not > gather or cling to matters, physical or mental. It will stay on the > top and will never descend to the lower levels again. > > -Amituofo- > sinweiy Thank's for the information! Here's a very useful link I found about samsara http://www.serve.com/cyberkaya/four5.htm > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism > for > > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. The main > reason > > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does > anyone > > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a > soul > > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the > good > > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love > some > > confirmation on the subject. > > > > Any information would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Thank's, > > > > Dan 22679 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:54am Subject: Re: Hello Dan Thank's for the link! :) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Dan,and Sinweiy, > > Welcome Dan, and Sinweiy, nice to have you as members of dsg. > > Dan - you may find it interesting to go to the Subject Index at > Access to Insight and look at the Buddha's suttas under "A" > for 'Anatta' - (no soul, no self) ; and "R" for 'rebirth' and then > anything else you wish to explore.. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html > > Sinweiy - I have enjoyed your interesting posts on Sangha list for > quite a while. Glad to see you here. :-) > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" 22680 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dan, > > --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, > > > > I just joined this list today. I've been learning about Buddhism for > > a few year's now but I'm quite new to yahoo group's. > ..... > Let me add to the other `welcomes' and say I'm glad you've joined and are > already asking questions. If you'd care to share anything further about > yourself, such as where you live or how you became interested in Buddhism, > that would be interesting. > ..... > >The main reason > > I'm posting is because I would like to read up on a particular > > subject in the sutra's but I dont know where to look yet. Does anyone > > here know where in the Buddha's sutra's I can learn about, if a soul > > in samsara is in the deva realm, can it fall back down to the three > > lower realm's--animal, hungry ghost, and hell's--again when the good > > karma run's out? I'm guessing this is the case, but I would love some > > confirmation on the subject. > ..... > This is a complex subject and not an easy one for me either(like Mike). Of > course in the Buddhist Teachings, there is no `soul' as such, but that's > another topic. Rebirth can take place in one of many different planes of > existence. If you look at this link and go down to `planes of existence', > you'll find one or two past posts (one I remember from RobM in particular) > giving more information on these: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts > > Throughout the suttas there are many examples of different rebirths. The > Jataka stories are also full of stories of past lives. There are also very > interesting texts on the Peta (hungry ghost) Stories and Vimana (Deva > mansion) stories. RobK mentioned that it's not possible for rebirth > immediately after a deva realm to be in a lower realm I think and I'd also > be interested to hear more about this. In the Peta stories, all the petas > discussed have `fallen' from the human plane. This may just be because the > stories are deliberately to `disturb' us out of any complacency with > regard to unwise actions. > > There are, however, unusual accounts of petas who are reborn in deva > realms, usually as a result of great compassion and assistance of Noble > disciples. Let me know if you'd like any more information on this. I'm > pretty sure these texts aren't on line. > > Certainly, in the course of samsara, there have been numerous rebirths in > different planes and the only `escape' is the development of insight and > attainment of the stages of enlightenment. > > Maybe you could also tell us a little more about the reason for your > interest in this area too. > > With metta, > > Sarah > p.s we have another `Dan' on DSG. Perhaps you could add an initial after > your name, eg Dan A or even Dan2 if you prefer, to avoid confusion. > ============================================= Hello, Sarah. In answer to your question, I have been a seeker of truth for about seven year's now. This has lead me to explore many different path's along the way. I have come to realize that meditation is the only way to understand experientially/directly the true nature of reality. Reality is reality, only when it's grasped non-conceptually. However my interest in the sutra's--the menu--is just to satisfy my curiosity. I alway's keep in mind, however, when reading sutra's, that the menu is not the food. :-) We must practice to fully understand Buddha's teaching's. Best Wishes, Dan 22681 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 3:51pm Subject: sutra reference I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's on the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down to the three lower realm's. I already know this is the case, I would just love some sutra reference's on the matter. If anyone happen's to stumble across any, give me a holler! Thank's Dan 22682 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:07pm Subject: Way 98, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 2. Investigation of Mental Objects continued Concerning concentration and wisdom it is said as follows: For the worker in concentration -- the man pursuing quietude [samatha] -- strong one-pointedness is met by reason of the fact that concentration is the principal thing in absorption. With strong one-pointedness he reaches full absorption. For the man pursuing the path of insight [vipassana] strong wisdom is met; if strong wisdom exists he arrives at the penetration of the characteristics. By the equalizing of the concentration and wisdom of the worker in concentration, the man pursuing quietude, there is just full absorption. [Tika] Owing to the very great strength of the concentration of the man pursuing quietude, very great strength of wisdom too should be desired. [T] Full absorption is mundane full absorption. Supramundane full absorption also is expected through the equalizing of these. Accordingly the Master said: "He develops quietude and insight yoked together." Strong mindfulness is met everywhere since it protects the mind from falling into restlessness belonging to faith, energy and wisdom and from falling into indolence belonging to concentration. Faith, energy and wisdom have a tendency towards excitement and concentration has a tendency towards sloth. Therefore, mindfulness is to be desired by the yogi always. It is likened to the salt-flavoring which is in all curries, and the minister-of-all-work wanted in every business of the king. And because of this (universality of application of mindfulness) the commentator made the following statement: "And indeed, it was said by the Blessed One thus: 'Mindfulness is to be desired everywhere.' Why? Because mindfulness is the mind's help, because mindfulness has just protection as its manifestation, and because without mindfulness there is no exerting or restraining of the mind." [Tika] Because it is applied always mindfulness is always useful or desirable; and because in all states of elation and depression it should be developed by the man longing for the factors of enlightenment, it is necessary. [T] Mind's help: the help of a wholesome or skillful state of consciousness. It is the support of such a state of mind for attaining the yet unattained. Avoiding the ignorant is keeping away from foolish folk not grounded in the knowledge of the divisions of the aggregates and so forth. Association with wise folk is fellowship with persons possessed of the knowledge of rise and fall through the laying hold of all the fifty characteristics. Reflecting on the profound differences of the profound process of the aggregates and so forth is the analytic reflection according to wisdom of the movement of the hard-to-perceive aggregates and so forth. Inclining towards the enlightenment factor of the investigation of mental objects is the mental state inclining, tending, and sloping towards the purpose of originating this enlightenment factor in every posture of standing, sitting, walking and lying down. The yogi understands that the culture of this enlightenment factor arisen thus comes to completion through the path of arahantship. 22683 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:20pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's on > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down to > the three lower realm's. __________ Dear Dan, http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm CatutthavaggaVagga. "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave the human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are reborn human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." Robertk 22684 From: manjushri888 Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > wrote: > > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's > on > > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back down > to > > the three lower realm's. > __________ > Dear Dan, > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > CatutthavaggaVagga. > "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant > orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many > irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, > forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave the > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > the animal world and as ghosts. > > 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn as > humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are reborn > human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world > are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal > world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn > among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." > Robertk Dear Robertk, Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two day's now!--a direct sutra reference. Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. Many Thank's, Dan 22685 From: m. nease Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > Let's narrow our focus onto one issue: kamma. I don't see kamma or kamma > paccaya listed as one of the 52 cetasikas. Thanks for the correction--I was thinking of the 24 paccaya as cetasikas. I've never committed the 52 cetasikas to memory and in fact am very weak on all these lists... > I imagine you will say > volition (cetana) is kamma. That is my impression of one of the meanings of kamma in the tipi.taka. > I would say volition is only part of kamma. > There is also root consciousness, its object, kamma result and several > other elements which I don't know. Also we could say kamma is a process > which operates dependent on the relationships between these elements and > others in the consciousness process and the largely unknowable kamma > process. So kamma is a rather complex dog and pony show, to say the > least. I do think that 'kamma' is one of those words (like 'dhamma') whose meaning varies considerably depending on context. > I believe this qualifies it to be characterized as a concept. > What do you say? Despite my faux pas regarding kamma paccaya, I still do think of kamma mainly as cetanaa--a cetasika (this, I think, is what accumulates). In more conventional contexts I think it can have many conceptual meanings. I'm not arguing that there's no such concept as 'kamma', or that the concept is unimportant--just that the concept is less important than the paramattha dhamma. > Larry 22686 From: sinweiy Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Re: sutra reference http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm Might want to copy the whole thing. :) sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" > > wrote: > > > I still haven't been able to locate any direct sutra reference's > > on > > > the issue of the consciousness going from the deva realm back > down > > to > > > the three lower realm's. > > __________ > > Dear Dan, > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > "Bhikkhus, in the peninsular of India there are a few pleasant > > orchards, forests, outstanding sites, stretches of water but many > > irregular blocks of land, irregular rivers flowing disorderly, > > forming uneven shapes. In the same manner a few humans who leave > the > > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > > the animal world and as ghosts. > > > > 337. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > > among gods many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 338. In the same manner a few gods that leave divinity are reborn > as > > humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 339.Bhikkhus, in the same manner a few released from hell are > reborn > > human, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. In the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world > > are reborn as gods, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal > > world and as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn > > among humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > > as ghosts. In the same manner a few ghosts are reborn among gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts." > > Robertk > > > Dear Robertk, > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. > > Many Thank's, > Dan 22687 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is the time for practice. We may be forgetful of realities and distracted. Forgetfulness is also a reality that can and should be known. The ³all² should be known as it is. During our discussions we were reminded about wrong practice. When there is a moment of awareness, we should ask ourselves: do I want more? If we try to find ways and means to have more awareness, we engage in wrong practice, and this prevents us to understand anattå, to understand also sati and paññå as non-self. Or we may take thinking of the stages of insight for direct understanding. Then we are led by lobha and we may go into the wrong direction. There are many ways to go into the wrong direction, because we have accumulated ignorance and clinging for aeons. So long as we are not sotåpanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time. It should be detected as such. Someone may think that he needs to concentrate on the three general characteristics of dukkha, impermanence (aniccå) and anattå so that he can attain enlightenment. Only through the development of insight paññå will realize more that whatever appears is dukkha, impermanent and anattå. These are characteristics inherent in the dhammas that appear. There is no specific practice such as concentration on the three characteristics of realities. In the Katavatthu (Points of Controversy), Ch II, 16, we read: ³May a man by merely repeating the word dukkha induce the four stages of enlightenment, as the Pubbaseliyas (a sect) believed?² We may recite: ³dukkha, dukkha², and concentrate on it, but this will not bring any result. Insight should be developed stage by stage, and we cannot forego the first stage of tender insight, taruna vipassanå: paññå which clearly distinguishes the characteristic of nåma from the characteristic of rúpa. We should first have theoretical understanding that nåma and rúpa are altogether different, otherwise we cannot even begin to develop mindfulness of nåma and rúpa as they appear one at a time, through one doorway at a time. Nåma experiences an object and rúpa does not know anything; it does not feel, it does not remember, it is not attached, it has no aversion. The eye does not know that visible object is impinging on it. Visible object does not know that it is impinging on the eyesense. So long as nåma and rúpa are not clearly distinguished from each other, the arising and falling away of one rúpa at a time and of one nåma at a time cannot be realized. When the impermanence of nåma and rúpa is realized through insight, this will lead to more detachment. We were reminded in Thailand time and again that paññå leads to detachment. Thus, it is not helpful to think, how can I know the three characteristics quickly? One may try very hard to make progress in understanding, but this is clinging and thus counteractive to the development of paññå. In the Scriptures, there is no detailed explanation of the stages of insight knowledge. The stages are mentioned in the ³Path of Discrimination² and the ³Visuddhimagga², but they are only described with a few words. When paññå develops and the stages of insight are reached, paññå can directly realize the true nature of realities and it does not need any words. 22688 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:03pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 13 Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 13 When we give things away for the benefit and happiness of someone else but neglect to be intent on the eradication of our defilements at such moments, the determination to eradicate them is not yet firm enough. It is difficult to reach the other shore when we do not have firm determination with regard to the four foundation dhammas, aditthåna dhammas, of truthfulness, relinquishment, calm, and paññå. If someone sees the benefit of the firm determination for relinquishment, cågaditthåna, and he has eliminated defilements, he also has the firm determination for calm, upasamaditthåna; he has calm that is freedom of defilements. This is freedom of involvement with visible object, sound, odour, flavour, tangible object, and this leads to being undisturbed by them. This leads also to the development of the perfection of renunciation, nekkhamma påramí, departing from sense pleasures. Even someone who is a layfollower may gradually abandon clinging to the sense objects and to the married state. He may be a layfollower who is not married because he sees the disadvantage of the strong bond of family life which is a burden. Thus, he sees the benefit of calm and becomes firmly established in the inclination to calm, and this is the foundation dhamma of calm. When someone is firmly established in the foundation dhamma of calm, it is conditioned by the foundation dhamma of paññå. Paññåditthåna is the fourth foundation dhamma. As we have seen, there are four firm foundations, aditthåna dhammas: determination of truthfulness, sacca, of relinquishment, cåga, of calm or peace, upasama, and of paññå. Paññå can be accumulated by listening to the Dhamma, by considering it and testing its meaning by asking questions. In this way we can verify what is kusala, what is akusala, what is wrong, what is right, and we can understand what kamma is and what its result. When we listen to the Dhamma we can investigate the true nature of realities that are cause and that are result. We should use the opportunities we have for listening to the Dhamma during this lifespan. Someone may be negligent in listening to the Dhamma, and he may think that by listening once or only a few times, he can be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Then his determination is not yet firm enough. He should further develop the foundation dhamma of paññå, and in this way the perfection of determination will become accomplished. The perfection of determination is an essential condition for the perfection of paññå that leads to reaching the further shore, that is, the realization of nibbåna. ******** (end of Ch 9) 22689 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? Larry 22690 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:42pm Subject: hi from Rob Ep! Hi! I wanted to say hello and thank my old friends on dsg who kindly expressed interest in how I was doing during this last long absence, including Sarah, Howard, Nina and Mike. I've been so busy I've cut back posting quite a bit, and still can't catch up with the flow of life! Hmn....there's a lesson in there somewhere....I've been finishing a book on acting, sort of a combination of philosophy book and guidebook for actors, that's been sitting waiting for the final edit for about eight years. Well I've now promised it to my acting students so I have to produce it -- a good device for getting things done. Still it's awfully difficult. I won't abuse the list with my other tedious responsibilities, although some of them, like taking care of Emily, are actually quite charming. But I will say that Emily is turning five today, and we're very excited. Seems like she snuck up on me, but I expected this! She's quite an amazing spiritual little thing. She's said to me several times: "Dad, is this really happening or am I just dreaming this? How can I tell if we're awake or not?" And things like: "Are we real?" "Is this the only place to live? Why do we have to be here? Are there other places to go instead of this world?" Anyway, I try to keep up with her. I have been enjoying the moments, despite the busyness, and I hope you are all well. I will try to pop in and respond to topics if I can. And thank you for being kind enough to keep me in your thoughts! Best Regards, Robert Ep. 22691 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard. I'm not sure which category my sense of consciousness in this context would fall into, but to my common sense, Larry's sentence makes sense. When he says "the experience of sound is consciousness", and pending further clarification, it seems like he is saying that "consciousness experiences sound" and therefore when sound is experienced, consciousness is implicated. I always think of consciousness somewhat as you have described it, as something which "tastes" or "knows" that which is its content. It has sentience or awareness to it. It may not matter whether that content is posited as existing independently, as simply being an object of mind that is part of consciousness itself, or if it is not specified what the status of the object of consciousness is, but is simply accepted as part of the "experience" that consciousness is having at that particular moment. Another aspect of the experience of sound as a form of consciousness is very interesting to me: And that is the act of mindfulness of tracing the experience of a worldly object back to the property of mind which "creates" it. I do not mean to say that consciousness creates the object itself, because I do not know this one way or the other, but I think one can experience the fact that when we seem to experience an outside object, that experience can be traced back not only to the sensory door that allows it in, but to the property of mind that experiences it because of its own capacity to do so. Thus in hearing a sound, one can, as I think you imply within the model of duality of hearer and sound, emphasize the sound as real, or the hearing as the experiential actuality. We do not know, since we cannot go beyond the mind in our current state, whether the hearing is dependent upon an actual sound "in the world", but we do know that the apprehension of the sound is completely dependent on hearing. So we don't know if we are "sound collectors" but we do know that we are definitely "hearers." When we go back to the act of hearing and the mind's capacity to "hear", we can experience the mind itself in action, and at the point in the mind where the sound is created as hearing within the mind itself, there is no sound to be posited separte from that hearing. That hearing exists in consciousness alone, at least at that point, and so n the inward-facing mode of hearing, focussed on the hearing, not the sound, then consciousness, hearing and sound are experienced as "one unified experience." I used to think that to have this experience I had to somehow anaesthesize other parts of the mind, like the running commentary, or the sensation of duality, but now I think one can simply turn towards the capacity of the consciousness in question and the other dualistic processes don't go away, but become much more peripheral. Anyway, thanks for a chance to stretch the brain cells. This stuff seems to make my mind wake up. Best, Robert Ep. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Larry - > > In a message dated 6/4/03 2:13:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... > writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > It makes sense to me to say the experience of sound is consciousness but > > I can see how that wouldn't make sense to everyone. > > > > Larry > > -------------------- > > Howard wrote: As I understand the word, consciousness is a knowing. Does > > a bell-sound know anything? Does hardness know anything? Or an image? Or > > an odor? A sound? A flavor? > > > > > ========================== > I'm trying to grasp your meaning. It *may* be that you are speaking > from a nondual perspective, one reflective of a nondual mode of awareness that > transcends mine, or one reflective of a language error. I simply don't know. > The word 'experience' can have several senses it seems to me. One of > these is 1) the operation of knowing something, being aware of something, with > the subjective knowing function being referred to rather than what is known. > This is a one-sided sense of the word. In this case, the word could be a verb > or a noun. The "opposite" one-sided sense is 2) the content of consciousness on > an occasion, so that, for example, itchiness could be an "experience" in this > sense, or brightness, or love. This, I believe, would only be a noun. A third > sense would be 3) the full cognitive event consisting of the knowing and the > known, a single event with two distinguishable sides/aspects/poles comparable > to the inside and he outside of a cup. This could be either verb or noun. A > fourth sense, reflective of a fully nondual event is that of 4) a cognitive > event in which there is no distinguishing whatsoever of subjective aspect from > objective aspect. > It is my experience that the typical mode of consciousness (in sense > 3) of worldlings is an extreme of dualized awareness. In this there is the > seeming of a self-existent subject relating to a separate, self-existing object. > Here, both subject and object are reified, most often to the extent that the > psychological subject appears as a self-existent "internal entity", and the > psychological object is "projected outwards" as an "object in the world". Here, > vi~n~nana is in the realm of "mind", and rupa is "matter" rather than just a > "material form" content of consciousness. > Now, I had an experience (once) in which this extreme of reification > and splitting of subject and object was eradicated. During this, there was > completely lost any sense of self. There was no longer any knower as an entity or > existent. Along with this, there were no longer any "things" known. But, if > attention was put it, it was still possible to be aware that there was content > and knowing of that content as inseparable aspects of a single, flowing event. > Now, when you say "the experience of sound is consciousness," I can't > tell which of senses (1) - (4), or yet another, is being expressed. In sense > (1), it is a mere truism. In sense (2), it strikes me as an odd use of > language. In senses (3) and (4), it strikes me as true but with a possible > substance-feel to it that is problematical, though not easily rectifiable. In any case, I > cannot tell whether or not your regular mode of cognition is of type (4). I > also cannot tell whether such a mode of cognition is one which sees truly, > because subject-object polarity is illusion, or one which simply fails to make a > valid distinction, going beyond non-reification of subject and object to a > false annihilation of them. > > With metta, > Howard > 22692 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: whoops, apologies for not snipping that last post. I'd say I'm out of practice, but I know I was a bad snipper even before my long break! Sorry! Best, Robert Ep. 22693 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] hi from Rob Ep! HI!! Rob Ep!! So glad you’ve made it back... I’ll hold my breath (plenty of practice during SARS) and hope you don’t run away again too soon;-) --- Robert Epstein wrote: >and still can't catch up with the flow of > life! Hmn....there's a lesson in there somewhere.... ..... I was just quoting you to Lee with the ‘life’s been catching up with me’....I see now you’re chasing life!! Your book sounds very interesting indeed - I’ll look out for it and hope not to pick up a book by that other Robert Epstein by mistake;-) Very happy birthday to Emily....(You’ve also just reminded me that I need to give my brother a birthday call.) Perhaps your next book could be on Emily’s qus and your responses......do share any. We had a lot of StarKids (a couple only 7yrs old) during the last year asking very interesting and challenging questions. James, Kom and others gave some fine responses - one day look under ‘children’ in Useful Posts for some of these. Emily would have been very at home. Look forward to reading your comments to Howard, Larry and all. With metta, Sarah p.s Newbies - you can find Rob Ep in no1 slot in the Members photo album and Emily in no 1 slot in the Significant Others album. We’d be glad if any of you add your pix as well. =============================== 22694 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 5 Hi, Nina and all - In a message dated 6/6/03 12:04:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is > the > time for practice. =========================== It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. Also, people have made a point of regularity of time and place for formal meditation, based on the habit-nature of people. So while the teaching quoted above is a good teaching, it is perhaps not the whole story. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22695 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:01am Subject: ....another thought for DSG Newbies Hi Yasa (and anyone new to the list), I think you asked (Nina) about seeing all the past messages on a thread on one page. May I suggest you make use of the escribe back-up list for its search function and following a thread. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ The posts are presented in order (most recent at the top), but it’s easy to click ‘view posts in the thread’ or ‘other posts by same author’, for example, to see either of these on the page. Also the search function works quite well if you want to look for past posts on a particular topic. Yasa, anytime you want to start a new thread, just click on reply, delete the previous message entirely and change the subject heading and off you go! Metta, Sarah p.s. Rob Ep -thx for your reminder to everyone to TRIM! ===== 22696 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" <> > Dear Dan, > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. In > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are reborn > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as > > ghosts. _________________> > Dear Robertk, > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for two > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly what > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate it. > > _______ Dear Dan, It is toward the end of the Ekakanipata (book of ones)of the Anguttara Nikaya of the Pali Tipitaka. The preceeding sutta has an interesting phrase: Seyyathàpi bhikkhave appamattakampi pubbo duggandho hoti, evameva kho ahaü bhikkhave appamattakampi bhavaü na vaõõemi, antamaso accharàsaïghàtamattampãti. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be got rid of, I do not say any existence is good even for an instant. Robertk RobertK 22697 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 0:25am Subject: Re: ....another thought for DSG Newbies --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasa (and anyone new to the list), > > I think you asked (Nina) about seeing all the past messages on a thread on > one page. May I suggest you make use of the escribe back-up list for its > search function and following a thread. > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ > > The posts are presented in order (most recent at the top), but it's easy > to click `view posts in the thread' or `other posts by same author', for > example, to see either of these on the page. Also the search function > works quite well if you want to look for past posts on a particular topic. > > > Yasa, anytime you want to start a new thread, just click on reply, delete > the previous message entirely and change the subject heading and off you > go! > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. Rob Ep -thx for your reminder to everyone to TRIM! > ===== > > Sarah, Thank you very. I have been reading Ninas ADL I want to finish reading it. I have taken down the number of the post(22475) where you had given all the relevent post on discussions about Abhidhamma,so that I can go to it when ever I want. Thank you again , with metta, Yasa 22698 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 8:47pm Subject: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry (and Mike) - Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: In a message dated 6/6/03 12:09:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > ========================== You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole composed of related parts a concept? If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where at all? One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand grain. We can walk on the beach, feel the sand's texture, feel its warmth. We cannot walk on a sand grain, nor feel texture from it, nor feel warmth from it (unless it is *very* hot). And even if the sand grain is more real than the beach, is it, itself, truly "real"? For that matter, is hardness truly real, and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on the mind (conceptual faculty). The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is that so certain? What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? Why is it less real than the rupas which comprise it? Perhaps the kalapa is the "reality", and it requires a kind of specific mental analysis to separate it into component rupas. Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our eyes concept? It is a whole composed of related parts, is it not? Or is that image a simple, indivisible rupa that is the arammana of the current visual citta? Not all that clear, is it? All that is truly clear, I think, except that we don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not so? I think these can be very clear, and these are very much true, but we really need to look and see. These are the touchstone, as I see it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22699 From: Date: Thu Jun 5, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Rob - In a message dated 6/6/03 1:58:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > Hi Howard. > I'm not sure which category my sense of consciousness in this context > would fall into, but to my common sense, Larry's sentence makes sense. > When he says "the experience of sound is consciousness", and pending > further clarification, it seems like he is saying that "consciousness > experiences sound" and therefore when sound is experienced, > consciousness is implicated. > ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I guess he is. I thought at first that he was saying that the sound was consciousness. I certainly agree that the experiencing of sound (or of anything else) is consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------------- I always think of consciousness somewhat> > as you have described it, as something which "tastes" or "knows" that > which is its content. It has sentience or awareness to it. It may > not matter whether that content is posited as existing independently, > as simply being an object of mind that is part of consciousness > itself, or if it is not specified what the status of the object of > consciousness is, but is simply accepted as part of the "experience" > that consciousness is having at that particular moment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. There is the experiencing - that's the consciousness, and there is what is experienced - that is the content or object, of consciousness, and there is the entire, joint, cognitive event, for which we have no good term. Perhaps a good term might be 'act of consciousness'. -------------------------------------------------- > > Another aspect of the experience of sound as a form of consciousness > is very interesting to me: And that is the act of mindfulness of > tracing the experience of a worldly object back to the property of > mind which "creates" it. I do not mean to say that consciousness > creates the object itself, because I do not know this one way or the > other, but I think one can experience the fact that when we seem to > experience an outside object, that experience can be traced back not > only to the sensory door that allows it in, but to the property of > mind that experiences it because of its own capacity to do so. > > Thus in hearing a sound, one can, as I think you imply within the > model of duality of hearer and sound, emphasize the sound as real, or > the hearing as the experiential actuality. We do not know, since we > cannot go beyond the mind in our current state, whether the hearing is > dependent upon an actual sound "in the world", but we do know that the > apprehension of the sound is completely dependent on hearing. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And also completely dependent on the sound heard. It's like the inside and the outside of box. There isn't one without the other. So the "duality" is also a "unity". In fact, it is neither. It is the middle way. ------------------------------------------------------ So we> > don't know if we are "sound collectors" but we do know that we are > definitely "hearers." > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is no "we" who are either of these. There is hearing, there is heard, and they go together. ------------------------------------------------------- When we go back to the act of hearing and the> > mind's capacity to "hear", we can experience the mind itself in > action, and at the point in the mind where the sound is created as > hearing within the mind itself, there is no sound to be posited > separte from that hearing. That hearing exists in consciousness > alone, at least at that point, and so n the inward-facing mode of > hearing, focussed on the hearing, not the sound, then consciousness, > hearing and sound are experienced as "one unified experience." ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that, so to speak, there is "one unified experience," but I think it is actually not-one and not-two. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > I used to think that to have this experience I had to somehow > anaesthesize other parts of the mind, like the running commentary, or > the sensation of duality, but now I think one can simply turn towards > the capacity of the consciousness in question and the other dualistic > processes don't go away, but become much more peripheral. > > Anyway, thanks for a chance to stretch the brain cells. This stuff > seems to make my mind wake up. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What it does to me is make me realize that I really don't know what is what, and makes me less content with many of the standard answers. What I do have exceedingly great confidence in is that the path practice the Buddha taught will, eventually, permit me to really come to see what is what. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert Ep. > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22700 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Victor Thanks for this passage from the sutta. But it doesn't help explain your understanding of the words spoken by Sister Vajira, regarding the significance of the 5 khandhas. Unless you feel inclined to give that explanation, I guess this is the end of that thread ;-)). Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for your reply. > > I have responded to your question by providing the reference to the > discourse > Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 > Satta Sutta > A Being > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html > > Let me quote the following passage from the discourse: > > > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near > Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then Ven. > Radha > went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him > sat > to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: > "'A > being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to > be 'a being'?" > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one > is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to > be 'a being (satta).' > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... > perception... fabrications... > > "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: > when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a > being.' > > > It is the above passage that I wanted to draw your attention to. > > Thank you again for your reply. Your comment is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor 22701 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significance of the 5 aggregates Hi Jon, Thank you for your reply. You asked me in message #22257 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22257 the following: Would you care to share with us your understanding of intended meaning of this passage, particularly the connection between the five aggregates and the convention 'a being' that is being described here (or in whatever terms you see it)? This is how I understand the connection between the five aggregates and the convention 'a being' as what the Buddha taught in the discourse: "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up (satta) there, tied up (visatta) there, one is said to be 'a being (satta).' "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications... "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' Samyutta Nikaya XXIII.2 Satta Sutta A Being http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html Thank you again for your reply. Your comment and feedback is appreciated. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for this passage from the sutta. But it doesn't help explain > your understanding of the words spoken by Sister Vajira, regarding > the significance of the 5 khandhas. Unless you feel inclined to give > that explanation, I guess this is the end of that thread ;-)). > > Jon 22703 From: sinweiy Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of emptiness. So to speak? :) Thus may i ask where is the mind? Is it inside, outside or in the middle? regards, sinweiy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > Larry 22704 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:39am Subject: The dying of children was (Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn) Hello Azita, Regarding grieving parents and dying children: I know that you know that it is really important not to talk 'at' the little ones much at all - but to listen to what they're really saying underneath the words they say. And only when they want you to. They don't have to solve the riddle of life and death - they just need to be as comfortable and peaceful as you are able to make them until they go. I think you'd be very good at that. And I know you know that the little ones don't respond to any 'one size fits all' counselling. Different ages, different comprehension. Often overlooked, is the well-being of paediatric nurses like yourself and medical staff (and perhaps the odd social worker as well :-)) who are constantly supporting others through this unbearable experience that has to be born. If anything could destroy the belief in an all powerful god, it is the dying of children who are barely able to understand what is happening, and the grieving of parents who, if they only could, would take the place of their little one in a second. Your ward team will be there for you as they always are, take the fellowship they offer. And when that's not enough, go home after your shift, lock the bathroom door, get in a steaming hot shower, lean on the wall, and have a bloody good cry. You asked about lifespan in the Tipitaka - I have a vague feeling I read something connecting it with lengthening and shortening world cycles ... There are also a couple of suttas in the Connected Disourses of the Buddha (Bhikkhu Bodhi) Sagathavagga 4 Marasamyutta 9 (9) Life-span (1). Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel Sanctuary. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus!" "Venerable sir!" those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this: "Bhikkhus, this life span of human beings is short. One has to go on to the future life. One should do what is wholesome and lead the holy life; for one who has taken birth there is no avoiding death. One who lives long, bhikkhus, lives a hundred years or a little longer." Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse: "Long is the life span of human beings, The good man should not disdain it. One should live like a milk-sucking baby: Death has not made its arrival." [The Blessed One] "Short is the life span of human beings, The good man should disdain it. One should live like one with head aflame: There is no avoiding Death's arrival." Then Mara the Evil One ... disappeared right there." 10 (10) Life-Span (2) (Opening as in the preceding sutta:) Then Mara the Evil One approached the Blessed One and addressed him in verse: "The days and nights do not fly by, Life does not come to a stop. The life span of mortals rolls along, Like the chariot's felly round the hub." [The Blessed One] "The days and nights go flying by, Life comes to a stop. The life span of mortals is depleted like the water in rivulets." Then Mara the Evil One ... disappeared right there." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" 22706 From: m. nease Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:08 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? > Hi Mike, > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are saying > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole composed > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? I don't personally think of a concept so much as a name, but I think I see what you mean--something like, anything not analysed or reduced to its most basic components (e.g. 'a person')? If so, I think I understand this usage of 'concept' OK, though, for myself, when I think of a concept I usually just think of an idea, a specifically (and exclusively) mental object that can be known but doesn't know--cetanaa knows the the object (of its citta). This is somewhat theoretical but makes sense to me intuitively ('feels right') and is consistent with the texts, I think. So I wouldn't personally define a concept as 'any whole composed of related parts' but think I know what you mean if you'd like to continue. mike 22707 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 6:34am Subject: Sorry.... Dear Kom, I have not written to you for a long bacuse I was quite busy...... Thank you for answering my questions! Here are some new ones: 1. Is there a special Buddha day? 2. Does every Buddhist clelebrate that day or only some of them? Got to go!! Metta Janice 22708 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi, Larry and all - In a message dated 6/6/03 3:48:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand > grain. We can walk on the beach, feel the sand's texture, feel its warmth. > We > cannot walk on a sand grain, nor feel texture from it, nor feel warmth from > it (unless it is *very* hot). And even if the sand grain is more real than > the > beach, is it, itself, truly "real"? For that matter, is hardness truly real, > > and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all > on > the mind (conceptual faculty). The standard answer to the last is "yes". But > is > that so certain? What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? Why is > it less real than the rupas which comprise it? Perhaps the kalapa is the > "reality", and it requires a kind of specific mental analysis to separate it > into > component rupas. Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater > reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? > Is it > more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? > ============================ Just one more thought along these same lines. What about a processes, cittas, arammanas, and cetasikas? A process, by definition, is a sequence of mindstates with the same object (arammana). Is a process a concept? Are the individual mindstates "realities", but the process, being a collection of related elements, a concept? Or is it possible that the process is the primary "reality" in this context, and we, perhaps artificially, mentally carve it up into individual mindstates? What about the single mindstate? Is that concept-only, with the citta, arammana, and cetasikas, its "components", being the "realities"? Or is the mindstate a "reality", with the citta, arammana, and cetasikas being inseparable aspects of that mindstate? The inclination that Abhidhammika's have, and that I have for the most part as well, is that elementary/indivisible elements of experience have greater reality than composites. The only nagging doubting of that I have pertains to possible cases in which the so-called composite may not truly be a composite, but is, instead, a direct element of experience, and its so-called components are mind-constructed, rather than the other way around. My point is that matters may not be quite as straightforward as we seem to think. For me, there *is* a valid distinction to be made between the directly discerned and the mind-constructed, with the first being relatively real and the second relatively unreal. My caveat is that it is not always so clear which is which! With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22709 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 10:07am Subject: Perfections Ch 9, Determination, no 13 Perfections Ch 9, Determination, no 13 When we give things away for the benefit and happiness of someone else but neglect to be intent on the eradication of our defilements at such moments, the determination to eradicate them is not yet firm enough. It is difficult to reach the other shore when we do not have firm determination with regard to the four foundation dhammas, aditthåna dhammas, of truthfulness, relinquishment, calm, and paññå. If someone sees the benefit of the firm determination for relinquishment, cågaditthåna, and he has eliminated defilements, he also has the firm determination for calm, upasamaditthåna; he has calm that is freedom of defilements. This is freedom of involvement with visible object, sound, odour, flavour, tangible object, and this leads to being undisturbed by them. This leads also to the development of the perfection of renunciation, nekkhamma påramí, departing from sense pleasures. Even someone who is a layfollower may gradually abandon clinging to the sense objects and to the married state. He may be a layfollower who is not married because he sees the disadvantage of the strong bond of family life which is a burden. Thus, he sees the benefit of calm and becomes firmly established in the inclination to calm, and this is the foundation dhamma of calm. When someone is firmly established in the foundation dhamma of calm, it is conditioned by the foundation dhamma of paññå. Paññåditthåna is the fourth foundation dhamma. As we have seen, there are four firm foundations, aditthåna dhammas: determination of truthfulness, sacca, of relinquishment, cåga, of calm or peace, upasama, and of paññå. Paññå can be accumulated by listening to the Dhamma, by considering it and testing its meaning by asking questions. In this way we can verify what is kusala, what is akusala, what is wrong, what is right, and we can understand what kamma is and what its result. When we listen to the Dhamma we can investigate the true nature of realities that are cause and that are result. We should use the opportunities we have for listening to the Dhamma during this lifespan. Someone may be negligent in listening to the Dhamma, and he may think that by listening once or only a few times, he can be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Then his determination is not yet firm enough. He should further develop the foundation dhamma of paññå, and in this way the perfection of determination will become accomplished. The perfection of determination is an essential condition for the perfection of paññå that leads to reaching the further shore, that is, the realization of nibbåna. ****** (end of Ch 9) 22710 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 10:07am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 6 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 3, no 6 In the Suttas the development of insight is implied in merely the words ³clear comprehension², or ³full understanding². We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, Comprehension: Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of extinguishing Ill... It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing ³the all² dukkha can be extinguished. The Commentary explains: ³In this sutta the three kinds of full understanding, pariññås, are referred to: fully knowing (abhijånam), this word refers to ³full understanding of the known² (ñåta pariññå). Comprehending (parijånam), this word refers to full understanding as investigation (tírana pariññå). Detaching (viråjayam) and abandoning (pajaham) refer to the third kind of full understanding, which is full understanding as abandoning (pahåna-pariññå).² Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The ³Visuddhimagga²(Ch XX,4) explains about the three kinds of full understanding: full understanding of the known (ñåta pariññå) begins at the first stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). As paññå develops it penetrates the specific characteristics of nåma and rúpa. It comes to know different kinds of nåma and of rúpa. It comes to know the characteristics of all realities that appear and it understands them more clearly as nåma and rúpa. The second kind of full understanding, full understanding as investigation (tírana pariññå): begins at the third stage of tender insight (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight (mahå-vipassana ñåna): realizing the arising and falling away of realities. Here paññå comes to penetrate more the general characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå. The third kind of full understanding, full understanding as abandoning (pahåna pariññå), begins at the contemplation of dissolution (bhangañåna), the second stage of principal insight. We can see from this description that as paññå develops it leads to detachment, to abandoning, but it develops stage by stage. If the specific characteristics of nåma and rúpa are not fully understood, the three general characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of paññå evolves according to a specific order, according to the stages of insight. The late Bhikkhu Dhammadharo said: "Wisdom, paññå, gets beyond words, beyond thinking about states, positions, ideas about a self or a whole, and it sees reality without thinking. Because the function of panna is not thinking, its function is to see clearly, to penetrate that which we mistake for "sitting". We mistakenly think that a person is sitting. We have the wrong idea of "I am sitting". Anattå is the core of the Buddha's teaching, not attå, self." ******* (end of Ch 3) 22711 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 8:20am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sinweiy" wrote: > Hi, > > Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". > Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". > The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of > emptiness. So to speak? :) > > Thus may i ask where is the mind? > Is it inside, outside or in the middle? > > regards, > sinweiy > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > > > I think I can show that intention (cetana) is a concept but first we > > have to agree on what is a concept. As I understand it, we are > saying > > concept is not only a name and its meaning but also any whole > composed > > of related parts. Are you agreeable to this? > > > > Larry Hello, All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, including thoughts. with metta, yasa 22712 From: manjushri888 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:25pm Subject: Re: sutra reference --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "manjushri888" <> > Dear > Dan, > > > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara- > > > Nikaya/Anguttara1/1-ekanipata/016-Ekadhammapali-e.htm > > > CatutthavaggaVagga. > > > > > > 340.Bhikkhus, a few released from hell are reborn with the gods, > > > many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. > In > > > the same manner a few who leave behind the animal world are > reborn > > > as humans, many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and > as > > > ghosts. > _________________> > > Dear Robertk, > > > > Thank's so very much! This is what I have been trying to find for > two > > day's now!--a direct sutra reference. > > > > Your link however didn't work and I would love to know exactly > what > > sutra this came from if you don't mind. I would greatly appreciate > it. > > > > _______ > Dear Dan, > It is toward the end of the Ekakanipata (book of ones)of the > Anguttara Nikaya of the Pali Tipitaka. > > The preceeding sutta has an interesting phrase: > Seyyathàpi bhikkhave appamattakampi pubbo duggandho hoti, evameva > kho ahaü bhikkhave appamattakampi bhavaü na vaõõemi, antamaso > accharàsaïghàtamattampãti. > Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be got > rid of, I do not say any existence is good even for an instant. > > Robertk Thank's, Robertk. You have been an enormous help! :) 22713 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > Hello, > > All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, > including thoughts. > with metta, > yasa _______ Dear Yasa, Do you have any references for this? I haven't heard it before. Is there anything that is not concept? Robertk 22714 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 4:42pm Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi Howard, Nicely ruminated. I share all your questions and eagerly await any answers you or anyone else may come up with. Larry 22715 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Mike, We could say 'any whole composed of related parts' is either a concept or a paramattha dhamma. The classic example of a whole composed of related parts is a 'person' composed of the 5 khandhas. However, every paramattha dhamma is at least the 'whole' of its characteristic, function, and manifestation. Not only that, but everything that arises arises relationally. Plus every dhamma, even nibbana, depends on 'other' for its identity. So that's my argument on why every dhamma is a concept. However, as Howard pointed out, we still have to find some kind of reality in here somewhere. But at this point, concepts fail me:-)) Larry 22716 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/6/03 7:09:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > Hello, > > All that is, seen, heard,smelled, tasted,and felt are concepts, > including thoughts. > with metta, > yasa > ========================== Why do you say that? When you feel warmth, are you feeling a concept or are you directly feeling a physical sensation? Of course the felt warmth occurs "in the mind" in the sense that what is *felt* is not some external, separate entity called "warmth" - at least I believe that it is the case. But is there a synthetic or analytic activity of the mind, a constructive function or a carving-out function that produced the warmth from other things? The warmth arises, of course, from causes and conditions among which is the kamma of the mindstream involved, but is it actually created by concept-forming mechanisms? I doubt it. It seems to me that to call everything "concept" is to wipe out all meaning for the word 'concept'. I admit that often it is difficult to tell concepts (or their alleged referents) from what is directly experienced (experienced without the prior activity of constructive, concept forming activities), but that doesn't mean that the distinction is an invalid one. If "we bang our knee", there is a sharp, attention-getting sensation that is responded to immediately with a feeling of bodily displeasure (negative bodily vedana), then our pattern recognition operations (sa~n~na) recognize the sensation as "extreme pain", and we then react (sankhara) with aversion. The original sensation is not concept. The bodily displeasure isn't either. The recognition of the original sensation as "pain" is, in my opinion, the lowest level, perhaps a "proto-level" of concept formation. The primary concept-making machinery, building on sa~n~na, lies within the sankharakhandha, which is also "home" for our thoughts and emotions. The mind indeed engages in all sorts of activities of amazing complexity. These activities operate, ultimately, on basic material, material that is not yet worked over by the mind. That basic material, arising from causes and conditions, including kamma, is not concept. It is what the Abhidhammists call paramattha dhammas. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22717 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Sinweiy, You wrote: "Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of emptiness." Larry: I would say "emptiness is the playground" isn't quite right. Emptiness always needs a container, as for example a cup that is empty. Some Tibetans like to say there are two kinds of emptiness: empty of itself and empty of other. 'Empty of other' means empty of something other than the container. For example, mind is empty of permanence. There is nothing permanent in mind. 'Empty of itself' refers to a whole and its parts. The mind is composed of many inter-related elements, but none of these elements is mind itself. When we look, mind cannot be found. However, mind is not nonexistent. It has kammic viability. It functions through cause and result. So mind is empty of itself but not nonexistent. That is one way of understanding the Middle Way. Larry 22718 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 1:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/6/03 8:36:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sinweiy, > > You wrote: "Correct me if i'm wrong. Is it to said that concept is a > "play toy". Mind is the "playee", and emptiness is the "play ground". > The mind is playing with words/concept in the infinite space of > emptiness." > > Larry: I would say "emptiness is the playground" isn't quite right. > Emptiness always needs a container, as for example a cup that is empty. > Some Tibetans like to say there are two kinds of emptiness: empty of > itself and empty of other. 'Empty of other' means empty of something > other than the container. For example, mind is empty of permanence. > There is nothing permanent in mind. > > 'Empty of itself' refers to a whole and its parts. The mind is composed > of many inter-related elements, but none of these elements is mind > itself. When we look, mind cannot be found. However, mind is not > nonexistent. It has kammic viability. It functions through cause and > result. So mind is empty of itself but not nonexistent. That is one way > of understanding the Middle Way. > > Larry > > ============================== Larry, Larry, Larry! What HAVE you been reading!! ;-))) With madhyamika metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22719 From: Date: Fri Jun 6, 2003 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, I just made up the "kammic viability" bit. I don't know if it will fly or not. Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: Larry, Larry, Larry! What HAVE you been reading!! ;-))) 22720 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ========================== > Why do you say that? When you feel warmth, are you feeling a concept > or are you directly feeling a physical sensation? Of course the felt warmth > occurs "in the mind" in the sense that what is *felt* is not some external, > separate entity called "warmth" - at least I believe that it is the case. But is > there a synthetic or analytic activity of the mind, a constructive function or a > carving-out function that produced the warmth from other things? The warmth > arises, of course, from causes and conditions among which is the kamma of the > mindstream involved, but is it actually created by concept-forming mechanisms? > I doubt it. > It seems to me that to call everything "concept" is to wipe out all > meaning for the word 'concept'. I admit that often it is difficult to tell > concepts (or their alleged referents) from what is directly experienced > (experienced without the prior activity of constructive, concept forming activities), but > that doesn't mean that the distinction is an invalid one. If "we bang our > knee", there is a sharp, attention-getting sensation that is responded to > immediately with a feeling of bodily displeasure (negative bodily vedana), then our > pattern recognition operations (sa~n~na) recognize the sensation as "extreme > pain", and we then react (sankhara) with aversion. The original sensation is not > concept. The bodily displeasure isn't either. The recognition of the original > sensation as "pain" is, in my opinion, the lowest level, perhaps a > "proto-level" of concept formation. The primary concept-making machinery, building on > sa~n~na, lies within the sankharakhandha, which is also "home" for our thoughts > and emotions. The mind indeed engages in all sorts of activities of amazing > complexity. These activities operate, ultimately, on basic material, material > that is not yet worked over by the mind. That basic material, arising from > causes and conditions, including kamma, is not concept. It is what the > Abhidhammists call paramattha dhammas. _________________________________Yasa______________________________ > Hello Howard, Sankhata Dhamma includes all phenomena of existence. They are also sankhara mental formations. " sabbe sankhara anicca" all formations are impermanent.Only Nibbana is unconditioned (asankata). All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional terms. Paramatta dhamma as long as we use that term to signify some thing, is as well a concept. Feeling of warmth, extreme pain they are all concepts. Paramatta dhamma, has to be experienced and what is experienced would be beyond concepts, because you will not be able to explain that experience in known words and terms. You mentioned sanna- Sanna is the store house of our knowledge. When we see something(passa), and feel it by like or dislike(vedana), then we recognize it from a thing we have seen in the past(sanna). All that stored-up information are concepts. With metta, Yasa 22721 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 7:46:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > Hello Howard, > > Sankhata Dhamma includes all phenomena of existence. They are also > sankhara mental formations. " sabbe sankhara anicca" all formations > are impermanent.Only Nibbana is unconditioned (asankata). > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. -------------------------------------------------- > > All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. > That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional > terms. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. ------------------------------------------------- Paramatta dhamma as long as we use that term to signify some > > thing, is as well a concept. Feeling of warmth, extreme pain they > are all concepts. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', and the ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. But the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the terms naming them or the ideas of them - are *not* concepts. --------------------------------------------------- > > Paramatta dhamma, has to be experienced and what is experienced > would be beyond concepts, because you will not be able to explain > that experience in known words and terms. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is devised and used for communication purposes only.) ----------------------------------------------------- > > You mentioned sanna- Sanna is the store house of our knowledge. When > we see something(passa), and feel it by like or dislike(vedana), then > we recognize it from a thing we have seen in the past(sanna). All > that stored-up information are concepts. > > With metta, > Yasa > ================================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22722 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:04am Subject: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi Howard, You wrote to Larry (and Mike): ------------ > Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: > --------------- I appreciate these questions Howard. I feel like I'm filling out one of those quizzes in a magazine. If I turn the page upside down, I might find the answers and calculate my score :-) ------------- > You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole composed of related parts a concept? > -------------- I think so. ------------- > If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where at all? > --------------- Entirely in the mind. Which, ultimately, means nowhere at all. They have no nature of their own. ---------------- > One also might ask whether the beach is really less real than the sand grain. > ------------------- They are both unreal -- both concepts. Similarly, the wheels, axel, shafts etc., that make up a chariot are concepts. It is only in the metaphor that they represent realities. In the metaphor, 'chariot' stands for the concept of a 'living being,' and the parts stand for the realities of the five khandhas. ------- . . . > is hardness truly real, and does it exist in dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on the mind (conceptual faculty). > ----------- Yes it is truly real. When it is the object of consciousness, there are no concepts. ------------ > The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is that so certain? -------------- Please explain; certain to whom? ----------- > What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? > -------------- I haven't done my homework. Does a kalapa have its own sabhava? If yes, then it's a reality; if no, then the so-called kalapa is a mere concept. I vaguely understand that rupas are interdependent -- just like khandhas -- they arise together or not at all. If they aren't arising together, then there is no living being and no kalapa (so-called) :-) ----------------- . . . > Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't both depend on the mind? > --------------- Notes and tunes are concepts. ----------------- > Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our eyes concept? > ----------------- The eye sees visible object, from which the mind creates images (concepts). I don't know if visible object can be divided into parts. Do any of us worldlings [directly] know very much about visible object? ----------------- > Not all that clear, is it? All that is truly clear, I think, except that we don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not so? > --------------------- This is interesting, Howard. You find (and I think I know what you mean), that anicca, dukkha and anatta are easier to grasp intellectually than are visible object and tactile object etc. Let's not forget that, at the level of vipassana, the three characteristics are the hardest to know (they are the hardest vipassana-nana). After them, the only knowledge to be attained is Nibbana itself. So perhaps the three characteristics are harder to grasp intellectually than we give them credit for. Perhaps we still have them very much confused with conceptual characteristics. Kind regards, Ken PS. I'm a bit behind with my reading. I'm yet to take a close look at your sequel to this post (in 22708). 22723 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: The Touchstone Re: [dsg] mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confus... Hi, Ken - Just a couple responses below. In a message dated 6/7/03 9:07:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You wrote to Larry (and Mike): > ------------ > > Not many answers here by me - mostly just questions: > > > --------------- > I appreciate these questions Howard. I feel like I'm > filling out one of those quizzes in a magazine. If I turn > the page upside down, I might find the answers and > calculate my score :-) > > ------------- > > You know, ideas are strange things. Is any whole > composed of related parts a concept? > > > -------------- > I think so. > ------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When it is truly a collection, I agree. What I wonder is whether there are not circumstances in which what is apparently a collection is, in fact, a directly experienced phenomenon, alleged parts of which only emerge as the result of subsequent mental processing. The "sight" example I gave is one which comes to mind. We open our eyes and there is a "sight". The "within that" we carve out areas of differing shades, intensities, and colors. What there is paramattha and what is sankhata (in the sense of constructed)? ------------------------------------------------- > > If one thinks about it, one may wonder where such > a whole composed of parts is to be found. Where is the > chariot to be found? In the mind? "Out there"? No where > at all? > > --------------- > > Entirely in the mind. Which, ultimately, means nowhere > at all. They have no nature of their own. > > ---------------- -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That is my assessment as well. -------------------------------------------------- > > One also might ask whether the beach is really > less real than the sand grain. > > ------------------- > > They are both unreal -- both concepts. Similarly, the > wheels, axel, shafts etc., that make up a chariot are > concepts. It is only in the metaphor that they represent > realities. In the metaphor, 'chariot' stands for the > concept of a 'living being,' and the parts stand for the > realities of the five khandhas. > > ------- ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, hmm. ---------------------------------------------------- > . . . >is hardness truly real, and does it exist in > dependence on touch consciousness only and not at all on > the mind (conceptual faculty). > > ----------- > > Yes it is truly real. When it is the object of > consciousness, there are no concepts. > > ------------ > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. I also think that hardness is a directly experienced phenomenon, without conceptual mediation. --------------------------------------------------- > >The standard answer to the last is "yes". But is > that so certain? > -------------- > > Please explain; certain to whom? > > ----------- > >What about the so called kalapa? Is that a concept? > > -------------- > > I haven't done my homework. Does a kalapa have its own > sabhava? If yes, then it's a reality; if no, then the > so-called kalapa is a mere concept. I vaguely understand > that rupas are interdependent -- just like khandhas -- > they arise together or not at all. > > If they aren't arising together, then there is no living > being and no kalapa (so-called) :-) > > ----------------- > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Given that kalapas do exist (conventionally or ultimately), I think it is a legitimate qustion to ask whether they are concept-only. They are "bundles". The point is, are they mentally constructed from the rupas they subsume? If yes, they are concept-only. -------------------------------------------------------- > . . . >Is it not possible that sometimes the whole is a > greater reality than the parts. Why is a musical note > more real than than a melody? Is it more real?? And don't > both depend on the mind? > > --------------- > > Notes and tunes are concepts. > > ----------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course they are. This question is a matter of analogy. Is the note *more* real than the melody? That is the issue. The main issue being debated here is that of a collection being less real than the elements of that collection. I think that proposition is generally correct, but not clearly always so. ------------------------------------------------------- > >Also, if a whole composed of related parts is a > concept, then is the image that is seen when we open our > eyes concept? > > ----------------- > > The eye sees visible object, from which the mind creates > images (concepts). I don't know if visible object can be > divided into parts. Do any of us worldlings [directly] > know very much about visible object? > > ----------------- > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: About as much as we know about sounds, tastes, etc ------------------------------------------------------ > >Not all that clear, is it? > All that is truly clear, I think, except that we > don't really see it so well, is that all conditioned > dhammas are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and > insubstantial, impersonal, and ungraspable, is that not > so? > > --------------------- > > This is interesting, Howard. You find (and I think I > know what you mean), that anicca, dukkha and anatta are > easier to grasp intellectually than are visible object > and tactile object etc. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't doubt any of these for a second. But distinguishing what is conceptual from actual, in some cases, is harder - for me. ------------------------------------------------------ > > Let's not forget that, at the level of vipassana, the > three characteristics are the hardest to know (they are > the hardest vipassana-nana). After them, the only > knowledge to be attained is Nibbana itself. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Nonetheless, I haven't the slightest doubt, for example, that nothing remains. Not only do I see it in this conventional world, during the course of a lifetime, but I see it from moment to moment during "ordinary consciousness," and I've seen it more "microscopically" during meditation, where it was apparent that nothing remains even for a moment. --------------------------------------------------- > > So perhaps the three characteristics are harder to grasp > intellectually than we give them credit for. Perhaps we > still have them very much confused with conceptual > characteristics. > > Kind regards, > Ken > > PS. I'm a bit behind with my reading. I'm yet to take a > close look at your sequel to this post (in 22708). ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22724 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hello Howard, So far so good. We accept (1) All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are concepts. That is the concepts are to make us understand things in conventional terms. (2) The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', and the ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. ____________________________________________________________________ We disagree on: Howard: ..the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the terms naming them or the ideas of them - are *not* concepts. Yasa: I still say these ARE concepts. Why ? Because, when you say "warmth", "pain" "sight" or "sound" you are describing a feeling, or an emotion. The movement you "describe it", it becomes a concept. Then how can we see "the ultimate reality" behind the concept ? I say that it can be "EXPERIENCED" by "not describing it." A silent mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. ___________________________________________________________________ There is again a disagreement here but I cannot get at what you really mean: Howard: What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is devised and used for communication purposes only.) Yasa: I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it. Because the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, therefore, is a concept. With metta, Yasa 22725 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 10:14am Subject: rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Kom, Rob K and all, Kom, although you are just moving in, I would like some words of advice from you. I read the sutta about rebirth in hell quoted by Rob K and I was so impressed. < In the same manner a few humans who leave the human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in the animal world and as ghosts. > Before, you wrote about the tortoise and the yoke with the hole, saying that you at first are scared, but then encouraged to develop satipatthana. Well, I am inclined to overlook suttas such as this one, I do not like to hear them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he is inclined to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too difficult. I think we read the sutta with a concept of self, what will happen to the self. In reality there are only conditioned dhammas. I agree with Howard that we are too imperfect, we are limited as to our possibilities. He said: ( I am coming back to this later on, Howard.) If we worry about our future (it looks grim) why not make the worry object of satipatthana: it is not my worry, only a conditioned dhamma, a nama. If we overlook fear and worry, we are not doing the best we can. And this was the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the present moment. I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. The sutta also reminded me of Jåtaka no. 538, Múgapakkha Jåtaka. We read in the series of the perfections, Determination: For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the time, the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. Kom, what do you think? Nina. 22726 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 10:08:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > > So far so good. > > We accept > > (1) All words used to describe a phenomena of existence are > concepts. > That is the concepts are to make us understand things in > conventional > terms. > > (2) The *terms* 'paramattha dhamma', 'warmth', and 'extreme pain', > and the > ideas they express are, indeed, all concepts. > ____________________________________________________________________ > > We disagree on: > > Howard: > ..the warmth, pain, sights, sounds, tastes etc, themselves - not the > terms naming them or the ideas of them > > - are *not* concepts. > > > Yasa: > > I still say these ARE concepts. Why ? Because, when you > say "warmth", "pain" "sight" or "sound" you are describing a feeling, > or an emotion. The movement you "describe it", it becomes a concept. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I am *saying* and what I am thinking *when* I say it are concepts, but what *led* to the saying, which only can be directly experienced, is *not* concept. My describing something doesn't change that thing. The problem is that what is described cannot actually be the thing intended to be described, but only a conceptual pointer to it (provided, of course, the concept is not unfounded). It seems to me that sometimes you are mixing what Quine referred to as 'word' and 'object'. If I am *talking* to you, I must use words and concepts. They are for thinking and communication. If you have experienced warmth, and I have experienced warmth, and I use the word 'warmth' in communicating with you, there is understanding. This is because we have had the same experience. The experience you and I had was "real" and direct, but the name and idea of it are not.They are mere pointers. -------------------------------------------------- > > Then how can we see "the ultimate reality" behind the concept ? I say > that it can be "EXPERIENCED" by "not describing it." > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It does not get experienced *by* not describing it. It gets experienced by experiencing it. At the moment it is experienced, I agree there is no concept or description of it. None is needed then. --------------------------------------------------- A silent > > mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just a slogan, Yasa. A silent mind may be asleep. A prepared mind, with defilements removed (or perhaps only in abeyanace), can "hear". -------------------------------------------------- > ___________________________________________________________________ > > There is again a disagreement here but I cannot get at what you > really mean: > > Howard: > > What is directly experienced is certainly different from our idea of > it or our name for it. But it is not concept. (Concept and speech is > devised and used for communication purposes only.) > > Yasa: > > I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is > not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no disagreement on this. Taste must be tasted. A dinner cannot be enjoyed by reading the menu. [Speaking metaphorically here, of course.] --------------------------------------------------- Because > > the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in > your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, > describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, > therefore, is a concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely! What I didn't get, and what I still don't quite get, is your claim that thee is nothing but concept. What you wrote above: "I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it." shows that you do *not* say that everything is concept! It seems to me that we are actually in agreement on this matter! ----------------------------------------------------- > > With metta, > Yasa > > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22727 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 3:18pm Subject: RE: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 10:15 AM > > Kom, although you are just moving in, I would like some words of > advice from > you. > I read the sutta about rebirth in hell quoted by Rob K and I was so > impressed. > < In the same manner a few humans who leave the > human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in > the animal world and as ghosts. > I think these suttas provide me with the urgency to understand dhammas more, to develop all sorts of kusala, according to my understanding, as best as I can. Without hearing about it, I may feel a bit relaxed, not knowing that there is a flame afire on my head. > them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he > is inclined > to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too > difficult. When I understand that there is no other path, then the goal doesn't seem so difficult. As long as we walk on the right path, one day we must get there. Coming upon the right path is difficult, but walking on the path just takes a long time. If we understand that there is no other way, then it doesn't seem so bothersome. > If we worry about our future (it looks grim) why not make the worry object > of satipatthana: it is not my worry, only a conditioned dhamma, a nama. If > we overlook fear and worry, we are not doing the best we can. And this was > the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the > present moment. I agree that we shouldn't neglect knowing aversion as it is. On the other hand, being sometimes a depressed person like I am, I still think we do our best to avoid it. Strong aversion has not only bad mental effects, but physical effects as well. Attachment, or other kilesa, is not good for the mind, but at least mild attachment doesn't have adverse (I think) physical effects. > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am > not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. I keep getting reminded that only anagami can let go of attachment to the 5 sensualities ;-). I think I heard from a Sutta that the Buddha said, for those not skilled in Jhana, then they are bound to be inclined toward the 5 sensualities. It's inevitable. Even Visakha, a most eminent sotapanna disciple of the Buddha, enjoyed her jewelries and other pleasant things in life. > We read in > the series of the perfections, Determination: > danger of hell. He thought, ³the danger of hell is more fearful, it is a > hundredfold, a thousandfold, even a tenthousandfold more fearful.² The > wetnurses who tested him in these ways did not see any weak point in the > Bodhisatta. > > For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the time, > the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. Kom, > what do you think? > The question I ask myself is why do I want to force myself? If the answer (for me) is, because other says it is good (or worse yet, I think letting go in this way is the way to nibbana) or for others' approval, then this may not be all that great to do. But if there are other good reasons, like if I see it as it is (that life is a serie of dung), or if I think that we need to start somewhere to create habits, then we don't have to force anything (or don't have to force as much). It used to be harder for me to give. Did I have to force myself (more) to give at the beginning? Yes, but I did it because I understood that if I didn't start, there would be no inclination to do so in the future. If there is understanding, all the rest come very naturally. This reminds me of a passage from A. Sujin's tape. She asked people if anyone has the inclination to go and fight with kilesa in our daily life. Then she said, if you do, the result is always the same: you always lose. Only panna can truly suppress, and takes us a long the path toward getting rid of kilesa. When we undrstands the true faults of the 5 sensualities (of its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta), then letting go of those come naturally, and eventually, permanently. Only panna (and all its supportive) states will do, not us. kom 22728 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hello Howard Just a little more, if you would permit me/ ______________________________________________________________________ Howard: What I am *saying* and what I am thinking *when* I say it are concepts, but what *led* to the saying, which only can be directly experienced, is *not* concept. My describing something doesn't change that thing. The problem is that what is described cannot actually be the thing intended to be described, but only a conceptual pointer to it (provided, of course, the concept is not unfounded). It seems to me that sometimes you are mixing what Quine referred to as 'word' and 'object'. If I am *talking* to you, I must use words and concepts. They are for thinking and communication. If you have experienced warmth, and I have experienced warmth, and I use the word 'warmth' in communicating with you, there is understanding. This is because we have had the same experience. The experience you and I had was "real" and direct, but the name and idea of it are not.They are mere pointers. ___________________________________________________ Yasa: I think I get what you mean. Your experience remains an experience, but what you say about is a pointer to it. Is it ? Then you are conceptualising your experience. You make a concept of it. We are living in a world of concepts. We are far away from reality, but trying to explain reality we come out with concepts. You have experienced an emotion, another person also experiences the same emotion. For you that emotion is close to a conventional term "warmth" which the other person too understands. What you have done is conceptualising an emotion using a conventional term. But did the other person have the same emotion as you did ? The difference does not matter because the closes word to describe the emotion is "warmth". It is a pointer and a concept (conceptualising the pointer) -------------------------------------------------- A silent mind "hears". That's it.FULL STOP. Nothing beyond nothing before. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's just a slogan, Yasa. A silent mind may be asleep. A prepared mind, with defilements removed (or perhaps only in abeyanace), can "hear". -------------------------------------------------- Yasa: Certainly not. A silent mind, is a meditative mind, in meditation the mind is alert. It does not sleep. Lets leave meditation aside, for the moment. No polemics .....! Let us see it through Abhidhamma: When an object impinges on a sense door say the "eye-door" Atitabhavanga awakens, bhavangacalana, follows it,then bhavangupaccheda, cuts off the bhavanga, and then arises cakkhu dvarvajjana citta, it is only then the object which impinged on the "sense door of eye "comes in to its field of vision, but this citta is a kiriya citta. At that moment before the arising of the Cakku vinnana, there is pure "seeing" without a concept. If you stop at that, you have just experienced "seeing". That is why I said "silent mind "sees". That's it. Full Stop". ___________________________________________________________________ Because the movement we communicate it, the experience is distorted, in your "speech" you are not really describing your experience, but, describing some thing the others will be able to understand. That, therefore, is a concept. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely! What I didn't get, and what I still don't quite get, is your claim that there is nothing but concept. What you wrote above: "I agree, what we directly experienced is certainly different, and is not a concept, but the fault is in our communication of it." shows that you do *not*say that everything is concept! It seems to me that we are actually in agreement on this matter! ----------------------------------------------------- Yasa: I say everything is a concept, because we live in a conventional way, and we are blinded by ignorance. When we see, we see only the visual aspect(ruparammana) of the object and immediately conceptualise it. In that, visual experience we ignore the other aspects of the object seen, is it hard or soft(pottabbarammana), smells good or bad (gandharammana) and what taste it has(rasarammana) etc. But these aspects are imagined -and therefore, concepts. We have taken only the visual aspect and categorised it along with other known objects. This is what we do with every thing all the time. With metta, Yasa > 22729 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 7:43pm Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts Dear Robert, and all, A couple of initial thoughts on parts of your last post on Anatta. Lots in it that I'm still thinking over. Funny what gaps there are even in the little intellectual understanding I think I have - I had come to think that no control = no choices whatsoever. I'm much more comfortable now that I see there are choices, though these are conditioned. For example, I presently would not kill myself or another, or sell my home and spend the rest of my life travelling, or become a Catholic nun. Though these things are possible to do, I could not do any of them at this time, because of conditions i.e. I just don't want to because of everything that has gone before into molding my inclinations, and the circumstances of my life.. This may seem such a trivial thing but it has been a big hurdle for me - I feel like someone who was looking at swirling fragments that have for just a brief moment paused and formed a actual picture. Eureka! [Hopefully no-one is going to tell me I'm completely on the wrong track again}. :-) You say: "If it is wisdom that is developing ...." This strikes a chord ... You see, I'm sure I understood the conditionality of choice once before, but then came to hold a different opinion. What exactly is panna? I mean, how does one recognise whether one has it, and can it be lost? I thought accumulations just accumulated and influenced action. Can there be counterfeit panna? This marionette simile we've talked about before - unforgetable, and quite chilling. I begin to feel that anatta means each of us is something very like a set of mechanical processes (nama-rupa) that come into existence because something is wrong (kama -> vipaka, defilements). e.g. the movement sensor system in my house is comatose until a certain stimulus makes it react fairly predictably and set in train fairly predictable actions. If there was no stimulus, it wouldn't 'come to life' (so to speak) i.e. -> note unauthorised movement -> set off siren and blue flashing lights on outside of house -> cause alarm at security centre -> cause telephone message to be sent to nominated people -> initiate sending of armed officer to my address. What I am trying to say is that Anatta is arid and lonely. No-one, nothing personal in it. [No sign of the old "God is Love" (?nibanna is love) of the Christians that is so attractive and comforting.] But no 'curiosity' makes it seem even worse - no interest or awareness - how does nibanna, in the light of anatta, differ from annihilation? Has anyone ever thought that it might be a whole lot less scary to just keep doing good actions with the aim of constant pleasant re- births? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > <<>> and the way accumulations work it seems all by chance > In the deepest sense no others , no us. Just dhammas > arising – not by accident- but by conditions. All of these dhammas, > the five aggregates, are nothing good. The five khandhas are: "a > disease, a boil, a dart, as calamity, as > an affliction, as alien, as no protection, as empty, as void, as > having no > core, as Mara's bait, as not self...."Patisambhidhimagga XXIX8 > > [SN XXIII.2]"It's just as when boys or girls are playing with > little sand castles. As long as they are not free from passion, > desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand > castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, > enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they > become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for > those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, > demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play. > > "In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish > form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving > for form. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit > for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit > for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them > unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications. > > "You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it > unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for > consciousness -- because the ending of craving, Radha, is > Unbinding." > > The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing > rise according to conditions owing to his discovery that states have > no curiosity and have their existence depending upon conditions" > Vis.xx102 22730 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 10:17pm Subject: Re: Anatta Precepts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Robert, and all, > I'm much more comfortable now that I see > there are choices, though these are conditioned. For example, I > presently would not kill myself or another, or sell my home and spend > the rest of my life travelling, or become a Catholic nun. Though > these things are possible to do, I could not do any of them at this > time, because of conditions i.e. __________ Dear Christine, Yes, that's right. We might imagine that if there is no self and no control that then anything can happen. Maybe we'll grab a gun and go on a rampage. But no, life is just like before but with gradually less selfview thinking that there is control. And if there is more understanding than there should be gradually less conditions for bad behaviour because akusala depends largely on self view; "how dare he do that: to ME!" "I should go and...". "Why can't THEY undersatand that..." Not so much getting caught up because sati that sees the conditionality of the moment and breaks through the delusions. So we can be patient with others kilesa and our own. _____________ You say: "If it is > wisdom that is developing ...." This strikes a chord ... You see, > I'm sure I understood the conditionality of choice once before, but > then came to hold a different opinion. What exactly is panna? I > mean, how does one recognise whether one has it, and can it be lost? > I thought accumulations just accumulated and influenced action. Can > there be counterfeit panna? ___________ What is that factor that starts to recognize what is Dhamma and what is not? It is panna, it comes in different levels. Counterfeit panna says there is no-self but believes dhammas are under their mastery. I think accumulations reveal themselves slowly once there is less idea of a self who has to do this, don't do that. _______________ > > This marionette simile we've talked about before - unforgetable, and > quite chilling. I begin to feel that anatta means each of us is > something very like a set of mechanical processes (nama-rupa) that > come into existence because something is wrong (kama -> vipaka, > defilements). e.g. the movement sensor system in my house is comatose > until a certain stimulus makes it react fairly predictably and set in > train fairly predictable actions. If there was no stimulus, it > wouldn't 'come to life' (so to speak) i.e. -> note unauthorised > movement -> set off siren and blue flashing lights on outside of > house -> cause alarm at security centre -> cause telephone message to > be sent to nominated people -> initiate sending of armed officer to > my address. > What I am trying to say is that Anatta is arid and lonely. No- one, > nothing personal in it. [No sign of the old "God is Love" (? nibanna > is love) of the Christians that is so attractive and comforting.] > But no 'curiosity' makes it seem even worse - no interest or > awareness - how does nibanna, in the light of anatta, differ from > annihilation? > Has anyone ever thought that it might be a whole lot less scary to > just keep doing good actions with the aim of constant pleasant re- > births? > ___________ Yes, the idea "nibbana", "enlightenment" sounds nice but how many are ready to give up everything. It's exciting to hear of 'stages of insight' but those same stages show absolutely there is only nama and rupa, and no self, no children, no friends. If only the self could be at its own funeral to enjoy the eulogy! It doesn't work that way. Mike said in a post once: ". So, 'I' dont mind giving up the idea of self, just so long as 'I'm' allowed to choose to do so (and receive the credit)...! "" RobertK 22731 From: Date: Sat Jun 7, 2003 6:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind, mind objects, intellect and ideas - confused? Hi, Yasa - In a message dated 6/7/03 7:31:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes in part: > Yasa: > > I think I get what you mean. Your experience remains an experience, > but what you say about is a pointer to it. Is it ? Then you are > conceptualising your experience. You make a concept of it. We are > living in a world of concepts. We are far away from reality, but > trying to explain reality we come out with concepts. > > You have experienced an emotion, another person also experiences the > same emotion. For you that emotion is close to a conventional > term "warmth" which the other person too understands. What you have > done is conceptualising an emotion using a conventional term. But did > the other person have the same emotion as you did ? The difference > does not matter because the closes word to describe the emotion > is "warmth". It is a pointer and a concept (conceptualising the > pointer) > ============================= I've only quoted the above portion of your post. I did so because I agree with what you say there (most especially the first paragraph), and I feel like only being positive at the moment! ;-) With positive metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22732 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Howard You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact with the teachings. Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' to have any significance or meaning. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > =============================== > I agree that there is a difference between conventional > speech and > speech referring to "primaries". I also agree that references to > impermanence etc > with respect to conventional objects are derivative matters. ... > but, from my perspective, he was teaching his bhikkhu > and lay followers exactly as he wanted them to understand and as > was suitable for them to understand at their stage. > ================================ > With metta, > Howard 22733 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee Thanks for this sharing, and I look forward to more of your contributions. I would like to offer a few thoughts of my own. My sense of the teachings is that the path to the goal of enlightenment lies in the development of insight into presently arising realities (dhammas). It is by the arising of this insight (wisdom/understanding) that the kilesas such as ego, fear, desire and so on that you mention are weakened and, upon attaining enlightenment, finally eradicated. So we could think of the weakening of the kilesas as in a sense a by-product of the development of insight, as something the pace and order of which is not of our choosing. I mention this because I have noticed that many people seem to hold the view that 'practice' has to do with effort directed towards the reduction of kilesas, and that progress in the development of insight is to be measured by the extent to which the kilesas are absent. Now, the eradication of the kilesas is of course something mentioned frequently in the suttas, including as 1 of the benefits/advantages of the development of insight. In terms of the actual path, however, the emphasis to my reading is on knowing all dhammas as they truly are. There is no recipe or technique given for reducing (in the sense of eradicating) the kilesas as such. I suspect that many people would also regard the aspiration to have more kusala and less akusala as itself kusala, but this is not necessarily so; it could just as easily be our old friends conceit (mana) and wrong view (ditthi) popping up again. Well, that's my perspective on things;-)) Jon --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon; ... > Let me try to describe this in a pre-theoretical sort of way, free > of > the pali terminology, and even free of my understanding of Buddhism > since this approach was something I was doing long before I > understood > Buddhist terminology. There are obvious limitations in approaching > it this way, but hopefully you will find some value in the > description. ... 22734 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hello Jon and Howard, This makes sense to me, Jon. I think KenH explained to me on the Cooran weekend that the Abhidhamma was the primary school detailed course of instruction and the Suttas were the concise University lectures. [Sorry if I've misrepresented you KenH - you aren't responsible for what I take out of what you say. :-)) The suttas are so dense with meaning - I have been attempting to re-read Bhikkhu Bodhi's presentation of Brahmajala Sutta and its commentaries. The long sutta takes all of 37 pages - the unpacked explanations take another 301 pages. Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he > wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional > objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved > for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. > > To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact > that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms > attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact > with the teachings. > > Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in > conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing > beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses > that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those > without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? > > Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to > convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is > familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a > relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in > fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my > physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to > hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' > to have any significance or meaning. > > Jon > > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - 22735 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Lee --- Lee Dillion wrote: > Hi Jon: ... > I think both suttas provide a wonderful guide to a practice, > especially > with their grounding in dependent origination. I would be interested to hear more on this in due course. ... > So when I come accross two interpretations of the same sutta, one > by > this commentator and one by another, I tentatively choose the one > that resonates with my own experience. A rather "egoistic" way, > perhaps, of > judging suttas, but I find it a better guide than ignoring my own > intuitions in favor of some commentator, no matter how revered, > whose > interpretation does not square with my own invesigation. When I > "come > and see" the dhamma, I ultimately use my own experience as the > final guide. > > That said, as I have progressed in my practice and in my > understanding > of the suttas, I have often changed my mind about which > interpretation > was "best" for a particular suuta or pasage - for I believe that if > I > dogmatically hold to the first interpretation I settled on, I would > be clinging to a view rather than investigating in an open manner. I admire your frankness here. I would only comment that if one accepts that the problem is at root a matter of there being too much ignorance and wrong view and not enough understanding/wisdom, then choosing the option that resonates best may not be such a smart move ;-)). While I can see from what you have said that you are alert to this issue, I wonder if it would not be possible to go a step further than you have and say that there is in fact no wisdom in choosing either interpretation in preference to the other, and that everything has to be considered, pondered over and evaluated not only on the basis one's personal experience to date but also in relation to the rest of the teachings (or at least that part of the teachings that we acknowledge as being authoritative). ... > That is a discussion that I don't find useful outside of a specific > context in which the possible discrepancy is relevant to me > personally. > To simply argue about the coherence or lack of coherence of the > suttas > and the Abhidhamma would likely give rise to unproductive debates > and hurt feelings. It seems to suggest a debate not much more > productive > than the many debates among the various sectarians. Thanks. I agree with your sentiments here (despite the evidence you may have seen to the contrary ;-)) > Let me just end with the observation that I have much to learn and > anything I state here, no matter how unqualified I phrase it, is > always > subject to investigation and change. Life has taught me that one > lesson. And the same goes for me, too. Jon 22736 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realitiesn Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/8/03 4:45:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > You suggest that the Buddha used conventional terminology because he > wanted to convey to the listener 'truths' in relation to conventional > objects, and that the 'techno-speak' of the Abhidhamma was reserved > for those who had gone far in meditative investigation of dhammas. > > To my way of thinking, however, this doesn't account for the fact > that many people who heard discourses given in conventional terms > attained enlightenment, in some cases on their very first contact > with the teachings. > > Do you not think it possible that the teachings were given in > conventional terms to those who were capable of immediately seeing > beyond the conventional meaning, while the more detailed discourses > that make reference to the ayatanas, khandhas, dhatus were for those > without the same degree of accumulated wisdom? > > Consider the analogy of an expert in a specialist field who wishes to > convey a newly discovered 'truth' to 2 people, one of whom is > familiar with the field of specialisation and the other of whom is a > relative layperson. For the former, a statement of the 'truth' in > fairly general terms, e.g. 'mass varies with speed' (pardon my > physics ;-)), might be very meaningful, while the latter may need to > hear something about basic principles first in order for the 'truth' > to have any significance or meaning. > > Jon > ============================ What you suggest is an interesting and plausible theory. I certainly wouldn't dismiss it as accounting for many cases. Generally, however, sudden awakening might be triggered by many things, even a loud or sharp noise - if the mind is "ripe". A Buddha, of course, by means of his special abilities, was in a perfect position to see the state of people's minds and to determine exactly what they needed. But all that he knew and took into consideration surely included many of the untaught "forest leaves" that were not held in his hand, not being specifically conducive to others' liberation, and so we cannot be certain as to what the facts are on such matters. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22737 From: dwlemen Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 8:14am Subject: importance of Meditation Hi all! I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). In it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to downplay the importance of specific meditation. The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over-reading the passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right or not. Peace, Dave 22738 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 8:15am Subject: TEST QUESTION Attention EVERYONE, The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me? I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong answers. Larry 22739 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 11:16:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > ========================== Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me". The point is to get people to look and see the impersonality of all arising dhammas. It's like the parent talking to the child who believes there's a monster in her bedroom. The parent accompanies the child and has her look in all the places that the monster might lurk. But she doesn't find it under the bed, or behind the chest of drawers, or in the closet, and, after a while the child is disabused of her notion. As far as what it means for the thought of 'me' to not be "me", why is a thought any different from other fleeting phantoms? With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22740 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 11:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, practice any time. Dear Howard, op 06-06-2003 08:48 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >>N: We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is >> the >> time for practice. > =========================== > It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we > being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is > tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. N: You have a point that any time becomes no time. What you are saying here is a good reminder for me just now. The bell: a reminder of what? Mindfulness of what? We have to be very precise here. A foundation knowledge of what nama is, what rupa is, is indispensable. There is also sound without a bell ringing, plenty of it. We should learn that sound is sound, no matter whether you hear it in a monastery or in a crowd. And, any reminder is bound to become stale after a while, you do not notice the bell anymore. H: Also, people have made a > point of regularity of time and place for formal meditation, based on the > habit-nature of people. So while the teaching quoted above is a good teaching, > it is perhaps not the whole story. N: Again, I would like to be precise: meditation on what, mindfulness of what? It depends on the teacher, is he explaining about nama and rupa, about the objects of awareness? If he tells people to concentrate first on breath people may confuse sati-sampajanna and concentration, these are different cetasikas performing different functions. What does one learn by concentrating on breath? What does one understand? Does one understand the present moment? Are there not moments of expectation which pass unnoticed? One hopes, expects to achieve something, but the goal will not be reached by expecting and wishing for progress. One should learn and notice the characteristic of lobha. I just heard on tape the story of Naagasamaala (Theragtha, Canto IV, 186). He was on his round of alms, and saw a girl dancing: He attained arahatship. The beginning is always difficult but, here is a good point of Swee Boon: if we keep on saying I cannot, we obstruct the development of panna. We lack patience, that is our problem. Also, only after the first three beginning stages of insight, insight becomes a power: balava vipassanå. Then sati-sampajanna can arise any time, any place. As you say, . True. The question is, do we have enough endurance and patience to begin again and again inspite of our failings and neglectfulness? I shall come back to your post about the Path of Discr. etc. With appreciation, Nina. 22741 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Larry, As one of the slow ones on this List, I was very tempted to read Howard's reply first before I get the answer wrong. :-) However, I managed to resist the temptation - I've been going over the Bahiya sutta again since Howard mentioned it elsewhere - isn't this a great quote: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." My answer is that there is no me there at all - *I* am not the conceit, nor do *I* have the conceit, nor am *I* standing aside and 'watching' something/one with the conceit. Only impermanent dhammas rising and falling away. "When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there." As RobK said yesterday about anatta - "It's exciting to hear of 'stages of insight' but those same stages show absolutely there is only nama and rupa, and no self, no children, no friends." What's the consequences for passing or failing the TEST? :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22742 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, This'll have to be a quick one - conceit is just a common mental factor thinking is just thinking and can think about anything. Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a trap. Metta, Sarah ====== 22743 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Way 99, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 3. Energy There is the mode (or element) of energy that is inceptive, the mode of energy that is enduring, and the mode of energy that is strong, powerful, courageous; and an abundance of right reflection on these (modes of energy) is the reason conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of energy, and for the increase, expansion and the completion by culture of that enlightenment factor when it has arisen. Eleven things lead to the arising of the enlightenment factor of energy: Reflection on the fearfulness of states-of-woe [apaya bhaya]; the seeing of the benefits of energy; reflection on the path to be trodden; the honoring of alms, reflection on the greatness of the heritage; the reflection on the greatness of the Master; reflection on the greatness of race; reflection on the greatness of fellows in the holy life; the avoiding of lazy folk; the associating with folk who have begun to exert; and the inclination towards the development of the enlightenment factor of energy. Reflection on the fearfulness of the states-of-woe as stated in the Devaduta[36] and other Suttas produces in the yogi the thought: "Now is the time to rouse energy; it is not possible to be energetic when subject to great suffering." The seeing of the benefits of energy is the appreciation of the fact that only by one who has begun to exert himself (in the development of the enlightenment factors etc.) could the Supramundane Truth be obtained and not by a lazy person. "The path trodden by all the Supreme Buddhas, the Paccekabuddhas, and the Great Disciples, has to be trodden by you," says the yogi to himself, "and that path is impossible for an indolent person." That is the reflection on the path to be trodden. The yogi thinks thus: "Those who support you with alms-food and so forth are not relatives of yours, are not your servants; they do not give you excellent alms thinking: 'We shall (in the future) live depending on you.' But they give expecting from their offerings great fruit. Also the requisites were not allowed to you by the Master so that you may make use of the requisites and live strong-bodied in comfort, but they were allowed to you so that you may do the duty of the recluse and escape the round of suffering whilst using the requisites. The indolent one does not honor the alms; only he who has begun to be energetic honors it." Reflection in this way about honoring the alms permitted by the Buddha produces energy, as in the case of the Thera Maha Mitta (Great Friend). The Thera lived in Kassaka Lena (Cultivator's or Farmer's Cave). In the village to which he resorted for alms there was a certain Maha Upasika (elderly or great female lay devotee) who taking him as a child of hers looked after him. One day she was preparing to go to the forest, and spoke to her daughter thus: "Here is old rice; here, milk; here, ghee; and here, treacle. When your brother the venerable Mitta comes cook the rice and give it to him with milk, ghee, and treacle. You, too, eat of it. I have eaten the cold rice cooked yesterday with gruel." "Mother, what will you take at noon?" "Cook a sour gruel with herbs and broken rice and put it by (for me)." Just as the Thera was taking out the bowl (from the bowl-bag), after he had robed himself to go out for alms, he heard that talk of the mother and daughter through his clairaudient power, at the door of his cave, and thought as follows: "The great lay devotee has eaten stale rice with gruel and will take sour gruel at noon. For you she has given old rice, milk, ghee and treacle. She does not expect field or food or cloth from you. Only expecting the three good attainments of the human, divine and supramundane planes does she give (alms to you). Will you be able to bestow on her those attainments? Indeed her alms is not fit to be taken by you with (heart of) lust, hatred and ignorance." Then, he put back the bowl into the bowl-bag, loosened the robe-knot, refrained from going for alms, and returning to the Cultivator's Cave put the bowl under his bed, the robe on the robe pole and sat down resolved on endeavor thinking, "I will not go from here without attaining arahantship.) 36. Divine messenger 22744 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 6/8/03 7:25:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a > trap. > ============================ I love it, Sarah!! You made me laugh out loud with this one! ;-)) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22745 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, You wrote: "Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me"." L: WRONG. Everyone believes in me but aryans. Try again. Larry 22746 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 8:36:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You wrote: "Such statements as "X is not me" are stated for those folks > who have a sense of "me" or even a belief in "me"." > > L: WRONG. Everyone believes in me but aryans. Try again. > > Larry > > =============================== But Larry, how can I be wrong when it is exactly the non-ariyans whom I had in mind as far as belief is concerned. Those with belief in self are worldlings, and those with sense of self are all non-arahants. These are exactly the people I had in mind, most especially the worldlings. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22747 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Christine, Although your answer is technically correct you missed the hidden test in the question. That test was to apply your understanding to your experience. I don't see that in your answer. Try again. Why is conceit not "me"? The consequence of passing the test is your wisdom is confirmed. The consequence of failing the test is you won't get ridiculed. No one likes a dummy. Larry 22748 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Sarah, Your answer is too brief. Try again. What does "'me' is not me" mean? Larry --------------------- Sarah wrote: Hi Larry, This'll have to be a quick one - conceit is just a common mental factor thinking is just thinking and can think about anything. Look f/w to reading the other answers and hope I haven't fallen into a trap. 22749 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Howard, No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by 'not self'. This should have been obvious to someone like you. Larry 22750 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 6:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Fair go Larry! I feel the Appeals Committee would give me at least half marks for being technically correct. Who set this exam if it's got hidden questions? Is that allowed under the Dhamma Rules?! Give us a clue! Mana (conceit) is three-fold. Equality conceit (mana), inferiority conceit (omana), and superiority conceit (atimana). metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Howard, > > No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and > _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You > should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, > show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by > 'not self'. > > This should have been obvious to someone like you. > > Larry 22751 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/8/03 9:15:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard, > > No talking back! Your answer was inadequate. Try again. Give a full and > _convincing_ answer to the question 'why is conceit not self'. You > should include various examples of conceit from your own experience, > show how you see that they are not self, and explain what you mean by > 'not self'. > > This should have been obvious to someone like you. > > Larry > =========================== This could be fun, Larry. However, I'm on vacation from school at the moment - I start again on the 30th - so, you'll forgive me if I sit this one out. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22752 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Christine, You wrote: " Fair go Larry! I feel the Appeals Committee would give me at least half marks for being technically correct. Who set this exam if it's got hidden questions? Is that allowed under the Dhamma Rules?! Give us a clue!" L: Can you recognize the conceit in this experience? That is a good place to start. Try again. Larry 22753 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. Larry ----------------- Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22754 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 9:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Dear Larry, Don't be despondent :-) It is 2.45 p.m. on a Monday here in Oz - most people in much of the world are at work. The Aussie's (monarchists or republicans) have a public holiday for the Queen's Birthday (though it's not really her birthday) - which is why I have the time and inclination to chat. Maybe you could reveal all about conceit now? I'll have to put up with it until I'm an arahat I think, and I've run out of tries. metta and peace, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22755 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Larry: Your answer is too brief. ..... S: This makes a change;-) ..... Larry: What does "'me' is not me" mean? ...... S: OK, last try:- It means you’ve been reading too much of Victor’s book on linguistic games or a preview of the latest Harry Potter book and incorporated touches from ‘Matrix Reloaded’ and ‘the Weakest Link’. Somehow you’ve managed to persuade Howard, Christine and I to join your Madhatter’s tea party whilst the smart members look on in bemusement. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris and Howard, I thought your answers were great and that we should at least get full marks for being good sports (ooops, could be a tad or two of mana creeping in;-))....maybe it’s also the influence of the Non-Duality Salon where Larry’s pic was dropped accidentally....What d’ya reckon? ==================================== 22756 From: Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 10:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi all, I failed this test question if I didn't provoke a vivid, clearly recognizable, experience of conceit in your own personal experience. The answer I was looking for to the question "why me is not me" is because the I, me, my thought/feeling is not a person. It is just a thought and feeling. The first 'me' is an emotion. The second 'me' is a concept. Technically only the thought part is conceit but this is always accompanied by a distinctive feeling, at least in my experience. The idea was not to not experience conceit. Even a sense of confidence and ease could be an expression of conceit. Rather, the idea was to definitely experience this most basic "sense of self" and even seek it out in all its subtle manifestations in ordinary experience and see directly this "sense of self" is not a person. This requires a direct encounter with your own experience. Book learning may help but it isn't enough. I encourage everyone to give this a try. Find your conceit. [Bullying and intimidation are not necessary and may be counterproductive.] Larry 22757 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 0:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Dave, I’m glad to hear from you again! --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > > I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet > "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all > the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). .... Thx Dave - I’m glad they arrived safely. I just checked at this website, but couldn’t see this very small booklet on line: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ (maybe Chris or RobK can give a link if it’s on another website). ..... >In > it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to > downplay the importance of specific meditation. .... Let me quote a short extract for others which is probably the part you have in mind: Q.: Do you apply yourself to meditation? A.(A.Sujin): We have to be very careful about what we mean by meditation. I avoid using the word meditation because different people have different ideas about it. Our goal should be the development of right understanding of realities which appear now. We can begin to notice and consider one reality at a time and then there is no need to name it or to think about it. Understanding can be developed in any situation, one does not have to change one’s life or do anything special. Right understanding can develop naturally, at this very moment, one does not have to sit in a quiet place. Thus, this is different from what people generally mean by meditation. The development of right understanding or insight, vipassanaa, is a kind of mental development which can be done no matter where you are. Q.: Don’t you need a quiet place in order to concentrate? A.: Not at all, because the purpose of the Buddha’s teachings is to understand the realities which arise naturally, in daily life. We have to develop understanding of realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing or sound. Sound is a reality, no matter where you are, no matter it is quiet or there is a lot of noise. if we are in a noisy place and we have aversion towards that noise, aversion can be realized as just a conditioned reality, not ‘my aversion’. If we know that understanding can be developed in whatever situation we are there are conditions for its development.”. ..... > The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over-reading the > passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before > and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right > or not. ..... Maybe you can clarify if this was the passage you had in mind and also let me know what you understand by Meditation and how you understand Buddhist meditation to be different from any other kind of meditation before we continue the discussion. Hopefully others will chip in too with any comments. With metta, Sarah p.s. Yesterday I started listening to the tapes from Kaeng Kajang for the first time and I was thinking of you. I fear there is too much Pali and complex subject matter for most people and you may have to just leave them aside for a while. Jon was also editing these tapes as we went along which means they are even more ‘concentrated’ than usual. The others should be somewhat easier to follow. ========================= 22758 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Precepts Hi Chris, (RobK and All) --- christine_forsyth wrote:> Funny what gaps there are even in the little intellectual > understanding I think I have - I had come to think that no control = > no choices whatsoever. I'm much more comfortable now that I see > there are choices, though these are conditioned. ...... Just after the passage quoted to Dave, I thought the next part was relevant to this thread: ***** Q.: What do you mean by understanding seeing as only a reality? A. (A.Sujin): One begins to understand that there is not my seeing which can stay on and which is so important. The idea of self cannot be eradicated immediately, but one begins to see that there are realities appearing one at a time. One begins to understand that seeing or visible object can only arise when there are conditions for their arising and that one cannot control them. Realities are beyond control, they cannot arise because of anyone’s wish. Also awareness and understanding are realities which can only arise when there are the right conditions, they are beyond control. Beyond control is another way of saying that there is “only a reality”. The realities of our life are momentary and insignificant. They arise and then disappear forever.” ***** with metta, Sarah ========= 22759 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Sarah (and Dave), Conversations on Buddhism can be found at: http://www.dhammastudy.com/beginner.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: 22760 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Nina, (Kom, RobK & All), I was just reflecting on the latest installment (on energy) in Way 99. It lists elven things leading to the enlightenment factor of enery. The first is: “Reflection on the fearfulness of states-of-woe (apaya bhaya)”. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > I am inclined to overlook suttas such as this one, I do not like to hear > them. At breakfast I read the sutta to Lodewijk, and he said, he is > inclined > to give it all up, since the goal seems unreachable, the development too > difficult. > I think we read the sutta with a concept of self, what will happen to > the > self. In reality there are only conditioned dhammas. ..... Yes, it depends very much on the kind of reflection. If there is thinking of self rather than a reminder to understand the various mental states/other realities and to see the value of all kinds of kusala, then it may not be wise reflection at all. I was reading a story ‘Contempt for the Relics’ the other day in the PTS ‘Commentary on the Peta-Stories’. I had read it before but at that time had found it too disturbing, dwelling on the foul description of the peta, the enormity of the result of showing contempt for the Buddha’s relics and stupa (boiling intensely in hell and so on). This time, however, there were conditions for me to reflect on the power of good deeds and how -- in spite of a short life which Azita, Chris and others were discussing -- these deeds bring their own results and what may seems sad to us in ignorance may not be sad at all. Briefly, after the Buddha’s parinibbana, King Ajatasattu took some of the relics and conducted a ceremony lasting over seven months. An incalculable number of people showed respect and were reborn in deva realms. A very large number of other people, corrupt and with wrong view, showed no respect and were reborn in the peta realm. The wife, daughter and daughter-in-law of a very wealthy man in Rajagaha went to pay respect. The wealthy man showed contempt and scoffed at their actions, saying ‘What’s the good of honouring bones?”. They continued anyway, but became very sick and all died. However they were reborn in the deva realms on account of these deeds. The rich man was overcome with anger and when he died was reborn in the peta realm on account of trying to obstruct his wife, daughter and daughter-in-law from showing respect with flowers and ‘costly ointments’. MahaKassapa ‘worked his psychic powers in such a way that people could see both petas and devatas’ and questioned the peta. ..... > the Buddha's objective with this sutta: a reminder not to overlook the > present moment. .... Yes, not to underestimate the power of kusala, especially insight and to see the danger of kilesa (defilements), but not ‘my’ kilesa or kusala. .... > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I > am > not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. ..... I think that if we tried to stop or change these things it would again be with an idea of ‘self’ and ‘situation’ rather than any detachment and understanding which knows the inclinations and tendencies as they are conditioned now... just like Christine explained when she mentioned she’s not about to become a Catholic nun;-). ..... > The sutta also reminded me of Jåtaka no. 538, Múgapakkha Jåtaka. We read > in > the series of the perfections, Determination: > the > danger of hell. He thought, 3the danger of hell is more fearful, it is a > hundredfold, a thousandfold, even a tenthousandfold more fearful.2 The > wetnurses who tested him in these ways did not see any weak point in the > Bodhisatta. > .... This was natural for the Bodhisatta - to reflect with determination, calm and detachment under any provocation. We can appreciate the qualities without any thought of self, I think. .... > For myself, it would be forced, unnatural, if I would think all the > time, > the danger of hell is more fearful, and refrain from pleasant things. ..... So as you said and Kom said so well, it comes back to knowing the present realities again with understanding. If we’re just accumulating dosa by such reading or considering then it’s not helpful. However, I think the mind-states are so intricate, as Rob M would point out. At the back of the commentary on the Peta-stories under ‘concluding remarks’, it says: “1.those who arise amongst the petas have all been doers of evil deeds; on account of those deeds the fruit for them is evil and severe. 2. Demonstrating and explaining this by means of questions and answers is the teaching that by necessity stimulates beings with agitation.” The agitation when I read some of these stories before was too much for me to continue, but there were conditions to reflect a lot on what I had read and to review some of the tales again more carefully. A little wise reflection amongst the dosa. Actually, I’m even looking for excuses to introduce more of these stories now;-) With metta, Sarah p.s Kom & RobK - good to read your posts;-) ====== 22761 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Thanks Chris, Next time I'll ask before I start typing;-) Here's another extract from the end - the word 'decisions' caught my eye;-): ***** Q.: When you work you have no more problems and then you are distracted, is that not so? A.: There is no difference between your working situation and your free time. We have problems when we work and when we don't work, we still have to make decisions. Our problems are caused by attachment, aversion and ignorance and these arise no matter where we are. Only when we develop right understanding of this moment, no matter in which situation we are, there will be less defilements and thus less problems. Q.: I cannot help regretting the lack of awareness. I have desire for the arising of awareness. Can I tell myself not to have desire? A.: When you understand that desire counteracts progress there will be conditions to stop wishing for results. Only intellectual understanding of the teachings, acquired by reading, considering and discussing can condition the arising of direct understanding, now or later on. There will be more patience when we remember that awareness and understanding do not belong to a self which could make them arise. Then we can have courage to begin again and again to find out more about the reality appearing at this moment. ***** Metta, Sarah ===== 22762 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi Dan, --- manjushri888 wrote: > Hello, Sarah. In answer to your question, I have been a seeker of > truth for about seven year's now. This has lead me to explore many > different path's along the way. I have come to realize that > meditation is the only way to understand experientially/directly the > true nature of reality. Reality is reality, only when it's grasped > non-conceptually. ..... Maybe you could clarify what you understand by ‘reality’ and what it is in ‘meditation’ that leads to understanding experientially. These aren’t meant as tests of any kind;-) ..... >However my interest in the sutra's--the menu--is > just to satisfy my curiosity. I alway's keep in mind, however, when > reading sutra's, that the menu is not the food. :-) We must practice > to fully understand Buddha's teaching's. .... I understand and agree with your point. However, do you think that some familiarity with the suttas might be of assistance to the meditation or not? Perhaps you would explain why ‘yes’ or why ‘no’. With metta, Sarah ====== 22763 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Right Reflection Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > You are mixing truth with pure conjecture. The Buddha only taught > the Four Noble Truths, which, of course, I believe, regardless of the > reality. But he did not describe, in detail, all reality. ..... Do you not understand the Four Noble Truths to be about reality? I may be missing your point. I agree that only a relatively small amount of detail within his omniscience(that which was necessary to be taught) was taught. On the otherhand, we know there was no ‘closed fist’. I can’t really speculate about life on other planets. We know for sure that the Buddha taught about the 31 planes of existence. When he refers to his manifold past lives and the aeons of cosmic or world contraction and expansion, as in your reference below, I take it to be referring to changes in this world over a very long time-scale, but I really don’t know. What I am very sure about, because it is stressed so often, is that what we need to hear was taught. This includes the truth, as I see it, that reality is just the momentary mental and physical phenomena appearing now. No self to create anything. In a sense I agree with you that ‘matter doesn’t really matter’. However, for the various skilful mental states to be developed, the truth about matter (the seen, the heard etc) as well as consciousness (seeing, hearing etc) and mental states needs to be known. Why else would it be stressed in the ‘all’? Your ideas are always interesting, James. Please share any other lines from suttas to discuss with others here too. Others may have further comments on these points too. Your comment about ‘neat and tidy’ is also making me think. I suppose you’re right and I do consider them in this way - like a complete jigsaw if only we could ‘see’ all the parts and how they fit together;-) With metta, Sarah ====== > The > Buddha actually knew and described that the universe expands and > contracts**, over and over again, why wouldn't he describe life on > other planets? I'm sorry Sarah, but I don't believe he described > everything as neat and tidy as you would like to believe. We do > create our own reality...and matter doesn't really matter. > > Metta, James > **I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, > ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of > cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of > cosmic contraction & expansion > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn036.html =========================== 22764 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:56am Subject: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/9/03 12:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" > =========================== Perhaps if it were presented differently, more of the kids would like to play, Larry. Probabably, adults would rather choose their own rules of the game, or at least agree to them in advance. That, of course, is a matter of conceit. But we do all have that. There are some matters of subjectivity, however, which do seem very interesting and important to me, and well worth discussing. A basic one is what this whole seeming of the difference of self and other is all about. There seems to be a reality to the distinction between "my" awareness, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, etc and those of "others". The latter are "here" and the former are "there". It's hard to grasp what this is about. While the acts of awareness, and the sights, sounds, tastes, touches, odors, and feelings, thoughts, emotions etc that are discerned frequently, almost usually, seem (to me) to be "impersonal" phenomena that occur and then go on their way, so that they are not "me", there is a *sense* in which they appear to be "mine". That sense seems to be, when I try to see what its actual nature is, the fact that these phenomena are "here" rather than "there". What I'm saying, I think, is that the only dhatu, the only sankhata dhamma, that are ever directly experienced, and not just inferred, are (called) ones own. There is no direct, "first-person" experience here, "by me", of your "awareness, thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, etc" The contents of that namarupic stream called "Larry" (presumed by me, but not directly experienced by me) is only inferred by me. Even if I were to see you and speak to you in person, what would be seen and heard would be part of "my" namarupic stream "here". It seems to me that at least part of our sense of self follows from the fact that there is no actual experience at all except direct, internal, experience, but, at the same time, there is the projecting outwards of that experience to "things in the world" which we then take to be "other". Included in that projecting outwards, is the inferring (correct, I certainly believe) of the existence of similar namarupic streams that also directly experience inwardly but project outwardly. I suspect that all these streams are actually interdependent, existing but not self-sufficiently, and that the consciousness of a Buddha (if not every arahant) is expanded to the point that the distinguishing of various other experiential streams among themselves and from "ones own" stream of experience becomes weakened ('corrected' would be a better term) to the point that these "different" streams become merely aspects of a more general flow, analogous to the inside and ouside surfaces of a cup (in this case, however, there being not just two surfaces, but a vast infinity of them). Meanwhile, however, for the non-arahant, there remains the "here" and the inferred "there", though not with the same strength of separateness at all stages. And so long as this separation remains, there is enforced a "protection" of self, reflected in such things as anger, grasping, fear, suspicion, and embarrassment, along with physical sensations of tightening up in the body (in the shoulders say) or queasiness in the stomach or odd feelings in the knees. Just some thoughts, Larry. I know .. I didn't pass. When liberation comes, we can pass, and, at that time we'll also be in a position to judge who has passed and who has not, but not before. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22765 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:01am Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, I have been incredibly busy lately and I am behind on a few DSG posts, but your question was interesting. I have followed your instructions and replied without looking at other people's answers. Firstly, I note that you group "I", "me" and "my" together; I see this set as corresponding to the three cetasikas arising with lobha- mula cittas. "I" corresponds to mana (conceit), "me" corresponds to ditthi (wrong view) and "my" corresponds to lobha (attachment). "I" is the heart of conceit. The nature of conceit is to compare (">", "=" or "<"). Comparison requires dividing into two ("I" and "not I"). For example, when one says, "I am smart", one is comparing according to smartness; "I" is part of one group (labeled smart) while others are part of another group (implicitly labeled not smart). "Me" is the heart of one type of wrong view, sakkaya-ditthi (personality belief). The nature of sakkaya-ditthi is not to divide, but rather to make a general statement about the nature of self. There are twenty types of sakkaya-ditthi (note that kaya is the Pali word for body): 1. Body as self 2. Self having body 3. Body being in the self 4. Self as being in the body 5. to 20. The same structure as 1. to 4. above, except with the remaining four aggregates (feelings, perception, mental factors and consciousness) We can see why manna (conceit) and ditthi (wrong view) cannot arise in the same citta; manna has the nature of dividing and comparing whereas ditthi has the nature of generalizing. We can also see why a Sotapanna has eliminated ditthi while mana is not eliminated until one is an Arahant; the Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami know that namas and rupas are not self, but still compare "their namas and rupas" with "others' namas and rupas". Larry, you are correct that the Budda stressed that whatever arises is "not me"; and in so saying, the Buddha was stressing the inaccuracy of sakkaya-ditthi. With this as background, I will attempt the test questions: 1. Why is conceit not me? ========================= If I substitute "conceit" (as a mental factor) in the definition of sakkaya-ditthi above, it is incorrect to state that: 1. Conceit as self 2. Self having conceit 3. Conceit being in the self 4. Self being part of conceit The Visuddhi Magga (XVI, 90) says, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; doing exists although there is no doer; extinction (death) is but no extinguished person; although there is a path, there is no goer." Expanding on this concept from the Visuddhi Magga, "There is conceit, but there is no self having conceit". 2. When the thought of me arises, why is that me not me? ======================================================== Similar to question 1, except that there is a self-referential portion of the question if not understood properly. The thought of me is sakkaya-ditthi, which is ditthi, another mental factor. If I use the term "me concept" to represent ditthi, it is uncorrect to state that: 1. "Me concept" as self 2. Self having "me concept" 3. "me concept" being in the self 4. Self being part of "me concept" There is "me concept", but there is no self having "me concept". 3. What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me? ===================================================================== For the answer to "me" is not me, see answer 2 above. For the answer to "I" thought is not me, see answer 1 above. Larry, did I understand your questions that way that they were intended? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22766 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, I followed your rules (don't look at others' answers before answering). If I were to "mark my own test", I think that I would pass. Unfortunately, my answer is pure "book learning" (it even includes some Pali terms and a Visuddhi Magga quote to make it sound even more erudite). My answer does not come from any personal experience. If the purpose of the test were to force us to draw upon our own personal experience, then there was failure ( but no self who fails :-) ). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > I failed this test question if I didn't provoke a vivid, clearly > recognizable, experience of conceit in your own personal experience. > > The answer I was looking for to the question "why me is not me" is > because the I, me, my thought/feeling is not a person. It is just a > thought and feeling. The first 'me' is an emotion. The second 'me' is a > concept. > > Technically only the thought part is conceit but this is always > accompanied by a distinctive feeling, at least in my experience. The > idea was not to not experience conceit. Even a sense of confidence and > ease could be an expression of conceit. Rather, the idea was to > definitely experience this most basic "sense of self" and even seek it > out in all its subtle manifestations in ordinary experience and see > directly this "sense of self" is not a person. This requires a direct > encounter with your own experience. Book learning may help but it isn't > enough. I encourage everyone to give this a try. Find your conceit. > [Bullying and intimidation are not necessary and may be > counterproductive.] > > Larry 22767 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Sarah, Hi! Great to hear from you as well. I do hope all is well with you and yours. I've dropped my comments into the thread below... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I'm glad to hear from you again! > > --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > > > > I have a quick question... I just finished reading the booklet > > "Conversations on Buddhism" by Nina (and a big thanks to Sarah and all > > the others who helped get this and several other books to me!). > .... > Thx Dave - I'm glad they arrived safely. I just checked at this website, > but couldn't see this very small booklet on line: > http://www.zolag.co.uk/ > (maybe Chris or RobK can give a link if it's on another website). > ..... > >In > > it, the question is asked of Meditation and the answer seems to > > downplay the importance of specific meditation. > .... > Let me quote a short extract for others which is probably the part you > have in mind: > > Q.: Do you apply yourself to meditation? > A.(A.Sujin): We have to be very careful about what we mean by meditation. > I avoid using the word meditation because different people have different > ideas about it. Our goal should be the development of right understanding > of realities which appear now. We can begin to notice and consider one > reality at a time and then there is no need to name it or to think about > it. Understanding can be developed in any situation, one does not have to > change one's life or do anything special. Right understanding can develop > naturally, at this very moment, one does not have to sit in a quiet place. > Thus, this is different from what people generally mean by meditation. > The development of right understanding or insight, vipassanaa, is a kind > of mental development which can be done no matter where you are. > > Q.: Don't you need a quiet place in order to concentrate? > A.: Not at all, because the purpose of the Buddha's teachings is to > understand the realities which arise naturally, in daily life. We have to > develop understanding of realities such as seeing, visible object, hearing > or sound. Sound is a reality, no matter where you are, no matter it is > quiet or there is a lot of noise. if we are in a noisy place and we have > aversion towards that noise, aversion can be realized as just a > conditioned reality, not 'my aversion'. If we know that understanding can > be developed in whatever situation we are there are conditions for its > development.". > ..... > > The conversation moves on and I wasn't sure if I was over- reading the > > passage or not. I had not heard of a "Buddhism w/o Meditation" before > > and wanted to get it straight from you all if I'm reading this right > > or not. > ..... > Maybe you can clarify if this was the passage you had in mind and also let > me know what you understand by Meditation and how you understand Buddhist > meditation to be different from any other kind of meditation before we > continue the discussion. Hopefully others will chip in too with any > comments. > DAVE: That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over that of "everywhere at once." And, that having this calm mind creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural high" or whatever else. Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). Hope that provides at least a starting point for where I'm at. > With metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. > Yesterday I started listening to the tapes from Kaeng Kajang for the first > time and I was thinking of you. I fear there is too much Pali and complex > subject matter for most people and you may have to just leave them aside > for a while. Jon was also editing these tapes as we went along which means > they are even more 'concentrated' than usual. The others should be > somewhat easier to follow. I'm not sure which tapes you mean? I've got 2 sets, one "From India" and one "From Sri Lanka". That's all the more they are labelled. Even these do have quite a bit of Pali in them and it is sometimes difficult to understand what they are saying, but I am picking up some from them and perhaps I'm learning some Pali in the process as well! Again, I do thank you so much for facilitating getting this stuff to me. Peace, Dave 22768 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, to Kom Dear Kom, You gave me very good points, thank you very much. I typed your post out for Lodewijk and he liked it very much. See below: op 08-06-2003 00:18 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: >> < In the same manner a few humans who leave the >> human corpse are born among humans many more are reborn in hell, in >> the animal world and as ghosts. > > > I think these suttas provide me with the urgency to understand dhammas more, > to develop all sorts of kusala, according to my understanding, as best as I > can. Without hearing about it, I may feel a bit relaxed, not knowing that > there is a flame afire on my head. N: Yes, if we do not hear such suttas we may become over relaxed. Though I felt fear (dosa), the sutta also helped with a sense of urgency. We have to find the balance. > K: When I understand that there is no other path, then the goal doesn't seem so > difficult. As long as we walk on the right path, one day we must get there. > Coming upon the right path is difficult, but walking on the path just takes > a long time. If we understand that there is no other way, then it doesn't > seem so bothersome. N: This is a good point, there is no other Path: awareness and understanding of all realities appearing through the six doors. This reminds me of what A. Sujin said in Kraeng Kacang, we have to keep on walking. She added: this does not mean walking without stopping. She said before: walking, even if we make only a little step. Kom: quote from N: > I also read to Lodewijk: each moment of existence is like dung, but, I am >> not so advanced yet. There are too many things in life I enjoy. > K: I keep getting reminded that only anagami can let go of attachment to the 5 sensualities ;-). It's inevitable. Even Visakha, a most eminent sotapanna disciple of the Buddha, enjoyed her jewelries and other pleasant things in life. N: Good to be reminded of this. K:..... It used to be harder for me to give. Did > I have to force myself (more) to give at the beginning? Yes, but I did it > because I understood that if I didn't start, there would be no inclination > to do so in the future. If there is understanding, all the rest comes very > naturally. N: Howard wrote about habit forming as to awareness and I understand what he means. If one does not begin now, when will there be a beginning? But we have to understand that whatever we do is dependent on conditions, understanding is the most important factor. There were conditions for you to form the habit of giving, panna saw the benefit of dana. Maybe you were inspired by a sutta or the perfection of dana. K: This reminds me of a passage from A. Sujin's tape. She asked people if > anyone has the inclination to go and fight with kilesa in our daily life. > Then she said, if you do, the result is always the same: you always lose. > Only panna can truly suppress, and takes us along the path toward getting > rid of kilesa. When we undrstand the true faults of the 5 sensualities (of > its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta), then letting go of those come > naturally, and eventually, permanently. Only panna (and all its supportive) > states will do, not us. N: This is said very clearly: only panna is the answer. But it has to be developed from this very moment on. Thus, no thought of first concentrating, first doing particular things before panna can be developed. This reminds me of Jon's recent post: <.... I have noticed that many people seem to hold the view that 'practice' has to do with effort directed towards the reduction of kilesas, and that progress in the development of insight is to be measured by the extent to which the kilesas are absent. Now, the eradication of the kilesas is of course something mentioned frequently in the suttas, including as 1 of the benefits/advantages of the development of insight. In terms of the actual path, however, the emphasis to my reading is on knowing all dhammas as they truly are. There is no recipe or technique given for reducing (in the sense of eradicating) the kilesas as such.> Thank you very much, Kom, With much appreciation, Nina. 22769 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:10am Subject: RE: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Why is conceit not self? We can ask this question about all the dhammas, and some will see how these dhammas are not self intellectually. However, as long as we don't see clearly the rising and the falling away of the dhammas, then we will always ask ourselves this question, regarding to all the dhamma, because only by seeing the rising and falling away of the dhamma that we begin to become absolutely sure that all these rising and falling away dhammas can't possibly be a self. Until that time, this is just a very useful intellectual exercise, which will resolve things for some, and not for others. Why is conceit not self? The standard, and most subtle, answer is because of its being anicca, dukkha, and anatta. When I think of "my own" states, comparing them to others' in some way, then it is already a conceit. I don't have to try very hard to do this: I don't even really have to think about it. When the mind mistakenly assigns importance to states that last so infinitesimally briefly, it is a conceit. I may have run into a revelation, or a flash of insight, and already I have conceit. I might like my own posts, reading my own writing very much, and there is already conceit. Conceit is prevalent (for me anyway), and cannot be eradicated until arahatship. It is a conditioned reality that comes about because of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, and thinking. Heck, if we have none of those, there wouldn't be any conceit! Well, the conceit I just had, it is now gone. Where is the self in this? I don't see the rising and falling away of the conceit, but intellectually, this can be readily understood. Would you call a house that has just burned down your house (or part of you?)? How about a house that is disintegrating in front of you? kom > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:31 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION > > > Hi Howard, > > As you please. No one else seems to be interested > in exploring the > dynamics of conceit either. Too bad. > > Larry > ----------------- > Howard wrote: "you'll forgive me if I sit this one out" 22770 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Let me rephrase your question as "Why is conceit not self?" To answer your question: Conceit is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory. What is unsatisfactory, impermanent, subject to change is not self. Conceit is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Is conceit fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" No. Your feedback and comment is welcome. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Attention EVERYONE, > > The Buddha said, in so many words, we should see as it really is that > whatever arises is "not me". The thought of I, me, my is at the heart of > conceit. So the question is, why is conceit not me? When the thought of > me arises, why is that me not me? What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > I want YOU to think about and post an answer to this question for all > the world to see and evaluate. Do not read the replys to this email > until you have posted a reply. YOU ARE BEING TESTED. There _are_ wrong > answers. > > Larry 22771 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear Rob, > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:01 AM > > "I" is the heart of conceit. The nature of conceit is to compare > (">", "=" or "<"). Comparison requires dividing into two ("I" > and "not I"). For example, when one says, "I am smart", one is > comparing according to smartness; "I" is part of one group (labeled > smart) while others are part of another group (implicitly labeled > not smart). > > "Me" is the heart of one type of wrong view, sakkaya-ditthi > (personality belief). The nature of sakkaya-ditthi is not to divide, > but rather to make a general statement about the nature of self. > There are twenty types of sakkaya-ditthi (note that kaya is the Pali > word for body): > 1. Body as self > 2. Self having body > 3. Body being in the self > 4. Self as being in the body > 5. to 20. The same structure as 1. to 4. above, except with the > remaining four aggregates (feelings, perception, mental factors and > consciousness) > > We can see why manna (conceit) and ditthi (wrong view) cannot arise > in the same citta; manna has the nature of dividing and comparing > whereas ditthi has the nature of generalizing. We can also see why a > Sotapanna has eliminated ditthi while mana is not eliminated until > one is an Arahant; the Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami know that > namas and rupas are not self, but still compare "their namas and > rupas" with "others' namas and rupas". > This is one of the best explanations of the differences between mana and dithi I have ever seen. Anomoddhana, kom 22772 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Nama & Rupa on the inside vs. Nama & Rupa on the outside Hi Howard, About six months ago, you and I had a very interesting exchange on phenomenological Buddhism. My understanding has evolved a bit since then. I am now hesitant to use the term phenomenological, because the Buddha's way of classifying (i.e. that which is conducive to the holy life) is different from this. At the end of the day, the two ways of defining are quite similar, but there are subtle differences (i.e. "external" rupa mentioned in the suttas as having the characterisitics of anicca, dukkha and anatta). One area where you and I diverged at the time was your idea of a interlinked consciousness (my words, not yours). As I have investigated the nature of mana further, I realize that your perspective may have validity (i.e. Arahant's don't distinguish as your consciousness vs. my consciousness). Please explain your thinking in this area further. Metta, Rob M :-) 22773 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Rob, Well done. Your understanding and insight are excelent. Far surpassing everyone else. One question. When you recognize conceit in yourself or others, how do you deal with it and what does it mean to you? Larry 22774 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 5:57pm Subject: RE: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Kom, Your answer is the best. Exactly what I was looking for. Conceit is part of everyone's life but seemingly so easily overlooked. It is interesting that conceit is an 'unwholesome occasional'. It comes and goes. It might even be a conceit to think it is always present. I noticed today that conceit can be very pleasurable and even seemingly wholesome, as in a nice, easy going sense of self esteem. I think if you can identify conceit in your experience you will automatically see or understand that it is impermanent. Nice to chat with you again. Larry 22775 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Victor, You asked, "Is conceit fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" L: Conceit is the emotional experience of "I am", not expressed in words. Is "I am" not fit to be seen as "This I am"? No. You and the Buddha are right. "I am" is not fit to be seen as a permanent abiding reality because it is impermanent and we can see that in our own exerience. You are correct as always Victor. Larry 22776 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, practice any time. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Howard, > > op 06-06-2003 08:48 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >>N: We should not select a particular time for practice, because any time is > >> the > >> time for practice. > > =========================== > > It's a good point. However, sometimes "any time" becomes no time, we > > being fallible human beings. I've heard of monasteries at which a bell is > > tolled at regular intervals as a reminder to be mindful. > N: You have a point that any time becomes no time. Dear Nina and Howard, I think the comment '--any time becomes no time' is a good one bec. I think a lot of people today think that life is too fast and that to go away from the hustle and bustle is a beneficial thing to do. Last w/e I attended a Vipassana [Buddhist} meditation course, mostly out of curiosity, partly out of desire to have a peaceful time away, and partly to meet up with other 'Buddhists' in my area. Well it was peaceful in that it was quiet, the weather was beautiful as winters in Cairns tend to be, the people were - I don't really know bec we weren't supposed to talk to each other, and the food was delicious. Am I wiser? maybe in that I know Slow, Mindful Walking is NOT the practice of Sati, I felt it was very much wrong practice. I wanted to yell out 'No, this is wrong, this is not the way' and of course I didn't. It defintitely was a reflective w/e for me and I'm glad I attended bec the teacher gave some great talks on compassion,and loving kindness and it has been cause for me to reflect more on the way I treat people. It was a bit disturbing to hear the teacher talk about the 5 aggregates incorrectly, what I perceived to be incorrect. He used form [rupa khandha] to mean just the body, this body that we call us, and sankhara khandha to mean just mind objects, thoughts. My understanding is that rupa khandha means all rupas, not just this body - this body is just a concept anyway - rupas such as hardness, [earth element], hot/cold [fire element], visible object, sound etc. Sankhara khandhas mean all cetasikas other than sanna and vedana. I had a desire to hear true dhamma and what I heard was partly gamin [a Nth.Qld. word for pretend/not real] dhamma. Time away from the hustle and bustle, in a quiet place can be very seductive, esp when one believes one is on the path to enlightenment. I don't mean to be critical, overall it was very pleasant and I was only slightly sad for the others who, I felt weren't hearing the real dhamma. I met a Burmese man there who was unable to return to his country because he was one of the many who are at odds with the military regime in Burma - a student who had fled - and his name is Panna - wisdom. I really liked that!! Patience, courage and good cheer Azita 22777 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:26pm Subject: Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, > What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me? It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. Metta, Ken H 22778 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nama & Rupa on the inside vs. Nama & Rupa on the outside Hi, Rob - In a message dated 6/9/03 8:26:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Howard, > > About six months ago, you and I had a very interesting exchange on > phenomenological Buddhism. > > My understanding has evolved a bit since then. I am now hesitant to > use the term phenomenological, because the Buddha's way of > classifying (i.e. that which is conducive to the holy life) is > different from this. At the end of the day, the two ways of defining > are quite similar, but there are subtle differences (i.e. "external" > rupa mentioned in the suttas as having the characterisitics of > anicca, dukkha and anatta). > > One area where you and I diverged at the time was your idea of a > interlinked consciousness (my words, not yours). As I have > investigated the nature of mana further, I realize that your > perspective may have validity (i.e. Arahant's don't distinguish as > your consciousness vs. my consciousness). Please explain your > thinking in this area further. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I hesitate a bit to do that, Rob, for a couple reasons. One is simply that I don't have the matter fully thought out - so there is not much detail to give. Another is that my perspective is not directly or explicitly stated, to the best of my knowledge, in the Tipitaka (or in Mahayana either except to some extent in the Avatamsaka Sutra), and I don't want to imply that my take on this issue is anything more than "my take". One thing I suppose I can do, however, is refer you to the post I sent this morning (U.S. time) entitled Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION. The content of that is related to this matter. I'll say a bit more, but emphasize that I am *not* saying this is the perpective of anyone but myself. My view is that of a multitude of namarupic streams, especially in a given realm of experience, interacting with each other, and, rather like Indra's net of mirrors, reflecting each other. From a common-sense, conventional point of view, it is a truism that sentient beings on the planet earth live in "the same world", interacting with each other in a shared, yet not identical environment. In a sense, each "being" lives in his own projected world of concept. But at the same time, person A encounters person B in A's world, and, likewise, person B encounters person A in B's world. Reflections within reflections. (William James had a view much along these lines.) We interact by means of "guest appearances"! ;-)) Of course, all these interacting conventional worlds of concept are, indeed, concept-only. But underlying this cooperatively projected mosaic of harmoniously integrated conventional worlds, created by the kamma of many, is "that" which is true reality, the realm of suchness that is home for an arahant. But that arahant is no longer a "being", no longer has a sense of substantial self and other, and, perhaps, is not different from that very realm of suchness, itself. ============================ With metta, Howard > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22779 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi Howard, I am in accord with your thoughts on subjectivity and don't have anything of value to add. As to the pass/fail business, that was just my not very skillful attempt to incite a fear of judgement in you all. How we value ourself and others is fundamental to our belief in a self. I might have had better results, for my purposes, if I had heaped lavish praise on everyone. My aim was for you to recognize conceit in your experience and hopefully see that that recognition could be a worthwhile bhavana. Larry 22780 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Ken, Two answers for one question? WRONG Try again. Larry ---------------------- Ken wrote: Hi Larry, L: "What does it mean to say "me" is not me or the "I" thought is not me?" It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. 22781 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Larry, OK, I'll have another think. But first, I'm going to look at the other entries; that's my reading of the rules :-) Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Ken, > > Two answers for one question? WRONG > > Try again. > > Larry > ---------------------- > Ken wrote: Hi Larry, > L: "What does it mean to say "me" is not > me or the "I" thought is not me?" > It means one of two things; to be running in endless circles or to be > taking refuge in the Dhamma. 22782 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Ken and Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: kenhowardau To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:26 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION > Hi Larry, > > > > What does it mean to say "me" is not > > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > It means one of two things; to be running in endless > circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. Same thing--the latter may be more dangerous than the former. Only pa~n~na can figure it out, I think... mike 22783 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Mike, Why is "I" not me? What is conceit in your experience? Why is it not self? What does 'not self' mean to your ordinary, conventional understanding? Larry 22784 From: m. nease Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 8:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, Conceit compares--always, that's what it does. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:48 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION > Hi Mike, > > Why is "I" not me? What is conceit in your experience? Why is it not > self? What does 'not self' mean to your ordinary, conventional > understanding? > > Larry > 22785 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] rebirth in hell, petas Dear Sarah, Thank you for your remarks on reflection of unhappy rebirths, it is very helpful. Yes, I would like more stories and your remarks, Nina. op 09-06-2003 11:01 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > The agitation when I read some of these stories before was too much for me > to continue, but there were conditions to reflect a lot on what I had read > and to review some of the tales again more carefully. A little wise > reflection amongst the dosa. Actually, I’m even looking for excuses to > introduce more of these stories now;-) 22786 From: Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: Subjectivity Re: [dsg] TEST QUESTION Hi, Larry - In a message dated 6/9/03 9:50:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I am in accord with your thoughts on subjectivity and don't have > anything of value to add. > > As to the pass/fail business, that was just my not very skillful attempt > to incite a fear of judgement in you all. How we value ourself and > others is fundamental to our belief in a self. I might have had better > results, for my purposes, if I had heaped lavish praise on everyone. My > aim was for you to recognize conceit in your experience and hopefully > see that that recognition could be a worthwhile bhavana. > > Larry > ============================ Thank you for the forthright reply. As far as conceit in me is concerned, the sense of self in me is quite strong, and self-centeredness is frequently the major driving force here. I don't believe in"me" or "mine". I really don't believe there is any reality to them at all. But the *emotional* level of mind here doesn't seem to know that! ;-)) I wrote the following in my "subjectivity" post: ******************************************************** Meanwhile, however, for the non-arahant, there remains the "here" and the inferred "there", though not with the same strength of separateness at all stages. And so long as this separation remains, there is enforced a "protection" of self, reflected in such things as anger, grasping, fear, suspicion, and embarrassment, along with physical sensations of tightening up in the body (in the shoulders say) or queasiness in the stomach or odd feelings in the knees. ********************************************************* I didn't write that based on disinterested hypothesis, but on first hand experience. The sense of self is strong in me. I'm quite aware of it, and aware of it as being the basis for our suffering. It is the most perverse fact, I think, that the sense of self and the craving, aversion,and attachment associated with it, constitutes THE cause of dukkha, even IS dukkha, and yet when that sense of self ceases for a while, unless you are suitably prepared you are terrified, terrified by the ground slipping out from under one's feet, and you RUN right back to the very shackles of self that you so much need to escape! I've experienced this first hand as well. This is not an easy business we Buddhists have committed ourselves to. This path is not for the timid. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22787 From: robmoult Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > When you recognize conceit in yourself or > others, how do you deal with it and what does it mean to you? An imaginary story: Last week, I went to the temple with my head shaved. My friend saw me and looked surprised. "Have you decided to become a monk?", he asked. "No" I replied, "I have decided to take up competitive swimming and I read in a competitive swimming magazine that shaving one's head reduces resistance and can improve one's lap time by 0.04 seconds." My friend shook his head, "Rob, you are 20kg overweight and spend less than an hour a week in the pool. You should focus on the bigger issues first before worrying about 0.04 seconds!" Like desire for continued existence, conceit is something that only an Arahant is able to free themselves from. I study conceit from a theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. Metta, Rob M :-) 22788 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 11:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Dear RobM, Reminds me of a quote from Robert Browning: "That's all we may expect of man, this side of the grave: his good is in knowing he is bad" RobertK :- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" , "I have decided to take up competitive swimming and > I read in a competitive swimming magazine that shaving one's head > reduces resistance and can improve one's lap time by 0.04 seconds." > > My friend shook his head, "Rob, you are 20kg overweight and spend > less than an hour a week in the pool. You should focus on the bigger > issues first before worrying about 0.04 seconds!" > > I study conceit from a > theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) > for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note > it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22789 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Dave, --- dwlemen wrote: > Sarah, > > Hi! Great to hear from you as well. I do hope all is well with you > and yours. .... Thanks, Dave ..... > DAVE: > That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that > meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. > > How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a > basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention > on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, > it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over > that of "everywhere at once." ..... I know what you mean having just done a quick “everywhere at once” tidy up. On the otherhand, what you understand by meditation here is also just what my yoga friends would say without ever having considered a word of the Buddha’s teachings, so obviously we don’t need his teachings to understand this meaning. ..... >And, that having this calm mind > creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. ..... three questions here: 1. What makes a ‘single focus’ into a ‘calm mind’ or is every ‘single focus’ by nature ‘calm’ as you understand? 2. Does this mean that those who follow your above definition of meditation, including all my yoga friends, automatically have more suitable conditons ‘for proper understanding’ to arise than the ‘everywhere at once’ runaround friends? 3. What is ‘proper understanding’? ..... > How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much > about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm > shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we > aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps > an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper > understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural > high" or whatever else. ..... ;-) Does this mean the purpose of the present meditation is to lead to a future goal? Does this square with the emphasis in the Teachings on ‘present moment’? ..... > Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be > awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we > should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). ..... I understand the contradiction as it sounds.In a recent installment of the commentary to the Satipatthana Suta (Way 94, Mental Objects) on ‘Mindfulness’ we read, “In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulnes with clear comprehension in the seven positions beginning with that of “going forwards”; or the mindfulness arousing the knowledge which grasps the purpose of these actions is mindfulness with clear comprehension, and as mindfulness with clear comprehension everywhere is a state which brings about the cultivation of mindfulness, mindfulness with clear comprehension is necessary for the arising of mindfulness.” Near the beginning of the sutta, under the section on ‘Contemplation of the Body’, we also read all about anapanasati or mindfulness of breathing. Is it possible, do you think, that for some people, like my yoga friends, sitting cross-legged and focussing on their breathing may be included in one of the positions and in ‘everywhere’ where ‘through mindfulnes with clear comprehension’, ‘the mindfulness arousing the knowledge’ may develop? In other words, is it possible that according to our different inclinations, we find ourselves in different positions and places, but still there are only the ‘present moment’ realities to be known without necessitating any particular position or location? I think it really comes down to what one considers the right causes and conditions for knowledge or wisdom to develop. I’d like to hear more about what you think. With metta, Sarah p.s tapes - I got confused and forgot what I arranged to be sent to whom. I’m delighted to hear you’re already listening to the sets sent. In the India series, you’ll also be hearing Nina, Kom and Jon as well as K.Sujin. In the Sri Lanka series, you’ll also hear Christine, Jon, Sukin and me and some rather quiet DSG friends from Sri Lanka at the end. Let us know if there’s anything of interest. ================ 22790 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain As A Signal ( 05 ) Hi Htoo, I was meaning to write and appreciate your “Pain As A Signal” series before now - there are several interesting points you raise. In this extract you clarify that when we refer to bodily pain, the only physical phenomena experienced through the body-sense are hardness/softness, temperature and motion as you detail below: --- htootintnaing wrote: > Pain,a signal,is not a permanent one as other dhammas.Pain arises > than may persist and then passes away with time. > > If the pain is bodily pain,it is sensed by body sense-receptors.In > bodily sense there are three types in Abhidhamma.The first type is > called Pathavi(hardness,softness,roughness,smothness-density of mass). > > Next type is Vayo(pulling force,pushing > force,springingness,resilience,attraction,propulsion,repulsion-any > moving forces). > > And then Tejo comes as a type of pain.It is > coolness,coldness,warmness,hotness- some degree of temperature.Pain > is a mixture of all these three even though the most prominent Rupa > that sensed as pain is Tejo. ..... It’s such a good reminder that only these rupas (physical phenomena) are experienced by the body-sense consciousness and the accompanying unpleasant (bodily) feeling, lasting just an instant. On account of the momentary experience, however, the subsequent processes of consciousness, especially the aversion, unpleasant mental feelings and proliferations arising in the javana processes, ‘magnify’ the pain to an extent that it seems to overwhelm. ..... > When a pain comes,it may manifest as a form of wave of heat and it > spread through out the nearby structures and related organs.In > Abhidhamma that sense is carried a long Kaya-Pasada with the aid of > Thaddha-Pathavi. .... I’m not sure what ‘thaddha-pathavi’ is? When there is any idea of heat spreading out to structures and organs, isn’t this just thinking? Surely, still only heat is experienced. Perhaps you can clarify these lines. .... > If an insight can be developed by practice then pain can become > tolerable one and if it is based as an mental object further mental > faculty can be developed through the practice of putting the mind at > the object pain at the bodily sense-door. .... I agree that this may be more effective than taking an asprin. However, I’m not sure that it has anything to do with insight. Surely by the time the mind is put anywhere or on any object, that object (in this case a rupa) has long since gone. I tend to see the practical first-aid and insight (vipassana) as quite distinct, though certainly the latter does not exclude the former and there can be the development of insight whilst applying first-aid too, if conditions. I tend to think that for insight to develop, there has to be awareness of whatever appears, rather than any special focus. Otherwise it will be a path of attachment, rather than detachment, I think and will not lead to an understanding of anatta. For example, even at these times of ‘Pain’ there are moments of lobha which of course can be quite subtle. There can be lobha for getting rid of the pain or for another experience, but we may not want to know it. However, the lobha and other realities can be understood and seen as anatta at these times too as they dart in and out. Nina wrote recently: “If one tries to suppress akusala, how can it be known as it is? “The All” should be known, there is no exception. Even the tendency to suppress akusala should be known: it is a conditioned naama.” She also quoted from the ‘All’ in the Path of Discrimination about the 201 dhammas to be directly known, including ‘materiality, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness.....craving for visible objects, sounds, odours, flavours...tangible objects.’...and so on. I understand that you are just considering one set of realities, but I’m not sure why you recommend a special focus. Also in (06) you refer to this as ‘vedanupassana-satipatthana’. Surely, vedana (feelings) accompany every citta and do not include the rupas you discussed here. ..... > May you all can tolerate pains of different kind and have an insight > into pains and real dhamma. .... Thanks Htoo, and an interesting topic - especially when you include the abhidhamma detail into this unfortunately common daily life occurrence. Btw, you mentioned in (04) that ‘actually pain is a signal of disease or sufferings.’ Perhaps it would be helpful if you elaborate further on mental and physical bodily feelings and how these are distinct from the rupas experienced and perceived as pain. I look forward to more of your series or other posts. With metta, Sarah ===== 22791 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Sarah, I've again dropped my comments throughout our dialog below. As you read through my answers, I do ask that you bear in mind that I am still but a mere learner of all this! :-) > ..... > > DAVE: > > That is exactly the passage I had in mind. To me it implies that > > meditation is not all that important to Buddhism. > > > > How do I understand meditaction? Well... I suppose I would say at a > > basic level, it's when you sit cross legged and focus your attention > > on watching the breath. It is my understanding that, by doing this, > > it trains the mind over time to prefer a state of single focus over > > that of "everywhere at once." > ..... > SARAH: > I know what you mean having just done a quick "everywhere at once" tidy > up. On the otherhand, what you understand by meditation here is also just > what my yoga friends would say without ever having considered a word of > the Buddha's teachings, so obviously we don't need his teachings to > understand this meaning. > ..... > >And, that having this calm mind > > creates conditions suitable for proper understanding to arise. > ..... > three questions here: > > 1. What makes a 'single focus' into a 'calm mind' or is every 'single > focus' by nature 'calm' as you understand? > 2. Does this mean that those who follow your above definition of > meditation, including all my yoga friends, automatically have more > suitable conditons 'for proper understanding' to arise than the > 'everywhere at once' runaround friends? > 3. What is 'proper understanding'? > ..... DAVE: 1.) If I understand your question, my impression is that by meditating, we eliminate all that other stimulation (physical and mental) so the mind will have less opportunity to jump around. So, rather than being everywhere, it only has one thing to look at; the breath. That would be the single focus. Then, from how I understand it, we drop even our attention on the breath and the mind becomes completely calm. 2.) I suppose what I mean is that your yoga friends have some more suitable conditions. It's like growing a plant. You need many things. We could say that your yoga friends have rich soil, but no sunlight. So, some of the conditions needed for understanding are there, but not all of them. 3.) I'm still trying to figure that one out! I can say that it has to do with the nature of us, and how we truly interact with reality. I could say that "proper understanding" is understanding the teachings of the Buddha, but I don't yet truly understand them all so I couldn't detail / defend them, as such. > > DAVE: > > How does it differ from other kinds of meditation? I don't know much > > about other forms. It would seem that the main difference (I'm > > shooting from the hip here!) is in terms of the "goal." Although we > > aren't supposed to meditate with a "goal" in mind, there is perhaps > > an undertanding of the purpose of meditation as leading to proper > > understanding, and not just relieving stress, getting a "natural > > high" or whatever else. > ..... > SARAH: > ;-) Does this mean the purpose of the present meditation is to lead to a > future goal? Does this square with the emphasis in the Teachings on > 'present moment'? DAVE: I knew you would ask this! I wasn't sure how to word myself before. I had hoped putting the word "GOAL" in quotes would be enough to let it slide by! I don't think we can have a "purpose" or a "goal" for meditation. Again, to compare with gardening (can you guess what I did this weekend!?), I can prepare the soil, and plant the seeds, but I can't "will" the plants to grow. I think that the present moment awareness is part one of those conditions that allow right understanding to grow. And, by meditation, we make the mind more fertile, so to speak, for that growth to occur. (again, assuming that the other conditions are there as well, like knowledge/insight, etc.) > > DAVE: > > Now, I do understand that the Buddha said that there should be > > awareness in everything we do, but I thought he also said that we > > should specifically do meditation (sitting and watching breath). > ..... > SARAH > I understand the contradiction as it sounds.In a recent installment of the > commentary to the Satipatthana Suta (Way 94, Mental Objects) on > 'Mindfulness' we read, > > "In explanation it is said: Mindfulness arises through mindfulnes with > clear comprehension in the seven positions beginning with that of "going > forwards"; or the mindfulness arousing the knowledge which grasps the > purpose of these actions is mindfulness with clear comprehension, and as > mindfulness with clear comprehension everywhere is a state which brings > about the cultivation of mindfulness, mindfulness with clear comprehension > is necessary for the arising of mindfulness." > DAVE: I couldn't have said it any more clearly myself! :-) > SARAH: > Near the beginning of the sutta, under the section on 'Contemplation of > the Body', we also read all about anapanasati or mindfulness of breathing. > > Is it possible, do you think, that for some people, like my yoga friends, > sitting cross-legged and focussing on their breathing may be included in > one of the positions and in 'everywhere' where 'through mindfulnes with > clear comprehension', 'the mindfulness arousing the knowledge' may > develop? In other words, is it possible that according to our different > inclinations, we find ourselves in different positions and places, but > still there are only the 'present moment' realities to be known without > necessitating any particular position or location? > > I think it really comes down to what one considers the right causes and > conditions for knowledge or wisdom to develop. I'd like to hear more about > what you think. DAVE: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that understanding can arise at any place or time. And, I would agree with that, that understanding wouldn't be limited to only those times when we are meditating. And, of course it would be according to our "inclinations" in that I don't think that meditation is any type of "law" but rather a tool. So, if I may ask, how is it that you see meditation? I suppose this part will be hearsay, but it is my understanding that the Buddha did encourage it a lot, for what reason? > > With metta, > > Sarah > > p.s tapes - I got confused and forgot what I arranged to be sent to whom. > I'm delighted to hear you're already listening to the sets sent. In the > India series, you'll also be hearing Nina, Kom and Jon as well as K.Sujin. > In the Sri Lanka series, you'll also hear Christine, Jon, Sukin and me and > some rather quiet DSG friends from Sri Lanka at the end. Let us know if > there's anything of interest. > ================ > DAVE: I did have a couple of questions from what I've heard on the tapes, and read here off and on. I hesitate asking as I may soon get in over my head! But, here goes: 1.) It seems that the theory is that we can only experience one thing at a time (e.g. at a moment, we may experience seeing, but then no touching, hearing, ... occurs). Why? I can see that we do "tune out" stimulus coming at us, but it seems to me that we are able to process multiple senses at once. When I pick up my cup of coffee, I see it, feel it, and smell it, as well as think about it. It seems like the mind would be quite a bottleneck for processing these stimuli if it was a single processing system. 2.) In the tapes, they often talk about "reality." I'm not sure what they mean by that phrase. Do they mean the actual, physical world, our merely our perception of the physical world? (if too much to get into here, that's fine.) As always, thanks for your time in sharing your wisdom Peace, Dave 22792 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: importance of Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > >__________________________Yasa__________________________ Hello Sarah, After the Parinibbana of the Lord Buddha, there were dissenting groups who finally broke away from the Theravada tradition, to form the Mahayana tradition, which was lead by Ven.Nagarjuna in the second century. In about the 5th century, Ven.Bodhidharma introduced the Chinese Zen Buddhist tradition, and in the 8th century Ven. Shantarakshita and Ven.Padmasambhava introduced Buddhism to Tibet. The basic teachings of the Buddha remain the same in all these traditions. That is they accept the , Noble eight fold Path, the four noble Truth, Paticchasamuppada, and dhana, seela, bhavana. Bhavana is the meditation, which is practiced by all traditions or branches of such traditions. The discourses found in the tripitaka consist mostly of the Buddha's discourses and teachings given to his disciples the Bikkhus. A monastic life provides the correct environment for the practice of meditation, which consisted of sitting meditation, walking meditation. Meditation while standing and lying down is also a part of it. After many discourses explaining his finding of the path and how to proceed to final emancipation, the Buddha made the Maha satipattana sutta, the discourse on four foundations of mindfulness, which contains all the instruction s necessary for meditation to attain Nibbana, in ones very life.( And the Anapanasati sutta is equally the discourse on meditation instructions for the monks.) The heart of Buddha's teaching is "meditatation". In the ancient ruins of many monasteries,in India and in other Buddhist countries, there are small rooms called "kuti" where the monks meditated. In caves found in Sri Lanka and India, there are caves which had been prepared for the monks to meditate. Maha Satipattana Sutta is the main discourse which is still utlised in Buddhist countres in training monks for meditation. It is so now and it had been so since the enlightenment of the Buddha, and before him among the Hindu Yogis. Nowhere, in the tripita, Buddha had asked his disciples to use the Abhidhamma teachings for the purpose of meditation. To use the Abhidhamma now to "be mindful of the moment" to attain Nibbana is like climbing a mountain in search of water, when there is plenty below. Any one is at one's liberty to follow the teachings the way one wants, but to say that meditation is not part of the Buddha's teaching, is not correct and misleading. With metta, Yasa 22793 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Perfections, Ch 10, Loving-kindness, no 1. Perfections, Ch 10, Loving-kindness, no 1. The Commentary to the ³Basket of conduct² defines the perfection of loving- kindness, mettå, as follows: Loving-kindness has the characteristic of promoting the welfare (of living beings); its function is to provide for their welfare, or its function is to remove resentment; its manifestation is kindliness; seeing the agreeable side of beings is its proximate cause. Among the ten perfections, the perfection of mettå, loving-kindness, follows upon the perfection of determination. A person who is firmly established in the development of kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements has accumulated the perfection of determination and it is natural for him to practise loving-kindness. We can verify for ourselves whether we are firmly established in the development of kusala. When someone is not inclined to anger and when he often practises mettå, it shows that he sees the benefit of non-anger and of the development of the perfections leading to the eradication of the defilements. Someone may believe that life belongs to him, but in reality there are only different dhammas that arise and fall away very rapidly. He should develop more understanding of his life, of his kusala cittas and akusala cittas. Some people who reflect on the perfections that were mentioned before, such as generosity and morality, believe that they have developed them already sufficiently. As to renunciation, nekkhamma, they believe that they are already contented with little, that they have fewness of wishes. As to energy, they find that they are not easily disheartened, that they have diligence and endeavour in their undertakings. They find that they have sufficient patience and endurance. They think that they have truthfulness: they speak the truth and act according to their words. They believe that they have determination, that they are firmly established in their resolutions. However, they should ask themselves whether they have already sufficiently developed the perfection of mettå. They may be forgetful of assisting others with loving-kindness, of developing mettå in this way time and again. They should support others with mettå, also when they are strangers, people they do not know. If one has not yet accumulated all the perfections, none excepted, there are not sufficient conditions for the elimination of defilements. 22794 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 1. Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 1. The Present Moment. All three parts of the Tipitaka we read or study pertain to our life at this moment, to the present moment. The purpose of our study is the understanding of the reality appearing now. This point stressed many times during our discussions in Thailand, was a pertinent reminder for me. The purpose of the Abhidhamma is not theoretical understanding of different classifications, it points directly to realities appearing in our daily life. The Abhidhamma is applied in the development of satipatthåna. Satipatthåna is nothing else but the development of understanding of the characteristics of dhammas which appear through the six doorways. That is why Acharn Sujin explained that the study of Abhidhamma is essential for the development of satipatthåna. If we do not study the Abhidhamma, we do not know what a sense-door process is, what a mind-door process is, what nåma and rúpa are. Intellectual understanding stemming from reading and listening can grow by weighing things up, by considering the realities appearing in our life, and in this way there are conditions for the arising of sati-sampajañña. It is important to understand what the Abhidhamma really is. Not knowing what the Abhidhamma is can cause a great deal of aversion or even anger. People may be confused about the authenticity of the Abhidhamma when they read that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma to his mother in the Heaven of the Thirtythree [1]. We should consider the message this story contains. As to the surroundings, conventional terms are used describing a situation. It is not relevant to try to find out in how far this story is historical in all of its aspects. The Buddha, when he attained Buddhahood, realized the truth of all dhammas. These are contained in the Tipitaka. He gave the nucleus of the Abhidhamma to Såriputta. The textual order of the Abhidhamma originated with Såriputta. The Atthasåliní (Introductory Discourse, 16, 17) states: ³Thus the giving of the method was to the chief Disciple who was endowed with analytical knowledge, as though the Buddha stood on the edge of the shore and pointed out the ocean with his open hand. To the Elder the doctrine taught by the Blessed One in hundreds and thousands of methods became very clear. Thereafter, the Elder passed on what he had learnt to his five hundred disciples.² Further it is said: "The textual order of the Abhidhamma originated from Såriputta; the numerical series in the Great Book (Patthåna) was also determined by him. In this way the Elder, without spoiling the unique doctrine, laid down the numerical series in order to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law (Dhamma)." We read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Ch 4, § 32) that the Buddha said concerning Såriputta's mastery of the Dhamma and its exposition: "The Essence of the Dhamma (dhammadhatu) has been so well penetrated by Såriputta, O monks, that if I were to quesion him therein for one day in different words and phrases, Såriputta would reply likewise for one day in various words and phrases. And if I were to question him for one night, or a day and a night, or for two days and nights, even up to seven days and nights, Såriputta would expound the matter for the same period of time, in various words and phrases." Footnote: 1. See Chapter 1, dealing with the ³Baddhekaratta Sutta², Discourse on A Single Excellent Night (³Middle Length Sayings² III, 134) and its Commentary. 22795 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4, stages Dear Howard, op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > writes: >> "Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be >> directly known? ...² >> Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up > ============================= > The point made in the quotation from the Path of Discrimination may > well be a valid one, but I doubt it. I think that for liberating insight into > the tilakkhana to arise, it needn't arise with regard to every single, > individual conditioned dhamma. With Blake, I think it suffices to see the > universe in a > grain of sand. The direct seeing of impermanence etc at the ultimate level of > experience, even once, is transformative. N: There may be a moment that things become clearer, you had not seen them before in such a clear way, for instance the conditionality of things, or non-self. You may be shaken up by an event or an experience: for instance, it never was so clear that kamma arranged for a solution to a problem, you could not have planned it or know it beforehand, it just happened because of unforseeable events, by conditions. But this is not enough. Ignorance that is accumulated for aeons cannot be uprooted by one moment of understanding. If it is not panna that penetrates the true nature of realities, it is still my experience, some subtle clinging to my experience. But we have to be very sincere to recognize this. Even when we believe: I realize this, it is not thinking, it may still be intellectual understanding, not panna that realizes the truth. Only panna which has been developed stage by stage can detache from realities. It cannot be done in one day or by one impressive experience. To me it makes a lot of sense that there are stages of insight: first you have to know what nama is and what rupa, then you understand more: their conditions, their arising and falling away. As to the higher stages: seeing danger, etc. these are names designating panna which detaches more and more, at every subsequent stage of insight, from nama and rupa. The tilakkhana have to be realized of all realities appearing through the six doors, otherwise there will not be detachment. is expounded in the suttas. It is not only in the Path of Discrimination. I can quote part of the Com. to the "Basket of Conduct" about the development of panna, as translated by Ven. Bodhi: < This is an analysis of the sphere of learning: the five aggregates, the twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two faculties, the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of mindfulness, etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the wholesome, etc., as well as any blameless secular fields of knowledge which may be suitable for promoting the welfare and happiness of beings, particularly grammar. Thus, with wisdom, mindfulness, and energy preceded by skilful means, a bodhisattva should first thoroughly immerse himself in this entire sphere of learning -- through study, listening, memorization, learning, and interrogation; then he should establish others in learning. In this way the wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna) can be developed. So too, out of his wish for the welfare of others, the bodhisattva should develop the wisdom of ingenuity in creating opportunities to fulfil his various duties to his fellow beings and the skilful means in understanding their happiness and misery. Then he should develop wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna) by first reflecting upon the specific nature of the phenomena such as the aggregates, and then arousing reflective acquiescence in them. Next, he should perfect the preliminary portion of the wisdom born of meditation (pubbabhagabhavanapanna) by developing the mundane kinds of full understanding through the discernment of the specific and general characteristics of the aggregates, etc. To do so, he should fully understand all internal and external phenomena without exception as follows: "This is mere mentality-materiality (namarupamatta), which arises and ceases according to conditions. There is here no agent or actor. It is impermanent in the sense of not being after having been; suffering in the sense of oppression by rise and fall; and non-self in the sense of being unsusceptible to the exercise of mastery." Comprehending them in this way, he abandons attachment to them, and helps others to do so as well....> By comprehension there will be detachment. Next time about the Path of Discrimination. Nina. 22796 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, Ch 3, no 4, stages Hi, Nina - Thank you for the following. There is a saying along the lines that a single swallow does nota summer make. (I'm sure I have that wrong! ;-) But I agree with the sense of it. Certainly no single experience, except the final, ultimate one, leads to full enlightenment. I *certainly* accept that there is a development of wisdom and stages of development. My comment was merely that the business of knowing *all things* is an overstatement.I still believe that. With metta, Howard In a message dated 6/10/03 1:45:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Dear Howard, > op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > >In a message dated 6/1/03 2:30:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > >writes: > > >>"Bhikkhus, all is to be directly known. And what is that all that is to be > >>directly known? ...² > >>Then twohundred and one dhammas are summed up > > >============================= > >The point made in the quotation from the Path of Discrimination may > >well be a valid one, but I doubt it. I think that for liberating insight > into > >the tilakkhana to arise, it needn't arise with regard to every single, > >individual conditioned dhamma. With Blake, I think it suffices to see the > >universe in a > >grain of sand. The direct seeing of impermanence etc at the ultimate level > of > >experience, even once, is transformative. > N: sand.> There may be a moment that things become clearer, you had not seen > them before in such a clear way, for instance the conditionality of things, > or non-self. You may be shaken up by an event or an experience: for > instance, it never was so clear that kamma arranged for a solution to a > problem, you could not have planned it or know it beforehand, it just > happened because of unforseeable events, by conditions. But this is not > enough. Ignorance that is accumulated for aeons cannot be uprooted by one > moment of understanding. If it is not panna that penetrates the true nature > of realities, it is still my experience, some subtle clinging to my > experience. But we have to be very sincere to recognize this. Even when we > believe: I realize this, it is not thinking, it may still be intellectual > understanding, not panna that realizes the truth. Only panna which has been > developed stage by stage can detache from realities. It cannot be done in > one day or by one impressive experience. > To me it makes a lot of sense that there are stages of insight: first you > have to know what nama is and what rupa, then you understand more: their > conditions, their arising and falling away. As to the higher stages: seeing > danger, etc. these are names designating panna which detaches more and more, > at every subsequent stage of insight, from nama and rupa. The tilakkhana > have to be realized of all realities appearing through the six doors, > otherwise there will not be detachment. is expounded in the > suttas. It is not only in the Path of Discrimination. > I can quote part of the Com. to the "Basket of Conduct" about the > development of panna, as translated by Ven. Bodhi: > > twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two > faculties, the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of > mindfulness, etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the > wholesome, etc., as well as any blameless secular fields of knowledge which > may be suitable for promoting the welfare and happiness of beings, > particularly grammar. Thus, with wisdom, mindfulness, and energy preceded by > skilful means, a bodhisattva should first thoroughly immerse himself in this > entire sphere of learning -- through study, listening, memorization, > learning, and interrogation; then he should establish others in learning. In > this way the wisdom born of learning (sutamayi panna) can be developed. So > too, out of his wish for the welfare of others, the bodhisattva should > develop the wisdom of ingenuity in creating opportunities to fulfil his > various duties to his fellow beings and the skilful means in understanding > their happiness and misery. > Then he should develop wisdom born of reflection (cintamayi panna) by > first reflecting upon the specific nature of the phenomena such as the > aggregates, and then arousing reflective acquiescence in them. Next, he > should perfect the preliminary portion of the wisdom born of meditation > (pubbabhagabhavanapanna) by developing the mundane kinds of full > understanding through the discernment of the specific and general > characteristics of the aggregates, etc. To do so, he should fully > understand all internal and external phenomena without exception as follows: > "This is mere mentality-materiality (namarupamatta), which arises and ceases > according to conditions. There is here no agent or actor. It is impermanent > in the sense of not being after having been; suffering in the sense of > oppression by rise and fall; and non-self in the sense of being > unsusceptible to the exercise of mastery." Comprehending them in this way, > he abandons attachment to them, and helps others to do so as well....> > By comprehension there will be detachment. > Next time about the Path of Discrimination. > Nina. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22797 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:40pm Subject: Way 100, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 3. Energy continued This recluse who had been earnest for a long time, after developing insight, reached the fruit of arahantship even before meal-time, and the great destroyer of the corruptions smiling like an opening lotus went out of the cave. To him the guardian deity of the tree near the cave said this: Hail to thee man-steed of finest strain, Hail to thee the best of mortal kind, Gone are thy cankers, Sorrowless One, and so Worthy art thou to take a gift of faith. Having uttered this appreciation, the tree deity said: "Venerable Sir, after giving alms to an arahant like you wandering for alms, the elderly woman will escape suffering." When the Thera got up and opened the door to observe what the time was he found that it was still quite early. So he took his bowl and robe and entered the village. The young girl, having prepared the rice, sat looking towards the door of her house thinking, "Now my brother will come." And when the Thera arrived she took the bowl, filled it with milk-rice alms mixed with ghee and treacle and placed it in his hands, and he departed after giving thanks with the words: "May there be happiness," and the girl stood there looking at the departing one. The color of the Elder at that time was exceedingly clear, and his controlling faculties especially pure and his face was shining like a ripe palm-fruit freed from the foot-stalk. The mother of the girl on returning from the forest inquired: "Dear, did your brother come?" The daughter told her everything. The Maha Upasika knowing that her son's renunciation work had that day reached its acme, said, "Dear, your brother delights in the Dispensation of the Buddha. He is not dissatisfied." There is reflection on the greatness of the heritage when one thinks thus: "Great, indeed, is the heritage of the Teacher, namely the Seven Real Treasures [Sutta Ariya Dhanani]. These are not to be got by the slothful. The indolent man is like a son disowned by his parents. He does not get this parents' wealth when they pass away. So too it is with the Seven Real Treasures. Only the man of energy gets these." Reflection on the greatness of the Master consists in recalling the great events in the teacher's life, and admonishing oneself thus: "Does it befit you to be slack after entering the Dispensation of such a Teacher?" Reflection on the greatness of race is carried out by way of the fact that in entering the Buddha's Dispensation one has become the Conqueror's son [spiritually], and that for such a one slacking is not fit. Reflection on the greatness of fellows in the holy life consists of admonishing oneself thus: "Sariputta, Maha Moggallana, and the great disciples penetrated the supramundane after much endeavor. Are you following their way of life?" The avoiding of lazy folk is the avoiding of people without physical and mental energy who are like a rock-snake lying inert after a full feed. And the association with folk who have begun to exert themselves is mixing with those whose minds are turned towards and who are endeavoring for the attainment of Nibbana. Inclination towards the development of this enlightenment factor is the inclining, sloping and bending of the mind towards right exertion in all postures of sitting, standing and so forth. The enlightenment factor that arises in this way comes to completion by culture through the path of arahantship. 22798 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hello Mike, By "same thing," I assume you to be saying that a worldling who takes refuge in the Dhamma is nonetheless trapped in samsara. By "even more dangerous," you might mean that the belief in a self who is taking refuge, is even more insidious than the belief in a self who is not. I can't argue with that. At the time of 'taking the test,' I was thinking that the Dhamma tells us to get out of the circular, "Do I exist; do I not exist" frame of mind. But it doesn't tell US to do anything. It provides conditions for the replacement of wrong understanding (miccha-ditthi), with right understanding (panna). Thanks for the reminder, Ken H > > > > > > > What does it mean to say "me" is not > > > me or the "I" thought is not me? > > > > It means one of two things; to be running in endless > > circles or to be taking refuge in the Dhamma. > > Same thing--the latter may be more dangerous than the former. Only pa~n~na > can figure it out, I think... > 22799 From: Date: Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi Rob, You wrote: Like desire for continued existence, conceit is something that only an Arahant is able to free themselves from. I study conceit from a theoretical perspective to prepare fertile soil (right conditions) for that point in the future. Until that time comes, I simply note it using my theoretical understanding to apply a label. L: I think by simpy noting or recognizing conceit one can easily see what an impermanent flickering thing it is and that it is truely not "me" in any sense. This can help in gradually wearing away the whole idea of "me". What is interesting is that there is a lot more conceit than I was aware of. Larry 22800 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 0:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION Hi RobM (Yasa and Ken H in passing), Like Kom and Larry, I thought your test reply was very neatly written and while I’m in appreciation mode, I also thought your post (225380) on ‘Cetasikas in Lobha-mula cittas’ was very clear and well-presented. When you raised the question before about conceit and wrong view, I meant to chip in. Your recent reply reminded me of this: --- robmoult wrote: > We can see why manna (conceit) and ditthi (wrong view) cannot arise > in the same citta; manna has the nature of dividing and comparing > whereas ditthi has the nature of generalizing. We can also see why a > Sotapanna has eliminated ditthi while mana is not eliminated until > one is an Arahant; the Sotapanna, Sakadagami and Anagami know that > namas and rupas are not self, but still compare "their namas and > rupas" with "others' namas and rupas". .... I think of mana (conceit) as indicative of clinging to self or finding oneself important. This morning I was admiring a friend’s outfit. So many different mental states involved at these brief moments including lobha, some muditaa (being glad for her), but also brief moments of maana as quick flashes (certainly not verbalised thoughts) of me and my outfit were compared. I’m sure what seems like subtle conceit to me now would not seem subtle at all to developed wisdom. Btw, I liked this quote Yasa gave before, but I wonder if Yasa or anyone else knows where in the scriptures the python simile is: “According to scriptures, "a prominent aspect of conceit is stiffness and rigidity. One''s mind feels stiff and bloated, like a python that has just swallowed some other creature. This aspect of mana is also reflected as tension in the body and posture. Its victims get big-headed and a thus may find it difficult to bow respectfully to others. It, destroys gratitude, making it difficult to acknowledge that one owes any kind of debt to another person…..one also actively conceals the virtues of others so that no one will hold them in esteem." (In this Very Life by Sayadaw U Pandita)” It may not seem that the conceit arising while admiring another’s outfit has the characteristic of ‘stiffness and rigidity’ like the python, but I have no doubt that to developed insight it would seem as gross as some obvious conceit might seem to us now. Of course, as we know, the comparisons made may be quite accurate conventionally - X really may be richer or taller than Y. The conceit can arise regardless. I think of ditthi (wrong view) as indicative of a twisted outlook such as when there is the idea that a self or thing really exists or when a concept is taken for a reality. Other common examples might be taking akusala for kusala (eg good attachment or anger) or when there is the idea that akusala doesn’t matter anyway or won’t be accumulated or bring results. You’ve given all the detail, but I think the distinct characteristics can be known. Btw, in the post on lobha-mula cittas which I referred to above, there were just a couple of small points I wished to question. You mentioned that ‘for most people, lobha is the most common citta’. I would have thought cittas rooted in moha (ignorance) would be most common - we know all akusala cittas are accompanied by moha, but even between all those rooted in lobha and dosa, there are many just rooted in moha and accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness). Do you have any reference for this? The other small detail related at the end to thina (sloth) and middha (torpor). You wrote that ‘cittas with thina and middha are passive whereas cittas without thina and middha are active and spontaneous’. It’s true that we read about laziness and lack of energy and so on with regard to these mental factors, but I think we need to be clear that it is only kusala viriya (energy) that is lacking or prevented. An arahant may be tired physically and sleep, but no thina and middha. Conversely, there may be thina and middha with ditthi (wrong view) or mana (conceit) or other unwholesome, ‘prompted’ cittas when we’re wide awake and active. Your comment may be referring to ‘prompted’(sasankharika) vs ‘unprompted’ (asankharika). I thought this paragraphfrom Way100 (Satipatthana Sutta Comy on viriya (energy) was interesting: “The avoiding of lazy folk is the avoiding of people without physical and mental energy who are like a rock-snake lying inert after a full feed. And the association with folk who have begun to exert themselves is mixing with those whose minds are turned towards and who are endeavoring for the attainment of Nibbana. Inclination towards the development of this enlightenment factor is the inclining, sloping and bending of the mind towards right exertion in all postures of sitting, standing and so forth. The enlightenment factor that arises in this way comes to completion by culture through the path of arahantship.” Again the ‘right exertion’ has to be the viriya accompanied by panna, regardless of action or position. As I said, pls take any comments I raise as being minor quibbles and not meant to detract from some of these excellent posts. You were also discussing with Ken H on ditthi and mana. You were discussing right view arising for an arahant and taking concepts as object. I think we have to remember there are different kinds of right view or panna, i.e right view that accompanies moments of samatha that usually take concepts as object, such as the virtues of the Buddha or death and so on and right view which accompanies moments of satipatthana only taking paramattha dhammas as object. In adition, dana (generosity) and sila (morality) may or may not accompanied by panna and also have concepts as object. As we know, if the cittas in the javana process are not concerned with dana, sila or bhavana then they are akusala. So, I assume all these cittas for the arahant must be concerned with dana, sila or bhavana and that even those concerned with dana and sila would all be accompanied by pa~n~na too, though I’m not certain about this last point and will be glad to hear any corrections. Quite a complex subject. As you responded to Ken H, conceit and wrong view both take concepts as object. Once again, thank you for your inspiring posts. I also appreciated your summary of Dr K Sri Dhammananda’s booklet and your post on the Cetana Sutta which the Cooran group raised. With metta, Sarah ===== P.S. When I read about generosity in the series on ‘Perfections’, I thought of some of your kind examples in daily life: “When we give, we should not expect anything in return, and moreover, we should not think of giving as being tedious, we should not give without cheerfulness and generosity, we should give wholeheartedly. We need to have subtle and detailed knowledge of our cittas so that defilements can be eliminated. When we see someone else’s generosity, we can rejoice in his good deed, we can feel enthusiasm about it.” ============================== 22801 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Lee, Sorry for being slow again. I know you’ve considered the texts deeply, so don’t wish to rush back when I’m ‘everywhere at once’ which is the norm;-) I also try to understand your viewpoint. Leaving aside the aspects which we agree on: --- Lee Dillion wrote: L: > I agree that "Nibbana does not ‘partake’ of any sphere of existence" - > that, instead, it is a psychological state whereby we have resolved all > fabrications. ... I’m sorry but the last phrase doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps you can elaborate further in your own words. ..... L: >Thus, to speak of this experience as born, orgiginated, > created, etc. is to make a category error. ..... I think it’s important, nonetheless, to distinguish between the cittas (consciousness process) involved and the unconditioned, non-born etc reality, nibbana, which is experienced at moments of enlightenment. I wonder if you accept this distinction? ..... L: > I am familiar with the commentary on the word All, but not sure how it > allows us to speculate beyong the All. I think I am misunderstanding > your point, so any clarification would be helpful. ..... I may have misunderstood your comment before when you mentioned not speculating beyond ‘the all’. I merely was clarifying that ‘nibbana’ was included in ‘the all’ to be known as I understand. I agree, however, that speculation about it is still of limited value;-) ..... L: > I suspect we could argue this back and forth and that is not my intent - > my only purpose is to suggest that there are understandings of the > dhamma that are consistent with sutta, mainstream within Theravada, and > that minimize ontological speculation about what Nibbana is. Consistent > with this are the comments of Bhikkhu Nanananda from his sermons on > Nibbana at http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.htm ..... Hmmm - to be honest I really don’t know much about what is ‘mainstream within Theravada’ today. I do think though, that the Tipitaka as a whole and the commentaries are what have been carefully preserved by the Theravada communities from the time of the Buddha and shortly after his parinibbana. What we can read now is a result of these indefatigable efforts. I appreciate, however, that for many people the commentaries and Abhidhamma do not square with the way they read the suttas and as you say, we may have to let this one rest for now. ..... L:> ---- > "The cessation of consciousness is none other than Nibbàna. > > Some seem to think that the cessation of consciousness oc-curs in an > arahant only at the moment of his parinibbàna, at the end of his life > span. But this is not the case. Very often, the deeper meanings of > important suttas have been obliterated by the tendency to interpret the > references to consciousness in such contexts as the final occur-rence of > consciousness in an arahant's life - carimaka vi??àõa.[10] > > What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. > It means the cessation of the specifically prepared conscious-ness, > abhisaïkhata vi??àõa. An arahant's experience of the cessa-tion of > consciousness is at the same time the experi-ence of the cessa-tion of > name-and-form." > > from part 4 of the Nibbana Sermons ..... I may be lost. Usually, I think, that when there are references to ‘cessation’, it is to parinibbana, though there can be temporary cessation of all consciousness (nirodhasamapatti) for the anagami or arahant that has attained all 8 jhanas. I agree with the first paragraph that we need to be careful about comments in context. In the Udana passage on nibbana we were discussing, however, clearly it is a description of nibbana being discussed. I think it’s also important to remember that for an arahant namas and rupas continue as usual, as do the results of previous kamma. Just no conditions for new kamma to arise. ..... L: > Whether there is something "more" to Nibbana following the death of the> Arahant, I don't know, and to argue about it given the rudimentary place > I am on the path seems beyond my current abilities. ..... I’m rather out of my depth too. Basically, try as I might, the comments of Nanananda on nibbana make little sense to me I’m sorry to say. ..... S:> > but we are here to discuss and explore rather than to just agree. > L:> Yes. That is why I like this list. It presents a viewpoint that is > often at odds with my own, yet it is a viewpoint that pushes me to think > seriously about the dhamma. ..... I don’t feel I’m taking this discussion much further this time. ..... L: > Thanks. As the opportunity arises, I will try to explain myself in more > detail. ..... Good. I’m appreciating hearing your viewpoint here and in the other threads with Jon. You may like to view these posts from the archives (mostly Swee Boon’s) which contain other sutta references on this topic: ***** Nibbana as object of consciousness 18278, 18311, 18402, 18593, 18883, 18896 ***** I forget for now, Lee, how this thread started. Perhaps you could also share your interest in this subject and the relevance of it to practice as you see it. With metta, Sarah ====== 22802 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Hi Dave (& Azita), Thanks for all your feedback. Let me start with the comments you make at the end of your post - hope that’s OK: --- dwlemen wrote: > DAVE: > 1.) It seems that the theory is that we can only experience one thing > at a time (e.g. at a moment, we may experience seeing, but then no > touching, hearing, ... occurs). Why? I can see that we do "tune > out" stimulus coming at us, but it seems to me that we are able to > process multiple senses at once. When I pick up my cup of coffee, I > see it, feel it, and smell it, as well as think about it. It seems > like the mind would be quite a bottleneck for processing these > stimuli if it was a single processing system. ..... This is difficult because, as you say, it seems contrary to experience. As you say, it seems that we see, feel, smell and think about the coffee and furthermore that the coffee exists. If we hadn’t heard the Buddha’s teachings we would have no idea that in fact there is only one experience through one sense at a time, regardless of how distracted or ‘still’ we may be. There is no self involved to either do the experiencing or to process, stop or slow down or interact with experienced objects. There is no self to even plant the right conditions like the gardener either. You ask ‘why?’ and all I can say is that what the Buddha taught is an intricate description of the way it is. Obviously there must be some little inklings that there may be some truth in it, or we wouldn’t be here discussing these teachings. When you mention about the bottleneck, I think it’s easy for our conceptual reasoning to see it like this. We can discuss a lot of detail about the speed and complexity of the processing system, but miss the point about direct awareness of the reality appearing now. > 2.) In the tapes, they often talk about "reality." I'm not sure what > they mean by that phrase. Do they mean the actual, physical world, > our merely our perception of the physical world? ..... This comes back to the concepts vs realities discussions here. By ‘reality’ the Buddha is referring to phenomena that can be directly known as opposed to objects of conceptual reasoning. There are those realities which experience objects such as seeing, hearing, experiencing through the body, thinking and so on. There are also realities which accompany these kinds of consciousness such as feelings, likes and dislikes. There are also realities which are experienced and which have particular characteristics such as visible object, sound, heat and so on. So they are the actual mental and physical worlds at this moment. The perception of these worlds, such as ‘picking up a cup of coffee’ consists of many different realities which are blurred together in the mind into a concept or ‘whole’ which we take for being real. Working back through your comments (I’m not sure why I’m working backwards;-)), you ask how I see meditation. I understand bhavana (mditation) to refer to samatha (calm) and vipassana (insight) development. For any moments of true meditation, there has to be right understanding of the object and naturally the mental states must be wholesome. I say naturally, but most the time when we sit quietly cross-legged and focus on an object or try to calm the mind, the mental states may well not be wholesome at all, especially if there isn’t any understanding. This is why the understanding and awareness of realities is important - if they are not known, or if there is no detachment from what is experienced and our practice is motivated by attachment for particular states, then I’m not sure we can call those moments true bhavana or meditation . In other words, as I think you’ll now appreciate (but don’t need to agree with;-)), for me meditation would refer to a single moment with awareness and understanding either of one of the objects of samatha (calm) or to a moment of satipatthana which clearly knows a reality. You are right that I don’t see it in terms of the position or location, but in terms of the nature of consciousness, lasting a brief moment only. I think as Larry has been pointing out in his ‘test’ series, the defilements are far more prevalent than we may have imagined and therefore, moments of true ‘meditation’ are rare and precious. It seems to me that if we wish to eliminate other stimulation ‘so the mind will have less opportunity to jump around’, that there is a lurking idea of being able to control the mind or an idea that mindfulness will be easier at these times. For me, this would indicate a kind of desire for more mindfulness and a lack of confidence that mindfulness can really arise at any time or with any reality as object - even those we’d rather not experience, such as conceit! I think it comes back to our understanding of what the right conditions are or way to prepare the soil as you discuss in gardening mode;-). We need to know what the soil is in the first place. In the Visuddhimagga (XIV,32), we read under the section on the growth of wisdom: “How is it (wisdom) developed? Now the things classed as aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, etc, are the ‘soil’ of this understanding.....” It continues to give a great amount of detail about these ingredients in the soil. In other words, when we talk about ‘understanding the teachings of the Buddha’, I believe it is these very ingredients - aggregates etc - that are to be known. How can these be known? By considering, discussing, reflecting and developing awareness of them. For some people this may be whilst rushing around following a busy schedule. For others it might be whilst sitting quietly with a single focus. It’ll just depend on the understanding as I think Azita pointed out clearly in her feedback from her retreat. OK, I’ve rambled on. It must be your turn to answer questions now!: 1. What importance do you give to the discussion of realities? 2. Do you see this as having any bearing on your meditation practice? 3. What are your comments on Azita’s retreat and particularly the aspect of clarifying the ‘correct teaching’ as an important support condition? 4. Do my comments on the way I see meditation here make any sense to you? With metta, Sarah p.s Azita - I was very glad and interested to hear your feed back! The silent retreat must have been quite a contrast to the non-stop discussion Cooran weekend just before! Look forward to any more comments;-) ======================== 22803 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: importance of Meditation Hi Yasa, I was hoping to reply to your comments too, but have to rush out now and leave it for a day or two. In any case, I appreciate your kind concern and clarifications. Your input is very helpful here and I look forward to discussing your comments a little more. Thanks in advance, Sarah ====== 22804 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:15am Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Sarah (and Lee) and all, Sarah, I am not sure if you have come across the discourse Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 Sabba Sutta The All http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html The note by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is relevant. Your comment is appreciated. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Lee, [snip] > I may have misunderstood your comment before when you mentioned not > speculating beyond `the all'. I merely was clarifying that `nibbana' was > included in `the all' to be known as I understand. I agree, however, that > speculation about it is still of limited value;-) [snip] > > With metta, > > Sarah 22805 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Victor, I think your point is that you don’t consider nibbana as included under ‘the All’. I have read the sutta before, but I wonder if you read all my posts ??;-) Here is an extract from a rather technical one I wrote on the ayatanas which I hope clarifies why I don’t agree with Thanissaro bhikkhu’s comment on this point about the inclusion of nibbana (as supported by the Comy). If not, or you disagree, I’d be glad to hear your further comments in a little more detail perhaps;-) Thanks for your interest, Victor, Metta, Sarah p.s It might be interesting to follow up on some of the other comments and sutta references that Thanissaro gives here. I’ll let you take the lead. ===== http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m18111.html Ayatana (bases, sense fields) ******* a) 6 internal bases 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) 2. ear-base 3. nose-base 4. tongue-base 5. body-sense base 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) (refers to all cittas) ...... b) 6 external bases 1. visible object (rupayatana) 2. sound 3. odour 4. taste 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) ....... Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) 1. All cetasikas 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) 3. NIBBANA ....... Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and NOT to concepts. As is apparent in the heading, ‘Salayatana’, it is the ayatanas being referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. ........still under Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the SABBA SUTTA before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 AYATANA. ..... Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta (see link) are therefore incorrect. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html 22806 From: christhedis Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:09am Subject: meditation vs. just thinking about it Hello all, I posted a few messages to this group 2 months ago under the subject 'equanimity'. I have been thinking about the importance of meditation. It is said that to really understand and learn the teachings of Buddhism, it is necessary to practise the teachings (ie. meditate), and that mere book reading is insufficient for understanding. I do appreciate this, however what are anyone's opinoins about the extent to which I can understand the teachings through mere "everyday contemplation" (not meditation)? For example, I think I recognize my grasping, clinging tendencies much more clearly now after studying some of the teachings. So I would say that in "practise", everyday life, I see these teachings being very helpful in understanding my experiences. Thus, is it possible to deeply understand the teachings through mere "everyday contemplation", and if not, why not? Is meditation necessary because it slows the mind and allows for the clearest type of insight? Any and all comments or opinoins would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Chris 22807 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Victor (& Lee). Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the following summary from the Commentary to the ‘Sabba Sutta’: **** Spk : The all (sabba) is fourfold: i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba), i.e everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha’s knowledge of omniscience; ii) the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), ie, the phenomena of the four planes; iii) the all of personal identity (sakkaayasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and iv) the partial all (padesabba), i.e, the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from i) to iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases< aayatanasabba> is intended. The four planes are the three mundane planes and the supramundane plane (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana). **** Metta, Sarah ===== 22808 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Lee- nibbana and sabhava --- To Mike: Solemn Utterance Hi Sarah and all, Thank you for your reply. How is nibbana, the cessation of dukkha, the unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, mind-object/idea/dhammayatana that disintegrates? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I think your point is that you don't consider nibbana as included under > `the All'. I have read the sutta before, but I wonder if you read all my > posts ??;-) > Here is an extract from a rather technical one I wrote on the ayatanas > which I hope clarifies why I don't agree with Thanissaro bhikkhu's comment > on this point about the inclusion of nibbana (as supported by the Comy). > If not, or you disagree, I'd be glad to hear your further comments in a > little more detail perhaps;-) > > Thanks for your interest, Victor, > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s It might be interesting to follow up on some of the other comments and > sutta references that Thanissaro gives here. I'll let you take the lead. > ===== > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m18111.html > > Ayatana (bases, sense fields) > ******* > > a) 6 internal bases > 1. eye-base/sense (cakkhu pasada rupa = cakkhayatana) > 2. ear-base > 3. nose-base > 4. tongue-base > 5. body-sense base > 6. mind-base/consciousness (manaayatana) > (refers to all cittas) > ...... > b) 6 external bases > 1. visible object (rupayatana) > 2. sound > 3. odour > 4. taste > 5. tactile object - cohesion, temperature, solidity > 6. mind-object (dhammayatana) > ....... > Note: Dhammayatana (mind-objects) > > 1. All cetasikas > 2. subtle rupas (sukhuma rupas) > 3. NIBBANA > ....... > Note: Ayatanas refer ONLY to ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) and > NOT to concepts. > > As is apparent in the heading, `Salayatana', it is the ayatanas being > referred to. The first section furthermore refers to the internal and > external bases (ayatanas) as listed above under ayatana. > > ........still under > Salayatanasamyutta, we have looked at translations of the SABBA SUTTA > before. The Comy notes make it clear that the all (sabba) refers to > everything knowable, the all of the sense bases (aayatanasabba), the 12 > AYATANA. > ..... > Note: intellect and ideas as used by Thanissaro Bhikkhu below, refer to > manayatana and dhammayatana as classified above: i.e cittas, cetasikas, > subtle rupas and nibbana. I believe the notes he gives after the sutta > (see link) are therefore incorrect. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html 22809 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, what is reality, what is meditation. Hi Howard, Yasa, Dave, op 10-06-2003 20:54 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Certainly no single experience, except the final, > ultimate one, leads to full enlightenment. I *certainly* accept that there is > a > development of wisdom and stages of development. My comment was merely that > the business of knowing *all things* is an overstatement. N: Let me say it more precisely: all realities that appear to the citta that develops insight. What else is there except what appears through six doors. But people have different accumulations and enlightened ones have also different degrees of understanding, encompassing more or fewer realities. But it has to be: the reality that presents itself at the present moment. The Path of Discr classifies the whole field, all the possibilities. For Dave: the word reality: ultimate reality, different from conventional reality. That which has its own unalterable characteristic, no matter how one names it. The name can vary, but the characteristic does not. Nama and rupa appearing one at a time through one of the six doorways. We can call it dhamma or paramattha dhamma. And this is the object for insight meditation. Whatever dhamma appears through one of the six doors is its object. This meditation is different from samatha or calm. The practice and the goal in vipassana and in samatha are altogether different, but panna is needed for both kinds of meditation. Samatha was also practised before the Buddha's time. For samatha you need a secluded place and the aim is calm, to be reached by concentration on a specific meditation subject. Panna has to know precisely when the citta is wholesome and when unwholesome, it has to know this at the present moment, and this is most difficult. Vipassana is to be developed in daily life, you have to know all your accumulations, all your experiences as they occur in daily life. You have to know them is non-self, beyond control. Vipassana is meditation, mental development, but it is meditation in a sense different from what you used to think. No special place or time. No selection of the object. If you select place, time, object, watch out for lobha. Yasa: you wrote: First, we have to know what meditation is: see above. Then, we have to know what Abhidhamma is. It is the Buddha's teaching about ultimate realities and these are exactly the objects of insight. The Buddha taught Abhidhamma in all the suttas. The message of each sutta: be aware now of nama and rupa now to reach the goal, do not be neglectful of the present moment. In the suttas the Buddha often said this message in the way of a story or daily speech adapted to his hearers, but the message is always there. The question is: do we understand it, are we openminded? Did the Buddha not also teach in the suttas about: < the five aggregates, the >> twelve sense bases, the eighteen elements, the four truths, the twenty-two >> faculties, the twelve factors of dependent origination, the foundations of >> mindfulness, etc., the various classifications of phenomena such as the >> wholesome, etc., > which passage I quoted to Howard before from the Com to the "Basket of Conduct" ? Well all this is about ultimate realities, it is Abhidhamma. I remember an impressive post of Suan where he gave us a pertinent reminder: "All the Buddha ever taught was Abhidhamma." He taught the same teaching in all three parts of the Tipitaka, only in different ways adapted to the hearers. Impermanence, dukkha and anatta, these refer to the characteristics of ultimate realities. Abhidhamma again. But I am sure there are misunderstandings about the word Abhidhamma. Different people may have different ideas of what Abhidhamma is. Seeing is abhidhamma, and it has to be object of insight. Colour is abhidhamma and it has to be object of insight. We cannot avoid all those realities, we cannot avoid Abhidhamma. It is within you and around you. Nina. 22810 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:17am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 2 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 2 In many Suttas Såriputta was praised by the Buddha. He is called the ³General of the Dhamma², he was very concerned to preserve the Dhamma and in his systematic way he ensured that it was transmitted intact in all details. In the ³Discourse of the Elephant's Footprint², Såriputta teaches ultimate realities, beginning with the four noble Truths, and he teaches in the same way as the Buddha. This Sutta is full of Abhidhamma, it is actually Abhidhamma that is taught here as well as its application in daily life. We read in "Abhidhamma Studies" by Ven. Nyanaponika, in his Introduction, a citation from the Atthasåliní (Introductory Discourse, 29): "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he deceives an audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once. By so doing he deserves the disciplinary punishment of temporary segregation, or the reproof of the assembly of monks." We read further on in his ³Abhidhamma Studies²: 1. ³The Buddha has to be regarded as the first Abhidhammika, because, according to the Atthasåliní, "he has already penetrated the Abhidhamma when sitting under the tree of Enlightenment." 2. "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). These profound teachings are unmistakenbly the property of an enlightened being, a Buddha.² What matters most is understanding the content of the Abhidhamma, the Buddha¹s teaching on realities. The Abhidhamma gives us all details about citta, cetasika and rúpa, and all their various conditions which are very complex. It depends on someone¹s inclinations how much he wants to study, but whatever we study, we should consider and apply it to our life so that it becomes meaningful to us personally. Then we can see for ourselves that the Abhidhamma does not consist of dry, scientific, abstract classifications. We should not forget the second Book of the Abhidhamma, the ³Book of Analysis² which gives many examples of dhammas as they occur in daily life. In this Book we learn, for example, all the details and different shades of conceit, and also what the objects of conceit are. We also learn that what may appear to be kusala is in reality akusala. We learn about our hidden unwholesome motivations which are difficult to detect. The Abhidhamma gives us reminders which can have a direct impact on our life. We can gain great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma, it can help us to be less deluded about ourselves. Although the Buddha also taught by way of conventional terms, depending on the ability of the audience to grasp his teaching, all three parts of the Tipitaka explain the same truths and the same path to enlightenment. We can see that Suttanta and Vinaya also contains Abhidhamma, as pointed out before. We read in the Suttas that the Buddha spoke about the five khandhas, time and again. What else are these but citta, cetasika and rúpa. Nina. 22811 From: Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 8:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, what is reality, what is meditation. Hi, Nina et al - In a message dated 6/11/03 1:20:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, Yasa, Dave, > op 10-06-2003 20:54 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Certainly no single experience, except the final, > >ultimate one, leads to full enlightenment. I *certainly* accept that there > is > >a > >development of wisdom and stages of development. My comment was merely that > >the business of knowing *all things* is an overstatement. > N: Let me say it more precisely: all realities that appear to the citta that > develops insight. What else is there except what appears through six doors. > But people have different accumulations and enlightened ones have also > different degrees of understanding, encompassing more or fewer realities. > But it has to be: the reality that presents itself at the present moment. > The Path of Discr classifies the whole field, all the possibilities. ============================= I don't find anything to object to in the foregoing. If there is a single conditioned dhamma that a person were to sense as I, mine, permanent, substantial, or independent, then that person is not fully enlightened. But one needn't encounter all dhammas prior to full enlightenment dawning. What is needed is that the *tendency* to any of the above mentioned faults be completely and thoroughly uprooted. It is not a matter of *number* of dhammas which wisdom sees through (one by one, temporally), but of wisdom having uprooted all defilements, and thus uprooting the very *tendency* to ignorantly experience *any* dhamma. This is how I inderstand the matter. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22812 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:02pm Subject: Re: meditation vs. just thinking about it --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: > . > > Thus, is it possible to deeply understand the teachings through > mere "everyday contemplation", and if not, why not? Is meditation > necessary because it slows the mind and allows for the clearest type of > insight? > > _______ Dear Chris, I picked up a magazine yesterday that compared yoga and Buddhism and an article 'explained' that vedanta was the same as Buddhism because by meditation both showed that everything was impermanent, dukkha and not-self. Except that vedanta went further and revealed the 'underlying basis upon which the world rests' (I forget the exact phrase). This is what the writer believes. Could I suggest that the feeling/idea that meditation or anything else slows the mind is an illusion. I believe that what Buddhist 'meditation' gradually reveals is that there is really no 'mind' , there is only momentary elements. And this understanding develops whether one is in a quiet place or not. When we feel distracted and worried that is the time that insight should arise to understand 'distraction and worry', to see their characteristic. Once we see how this occurs you won't believe that you have to be in any special position or place. Could I also add that there are many levels of contemplation. One can reflect wisely about the present moment and this is a type of samatha Bhavana - meditation on Dhamma . Another level knows the moment without having to reflect. They support each other . Robertk 22813 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Re: meditation vs. just thinking about it Hi Chris (and RobK), Thanks for your post Robert which I found helpful. Chris, as well as Robert's post, I think Jon in July last year, gave a good explanation of why the definition of the term 'meditation' is important. If two people are using the term meditation, they may assume that both are speaking about the same thing, but that is not necessarily so. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14276 metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: 22814 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:37pm Subject: Re: meditation vs. just thinking about it --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: > Hello all, > > I posted a few messages to this group 2 months ago under the > subject 'equanimity'. > > I have been thinking about the importance of meditation. It is said that > to really understand and learn the teachings of Buddhism, it is ______________________________Yasa________________________ Chris, Meditation and thinking are two different mental activities. What we do most of the time is thinking. We can think of wholesome things and unwholesome things. In meditation one does not think but cultivates mindful awareness. Contrary to thinking, mindful awareness is of wholesome activities. In thinking we use our knowledge, which is not our own, but is based on what we have read or heard. When we think of the future we only use our knowledge of the past to interpret the future which is unknown. In thinking we are using concepts, which are conventional and worldly. In meditation, we become aware of the" here and now", and go beyond concepts to realise the ultimate realities. Bhavana ,the Pali word for meditation means , cultivation of the mind. Buddhism is not just to be a good person and do the correct things in life according to what we have learnt, but to understand why every thing is not always the same. Why things change, why happiness does not last, why there is illness and pain. What causes anger, stress, jealousy and hatred. Root causes of all ills are the attachment, aversion and delusion. These causes are the result of the belief in a "self", "me" and "I". If we can understand the reality of "self", we can overcome the un-satisfactoriness of life. To understand the reality of life, we meditate so that through meditation we can purify the mind to see for ourselves the impermanence, un-satisfactoriness and no-self. These are only words, and makes for a superficial understanding of the Buddha's teachings, but if you want " to deeply understanding the teaching" to see through the words and comprehend the true nature of self, one has to meditate. With metta, Yasa 22815 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:20pm Subject: The most common citta (was [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION) Hi Sarah (and All), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > You mentioned > that `for most people, lobha is the most common citta'. I would have > thought cittas rooted in moha (ignorance) would be most common - we know > all akusala cittas are accompanied by moha, but even between all those > rooted in lobha and dosa, there are many just rooted in moha and > accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness). Do you have any reference for > this? ===== My logic is that clinging to continued existence is not only the first citta but also the most common citta. I have the idea that this "clining to continued existence" citta is always working as an "undercurrent". Rupas of the body are constantly being created; these rupas are born of kamma. This kamma is created by cittas. My logic is that it is "clinging to continued existence" cittas which create the kamma that conditions the rupas of the body to constantly be created. I have not read this in any text, it is my own (twisted?) logic, so I am going to throw it open to the group for comment. What do you think? I we agree with this logic, then I need to delete my qualifier, "for most people". ===== > > You wrote that `cittas with thina and middha are passive whereas > cittas without thina and middha are active and spontaneous'. > > It's true that we read about laziness and lack of energy and so on with > regard to these mental factors, but I think we need to be clear that it is > only kusala viriya (energy) that is lacking or prevented. An arahant may > be tired physically and sleep, but no thina and middha. Conversely, there > may be thina and middha with ditthi (wrong view) or mana (conceit) or > other unwholesome, `prompted' cittas when we're wide awake and active. > Your comment may be referring to `prompted'(sasankharika) vs `unprompted' > (asankharika). ===== Yes, my comments were related to `prompted' (sasankharika) vs 'unprompted' (asankharika). I think that I will change the word "passive" to "lazy (having little energy)"; I can't say "no energy" becasue viriya arises in all cittas except sense door adverting, sense door consciousness, receiving and investigating cittas. Metta, Rob M :-) 22816 From: robmoult Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:26pm Subject: The most common citta (was [dsg] Re: TEST QUESTION) Hi All, A quick clarification; I mean the most common *javana* citta. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Sarah (and All), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > wrote: > > You mentioned > > that `for most people, lobha is the most common citta'. I would > have > > thought cittas rooted in moha (ignorance) would be most common - > we know > > all akusala cittas are accompanied by moha, but even between all > those > > rooted in lobha and dosa, there are many just rooted in moha and > > accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness). Do you have any reference > for > > this? > > ===== > > My logic is that clinging to continued existence is not only the > first citta but also the most common citta. I have the idea that > this "clining to continued existence" citta is always working as > an "undercurrent". Rupas of the body are constantly being created; > these rupas are born of kamma. This kamma is created by cittas. My > logic is that it is "clinging to continued existence" cittas which > create the kamma that conditions the rupas of the body to constantly > be created. > > I have not read this in any text, it is my own (twisted?) logic, so > I am going to throw it open to the group for comment. > > What do you think? I we agree with this logic, then I need to delete > my qualifier, "for most people". > > ===== > > > > > You wrote that `cittas with thina and middha are passive whereas > > cittas without thina and middha are active and spontaneous'. > > > > It's true that we read about laziness and lack of energy and so on > with > > regard to these mental factors, but I think we need to be clear > that it is > > only kusala viriya (energy) that is lacking or prevented. An > arahant may > > be tired physically and sleep, but no thina and middha. > Conversely, there > > may be thina and middha with ditthi (wrong view) or mana (conceit) > or > > other unwholesome, `prompted' cittas when we're wide awake and > active. > > Your comment may be referring to `prompted'(sasankharika) > vs `unprompted' > > (asankharika). > > ===== > > Yes, my comments were related to `prompted' (sasankharika) > vs 'unprompted' (asankharika). I think that I will change the > word "passive" to "lazy (having little energy)"; I can't say "no > energy" becasue viriya arises in all cittas except sense door > adverting, sense door consciousness, receiving and investigating > cittas. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 22817 From: Date: Wed Jun 11, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Kraeng Jacang, what is reality, what is meditation. Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 6/11/03 3:36:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > It is not a matter of *number* of dhammas which wisdom > sees through (one by one, temporally), but of wisdom having uprooted all > defilements, and thus uprooting the very *tendency* to ignorantly experience > *any* > dhamma. ========================= I realize that this sentence is ambiguous. By "ignorantly experience" I meant 'experience with ignorance' (or 'wrongly experience'). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22818 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:58am Subject: Re: meditation vs. just thinking about it Hi Chris (and Yasa PS), Rather than add anything to what Christine and Robert have said, I'd just like to stress that the vipassana meditation (bhavana) they are explaining, is very different from meditation in the ordinary sense of the word. I know only too well, that even very careful explanations of things that are ultimately true, can be misunderstood. They can be seen as confirmations of things that are conventionally true. Robert said: "When we feel distracted and worried that is the time that insight should arise to understand 'distraction and worry', to see their characteristic." I just want to stress that we shouldn't misread this as a prescription to be carried out. It is a description to be understood. Whenever we try to have insight, there is concentration on concepts. Concentration on concepts is not vipassana. Kind regards, Ken H PS. Yasa, I've just read your answer which I'm sure is literally correct but I think you are misreading the Buddha's teaching as a prescription -- as if there was a self who could carry it out. 22819 From: sundara12003 Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:16am Subject: Greetings! Hello Everybody, I've just joined the group today and I'm looking forward to enriching my Dhamma knowledge and making a contribution at times. I know a few of you from times past - hello Azita, Jon, Sarah, Nina, KenH, Andrew (I haven't forgotten the book either!), and Steve. (Christine is helping me write this - actually she is doing all the typing!) I'll probably mostly be a lurker, as I only get access to a computer occasionally, but will write when I can. Best wishes, Sundara 22820 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings! Sundara Welcome to the list. Nice to see you here. Looking forward to reading your contributions. I'm sure you'll find something of interest (and some familiar themes) among the many threads running. Thanks to Christine for the encouragement and for making it possible. Jon --- sundara12003 wrote: > Hello Everybody, > > I've just joined the group today and I'm looking forward to > enriching > my Dhamma knowledge and making a contribution at times. I know a > few > of you from times past - hello Azita, Jon, Sarah, Nina, KenH, > Andrew > (I haven't forgotten the book either!), and Steve. (Christine is > helping me write this - actually she is doing all the typing!) > I'll probably mostly be a lurker, as I only get access to a > computer > occasionally, but will write when I can. > Best wishes, > Sundara 22821 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 5:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Greetings! Hi Sundara. I’m also very glad to see you’ve made it here and I look forward to your contributions. I think Michael Newton may also remember you from Sri Lanka in the 70s - (Michael, your name was B. Alokananda wasn’t it?). Sundara, when we met up with you in Noosa last year, you were reciting some Dhammapada verses in Pali - I know you’re very familiar with them and perhaps you could mention one or two of your favourites for reflection, giving the reasons for your choice. I’d be interested to hear. I’ll also be glad to hear any of your reflections on parts of the Vinaya (or other baskets) anytime. Best wishes to other mutual friends you’re in touch with and hope you can encourage them to join us too! Btw, very conveniently your pics preceded you to DSG - members can see Sundara in ‘DSG Meetings’, pix nos 8 and 10 (Sundara is the Richard Gere look-alike) and also conveniently in a pic in ‘Others’ as a bhikkhu in Sri Lanka from those old days . With metta and hoping you're well, Sarah p.s Christine - anumodana and appreciation for your kind and patient help with bringing Sundara up to date with dhamma via modern technology;-);-) p.p.s. Michael - maybe you can also share a pic or two with us to help jog our memories. (If you want help, I know Chris, Kom or James will be glad to assist). =============== 22822 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:08am Subject: The Buddha's Teachings Preventing Suicide Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my reply to someone whose friend attempted committing suicide. With regards, Suan ______________________________ Dear Doret, Carol and All How are you? Doret asked Suan: "This is my question: I know she wants to leave this earth. She is miserable and unhappy and alone -- rejecting any attempts to include her in our lives. If I have reason to suspect she has tried it again, should I just keep walking and let her find the peace she desires? Or does it call for a repeat performance, ambulance medics bringing her back, to an even hollower, lifeless shell of herself? What would Buddha say? What do you say?" Suan answered as follows. The people who commit or attempt suicide are given to confusion and anger. What triggers their anger is usually depression, which, in its turn, is caused by unfulfilled desires. As the Buddha said in his First Discourse, "yam piccham na labhati, tam pi dukkham". "The desire (i.e, what one desires) that is unavailable is misery." Section 1081, Dhammacakkapavattana Suttam, Mahavagga Pali, Samyuttanikaaya. Your friend's story was sketchy in terms of what went before the first and second attempts of suicide. For example, did your friend tell you anything to do with her depression or her dominant misery? If we could know more details about her circumstances before suicide attempts, we would be in a better position to help her. As suicide is the result of confusion (avijjaa) and anger, it is not the course of action that I, as a follower of the Buddha, would recommend. I would, by all means, prevent her from committing suicide by helping her sorting out her circumstances. During February this year (2003), my presence in Canberra and his knowledge of my name and contact number prevented a gentleman from committing suicide. When he became my client, he told me he had picked up his kitchen knife to kill himself. He suddenly remembered a pamphlet about bodhiology and decided to give me a call. Of course, I at once asked him to come and see me for treatment of his depression. He has recovered from depression and is now happily working to raise his 7-year-old daughter. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 22823 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Sorry.... Dear Janice, Thanks for writing again! It's good that you ask me this question, since I am somewhat ignorant of the Buddhist holidays myself. I had to do some research, and here is a list of Buddhist holidays. I hope I didn't miss much: Magha-puja day - full moon of the 3rd lunar month (magha) - March. This was the day where 1250 disciples assembled, without appointment or schedule, to come see the Buddha. The monks were Arahats with the 6-fold knowledge, ordained by the Buddha himself. The Buddha gave the teaching to avoid evil, do good, and purify the mind on this day. Visakha-puja day - full moon of the 6th lunar month - May - possibly the most important Buddhist holiday. This is the day when he was born, became enlightened (in a different year!), and finally passed away. Asalaha-puja day - 2 months later after the Buddha became enlightened - July, he gave the first teaching to the first 5 disciples. This is the day where the dispensation of the Buddha was fully established for the 3 Buddhist jewels were complete: the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. Lent ceremony - July - this is when the monks take residence at a place for 3 month during the rainy season. Tak Bat Devo festival and end of Lent - 3 month after Lent - October - this is when the Buddha descended from the Dusita heaven having given the teaching of Abhidhamma to the devas for the 3 full months. It is said that on this day, all the realms of existence were shown to many people, giving them the urgency to better themselves. Kathina ceremony - Nov - this was the traditional occasion where the monks get together to sew their own clothing using discarded pieces of clothes they found. Besides all the major holidays above, there are also people who observes the uposatha day, which is twice every month where lay people observes the 8 rules of precept. The most well-known holiday, I think, is Visakha day. Many Buddhists observe the holiday. Some don't. People observe these holidays according to their beliefs and circumstances... Thanks for writing again! kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 6:34 AM > To: dsg > Subject: [dsg] Sorry.... > > > Here are some new ones: > 1. Is there a special Buddha day? > 2. Does every Buddhist clelebrate that day or only > some of them? > Got to go!! > Metta > Janice > > 22824 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Path of Discrimination. Dear Howard, op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Also, I have some reservations with regard to the Path of > Discrimination as a primary source. As I understand it, it was incorporated > into the Khuddhaka Nikaya rather late, and might well be more of a commentarial work > than direct Buddha Word. I say this despite my looking favorably on comments made > in it with respect to the notion of 'sabhava'. N: You have to dive into it and make a study in order to be convinced. Remember Num's studies of it. The whole book is about the development of understanding. Sariputta, the "General of the Dhamma" composed it. It begins with all realities that have to be directly known, thus, no theory. It is very practical. Many aspects of sila, leading to non-remorse, gladness, happiness, tranquillity, joy, repetition, development, etc. About Dependent Origination, many references to the suttanta. About the Buddha's Great Compassion: Worldly life moves on.. is on the wrong road... has no shelter and no protector... is wounded by darts, is darkened by a shadow of ignorance... goes in ignorance, is blind, is enclosed in an egg [of ignorance].. there descends the Great Compassion for beings... I cannot quote the whole book. Remember Sarah's explanations about the sources, the Commentary by Buddhaghosa on the inception of Discipline, Bahiranidana. I have it here. Buddhaghosa was merely a translator of old sources: the Maha-Atthakata, Maha-paccariya, and the Kurundi he found at the Great Monastery in Sri Lanka. Tradition goes back to the first Council. There is an unbroken succession of teachers beginning with Upali, up to Buddhamitta, under whom Buddhaghosa studied the commentaries. This whole line is summed up. In this Commentary, the Bahiranidana, it is explained: the Dhamma Vinaya contains the three Pitakas. All the works of the Khuddakaninaka are summed up, including the Path of Discrimination (p. 15). This is under Suttantapitaka. I see here also interesting explanations about the meaning of the word Abhidhamma: Also the differences between the three Pitakas, but this will be too long for now. The description is very subtle, deep in meaning. (p. 19). There are so many theories about the dates, and I would say, read it first and study it. We study and check, and we compare with all the other parts of the teachings. Is there any contradiction, or anything that is contrary to what we can experience now? Nina. 22825 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 100, Mental Objects, seven treasures Dear Larry and all, op 11-06-2003 00:40 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > There is reflection on the greatness of the heritage when one thinks > thus: "Great, indeed, is the heritage of the Teacher, namely the Seven > Real Treasures [Sutta Ariya Dhanani]. These are not to be got by the > slothful. The indolent man is like a son disowned by his parents. He > does not get this parents' wealth when they pass away. So too it is with > the Seven Real Treasures. Only the man of energy gets these." N: I have an old post on these: Nina. 22826 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:03am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 3 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, Ch 4, no 3 We do not need to study all details, but it is important to have a basic understanding of nåma and rúpa, of the different processes of cittas that experience objects through the six doors. At the same time we should remember that whatever we learn from the teachings pertains to our daily life now. We learn about kusala citta and akusala citta, but when they arise, it is difficult to have precise understanding of them. We often take for kusala what is akusala. We may believe that we have only kusala cittas when we assist someone else, but in reality there may also be clinging to our kusala, or there may be conceit. When sati-sampajañña arises we shall know the difference between kusala citta and akusala citta, we shall know the characteristic of attachment, lobha, even when it is very subtle. Sati-sampajañña knows realities without words, without thinking of definitions; at that moment there is no speculation about realities. We shall also understand more clearly the meaning and purpose of the Abhidhamma: the development of understanding which can eradicate defilements. Direct understanding is different from theoretical understanding, but it is in conformity with what we learnt from the texts. Acharn Sujin said ³The Abhidhamma is the only way to see dhamma as dhamma, to become enlightened. Its goal is development of right understanding.² Acharn Sujin said that when one reads a cookbook, one may memorize all the details, the ingredients, and the method of cooking from a book, but one may never know how the food tastes. Even so, one may read a great deal about Vinaya, Sutta, or Abhidhamma but never see the true characteristic of dhamma. Reading the Scriptures can be compared to reading or memorizing a cookbook. Sati, mindfulness, of the characteristic of the nåma or rúpa that appears right now is like the tasting of food. No words are needed to describe a particular flavour, but we know how it tastes. It is the same with direct understanding of realities. We have to know the right conditions for the arising of sati-sampajaññå. Jonothan pointed out the conditions for the arising of direct awareness and understanding of realities. He wrote: ³The conditions for developing this mere understanding are not easy to appreciate. I understand them to include: repeated listening to and reading of the actual teachings, the Tipitaka and their Commentaries, reflecting on what has been heard or studied, applying what has been understood from the listening and reflecting. To many people this sounds like a purely intellectual exercise, but properly understood it is much more than that. It is or can be a condition for a better understanding of the presently arising reality... I think part of the reason for the scepticism that many have about this is that there is no immediate and direct 'result'. The results come in their own good time. The accumulation of understanding is very gradual and subtle and it is absolutely not self.² 22827 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thina middha. Dear Sarah, one remark in your post reminded me of something I learnt from A. Somporn when at the foundation. op 11-06-2003 09:07 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > An arahant may > be tired physically and sleep, but no thina and middha. N: He said, there may be middha but it is not kilesa. For the arahat middha is not kilesa. This is from the Co. to the Abhidh Sangaha, we could look it up, topics of Dhamma. It was new to me. Nina. 22828 From: Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Path of Discrimination. Thank you, Nina. I will give the text a fairer try. With metta, Howard In a message dated 6/12/03 1:04:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > op 01-06-2003 21:27 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >Also, I have some reservations with regard to the Path of > >Discrimination as a primary source. As I understand it, it was incorporated > >into the Khuddhaka Nikaya rather late, and might well be more of a > commentarial work > >than direct Buddha Word. I say this despite my looking favorably on > comments > made > >in it with respect to the notion of 'sabhava'. > N: You have to dive into it and make a study in order to be convinced. > Remember Num's studies of it. The whole book is about the development of > understanding. Sariputta, the "General of the Dhamma" composed it. It begins > with all realities that have to be directly known, thus, no theory. It is > very practical. > Many aspects of sila, leading to non-remorse, gladness, happiness, > tranquillity, joy, repetition, development, etc. > About Dependent Origination, many references to the suttanta. > About the Buddha's Great Compassion: Worldly life moves on.. is on the wrong > road... has no shelter and no protector... is wounded by darts, is darkened > by a shadow of ignorance... goes in ignorance, is blind, is enclosed in an > egg [of ignorance].. there descends the Great Compassion for beings... > I cannot quote the whole book. Remember Sarah's explanations about the > sources, the Commentary by Buddhaghosa on the inception of Discipline, > Bahiranidana. I have it here. Buddhaghosa was merely a translator of old > sources: the Maha-Atthakata, Maha-paccariya, and the Kurundi he found at the > Great Monastery in Sri Lanka. Tradition goes back to the first Council. > There is an unbroken succession of teachers beginning with Upali, up to > Buddhamitta, under whom Buddhaghosa studied the commentaries. This whole > line is summed up. > In this Commentary, the Bahiranidana, it is explained: the Dhamma Vinaya > contains the three Pitakas. All the works of the Khuddakaninaka are summed > up, including the Path of Discrimination (p. 15). This is under > Suttantapitaka. > I see here also interesting explanations about the meaning of the word > Abhidhamma: own characteristics, are revered and differentiated and said to be > excellent- on account of these it is called abhidhamma.> > Also the differences between the three Pitakas, but this will be too long > for now. The description is very subtle, deep in meaning. (p. 19). > There are so many theories about the dates, and I would say, read it first > and study it. We study and check, and we compare with all the other parts of > the teachings. Is there any contradiction, or anything that is contrary to > what we can experience now? > Nina. > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 22829 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] importance of Meditation Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dave (& Azita), > > Thanks for all your feedback. Let me start with the comments you make at > the end of your post - hope that's OK: > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > DAVE: > > 1.) It seems that the theory is that we can only experience one thing > > at a time (e.g. at a moment, we may experience seeing, but then no > > touching, hearing, ... occurs). Why? I can see that we do "tune > > out" stimulus coming at us, but it seems to me that we are able to > > process multiple senses at once. When I pick up my cup of coffee, I > > see it, feel it, and smell it, as well as think about it. It seems > > like the mind would be quite a bottleneck for processing these > > stimuli if it was a single processing system. > ..... > This is difficult because, as you say, it seems contrary to experience. As > you say, it seems that we see, feel, smell and think about the coffee and > furthermore that the coffee exists. If we hadn't heard the Buddha's > teachings we would have no idea that in fact there is only one experience > through one sense at a time, regardless of how distracted or 'still' we > may be. There is no self involved to either do the experiencing or to > process, stop or slow down or interact with experienced objects. There is > no self to even plant the right conditions like the gardener either. > DAVE: What then does really exist? Does the universe actually exist on its own, or only because we are in it? I guess it sounds like a different version of the "if a tree falls in a forest an no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound" riddle. If no one is there, does the tree exist? If not, How is it that each individual's basic perception matches? I know that we can lump extra stuff onto an object, but the basic existence of the object is still there E.g. the moon. It can be a god, a piece of cheese, a section of the Earth's inner core, or a rememberace of a lost love, but it's there none the less. > You ask 'why?' and all I can say is that what the Buddha taught is an > intricate description of the way it is. Obviously there must be some > little inklings that there may be some truth in it, or we wouldn't be here > discussing these teachings. When you mention about the bottleneck, I think DAVE: I am asking "why" I guess. I agree we are here discussing the teachings because we both feel there are truths. One thing I've always liked about Buddhism is that it does not ask for blind faith but asks for us to find out for ourselves and then accept/reject accordingly. I suppose that is what we are doing here. > it's easy for our conceptual reasoning to see it like this. We can discuss > a lot of detail about the speed and complexity of the processing system, > but miss the point about direct awareness of the reality appearing now. > DAVE: I'm still not sure what you mean by "reality." Awareness of "reality" would necessitate an awarer, which would imply the imposition of perception upon "reality" (how's that for a sentence! My philosophy prof would be proud!). What I'm trying to say is; are we talking about phyics are psychology, as such. I am reminded of my computer here at my office. Right now, I've got my email, a few web browsers, an MP3 player, and 2 different compilers running. My impression is that all these things run at the same time, but I know that, inside the machine, there is one CPU and each of these processes do occur, one at a time. However, in our server room is a web server that has 4 CPU's so it literally does 4 things at once. When we read about neural networks, or distributed computing, there are many many things happening at the exact same moment. I guess I've always thought of the human mind more like the neural network than the desktop PC. However, like my PC, or even my server's desktop, only one thing has "focus" at any moment. So, behind the scenes, things are happening (like my music playing, or keyboard inputs), but my email is the only one with focus. That is sort of how I see our awareness. I'm thinking about what to write, so I'm not really listening to my music, although I am hearing it. > > 2.) In the tapes, they often talk about "reality." I'm not sure what > > they mean by that phrase. Do they mean the actual, physical world, > > our merely our perception of the physical world? > ..... > This comes back to the concepts vs realities discussions here. By > 'reality' the Buddha is referring to phenomena that can be directly known > as opposed to objects of conceptual reasoning. There are those realities > which experience objects such as seeing, hearing, experiencing through the > body, thinking and so on. There are also realities which accompany these > kinds of consciousness such as feelings, likes and dislikes. There are > also realities which are experienced and which have particular > characteristics such as visible object, sound, heat and so on. So they are > the actual mental and physical worlds at this moment. The perception of > these worlds, such as 'picking up a cup of coffee' consists of many > different realities which are blurred together in the mind into a concept > or 'whole' which we take for being real. > DAVE: So, from reading this, it sounds more like "psychology" than "physics." It's not whether the moon is "real" but the means by which we assimilate that various inputs that allow us to experience it... > Working back through your comments (I'm not sure why I'm working > backwards;-)), you ask how I see meditation. I understand bhavana > (mditation) to refer to samatha (calm) and vipassana (insight) > development. For any moments of true meditation, there has to be right > understanding of the object and naturally the mental states must be > wholesome. I say naturally, but most the time when we sit quietly > cross-legged and focus on an object or try to calm the mind, the mental > states may well not be wholesome at all, especially if there isn't any > understanding. > > This is why the understanding and awareness of realities is important - if > they are not known, or if there is no detachment from what is experienced > and our practice is motivated by attachment for particular states, then > I'm not sure we can call those moments true bhavana or meditation . > > In other words, as I think you'll now appreciate (but don't need to agree > with;-)), for me meditation would refer to a single moment with awareness > and understanding either of one of the objects of samatha (calm) or to a > moment of satipatthana which clearly knows a reality. You are right that I > don't see it in terms of the position or location, but in terms of the > nature of consciousness, lasting a brief moment only. I think as Larry has > been pointing out in his 'test' series, the defilements are far more > prevalent than we may have imagined and therefore, moments of true > 'meditation' are rare and precious. > > It seems to me that if we wish to eliminate other stimulation 'so the mind > will have less opportunity to jump around', that there is a lurking idea > of being able to control the mind or an idea that mindfulness will be > easier at these times. For me, this would indicate a kind of desire for > more mindfulness and a lack of confidence that mindfulness can really > arise at any time or with any reality as object - even those we'd rather > not experience, such as conceit! I think it comes back to our > understanding of what the right conditions are or way to prepare the soil > as you discuss in gardening mode;-). > > We need to know what the soil is in the first place. In the Visuddhimagga > (XIV,32), we read under the section on the growth of wisdom: > > "How is it (wisdom) developed? Now the things classed as aggregates, > bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, etc, are the > 'soil' of this understanding....." > > It continues to give a great amount of detail about these ingredients in > the soil. In other words, when we talk about 'understanding the teachings > of the Buddha', I believe it is these very ingredients - aggregates etc - > that are to be known. How can these be known? By considering, discussing, > reflecting and developing awareness of them. For some people this may be > whilst rushing around following a busy schedule. For others it might be > whilst sitting quietly with a single focus. It'll just depend on the > understanding as I think Azita pointed out clearly in her feedback from > her retreat. > DAVE: Do you then not practice traditional meditation? I can see your points (and others who have written here and elsewhere). that meditation might not be an absolute requirement for enlightenment, but it does still seem to me that, it surely doesn't hurt. > OK, I've rambled on. It must be your turn to answer questions now!: > > 1. What importance do you give to the discussion of realities? DAVE: I suppose at this point, I'd say that I find the discussion interesting, but not necissarily vital. From what I understand from the tapes, proper understanding is needed before proper awareness can occur, but, I'd also assumed that, since, as you say, there is no gardener, if I just did my meditations and followed the Precepts, that, as a truth, the proper understanding would emerge. Does that make any sense? > 2. Do you see this as having any bearing on your meditation practice? DAVE: As I indicated above, perhaps. > 3. What are your comments on Azita's retreat and particularly the aspect > of clarifying the 'correct teaching' as an important support condition? DAVE: Do you mean the post where Azita was disappointed that the teacher at the retreat didn't teach the Dhamma the way she understands it? I don't know what I think of that. Is this perhaps marking the early phases of a split in T. Buddhism? I see some people (e.g. Ajahn Bramavamso, or our own Yasa) who are very big advocates of meditation. But, others like you and, it seems, Nina, who are not. I guess to answer your question, I don't think I'm in a position to know who's "right" so I wouldn't be able to make the same kind of statements that Azita did. > 4. Do my comments on the way I see meditation here make any sense to you? > DAVE: Yes, your comments do make sense. I can't say that I agree with them 100%, but I honestly can't really say why... a hunch/intuition? Clinging to the concept that a good Buddhist must meditate? Who knows! > With metta, > > Sarah DAVE: One quick last question for you... Can you recommend a place to view or a book to buy that would be a good, English translation fo the original Pali texts? Perhaps I'd be in a better position to understand what the Buddha said in regards to Meditation if I could read them myself (I know reading in Pali would be better but... baby steps!) Thanks, as always, for your taking all this time to go on with me about all this. I do appreciate it. Peace, Dave 22830 From: Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Way 101, Mental Objects Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Mental Objects The Factors of Enlightenment 4. Joy There are things which condition the enlightenment factor of joy and an abundance of right reflection on these is the reason that is conducive to the arising of the non-arisen enlightenment factor of joy and for the increase, expansion and completion by culture of the enlightenment factor when it has arisen. Eleven things lead to the arising of the enlightenment factor of joy: recollection of the Buddha, recollection of the Dhamma, recollection of the Sangha, recollection of virtue, of liberality, of the shining ones [devas], and the recollection of peace [upasama], the avoiding of bad people, association with good people, reflection on the discourses inspiring confidence, and the inclination towards joy. By recollection of the Buddha's qualities, of the qualities of the Dhamma, and of the Sangha, joy arises. Joy arises also for one who having kept the precepts of fourfold purity unbroken for a long time reflects on one's virtue; to laymen who reflect on their virtue through observing the ten and the five precepts; to one reflecting on liberality and recollecting one's gift of excellent food to one's fellows in the holy life during a time of scarcity and the like; to laymen recollecting their liberality in giving alms to virtuous folk; to one reflecting on one's possession of qualities by which beings have reached the state of shining ones (devas); to one reflecting thus by way of peace: "The passions suppressed by the higher attainments do not occur for sixty or seventy years." The avoiding of bad people is the keeping away from rough people who are like dirt on a mule's back, who show a callous nature through irreverence, owing to lack of faith-inspired affection for the Buddha and the like, in worshipping shrines or elders. Good people are those who have much faith in the Buddha and the like and are gentle of mind. Discourses which illumine the qualities of and inspire confidence in the Triple Gem are discourses inspiring confidence. The inclination towards joy refers to the mind sloping towards this enlightenment factor in all postures of sitting and the like. The completion by culture of this enlightenment factor is through the path of awakening. 22831 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: Greetings! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sundara12003" wrote: > Hello Everybody, > Dear Sundara, So glad you finally made it to dsg. Christine has also helped me a lot re the computor and this group. I'm sure you will find this very worthwhile and very beneficial. I have a question for you: why can't Nibbana be an object of clinging? I read this in Nina's book on 'Conditions', and it puzzles me. I have some stories for you, but I'll write off-line. Hope you are well and happy, Azita 22832 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's Teachings Preventing Suicide Dear Sua